Re: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
Tom Grey wrote > Further, I derive support for this from limited thought experiments: > Society A: more Atheist, > Society B: more Bible Believing. > > In which society do I expect more fraud? more cheating spouses & > promiscuity? more theft? more murder? > Well, even without empirical support, I believe B will be better for me to > live in, whether I, personally, am a weak Episcopalian/ agnostic/ atheist/ > or devout believer. The data do not seem to support the hypothesis England and France, for example, are much less bible believing than the U.S. but overall have lower crime rates (and despite their reputation the French are apparently not especially promiscious). The U.S. South is much more bible believing than the North but crime rates are higher. Atheism increases with education and income (even more clearly "bible beleving" falls with education and income) but crime falls with education and income. The hypothesis is not well framed but if we were to say simply that societies with more bible believing should have lower crime rates etc. than that is even more decisively refuted because most of the world is not bible believing and the Asian societies, in particular, appear to have lower crime rates etc. It's tricky, but by some measures Confucian's, for example, can be considered atheists (Confucious was a person not a god) albeit not secular atheists. I have little doubt that you will find that Confucian's in the United States say have lower rates of crime etc. than bible believers. None of this controls for other factors, of course, so I do not claim causality and of course counter-examples can be found (no need to mention them) but the limited-evidence ought to be enough to cast doubt on the limited thought experiments. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
> >>Irrespective of the "objective" truth of the Bible, the > superiority of a > >>"Bible believing society" is a position I strongly believe, > >> > > Doesn't your position commit you to believing that the people in our > society who do not believe in the Bible > are in fact mostly selfish mean criminals? What empirical support is > there for this claim? > > Most folks criminals/immoral? Not at all, only generally more immorally acting people as belief goes down. Further, I derive support for this from limited thought experiments: Society A: more Atheist, Society B: more Bible Believing. In which society do I expect more fraud? more cheating spouses & promiscuity? more theft? more murder? Well, even without empirical support, I believe B will be better for me to live in, whether I, personally, am a weak Episcopalian/ agnostic/ atheist/ or devout believer. I'd be very interested in your answers to the following: 1) Which of the two Societies, more Atheist or more Believing, do you believe would be better? 2) Do you have empirical support for your belief? 3) Does empirical support matter in "this case"? Recall this is my initial attempt to answer Alex's question about what changes peoples' minds. But my 2 & 3 challenges above also touch on the Occam's razor issue earlier and the burden of proof with respect to the existence of God. I do not think the atheist has to prove there is no God -- his job is much harder. He has to prove, empirically, that an more atheist society is better than one with more believers. Until he can do so, it seems quite rational for believers who want a better overall society to remain believers--don't you think? Not to leave it unsaid, the recent Nazi & Commie attempts at atheistic societies in practice (empirical evidence?) make me think any anti-believer has a lot of problems. Tom Grey, an American Libertarian/neo-conservative, happily living in ex-Commie Slovakia (you're welcome to write me directly too) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
This seems awfully off topic, but the notion that atheism implies an immoral society is not true. For a primer, visit: www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/morality-and-atheism.html Regarding believing biblical creation, every person should know that the Bible contradicts itself on creation. One example: GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. Insisting on the LITERAL truth a story that is internally inconsistent does not put one on the logical or factual high ground. That said, courtesy demands that I welcome rebuttals, but I'll not continue on this tangent myself. Thanks, -jsh __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
Re: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
Grey Thomas wrote: >>Let us assume the Bible is not true; further, that there is no Biblical God. >>Thus, no basis for ANY of the 10 commandments, nor thus for any absolute >>moral good vs. evil. So fornication, adultery, stealing, murder are not >>This "obviously" results in a selfish, mean society full of big and little >>criminals who are constantly calculating how to cheat and steal the most >>while getting away with it; life is for the current momentary pleasure. ... >>Irrespective of the "objective" truth of the Bible, the superiority of a >>"Bible believing society" is a position I strongly believe, >> Doesn't your position commit you to believing that the people in our society who do not believe in the Bible are in fact mostly selfish mean criminals? What empirical support is there for this claim?
RE: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
> -Original Message- > From: Alex Tabarrok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > If information doesn't change people's minds - what does? Or, at > least, what causes people to have the beliefs that they have? This is > where Bryan's important work comes in. Understanding these sorts of > questions will give us a much better understanding of social change. > > Alex > There seems to be an assumption, in all academic, scientific, philosophic, religious pursuits, that: The Truth is Good. Since this so obviously cannot be proven, it seems never discussed explicitly, but when I question, "if the truth is NOT good, which is better?", the obvious answer is "the Good". Tautologically (I think). Now Bible based religions claim they are true, and good. (This almost implies that if they are NOT true, they are not good.) Let us assume the Bible is not true; further, that there is no Biblical God. Thus, no basis for ANY of the 10 commandments, nor thus for any absolute moral good vs. evil. So fornication, adultery, stealing, murder are not "evil", but merely illegal (or not) under certain circumstances; and true social morality is exactly equal to only that which is legislated. There is no meaning to life, no reason to live or to not live constantly drugged out; there is no hell to fear, so the only reason to avoid murder is fear of police. This "obviously" results in a selfish, mean society full of big and little criminals who are constantly calculating how to cheat and steal the most while getting away with it; life is for the current momentary pleasure. Or, as Ken Lay or many others might have said at some time, it's OK if you don't get caught. This (presumed) reality is obviously BAD-reality will NOT be GOOD if the Bible is not true. Therefore, only if the Bible IS true, can the (presumed) reality be good. --- I believe that the above brief rationale captures some of the unarticulated impulses for believing in the Bible. In other words, a Bible believing society is better than an atheist believing society. Irrespective of the "objective" truth of the Bible, the superiority of a "Bible believing society" is a position I strongly believe, and I've heard that F.A. Hayek, privately, believed. (Can anybody corroborate this?). Finally, if, to achieve the better Bible believing society, it is required to proclaim belief this is pretty acceptable. [fill in the disputed fact: the Earth is the center of the universe; God created humans in the last 10 000 years, etc; acceptable until science can more strongly falsify the belief AND the falsification or not is relevant to most people's lives.] I also find it curiously rational. Tom Grey
