Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307772787' post='2252299']
If it is always wrong, if it is never justified that is a moral absolute which needs an objective source on which such a claim must be based. You doubt God so where do you get this moral absolute? This btw is a perfect example of your contradictions. [/quote]

It's my [i]opinion[/i] that it's always wrong, just as it's yours that it comes from god.

I really don't see the contradiction, why if I say that one thing is absolute in my moral framework (which I've said time and again that is subjective but based on premises) then everything has to be absolute?

The problem is that there is no greater consistency, but I don't think that absolute consistency is a strength in these cases.


[quote]Murder is the intentional killing of a innocent person. Murder is unjust because it is an act against Justice itself God, rather than simply against the justice of man. Murder is always wrong. Killing someone to defend your family because or to protect society (capital punishment or war) is self defense. [/quote]

What's intentional? Is something intentional in a deterministic universe?

[quote]That's the denial they came right out and said it was their cause and you still deny it. [/quote]

They killed to implement a new political way of life, not for atheism as if it were an ideology. Even if they had chosen deism instead of atheism to eliminate the religious clergy class, they would've killed. You're missing the motivational point, and there's nothing ideological in atheism to motivate killing because it's not an ideology.

You're trying to make a point with this and after going in circles and constantly missing it... what is it exactly? That they killed because they were atheists? I'm assuming that you're going to claim that since atheism is an ideology, then that automatically makes them all nililists...

[quote]I'm sure they would have no problem killing anyone that did not accept Atheism. [/quote]

Not[i] for [/i]atheism. The main justification was not atheism.

Let me repeat the paragraph you provided:

[i]Pod Znamenem Marksizma,[/i] which sets out to be an organ of militant materialism, should devote much of its space to atheist propaganda, to reviews of the literature on the subject and to correcting the immense shortcomings of our governmental work in this field. [size="4"][color="#FF0000"][neonlights] [/color][/size][b]It is particularly important to utilise books and pamphlets which contain many concrete facts and comparisons showing how the class interests and class organisations of the modern bourgeoisie are connected with the organisations of religious institutions and religious propaganda.[/b] [color="#FF0000"][/neonlights][/color]-- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url]


I see a glaring link between their implementation of atheism and marxist ideology, which you ignored in order to cling to your false ideas.

[quote]Again another contradiction. At the beginning of your post you state a moral absolute that rape is always wrong. Now you state all morality is subjective (which btw is a moral absolute). I'm not the one confused I'm not the one in contradiction.[/quote]

Are all moral absolutes necessarily objective? I've been saying since the beginning that I think that all morality is subjective, even those that have a rigid absolute structure.

[quote]So now you do admit it's just your opinion so we can dismiss your previous claim in this same post that it is always wrong? And better state it as you think it is always wrong but maybe not? Also looking at the world from a purely naturalistic pov the theory of the survival of the fittest would give evidence that the idea that any rape being wrong is just a moral construct of the human imagination. [/quote]

We aren't bound by the same rules as other animals. We have moral constructs, though would try and justify it that way, just as the religious try and justify why homosexuality is intrinsically bad using the natural pov. Weak arguments, IMO.


[quote]So it is an Axiom? Sorry I thought you would try this argument and I was ready, Axioms are assumptions they require [i]'faith'[/i] to believe in there existence. *1 & *2. One is assumed to equal one, it is not self-evident, a book hundreds of pages long that doesn't even come close to completing its subject means its subject is at least somewhat fuzzy. I can easily and soundly dispute that what appears to be just 'one' object is in fact many objects. Breaking an object from what can be seen with the human eye down to just the atomic level we can see what appears to be '[i]one[/i]' object is any given number of smaller [i]objects. [/i]That is true for something as small as a marble.[i]
[/i]
*1 "Axioms are not self-evident truths in any sort of rational system, they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit ``If we assume that...''. … They are really just assertions or propositions to which we give a special primal status and exempt from the necessity of independent proof." [Source: [url="http://www.phy.duke.edu/%7Ergb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node27.html"]http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/ axioms/axioms/node27.html[/url]]

