Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
At 05:47 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 5 Dec 2007, at 00:55, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. No more nor less so than any other institution. Other institutions don't necessarily require people to believe untrue things. Some religions require that, yes. That does not justify tarring the entire field with the same brush. The UU church, for instance, doesn't particularly have any articles of faith (which could be one reason membership* numbers seem so low) and doesn't particularly care if you ascribe to any given belief system. Furthermore there are ample cases of individuals being motivated to perform good deeds as a direct result of religious teachings, which is pretty much inarguable proof that the statement religion is evil is simply not correct. It *can* be evil, there are myriad times when it *is* evil, but your statement that religion *is* evil is functionally equivalent to saying that, since some people are anaphylactically allergic to shellfish, all shellfish are lethal poisons to all individuals. It's just not true. Agreed. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: It *can* be evil, there are myriad times when it *is* evil, but your statement that religion *is* evil is functionally equivalent to saying that, since some people are anaphylactically allergic to shellfish, all shellfish are lethal poisons to all individuals. It's just not true. Agreed. What, no Satan's prawn reference here? Or was that just too obvious? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 5 Dec 2007, at 00:55, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about science and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about science is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap to the conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. No more nor less so than any other institution. Other institutions don't necessarily require people to believe untrue things. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If so, then Microsoft would have great products. - Steve Jobs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 5 Dec 2007, at 00:55, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. No more nor less so than any other institution. Other institutions don't necessarily require people to believe untrue things. Some religions require that, yes. That does not justify tarring the entire field with the same brush. The UU church, for instance, doesn't particularly have any articles of faith (which could be one reason membership* numbers seem so low) and doesn't particularly care if you ascribe to any given belief system. Furthermore there are ample cases of individuals being motivated to perform good deeds as a direct result of religious teachings, which is pretty much inarguable proof that the statement religion is evil is simply not correct. It *can* be evil, there are myriad times when it *is* evil, but your statement that religion *is* evil is functionally equivalent to saying that, since some people are anaphylactically allergic to shellfish, all shellfish are lethal poisons to all individuals. It's just not true. == * I originally mistyped that as memebership. Rather Freudian- slippish of me. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
Nick said: I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about science and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about science is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap to the conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about science and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about science is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap to the conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 4, 2007, at 9:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about science and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about science is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap to the conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. *Sigh* Saying the same thing over and over again is not the same thing as making a reasoned argument. Hence the question of the possible evil of religion remains open. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 4 Dec 2007, at 19:44, Dave Land wrote: On Dec 4, 2007, at 9:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about science and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about science is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap to the conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. *Sigh* Saying the same thing over and over again is not the same thing as making a reasoned argument. Denying the same thing over and over again is not the same thing as making a reasoned argument. Do you think people who act as if made up nonsense is true are not harmful? Or do you think all the nonsense is true? Because if you don't agree with one of those then you agree with me. Hence the question of the possible evil of religion remains open. Not really. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 05/12/2007, at 4:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 04/12/2007, at 11:03 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about science and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about science is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap to the conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. If it's true scepticism, and not denialism. The US is a leader of science in spite of it's religiosity, not because of it. And the US is squandering its lead - Florida and Texas are both about to be hit by creationist school boards trying to get round prior rulings, and the only thing saving America from losing increasing chunks of its population to nonsense is the courts. It's a line that's holding, but a Supreme Court reversal would be a disaster. Or one can think more rationally and realize that there are other factors, such as freedom or wealth, that cause both science