If You Believe that Religion is a Force for Good in the World

[ericlawrence]

Hahaha, sorry guys, I've been at work all day and my policy is not to mix faith with work unless the topic arises by itself.

Probably a good policy.

So, I see there's been a few clobber words spoken:

religion
truth
critical thinking
dogma

I'd like for us all to remember that these words have a distinct meaning. What I personally meant by saying "religion" in my first post, is the distinctive group mentality to agree for the sake of being right. I did indeed contrast this to the word "truth", because as I see it, truth often shatters the beliefs that have been established by religion. I'm sure these words will conjure many a thought in your mind, and I'm sure those thoughts are somewhat different from mine, and somewhat different to an official dictionary definition, but nonetheless, I think we can all agree that the words "religion" and "truth" are not necessarily interchangeable.

I think that your definition of religion is a little unfair, in that case. I would define it as something like "a collective belief or worship in a supernatural power." This, I think, is a bare-bones definition. I agree with the rest of this paragraph and, as you may have guessed, consider the words "religion" and "truth" to be, not only not interchangeable, but antonymous in most cases.

So, why do we see such negative statistics among those who claim to have strong beliefs in their chosen religion? Well no-one can possibly stand there and explain why atrocities happen because that would require explaining the mentality of the perpetrators. So, what happens when we take statistics and draw conclusions? We make assumptions. What we need to be discussing when we examine a chart like this, is why do we see a higher rate of theft and conservativeness, and less contentment among the handful of states that demonstrate lower IQ? And why is it that the states with statistically higher quality of life have lower religiosity?

You say "those who claim to have strong beliefs." I'm willing to take their word for it. Are we dealing with large groups of people who merely claim to believe in a universe created especially for them and a god who visited Earth to die for their sins? Or are we dealing with large groups of people who actually believe such things? I would argue the latter.
The most we can assume from the chart and the statistics is that quality of life does not increase with religiosity. While a strong case could be made for the antithesis. The idea is not necessarily that religion directly causes a lower quality of life (though it isn't something we can overlook either), but that (in the United States) lower levels of religiosity generally equate to higher levels of intelligence and wellbeing. I think a more important question, and I hate to point this out, is what to make of the negative correlation between religiosity and IQ.

I think the OP and even the author of the OP is heavily slanted to make a bad impression against religion because he identifies himself as being non-religious, and evidently, anyone who has strong opinion in their belief will be a strong advocate for their belief. I think those who think their beliefs are right are naturally going to encourage others to develop their beliefs in support of their own. Another thing I think is that there are all sorts of ideas we can grapple with in our search for the truth, but as we all know, that sorting truth from lie naturally leads to a single idea as being held as truth while all opposing ideas are considered lies, perversions of the truth, or incomplete statements of truth. Therefore, when someone tells us something that doesn't comply with what we have already understood to be truth, we face a conundrum. Do we accept, reject or distort the new idea?

My intention is to present a piece of information which I believe poses a problem for the belief that religion is a positive source of ethics and general wellbeing. It is heavily "slanted" in the way that it is heavily inconsistent with this idea. The ultimate goal is to see if a response is offered which I hadn't yet anticipated. A response of this kind would not include, "the study is skewed" (demonstrate that the information provided is not accurate), "religion isn't always bad" (followed by a reference to a good act performed by the church), "secularism has caused the greatest tragedies in the 20th century" (I'll go into more detail on this one in response to another post), and "no true Scotsman" (which I believe you've argued at the end of this post).

Now, understand that the whole paragraph above applies just as equally to those who consider themselves religious as to those who consider themselves non-religious, and what you get is an understanding that belief is an extremely personal matter, one in which the individual is constantly trying to establish a greater understanding of what they already know. So, by coming around a religious forum and telling the people there that what they believe is contributing to less of a quality of life for the world, that individual is in fact affirming to themselves by stating in the face of those who disagree, that what he believes is the truth.

Again, while I appreciate you giving me tactical advice, I'm simply in the Christian Outreach section of the forum presenting a piece of information for the sake learning what the Christian response to it may be.