Also check out this

*2 "The mathematical axiom has suffered a long fall from its ancient eyrie. Nearly 24 centuries ago it was held to be a self-evident truth, a statement that was absolutely beyond any suspicion that it could be false. Today mathematicians tell non-mathematicians that an axiom is only a premise or rule in a game, a starting point. In the more official language of Nelson's Dictionary of Mathematics (2nd ed.), an axiom is
a well-formed formula that is stipulated rather than proved to be so through the application of rules of inference. The axioms and the rules of inference jointly provide a basis for proving all other theorems. As different sets of axioms may generate the same set of theorems, there may be many alternative axiomatizations of the formal system." [Source: [url="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mrc.uidaho.edu%2F%7Erwells%2FCritical%2520Philosophy%2520and%2520Mind%2FChapter%252023.pdf&rct=j&q=Self%20evident%20truth%20is%20an%20illusion.%201%2B1%3D2%20is%20not%20self%20evident%20in%20any%20logic%20or%20mathematics.%20It%EF%BB%BF%20took%20Russell%20and%20Whitehead%20more%20that%20700%20pages%20of%20logic%20&ei=Z_ryTeLvEo-3tgf8iPnnBg&usg=AFQjCNGSnR__fpcC_bsgAJHAXfy5-pSE9Q&sig2=W8WdBjeRDxLOUNig-UWCdg&cad=rja"]Mathematics and Mathematical Axioms[/url] [color="#696969"][i]Note this link is to a pdf and will download on your computer[/i][/color]][/quote]

You do know that the whole foundation of logic has to be taken on faith, right? Still, does that invalidate it?

And what [i]one unit[/i] is, regardless of what, always recognised as [i]one[/i] [i]unit[/i]. There's nothing fuzzy about it.

Also, one unit is one units based on (relative) what you're looking at. If you're looking at one barcode, you see it as one barcode, but if you're looking at the vertical lines, then there are more than one lines. If you could zoom in and look at one line and see the series of atoms in the ink, then there is more than one atom. Even though many things can be said about a barcode, one is always recognised as one unit.


[quote]Thanks for more subjective relative opinion but it's equal to all others opinions and no one is bound to obey the subjective opinions of others.[/quote]

Just as I'm not bound to obey yours, but I'm not the one claiming to have an objective moral framework that is all absolute and "right".

Edited June 11, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

Here's a very interesting TEDTalks video (about 18 minutes) called Why we think it's okay to cheat and steal (sometimes).

Interesting food for thought, especially since the more you think about it the more complicated and inconsistent it gets.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUdsTizSxSI&feature=relmfu[/media]

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307650117' post='2251727']
Like I said, that's your right. I reject the claim that there are objective morals and oppose those who say that they know the true right and wrong, but will analyse for myself whether I think there is merit in each idea of people who follow what they call an objective moral framework.

IMO society is just that, groups of people trying to find a way to reach a common good and constantly bickering and fighting over what that common good is and how to reach it. It's way better to have bickering than a monopoly. These things just shouldn't be left in the hands of one group. [/quote]
Yes.

Christians aren't trampling on your rights.



[quote]Pfft. You kidding me?[/quote]
No, serious.

What exactly are you suggesting?



[quote]True.



Yes.




Non conforming catholics, not protestants.[/quote]
Non-conforming to what?


[quote]Were there really any outspoken well known influential atheist/secularists at all in those days?[/quote]
Yes there were. Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are too that spring to mind off the top of my head who remain influential to this day. (If I recall, Darwin didn't start out atheist, but wound up an atheist or agnostic.) Though not as common as today, there were plenty of atheists in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as non-Christian "freethinkers."



[quote]Why is it silly? I mean, how do you even know? I'm assuming that like the majority of other people living on the planet, you've never lived in complete solitude before having to learn how to get along with other people.

How do you know that what you hold as right and wrong weren't taught to you in part?

Think of it as a thought experiment. Imagine you lived isolated all your life (doesn't have to solitary confinement) stranded somewhere with no access to other human beings and came into contact somehow with one other person who had something that you wish you had yourself. You never heard of the church or read it's teachings.

If you're able to imagine yourself in this scenario, what would be the good reasons [i]not[/i] to steal that thing you wish you had?[/quote]
Even if someone has lived their entire life on a desert island or such, actions such as murder, etc. remain morally wrong. Of course a person may be ignorant of certain moral principles, but that does not mean objective morality does not exist.


[quote]Doesn't look like the Church's teachings are really working then.

In contrast, in the west, teaching sex education, informing about AIDS and other STDs, and the responsible use of condoms is at least keeping AIDS under control. In Africa the percentages of HIV positive people are staggeringly high. That's not going to come cheap.[/quote]
No, looks like not enough people are paying attention to the Church's teachings.

If you tell me not to smoke, and that smoking is hazardous to my health, yet I blow your advice off and smoke three packs a day, then I end up dying of lung cancer, it would be stupid to say that not smoking "doesn't work," nor are you to blame for my cancer because I chose not to heed your words.