and skepticism to thrive. The first of which is being restricted, the second is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 4 Dec 2007, at 20:32, Charlie Bell wrote: On 05/12/2007, at 4:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. But that's evil in itself! Dissenter Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 4, 2007 12:47 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's true scepticism, and not denialism. The US is a leader of science in spite of it's religiosity, not because of it. It seems far more likely to me that the same freedoms that allow wacky religious ideas (which is what we're really talking about, not religion) to grow are the same soil in which scientific growth thrives. Maybe you can't get one without the other. This is not to say that I'm in favor of any of the ways in which some of the religious wackos try to suppress science or replace it with unscientific ideas. However, I think we would be wise to fear that any sort of repression of wacky religious ideas might also stifle the growth and development of less wacky ideas. Legislating what people are allowed to think, in any form, opens a very dangerous door, in my opinion. Fascism intended to suppress wacky religious ideas is no better than any other sort of fascism. Still, I'm entirely comfortable with aggressive criticism of wacky religious ideas, so long as the criticism is logical. Making illogical arguments against the illogic of the wacky ideas is worse than self-defeating, I think. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 4, 2007 12:32 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. I think this confuses a belief of certain religions with the general meaning of religion. Religions are belief systems having to do with spiritual or metaphysical matters. Unquestioning obedience is nothing more than a belief of the more cult-like religions. It certainly is not true of the major ones except in a very limited sense that by no means extends to scientific pursuits. It is only a minority -- a foolish, arrogant and disturbingly politically active minority -- that seeks such directions. In other words, I'm not denying that there are anti-science forces at work in some religions. But I fail to see any convincing argument that this has anything to do with religion in general. There is no human institution that is exempt from such corruption. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 05/12/2007, at 8:06 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 4, 2007 12:47 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's true scepticism, and not denialism. The US is a leader of science in spite of it's religiosity, not because of it. It seems far more likely to me that the same freedoms that allow wacky religious ideas (which is what we're really talking about, not religion) to grow are the same soil in which scientific growth thrives. Maybe you can't get one without the other. Maybe you can't. But other countries with similarly advanced scientific research (the UK, Australia, Japan and so on) seem to get by with similar freedoms but with a lot less overtly religious nuttiness. This is not to say that I'm in favor of any of the ways in which some of the religious wackos try to suppress science or replace it with unscientific ideas. However, I think we would be wise to fear that any sort of repression of wacky religious ideas might also stifle the growth and development of less wacky ideas. Legislating what people are allowed to think, in any form, opens a very dangerous door, in my opinion. People can think what they like. But non-science should not be allowed to be taught as science. And non-medicine should not be sold as medicine. Fascism intended to suppress wacky religious ideas is no better than any other sort of fascism. I said nothing about suppression. I think the way to squeeze back the exploiters and loons is education. But in the US, the education system is being usurped. Still, I'm entirely comfortable with aggressive criticism of wacky religious ideas, so long as the criticism is logical. Making illogical arguments against the illogic of the wacky ideas is worse than self-defeating, I think. Sure. But if one thinks that all religious ideas are whacky, then it's hard to appear logical, because even engaging with nutty ideas can drag one to the same level. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 05/12/2007, at 8:19 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 4, 2007 12:32 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. I think this confuses a belief of certain religions with the general meaning of religion. Religions are belief systems having to do with spiritual or metaphysical matters. Yes. Which you have to believe in order to be a part of that religion. If you question the basic tenets of the faith, you are not adhering to that faith and won't be part of it for long, unless as many people do, you hide your doubts and pay lip-service. Unquestioning obedience is nothing more than a belief of the more cult-like religions. There aren't many that aren't cult-like in at least some of their aspects. It took me a long time to extract myself far enough from the religious upbringing of my youth to see that. It certainly is not true of the major ones except in a very limited sense that by no means extends to scientific pursuits. It is only a minority -- a foolish, arrogant and disturbingly politically active minority -- that seeks such directions. I think it's a lot more prevalent than you think. In other words, I'm not denying that there are anti-science forces at work in some religions. But I fail to see any convincing argument that this has anything to do with religion in general. There is no human institution that is exempt from such corruption. Your last sentence I agree with. However, where we differ is that I've come to think that the special status accorded to religion in most societies catalyses and shelters a lot of the corruption. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKN2922875820071129 DALLAS (Reuters Life!) - More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll... snip snort Lookit th' evydents, boyo -- how else could Dick Cheney's heart keep beating!?! seriously Ask any Intelligent Designer why a 50%+ inherent abortion rate (of all human fertilised eggs) demonstrates divinty over 'survival of the fittest.' Debbi Heretic Lutheran Gaeian Deist Maru Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: snip There are iatrogenic illnesses, those that are caused by the healer. I have no doubt that there are parallels in religion, but just as we don't shut down hospitals because, for example, people pick up infections there, it is not a compelling argument for shutting down churches. Nobody is arguing that zero harm is done by religion. To me, there's a difference between hospitals and churches, though; hospitals are places where the rules and results of science-based research are applied. By and large it seems to me that churches aren't of that nature. grimace Well, we strive and hope for sound science in our medicine; unfortunately we have, IMO, a runaway for-profit frenzy. I am astounded at the continual bombardment of advertising to convince Americans that they need these pills, those injectables, that session-under-the-knife to be healthy, happy and *normal.* What a freak show. Then, of course, there are the take these natural compounds only hucksters -I mean, gurus- also eager to extract dollars from ignorant folks' pockets. I see a strong parallel between the desire for a simple set of rules to win the divine jackpot, and the desire to gain eternal youth by pills procedures. In neither case does one have to think or question or work for one's reward. Genuine spiritual growth and improved health require time, effort and dedication...with no guarantee of success in the conventional sense. Debbi Embrace The Journey (Like There's A Choice!) Maru Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about science and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about science is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap to the conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. No more nor less so than any other institution. The above sentence just doesn't qualify as a rebuttal to (for instance) the material I posted earlier. It's not an argument, and as declarations go, it's not even particularly valid. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin
http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKN2922875820071129 Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:53pm GMT By Ed Stoddard DALLAS (Reuters Life!) - More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday. It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world. It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have Intelligent Design theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution. The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005. It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent. Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research. Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory which largely informs how biology and related sciences are approached. While often referred to as evolution it is in fact the 19th century British intellectual's theory of natural selection. There are unsurprising differences among religious groups. Born-again Christians are more likely to believe in the traditional elements of Christianity than are Catholics or Protestants. For example, 95 percent believe in miracles, compared to 87 percent and 89 percent among Catholics and Protestants, according to the poll. On the other hand only 16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants, believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. What is perhaps surprising is that substantial minorities in America apparently believe in ghosts, UFOs, witches, astrology and reincarnation. The survey, which has a sampling error of plus or minus two percent, found that 35 percent of the respondents believed in UFOs and 31 percent in witches. More born-again Christians -- a term which usually refers to evangelical Protestants who place great emphasis on the conversion experience -- believed in witches at 37 percent than mainline Protestants or Catholics, both at 32 percent. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time. - Bill Gates, 1987 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 3, 2007 1:41 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKN2922875820071129 The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005. And how many of them believe that they are, in some sense, God? ;-) It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, Is there anything else? replied some American writer when asked if he believed in miracles. My favorite answer. Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research. This demonstrates that skepticism leads to better science, right? I say that only because anti-religious people constantly confuse correlation with causality. It's only fair if I do, too, even though it is terribly unscientific. But hey, I'm an American. Stimulated by being surrounded by those who are skeptical of science, I strive to excel. Seriously, though, confusing correlation and causality has become my main problem with your anti-religious postings, William. If you're going to argue that religion is anti-scientific and causes all sorts of social ills, it seems that you have no freedom do simply cite all sorts of correlations. You have to show causality -- that religion *causes* evil, no just that they co-occur. It is basic to statistics that when things correlate, the cause often is a third factor. The coexistence of religion and evil isn't exactly news, now is it? Let me suggest the sort of third factor that could cause the correlation between fundamentalist religion and creationism: greed and fear -- leaders' greed for money and political power; followers' fear of what might happen if they misbehave. Keeping people ignorant has been a tool of greedy people, religious or not, for all of history. It is demagoguery and religion has no corner on it. It's bad science use correlations to say that religion is to blame for evil. It's like saying that hospitals obviously are the cause of disease because a survey showed that a high percentage of people who go to hospitals are sick. Correlation does not imply causality. The survey, which has a sampling error of plus or minus two percent, found that 35 percent of the respondents believed in UFOs and 31 percent in witches. How many of the UFO believers imagine that dolphins could fly spaceships? Now that's truly bizarre. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 3 Dec 2007, at 16:04, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 3, 2007 1:41 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research. This demonstrates that skepticism leads to better science, right? You're arguing that evolution is bad science? I say that only because anti-religious people constantly confuse correlation with causality. It's only fair if I do, too, even though it is terribly unscientific. But hey, I'm an American. Stimulated by being surrounded by those who are skeptical of science, I strive to excel. Seriously, though, confusing correlation and causality has become my main problem with your anti-religious postings, William. If you're going to argue that religion is anti-scientific and causes all sorts of social ills, it seems that you have no freedom do simply cite all sorts of correlations. You have to show causality -- that religion *causes* evil, no just that they co-occur. You sound like the tobacco lobby claiming that cigarettes don't cause cancer! It is basic to statistics that when things correlate, the cause often is a third factor. The coexistence of religion and evil isn't exactly news, now is it? Let me suggest the sort of third factor that could cause the correlation between fundamentalist religion and creationism: greed and fear -- leaders' greed for money and political power; followers' fear of what might happen if they misbehave. Keeping people ignorant has been a tool of greedy people, religious or not, for all of history. It is demagoguery and religion has no corner on it. It's bad science use correlations to say that religion is to blame for evil. It's like saying that hospitals obviously are the cause of disease because a survey showed that a high percentage of people who go to hospitals are sick. Correlation does not imply causality. It certainly indicates somewhere to look very closely for it though. And when multiple indicators all point the same way you need a much better counter-argument than appealing to 'correlation does not imply causality.' The survey, which has a sampling error of plus or minus two percent, found that 35 percent of the respondents believed in UFOs and 31 percent in witches. How many of the UFO believers imagine that dolphins could fly spaceships? Now that's truly bizarre. When people are encouraged to believe any old nonsense they choose as a matter of 'faith' it is not surprising that they lose the ability to discriminate in other areas too. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin
Probably because they watch the evening news where most of the people they see in the stories behave like they follow the devil or like non-GEICO cavemen . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 3, 2007 11:02 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This demonstrates that skepticism leads to better science, right? You're arguing that evolution is bad science? No. I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about science and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about science is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap to the conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. Or one can think more rationally and realize that there are other factors, such as freedom or wealth, that cause both science and skepticism to thrive. My point is that co-occurrence and correlation should never be mistake for causality. You have to show causality -- that religion *causes* evil, no just that they co-occur. You sound like the tobacco lobby claiming that cigarettes don't cause cancer! And if I sound like them, surely I must be just as venal. I'm not sure if that's better described as a red herring or just a stupid argument by analogy, but in either case, it is illogical. Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to abandon logic when arguing that religion causes people to believe unscientific ideas? When people are encouraged to believe any old nonsense they choose as a matter of 'faith' it is not surprising that they lose the ability to discriminate in other areas too. It'll be just fine with me if you never trot out that particular straw man again. You've set an impossibly high burden of proof by claiming that religion causes evil. You'll never prove it. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it means you're acting on faith in your intuitions and experience, not reason. Meanwhile, it's BORING to hear the same thing over and over. Do you really imagine that one day, anybody will be enlightened by your repetition? In hopes of going somewhere more interesting with this topic, let me offer this challenge -- can you (or anybody else who can stomach the subject) come up with external causalities when religion and evil co-occur? If we're going to argue about whether or not faith is anti-scientific, how about if we do so in a reasonably logical manner? It only seems fitting. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Probably because they watch the evening news where most of the people they see in the stories behave like they follow the devil or like non-GEICO cavemen . . . Or possibly they don't believe there's a difference. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 3, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: In hopes of going somewhere more interesting with this topic, let me offer this challenge -- can you (or anybody else who can stomach the subject) come up with external causalities when religion and evil co-occur? If we're going to argue about whether or not faith is anti-scientific, how about if we do so in a reasonably logical manner? It only seems fitting. If I understand the question properly, examples of the politicization of religion might fit the bill. There are are times when religious fervor has been manipulated as a tool by those in power to control various factions. There are clearly inimical examples of this too obvious to bear mentioning, but there are other cases where it's considerably more subtle, such as the successful demonization of nonheterosexuals; or the ongoing war on pornography waged by strange bedfellows indeed in the form of extreme right-wing fundamentalists and feminists (of which the latter raises better concerns about porn, IMO, than simply pointing to the forbidden status of onanism). And, of course, when manipulation teams up with anti-intellectualism, you have scientists being booted from their education posts for daring to suggest that the religious perspective might be, at best, questionable. To me these are all examples of shades of evil, but it would be a mistake (I think) to lay the blame wholly at the feet of religion. It's just a convenient handle to grab if you're after power and control, because so many are trained to respond unthinkingly to it. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 4 Dec 2007, at 01:12, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 3, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: In hopes of going somewhere more interesting with this topic, let me offer this challenge -- can you (or anybody else who can stomach the subject) come up with external causalities when religion and evil co-occur? If we're going to argue about whether or not faith is anti-scientific, how about if we do so in a reasonably logical manner? It only seems fitting. If I understand the question properly, examples of the politicization of religion might fit the bill. There are are times when religious fervor has been manipulated as a tool by those in power to control various factions. Political ideologies are often matters of faith too though. That's why politicians ignore scientific studies that contradict their beliefs. As I have pointed out before political cults like Nazism and Marxism are quasi-religious in nature. Religion doesn't have to be about the supernatural - one of the world's major religions (Confucianism) is actually based on a handbook for civil servants. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 4 Dec 2007, at 00:03, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 3, 2007 11:02 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This demonstrates that skepticism leads to better science, right? You're arguing that evolution is bad science? No. I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about science and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about science is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap to the conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. Or one can think more rationally and realize that there are other factors, such as freedom or wealth, that cause both science and skepticism to thrive. But America is losing its excellence in science. One of the tables I quoted showed that American high schools now produce kids with a significantly below average grasp of science. My point is that co-occurrence and correlation should never be mistake for causality. I have a theory, evidence and Occam's razor. If you want to posit an extra factor that causes both evil and religion it's up to you to come up with it. And if there is such a factor than reducing it will reduce both evil and religion :-) You have to show causality -- that religion *causes* evil, no just that they co-occur. The theory is that religion causes evil by clouding minds. That's the causality. The correlation is there. QED. You sound like the tobacco lobby claiming that cigarettes don't cause cancer! And if I sound like them, surely I must be just as venal. I'm not sure if that's better described as a red herring or just a stupid argument by analogy, but in either case, it is illogical. Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to abandon logic when arguing that religion causes people to believe unscientific ideas? I was pointing out that you are following a typical pattern of denial. When people are encouraged to believe any old nonsense they choose as a matter of 'faith' it is not surprising that they lose the ability to discriminate in other areas too. It'll be just fine with me if you never trot out that particular straw man again. It's not a straw man. How can people partition their thinking so that they abandon reason in just one area without it polluting their thinking about other matters? How can they have superstitious beliefs that don't conflict with reality on occasion? You've set an impossibly high burden of proof by claiming that religion causes evil. You'll never prove it. I have proved it. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 3, 2007 5:09 PM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The theory is that religion causes evil by clouding minds. That's the causality. The correlation is there. QED. It's hardly logical to state your premise and the correlation and claim that you've proved something. But you put QED at the end, so it *looks* like a proof. Hmm, making something that isn't science have the appearance of science by using scientific terminology... where have I seen that before? Of course, we could debate the nature of proof in sociology and psychology for a long time without reaching any conclusions. Even if there is causality at work in the relationship between doing evil and being religious, how do you know that it isn't the other way around? Perhaps people who have greater evil impulses turn to religion at a higher rate than others and thus evil causes religion, which then proceeds in some cases to diminish the evil-doing and the world comes out ahead as a result? I guess you have proposed at least one means of causality -- that religion teaches people to believe nonsense. Unfortunately, you're arguing from your premise (that religion is nonsense), so there's no proof there. Or you're throwing up straw men about what religion really is about. And by the way, I left you an opening with the hospital metaphor, but you didn't grab it. There are iatrogenic illnesses, those that are caused by the healer. I have no doubt that there are parallels in religion, but just as we don't shut down hospitals because, for example, people pick up infections there, it is not a compelling argument for shutting down churches. Nobody is arguing that zero harm is done by religion. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: And by the way, I left you an opening with the hospital metaphor, but you didn't grab it. There are iatrogenic illnesses, those that are caused by the healer. I have no doubt that there are parallels in religion, but just as we don't shut down hospitals because, for example, people pick up infections there, it is not a compelling argument for shutting down churches. Nobody is arguing that zero harm is done by religion. To me, there's a difference between hospitals and churches, though; hospitals are places where the rules and results of science-based research are applied. By and large it seems to me that churches aren't of that nature. So looking at this from the perspective of symptomology, is it worthwhile to consider the possibility that religion itself isn't particularly responsible for either the good or harm its practitioners do, but that it's merely an available thing to point to as justification for any particular deed? Put another way, might it follow that any religion can be used to justify both good and evil actions, and therefore the presence (or lack) of religion is not actually relevant? That doesn't quite ring true to me -- possibly religion can act as a catalyst toward good or evil deeds, something that motivates further along a given path of behavior; but it doesn't make rational sense (to me) to claim religion is itself intrinsically evil when it has, in fact, been a tool for good as well over the millennia. There's something else at work here, it seems. William mentioned the demi-religious nature of some ideologies, even those officially atheist. This suggests both the will to religion and the will to using an institution to justify any particular action (good or evil) goes deeper than the existence of those institutions. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:29 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Dec 2007, at 01:12, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 3, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: In hopes of going somewhere more interesting with this topic, let me offer this challenge -- can you (or anybody else who can stomach the subject) come up with external causalities when religion and evil co-occur? If we're going to argue about whether or not faith is anti-scientific, how about if we do so in a reasonably logical manner? It only seems fitting. If I understand the question properly, examples of the politicization of religion might fit the bill. There are are times when religious fervor has been manipulated as a tool by those in power to control various factions. Political ideologies are often matters of faith too though. That's why politicians ignore scientific studies that contradict their beliefs. I can't disagree with that. IIRC the grand experiment of American democracy was originally regarded as an insanely optimistic leap of faith in many other parts of the world. However the deliberate co- opting of faith by those in power is not new; it's how power structures were once built, as with pharaohs and Sun Kings and so on. The trick seems to be to attempt a disconnect between faith (of any kind) and behavior in the real world. And it seems to go in cycles. There didn't seem to be much antiscientific outcry, for instance, in the late 1950s when Sputnik I was launched and the US realized it needed to push science a LOT more heavily if it wanted to keep up with the next generation of USSR-based citizens. (On Plan59 recently I saw a posting of a Christmas card from the 1960s that read Season's Greetings; no one at the time was protesting that this represented a war on Christmas.) As I have pointed out before political cults like Nazism and Marxism are quasi-religious in nature. Naziism was overtly religious. The movement was deeply enmeshed with Norse mythology. Marxism borrowed from the strong authoritarian model of fundamentalist religion to enforce obedience and conformity, as you suggest here. It's a little like attending AA meetings and trading your addiction to booze for an addiction to cigarettes and coffee and, of course, the 12 steps. Religion doesn't have to be about the supernatural - one of the world's major religions (Confucianism) is actually based on a handbook for civil servants. There's an interesting slice of history I didn't know about; but Confucianism's roots haven't kept it from being about the supernatural anyway. The human capacity for short-circuiting logic is really rather breathtaking in its scope and endurance. That said, religion itself doesn't seem to my mind to be a source of evil so much as a symptom of ignorance (to the extent that blind faith and unthinking adherence are manifest, as opposed to an attempt at balance or recognition of the need for rational grounding), which isn't the same thing -- however, ignorance can definitely produce actions of stunning evil. This shouldn't be read as an attempt at appeasement. I'm quite comfortable with my atheism and would love to see it spread. I'm just trying to see if there's a root cause that goes deeper than the manifestations we're seeing in religion, since it makes more sense -- I think -- to find the source and attack that rather than the institutions it creates. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