So then, now that I've told you all what I think about religion and truth, let's get to discussing this chart. What I see as the real issue for discussion here, is why do we see an overall lesser quality of life among these top handful of states, and why is it that this coincides with religiosity, IQ and wealth. It does appear to me that somewhat of a larger social problem is at work here and I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is a money-machine driving it. Religion is afterall a very powerful cash fund for the few who successfully use it that way, and speaking on part of Christianity in particular, is most often taken advantage of by the greedy who have no conscience of their actions. So then, what would make someone believe what such a person tells them? I don't think we can just blame religion for that, this is an institution we are discussing, and the true believers of religions are the ones who always end up towing the slack for those who don't pull their weight.

It certainly may be true that wealth and religiosity are negatively correlated. As poverty is considered a virtue by many religions, its appeal to the poor is not surprising. But does religion help those with minimal wealth? I say not. Religion has been a driving force for maintaing the existence of poverty, namely due to its position on birth control and women's rights. One of the known cures for poverty is - as it happens - the empowerment of women. That is, to free women from an animal cycle of reproduction and to give them control their rate of childbirth. Find a nation which employs a restriction on this - it wont be somewhere you'd want to take your family for vacation. As religiosity goes up so does the rate of reproduction all the while the rights of women go down. This is a dangerous formula. What I believe to be a driving factor behind the statistics in said chart.
By what authority do you discern the "true believers" of the religion? Is the man who murders his wife for adultery a true believer or has he "distorted" the faith? Surely you can see were one might get confused, given the explicit (and often contradicting) instruction written in the religious text itself. How do you base this distinction if not on the scriptures? Has the creator himself given you instruction? Or has someone given you instruction on his behalf? Or is it that you base your line between "true believers" and "false believers" on something existing entirely outside of the religion itself. Something secular, that is.

How do these comments fit your purpose in this thread Eric?

Well. Though my purpose is only as malicious as the responses allow. Hope to hear more.

 

[oi_antz]

2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I would have thought that "strong belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" would have been more accurate. How do you feel?

I feel like that dictionary doesn't actually know God. It does summarize quite well the definition of faith, but does not help much with one's understanding of what faith is. Maybe you can read Hebrews 9 for a Bible definition of faith. Since it is the Bible, I will consider it the authority on matters pertaining to faith in God, and any dictionary which doesn't personally know God and wishes to contradict the Holy Bible will simply have to prove to me that what it says is consistent with what God says, but at a glance it seems pretty good. I always have trouble with people saying God can't be proven. If He couldn't be proven, then no-one would actually know Him and trust Him.

 

[oi_antz]

Probably a good policy.
I think that your definition of religion is a little unfair, in that case. I would define it as something like "a collective belief or worship in a supernatural power." This, I think, is a bare-bones definition. I agree with the rest of this paragraph and, as you may have guessed, consider the words "religion" and "truth" to be, not only not interchangeable, but antonymous in most cases.

I like to see a disagreement made as an honest statement of truth, well done. However, when you and I use the word "truth" in context of God, not both of us can be right you know, unless we agree on what God says and even then we might still be wrong about it.

You say "those who claim to have strong beliefs." I'm willing to take their word for it. Are we dealing with large groups of people who merely claim to believe in a universe created especially for them and a god who visited Earth to die for their sins? Or are we dealing with large groups of people who actually believe such things? I would argue the latter.

True, these people as I said below are the victims of an institution that, as you mentioned, encourages dogmatic spoon-fed belief without encouraging critical thinking. This does obviously appeal to the lower-IQ types more than the ones who like to think a lot.

The most we can assume from the chart and the statistics is that quality of life does not increase with religiosity.

That itself is a fallible assumption. What makes you think that religiosity is not a consequence of a poorer lifestyle, or the type of industrial opportunity poverty creates for someone wanting to be told their life is valuable despite what they don't have, gain their trust and teach them how to tythe beyond their means? Really mate, if you know what you are saying, you are implying that God makes people impoverished, but that isn't the case. In any case of sin, there is a human somewhere who will be called to answer.

While a strong case could be made for the antithesis. The idea is not necessarily that religion directly causes a lower quality of life (though it isn't something we can overlook either)

Poverty leads to seeking false hopes, the better hope for these people would be education and graduation into a salary 3x their prior. But the mindset in these societies makes them lethargic, they'd rather sit on a pew and be told how much God loves them if they put a dollar in the box. These people lack motivational counselling in their society, in their schools. Because of the lack of investment into teaching them to be successful, these economies are suffering from apathy, hopelessness and low self-esteem.