I think we can be pretty sure that a dude who sleeps with fifty different women isn't paying much attention to the Church's moral teachings or what the Pope says.
Blaming the Church's moral teachings for the AIDS crisis is just asinine.

I've lived among groups of very devout Catholics who take the Church's moral teachings on marriage and sexuality seriously, and I can assure you among such people AIDS and STDs are unheard of. (And no, it's not because everyone's secretly using rubbers). These are people who don't contracept, and often have very large families. If "the Church's teachings don't work," then AIDS and other STDs ought to be rampant in such communities, yet the opposite is true.

Yes, chastity is possible, and it works.
Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307661745' post='2251824']
What do you mean? The crowds that stood outside of Lot's demanding he release the three angels who had visited him so they could rape them?

Also I do not deny atheist have morals I only point out those morals are subjective, relative and have nothing but sand to stand on without the existence of God. Atheistic morals aren't really real they only seem to be real, their nice and they feel good, but without objective truth and objective morality those morals do not actually exist and they are not binding on anyone who does not wish to be bound by them. Lastly, atheism was the propaganda of communism this is an historical fact.

I will allow Lenin to explain,



...




...



...
[/quote]
Please, Knight. We all know old V. I. Lenin was just kidding around about atheism playing a role in Communism.

After all, we all know that atheism is never to blame for nasty things, but is only responsible for nice lovey-dovey happy things!

It's so good that we have xsilverphinx and other experts (possessing amazing time-traveling telepathic powers that would be the envy of any of the X-men) to illuminate what Lenin [i]really[/i] thought, so we won't be misled by the written historical record.




In all seriousness though, what seems to be common to most forms of atheistic thought is that human life itself is severely devalued.
Marxist-Leninist Communists believed in taking innocent human life to advance ideological goals.
Modern liberal "humanist" atheists believe in taking innocent human life if it advances convenience or comfort (as abortion or euthanasia).



While I can't speak for others, I would personally think it would make a huge difference in how I view and treat myself and my fellow human beings if I see them as creatures with immortal souls created in the image and likeness of almighty God, or as masses of protoplasm randomly evolved from the primordial slime in a purposeless random universe that came from some purposeless random cosmic explosion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307791359' post='2252311']
It's my [i]opinion[/i] that it's always wrong, just as it's yours that it comes from god. [/quote]

Then rape is ok when someone else has the opinion it is ok. But thankfully God exists, so when I state rape is always wrong it is a matter of fact, an absolute fact, that never changes a fact that does not need my belief or anyone else belief to be a fact, it is a fact if everyone believes it or everyone denies it. Your 'morality' without God isn't really real. Atheists reject God because He is supposedly a social construct but then they contradict themselves by holding on to other social constructs.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307791359' post='2252311']I really don't see the contradiction, why if I say that one thing is absolute in my moral framework (which I've said time and again that is subjective but based on premises) then everything has to be absolute? [/quote]

The whole [i]absolute in my moral framework[/i] is key to understanding your contradiction. Plus you did at times try to make it more than your own personal moral framework, you tried to base it on society, on liberty, and other things that exist outside your own personal moral framework. So I think you're somewhat back peddling, or your all over the place which seems to have been the case throughout this convo.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307791359' post='2252311']What's intentional? [/quote]

Really, I mean really? It means on purpose, to plan out, with full consent.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307791359' post='2252311']Not[i] for [/i]atheism. The main justification was not atheism.

Let me repeat the paragraph you provided:

[size="2"][i]Pod Znamenem Marksizma,[/i] which sets out to be an organ of militant materialism, should devote much of its space to atheist propaganda, to reviews of the literature on the subject and to correcting the immense shortcomings of our governmental work in this field. [/size][size="2"][color="#FF0000"][neonlights] [/color][b]It is particularly important to utilise books and pamphlets which contain many concrete facts and comparisons showing how the class interests and class organisations of the modern bourgeoisie are connected with the organisations of religious institutions and religious propaganda.[/b] [/size][size="2"][color="#FF0000"][/neonlights][/color][/size][size="2"]-- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/size]


I see a glaring link between their implementation of atheism and marxist ideology, which you ignored in order to cling to your false ideas. [/quote]

I just see you're still denying reality. Grasping desperately at straws in a lame cop out to defend or shrug off the crimes against humanity atheism has been the cause of. You are not being reasonable or rational. What you bolded in no way disproves that atheism was the struggle that atheism was their cause. At first when I provided a quote from Lenin stating atheism was their cause, you stated he was wrong, that he really didn't know what atheism was, now you're stating he didn't really say atheism was his goal. BS. We're just suppose to believe that they just happened to be atheists, and repeatedly claimed atheism was their cause but atheism is not to blame for the millions of deaths caused by their enforcing their cause?!?! BS. Please I think we're done here, you've lost, it's not as if I or other Christians made Lenin state that his and the communists struggle and fight was atheism he and others stated on their own. I cannot help you cannot come to grips with reality.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307791359' post='2252311']Are all moral absolutes necessarily objective? I've been saying since the beginning that I think that all morality is subjective, even those that have a rigid absolute structure. [/quote]

Yes. And what you believe is an oxymoron and a contradiction. If something is subjective it doesn't and cannot have an rigid absolute structure!


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307791359' post='2252311']We aren't bound by the same rules as other animals. We have moral constructs, though would try and justify it that way, just as the religious try and justify why homosexuality is intrinsically bad using the natural pov. Weak arguments, IMO. [/quote]

Again Atheists reject God because they believe Him to be just a construct, not actually real. It is quite laughable when those same atheists will turn around and believe in other constructs. It is atheistic morality that is weak, so weak in fact that it does not actually exist, it is just a subjective relative opinion,

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307791359' post='2252311']You do know that the whole foundation of logic has to be taken on faith, right? Still, does that invalidate it?

And what [i]one unit[/i] is, regardless of what, always recognised as [i]one[/i] [i]unit[/i]. There's nothing fuzzy about it.

Also, one unit is one units based on (relative) what you're looking at. If you're looking at one barcode, you see it as one barcode, but if you're looking at the vertical lines, then there are more than one lines. If you could zoom in and look at one line and see the series of atoms in the ink, then there is more than one atom. Even though many things can be said about a barcode, one is always recognised as one unit. [/quote]

Don't you remember? The whole point is that logic or that 1=1, like God has to be taken on or believed by a matter of faith and it doesn't invalidate it. Logic, or 1=1 is not self-evident you were wrong.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307791359' post='2252311']Just as I'm not bound to obey yours, but I'm not the one claiming to have an objective moral framework that is all absolute and "right".
[/quote]

Only if in fact God does not exist. If He does, and He does, you are quite bound to His morality. I would also point out that your belief that rape is always wrong is part of His morality imprinted unto your soul which you do not reject. It is simply sad you doubt/reject His existence. Because then your [i]opinion[/i] could be so much more and you would not have to contradict yourself any longer by believing in [i]subjective absolutes[/i].

Edited June 11, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307834954' post='2252507']

[/quote]

I know I should've heeded your wisdom, MrCatholicCat...

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307830225' post='2252481']
Please, Knight. We all know old V. I. Lenin was just kidding around about atheism playing a role in Communism.

After all, we all know that atheism is never to blame for nasty things, but is only responsible for nice lovey-dovey happy things!
[/quote]
Atheist is a label ascribed to a person with a personal lack of belief with regards to the multitude of god theories.
There is no such thing as Atheism and hence Atheism is not responsible for anything, good nor bad.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307830225' post='2252481']
Please, Knight. We all know old V. I. Lenin was just kidding around about atheism playing a role in Communism.

After all, we all know that atheism is never to blame for nasty things, but is only responsible for nice lovey-dovey happy things!

It's so good that we have xsilverphinx and other experts (possessing amazing time-traveling telepathic powers that would be the envy of any of the X-men) to illuminate what Lenin [i]really[/i] thought, so we won't be misled by the written historical record.[/quote]

I must say, I'm slightly surprised that you could be so naive.

And I don't have to be telepathic to know that both you and Knight of Christ don't have the slightest clue about atheistic thinking. It is a foundation to destroy the old ways and implement the new, it's not a goal, because how can atheism be a goal?! It's not an ideology, it's just a descrition of philosophies that don't contain a belief in god.

*cough*vaccinationagainstreligion*cough*


[quote]In all seriousness though, what seems to be common to most forms of atheistic thought is that human life itself is severely devalued.

Marxist-Leninist Communists believed in taking innocent human life to advance ideological goals.
Modern liberal "humanist" atheists believe in taking innocent human life if it advances convenience or comfort (as abortion or euthanasia).[/quote]

It seems that in religious thinking, it's the soul which people believe exists that takes precedence over people, including their lives. In the case of the AIDS crisis for instance, the suffering is being justified by the church because it claims that it's a sin. In the case of euthanasia, people are forced to suffer because others try and keep them from ending their own lives justifying that with what they believe offends god.

If an atheist were to chose to commit suicide under those circumstances, then what right do other people have to keep them from doing so? Sorry, but that's not compassion. It's cruelty.