, but that (in the United States) lower levels of religiosity generally equate to higher levels of intelligence and wellbeing. I think a more important question, and I hate to point this out, is what to make of the negative correlation between religiosity and IQ.

I mentioned that before: "I think those who think their beliefs are right are naturally going to encourage others to develop their beliefs in support of their own." - So these thinkers have discovered that the information they trust (big bang, evolution, no flood, gay rights) are actually more valuable than the information that religions have given them. They are actually placed in that position where they must decide between two conflicting ideas, which will be accepted and which will be rejected. And of course, if you can't accept the Holy Bible in it's entirety, you can't accept God at all. So these people are actually making a conscious decision to not believe what God says

a) Because they don't want to think critically about the Bible
b) They don't like something about the person who explained the Bible to them
c) Too proud to admit they don't believe in God when them and all their peers have come to believe that God doesn't exist
d) Scared of what God tells them when they read

This does not logically conclude that it is smarter to deny God based upon your own understanding. What it logically concludes is that the smart ones put their own established knowledge above the knowledge that contests their knowledge, and then go on to belittle and even (in this case, I detect a hint of it) attack the right for that information to exist.

My intention is to present a piece of information which I believe poses a problem for the belief that religion is a positive source of ethics and general wellbeing.

Good, I'm with you. Religion is infultrated immensely by the most evil of men's hearts and things that are even more evil than that, and because these people have no conscience or even awareness about what they are doing, they are teaching falsely about the religion they represent. Yes, that does damage, No I don't know what I can do about it, and no you can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater because that would be dictatorship. The solution lies in raising everyone's tendency to think about what motivates them to believe what they do, to realize the full extent of what they believe, and to be honest. How feasible do you think that might be?

It is heavily "slanted" in the way that it is heavily inconsistent with this idea. The ultimate goal is to see if a response is offered which I hadn't yet anticipated. A response of this kind would not include, "the study is skewed" (demonstrate that the information provided is not accurate), "religion isn't always bad" (followed by a reference to a good act performed by the church), "secularism has caused the greatest tragedies in the 20th century" (I'll go into more detail on this one in response to another post), and "no true Scotsman" (which I believe you've argued at the end of this post).

Well, don't get me wrong, there are plenty of "true Scotsmen" in Jesus' family, however none of us are bred as pure as He is.

Again, while I appreciate you giving me tactical advice, I'm simply in the Christian Outreach section of the forum presenting a piece of information for the sake learning what the Christian response to it may be.

I'm glad you picked up on that, I can see what you're up to, and people will treat you with the same respect you give them. I'm not just here for fun. There is nothing fun about talking with people who don't know what they are saying.

It certainly may be true that wealth and religiosity are negatively correlated. As poverty is considered a virtue by many religions, its appeal to the poor is not surprising. But does religion help those with minimal wealth? I say not. Religion has been a driving force for maintaing the existence of poverty, namely due to its position on birth control and women's rights. One of the known cures for poverty is - as it happens - the empowerment of women. That is, to free women from an animal cycle of reproduction and to give them control their rate of childbirth. Find a nation which employs a restriction on this - it wont be somewhere you'd want to take your family for vacation.

I don't know about the birth control, but I hear what you are saying about robbing from the poor to give to the rich. Yes, God had made this planet with plenty for everyone, and there still is. The way resources and economy is being managed though is incredibly evil, why do we have people who comfortably earn twice or thrice as much as they need each week for doing a thinking job, while those wear their body out or risk their lives daily are hard pressed to find $10 at the end of the week? No, the system is not fair, it isn't religions fault, it just so happens that the same human greed that has infected the whole world has infiltrated religion and found by brainwashing it's populace it is capable of virtually making money grow off a tree - the tree of life! Now, whose tree is that, and why do these people not respect it as they should? I don't expect you to know much about that, so I'll leave it there for now.

As religiosity goes up so does the rate of reproduction all the while the rights of women go down. This is a dangerous formula. What I believe to be a driving factor behind the statistics in said chart.

Well mate, I hope you don't blame me. I rant and rave how good Helen Clark was, and how crazy NZ was to exchange her for a government they knew nothing about. But you know, you don't have to be religious to be led around like a sheep by the media.