[quote]While I can't speak for others, I would personally think it would make a huge difference in how I view and treat myself and my fellow human beings if I see them as creatures with immortal souls created in the image and likeness of almighty God, or as masses of protoplasm randomly evolved from the primordial slime in a purposeless random universe that came from some purposeless random cosmic explosion.
[/quote]

Well, if that's what you need to keep yourself from killing others and causing harm, then by all means, continue in your beliefs...

And once again:

[i]Pod Znamenem Marksizma,[/i] which sets out to be an organ of militant materialism, should devote much of its space to [color="#006400"]atheist propaganda[/color], to reviews of the literature on the subject and to correcting the immense shortcomings of our governmental work in this field. [size="6"][color="#FF0000"][flashingneonlights][/color][/size][b]It is particularly important to utilise books and pamphlets which contain many concrete facts and comparisons showing how the class interests and class organisations of the modern bourgeoisie are connected with the organisations of religious institutions and religious propaganda.[/b] [size="6"][color="#FF0000"] [/flashingneonlights][/color][/size]-- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url]

[xSilverPhinx]

Since the discussion is going nowhere I'm going to add a link to an [url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html"]article[/url] which compares the societal health of secular non religious societies (and high acceptance of evolutionary theory) with those that have a higher degree of religiosity (and less acceptance of evolutionary theory).

Knight Of Christ will be interested to see that non theistic secular societies have a higher "culture of life", meaning less homicide, less [color="#000000"]juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The more secular and least theistic countries have this quality. Wisdom of the (educated non religious) crowds, I would say, and there are objective numbers to support that...

Whatever they're doing is working...

Socrates, your idea of atheistic Communist Russia is based on religious/Cold war propaganda. There's nothing about atheism that automatically leads to murder.
[/color]So as to keep the length of this post shorter, I'll put the introduction into the spoiler box.


[spoiler]Introduction

[1] Two centuries ago there was relatively little dispute over the existence of God, or the societally beneficial effect of popular belief in a creator. In the twentieth century extensive secularization occurred in western nations, the United States being the only significant exception (Bishop; Bruce; Gill [i]et al[/i].; Sommerville). If religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of this unprecedented transformation upon their populations? Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published. That radically differing worldviews can have measurable impact upon societal conditions is plausible according to a number of mainstream researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge). Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population (Benson [i]et al[/i].; Hummer [i]et al[/i].; Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge). A partial exception is given by Barro and McCleary, who correlated economic growth with rates of belief in the afterlife and church attendance in numerous nations (while Kasman and Reid [2004] commented that Europe does not appear to be suffering unduly from its secularization). It is surprising that a more systematic examination of the question has not been previously executed since the factors required to do so are in place. The twentieth century acted, for the first time in human history, as a vast Darwinian global societal experiment in which a wide variety of dramatically differing social-religious-political-economic systems competed with one another, with varying degrees of success. A quantitative cross-national analysis is feasible because a large body of survey and census data on rates of religiosity, secularization, and societal indicators has become available in the prosperous developed democracies including the United States.

[2] This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.

The Belief that Religiosity is Socially Beneficial

[3] As he helped initiate the American experiment Benjamin Franklin stated that “religion will be a powerful regulator of our actions, give us peace and tranquility within our minds, and render us benevolent, useful and beneficial to others” (Isaacson: 87-88). When the theory of biological evolution removed the need for a supernatural creator concerns immediately arose over the societal implications of widespread abandonment of faith (Desmond and Moore; Numbers). In 1880 the religious moralist Dostoyevsky penned the famous warning that “if God does not exist, then everything is permissible.” Even so, in Europe the issue has not been a driving focus of public and political dispute, especially since the world wars.

[4] Although its proponents often claim that anti-evolution creationism[url=""]<1>[/url] is scientific, it has abjectly failed in the practical realms of mainstream science and hi-tech industry (Ayala [i]et al[/i].; Crews; Cziko; Dawkins, 1996, 1997; Dennett; Gould; Koza [i]et al[/i].; L. Lane; Miller; Paul and Cox; Shanks; Wise; Young and Edis). The continuing popularity of creationism in America indicates that it is in reality a theistic social-political movement partly driven by concerns over the societal consequences of disbelief in a creator (Forrest and Gross; Numbers). The person most responsible for politicizing the issue in America, evangelical Christian W. J. Bryan,[url=""]<2>[/url] expressed relatively little interest in evolution until the horrors of WW I inspired him to blame the scientific revolution that invented chemical warfare and other modern ills for “preaching that man has a brute ancestry and eliminating the miraculous and the supernatural from the Bible” (Numbers: 178).

[5] In the United States many conservative theists consider evolutionary science a leading contributor to social dysfunction because it is amoral or worse, and because it inspires disbelief in a moral creator (Colson and Pearcey; Eve and Harrold; Johnson; Numbers; Pearcey; Schroeder). The original full title for the creationist Discovery Institute was the Discovery Institute for the Renewal of Science and Culture (a title still applied to a division), and the institute’s mission challenges “materialism on specifically scientific grounds” with the intent of reversing “some of materialism’s destructive cultural consequences.” The strategy for achieving these goals is the “wedge” strategy to insert intelligent design creationism into mainstream academe and subsequently destroy Darwinian science (Johnson; Forrest and Gross note this effort is far behind schedule). The Discovery Institute and the less conservative, even more lavishly funded pro-theistic Templeton Foundation fund research into the existence and positive societal influence of a creator (Harris[i] et al[/i].; Holden). In 2000 the Discovery Institute held a neocreationist seminar for members of Congress (Applegate). Politically and socially powerful conservatives have deliberately worked to elevate popular concerns over a field of scientific and industrial research to such a level that it qualifies as a major societal fear factor. The current House majority leader T. DeLay contends that high crime rates and tragedies like the Columbine assault will continue as long schools teach children “that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized [[i]sic[/i]] out of some primordial soup of mud” (DeLay and Dawson). Today’s leaders of the world’s largest Christian denomination, the Catholic Church, share a dim view of the social impact of evolution. In his inauguration speech, Benedict XVI lauded the benefits of belief in a creator and contended, “we are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.” A leading church cleric and theologian (Schonborn) proclaimed that “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design” refutes the mindless creation of Darwinian natural selection (also Dean, Dean and Goodstein).

[6] Agreement with the hypothesis that popular religiosity is societally advantageous is not limited to those opposed to evolutionary science, or to conservatives. The basic thesis can be held by anyone who believes in a benign creator regardless of the proposed mode of creation, or the believer’s social-political worldview. In broad terms the hypothesis that popular religiosity is socially beneficial holds that high rates of belief in a creator, as well as worship, prayer and other aspects of religious practice, correlate with lowering rates of lethal violence, suicide, non-monogamous sexual activity, and abortion, as well as improved physical health. Such faith-based, virtuous “cultures of life” are supposedly attainable if people believe that God created them for a special purpose, and follow the strict moral dictates imposed by religion. At one end of the spectrum are those who consider creator belief helpful but not necessarily critical to individuals and societies. At the other end the most ardent advocates consider persons and people inherently unruly and ungovernable unless they are strictly obedient to the creator (as per Barna; Colson and Pearcey; Johnson; Pearcey; Schroeder). Barro labels societal advantages that are associated with religiosity “spiritual capital,” an extension of Putman’s concept of “social capital.” The corresponding view that western secular materialism leads to “cultures of death” is the official opinion of the Papacy, which claims, “the proabortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected” (John Paul II). In the United States popular support for the cultural and moral superiority of theism is so extensive that popular disbelief in God ranks as another major societal fear factor.

[7] The media (Stepp) gave favorable coverage to a report that children are hardwired towards, and benefit from, accepting the existence of a divine creator on an epidemiological and neuro-scientific basis (Benson [i]et al[/i].). Also covered widely was a Federal report that the economic growth of nations positively responds to high rates of belief in hell and heaven.[url=""]<3>[/url] Faith-based charities and education are promoted by the Bush administration[url=""]<4>[/url] and religious allies and lobbies as effective means of addressing various social problems (Aronson; Goodstein). The conservative Family Research Council proclaims, “believing that God is the author of life, liberty and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free and stable society.” Towards the liberal end of the political spectrum presidential candidate Al Gore supported teaching both creationism and evolution, his running mate Joe Leiberman asserted that belief in a creator is instrumental to “secure the moral future of our nation, and raise the quality of life for all our people,” and presidential candidate John Kerry emphasized his religious values in the latter part of his campaign.

[8] With surveys showing a strong majority from conservative to liberal believing that religion is beneficial for society and for individuals, many Americans agree that their church-going nation is an exceptional, God blessed, “shining city on the hill” that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly skeptical world. But in the other developed democracies religiosity continues to decline precipitously and avowed atheists often win high office, even as clergies warn about adverse societal consequences if a revival of creator belief does not occur (Reid, 2001).

Procedures and Primary Data Sources

[9] Levels of religious and nonreligious belief and practice, and indicators of societal health and dysfunction, have been most extensively and reliably surveyed in the prosperous developed democracies ([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figures 1-9[/url]). Similar data is often lacking for second and third world nations, or is less reliable. The cultural and economic similarity of the developed democracies minimizes the variability of factors outside those being examined. The approximately 800 million mostly middle class adults and children act as a massive epidemiological experiment that allows hypotheses that faith in a creator or disbelief in evolution improves or degrades societal conditions to be tested on an international scale. The extent of this data makes it potentially superior to results based on much smaller sample sizes. Data is from the 1990s, most from the middle and latter half of the decade, or the early 2000s.

[10] Data sources for rates of religious belief and practice as well as acceptance of evolution are the 1993 Environment I (Bishop) and 1998 Religion II polls conducted by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), a cross-national collaboration on social science surveys using standard methodologies that currently involves 38 nations. The last survey interviewed approximately 23,000 people in almost all (17) of the developed democracies; Portugal is also plotted as an example of a second world European democracy. Results for western and eastern Germany are combined following the regions’ populations. England is generally Great Britain excluding Northern Ireland; Holland is all of the Netherlands. The results largely agree with national surveys on the same subjects; for example, both ISSP and Gallup indicate that absolute plus less certain believers in a higher power are about 90% of the U.S. population. The plots include Bible literalism and frequency of prayer and service attendance, as well as absolute belief in a creator, in order to examine religiosity in terms of ardency, conservatism, and activities. Self-reported rates of religious attendance and practice may be significantly higher than actual rates (Marler and Hadaway), but the data is useful for relative comparisons, especially when it parallels results on religious belief. The high rates of church attendance reported for the Swiss appear anomalous compared to their modest levels of belief and prayer.

[11] Data on aspects of societal health and dysfunction are from a variety of well-documented sources including the UN Development Programme (2000). Homicide is the best indicator of societal violence because of the extremity of the act and its unique contribution to levels of societal fear, plus the relatively reliable nature of the data (Beeghley; Neapoletan). Youth suicide (WHO) was examined in order to avoid cultural issues related to age and terminal illness. Data on STDs, teen pregnancy and birth (Panchaud [i]et al[/i].; Singh and Darroch) were accepted only if the compilers concluded that they were not seriously underreported, except for the U.S. where under reporting does not exaggerate disparities with the other developed democracies because they would only close the gaps. Teen pregnancy was examined in a young age class in which marriage is infrequent. Abortion data (Panchaud [i]et al[/i].) was accepted only from those nations in which it is as approximately legal and available as in the U.S. In order to minimize age related factors, rates of dysfunction were plotted within youth cohorts when possible.

[12] Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results,[url=""]<5>[/url] and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below). Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial examination.[/spoiler]

Results

[13] Among the developed democracies absolute belief in God, attendance of religious services and Bible literalism vary over a dozenfold, atheists and agnostics five fold, prayer rates fourfold, and acceptance of evolution almost twofold. Japan, Scandinavia, and France are the most secular nations in the west, the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW). Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which excludes the U.S.) are referred to below as secular developed democracies.

[14] Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative ([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 1[/url]). The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest agreement with the scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance is found in the most religious developed democracy, the U.S.

[15] [color="#FF0000"]A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows[/color] ([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 2[/url]). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies ([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 3[/url]). [color="#FF0000"]The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer ([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 4[/url]). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise ([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 5[/url]), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. [/color]Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris [i]et al[/i]. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.[url=""]<6>[/url]

[16] [color="#FF0000"]Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud [i]et al[/i].), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies ([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 6[/url]). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases ([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 7[/url]). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. [/color]([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 8[/url]). [color="#006400"]Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data.[/color] [color="#FF0000"]Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma [i]et al[/i].; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest ([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 9[/url]). Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. [/color]Darroch [i]et al[/i]. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat more conservative (Gagnon [i]et al[/i].).

Discussion

[17] The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter. Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favor of some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines markedly.

[18] [color="#FF0000"]In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies ([url="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figures 1-9[/url]). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. [/color]Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. [color="#FF0000"]Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional.[/color] [color="#FF0000"]None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. [/color]In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

[19] [color="#FF0000"]If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported.[/color] Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion.[color="#FF0000"] [u]Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The [i]least[/i] theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.[/u] The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.[/color] [b]Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - [i]a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.[/i][/b]

Conclusion

[20] The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.




(the link provides a graph)

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307837918' post='2252531']
Atheist is a label ascribed to a person with a personal lack of belief with regards to the multitude of god theories.[/quote]

Keep living the dream. "Lack of belief" is modern agnostics who want to play pretend their real atheists. Atheism comes from the Greek words [[i]a[/i]] which means 'without' or 'no' not [i]lack[/i] and [theos] which means god. It is a belief or rejection of the existence of God. Agnostic means to lack a belief in God. This is simply a modern butchering of the original meaning.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307837918' post='2252531']There is no such thing as Atheism and hence Atheism is not responsible for anything, good nor bad.
[/quote]

That is simply nonsense, even a [i]lack of belief[/i] is a belief. But you are close to the truth of Atheism if it is true good nor bad exist. This is the conclusion that pass atheists made that made it possible to murder millions.

Edited June 12, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

Agnosticism regards knowledge. Atheism regards belief. For someone who sees no difference between belief and knowledge, it's not surprising that such subtlety would elude them. For someone who wishes they were born into the dark ages, its not surprising they cannot accept a modern definition of a term as it is commonly used. It's also not surprising for someone who thinks they have all the answers, that they wont listen to atheists and agnostics explaining their err about atheism and agnosticism.

KnightofChrist has won this battle, because he is immune to you. Take your sensibility elsewhere. This discussion has all the eloquence of a Catholic telling a Protestant that they don't worship statues.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307825906' post='2252455']
Yes.

Christians aren't trampling on your rights.[/quote]

Many of their ideals are indirect opposition to mine, but Christians have political leverage.

[quote]No, serious.

What exactly are you suggesting?[/quote]

All forms of education as a remedy.

[quote]Non-conforming to what?[/quote]

To the actual to the Church institution, in the case of catholics. Though the real brunt of it was carried out by protestants.

Here from wiki:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Opposition_to_abolitionism"]Opposition to abolitionism[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Christian_abolitionism"]Christian abolitionism[/url].



[quote]Yes there were. Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are too that spring to mind off the top of my head who remain influential to this day. (If I recall, Darwin didn't start out atheist, but wound up an atheist or agnostic.) Though not as common as today, there were plenty of atheists in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as non-Christian "freethinkers."[/quote]

Darwin's views on slavery were in opposition to the prevailing notions of his time.


[quote]Even if someone has lived their entire life on a desert island or such, actions such as murder, etc. remain morally wrong. Of course a person may be ignorant of certain moral principles, but that does not mean objective morality does not exist.[/quote]

Objective? What about mirror neurons and empathy?

[quote]No, looks like not enough people are paying attention to the Church's teachings.

If you tell me not to smoke, and that smoking is hazardous to my health, yet I blow your advice off and smoke three packs a day, then I end up dying of lung cancer, it would be stupid to say that not smoking "doesn't work," nor are you to blame for my cancer because I chose not to heed your words.

I think we can be pretty sure that a dude who sleeps with fifty different women isn't paying much attention to the Church's moral teachings or what the Pope says.
Blaming the Church's moral teachings for the AIDS crisis is just asinine.

I've lived among groups of very devout Catholics who take the Church's moral teachings on marriage and sexuality seriously, and I can assure you among such people AIDS and STDs are unheard of. (And no, it's not because everyone's secretly using rubbers). These are people who don't contracept, and often have very large families. If "the Church's teachings don't work," then AIDS and other STDs ought to be rampant in such communities, yet the opposite is true.

Yes, chastity is possible, and it works.
Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
[/quote]

I've added a page discussing secularism with regards to those, so now let's stick to the actual numbers than just throw around opinions and anecdotal evidence.

Edited June 12, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307856695' post='2252687']
Agnosticism regards knowledge. Atheism regards belief. For someone who sees no difference between belief and knowledge, it's not surprising that such subtlety would elude them. For someone who wishes they were born into the dark ages, its not surprising they cannot accept a modern definition of a term as it is commonly used. It's also not surprising for someone who thinks they have all the answers, that they wont listen to atheists and agnostics explaining their err about atheism and agnosticism.

KnightofChrist has won this battle, because he is immune to you. Take your sensibility elsewhere. This discussion has all the eloquence of a Catholic telling a Protestant that they don't worship statues.
[/quote]

I'll let him try and refute the article I posted by finding some actual numbers that contradict it, showing a positive link between theism, societal health and as a consequence a "higher culture of life". Everything else is just his opinion and assumptions, which I won't bother with anymore. He can see it as a win, for all I care.

Edited June 12, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307857283' post='2252694']I'll let him try and refute the article I posted by finding some actual numbers that contradict it, showing a positive link between theism and "higher culture of life". Everything else is just his opinion and assumptions, which I won't bother with anymore. He can see it as a win, for all I care.[/quote]He will... when you don't convert he will see it as you're arrogant pride... or something like that. You will lose honor and the kilingon empire will destroy the federation.... bla bla bla...