By what authority do you discern the "true believers" of the religion? Is the man who murders his wife for adultery a true believer or has he "distorted" the faith? Surely you can see were one might get confused, given the explicit (and often contradicting) instruction written in the religious text itself. How do you base this distinction if not on the scriptures? Has the creator himself given you instruction? Or has someone given you instruction on his behalf? Or is it that you base your line between "true believers" and "false believers" on something existing entirely outside of the religion itself. Something secular, that is.

I'm glad you asked that question! Perhaps you overlook the wee fact of what happened between the Jewish Sanhedrin and Jesus 2,000 years ago, and what has been going on about it since that day? See the Jews seem to think that they interpret the laws given by Moses, and the most elect of their religious institution declare the rules that govern society, by which a Jew must behave according to God's command. It's a bit more complex than that, and I won't get into it. But then along comes Jesus, chosen and baptized by God to bring the Holy Spirit into the world and to baptize His disciples with the very Holy Spirit of God. Oh boy, when you take a lolly of a baby it cries. So you might get the picture. This is what Jesus says, might give you an idea of what I think is going on when people who claim to be Christian don't do the will of the one who Jesus represents:

John 7:16-17 (New Living Translation)

16 So Jesus told them, “My message is not my own; it comes from God who sent me. 17 Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own.

Matthew 7:21-23 (New Living Translation)

True Disciples

21 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. 22 On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23 But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’

And don't forget the woman who they brought to Jesus to stone for adultery. What did He do? He turned her accusers to see their own sin and then forgave her and told her to repent. There is a time for God's justice, there is a time for forgiveness, and there is a time to accept His Lordship in your life.

Well. Though my purpose is only as malicious as the responses allow. Hope to hear more.

Good, then I hope we have put a cap on it. Nice to speak with you.

 

[AlexBP]

If you believe that religion is primarily a force for good in the world, how do you reconcile these statistics?

Firstly, saying whether religion is a force for good in the world generally is obviously too broad. I believe that Christianity is a force for good, and so are some other religions. Others, such as Islam, are a force for evil.

On the issue of statistics, I have trouble taking them seriously. Your table gives each state a number for religiousness, but religiousness is not a numerical thing. One could, of course, give people a survey, weight their answers in certain ways, and purport to assign a number in that way, but then your definition of how religious a state is would depend on the survey and the weighting. Write a different survey and you'd get a different number. Similarly, generosity and contentment are not numerical quantities.

Your table has a number of different statistics which you sum up as "quality of life". However, one could easily name many other things that might be included under the banner of quality of life. Perhaps whoever made this table took statistics concerning fifty different measures of quality of life, threw out those which looked favorable for more religious states, and kept only those that served his agenda. This is a well-known and very common trick that is often used to produce misleading statistics.

In any case, the measures that your table includes are not necessarily indicators of quality of life as much as ability to play by society's rules. You can count thefts, but that presumably only counts thefts by the official definition. If some guy in Mississippi breaks into a house and steals a TV, that's an official theft. But if a wealthy banker on Wall Street finds a new way to swindle his investors out of millions, it will probably not count as theft because it's not actually illegal.

It's worth considering that by these measures, individuals such as Martin Luther King, Ceasar Chavez, Mahatma Gandhi, and Saint Francis of Assisi would make negative contributions to quality of life, since many of them were poor, broke the laws, and died early. For that matter Jesus Christ would make a negative contribution to the quality of life for the same reasons.

In the end, I think that Jesus has answered this question already in the passage in Mark where the Pharisees point out that his entourage is full of tax collectors and other undesirables. Jesus responds "Yup, and I'm durn proud of it too." (That's a paraphrase, not his exact words, but it gets the point across.)

 

[ericlawrence]

Now, how does this stack up to the "religion" you imagine "Christianity" to be? I imagine that you think it is a matter of people drawing their friends into the church, dangling some candy in their face and signing them up for a lifetime of free weekly sausage sizzles - about right? Or that a group of people get together and read in the Bible how good they are and how evil the world is, and how we must go out there and tell them or they're doomed. Yah? I think for an outsider to have any opinion on a religion, it is going to be a reflection of their own beliefs, and somewhere along the line the bias's will become so obvious that maybe they'll lie, maybe they'll fight, maybe they'll give up, but goodness me if they won't do anything to prove how right they are.

There is an ongoing debate over what constitutes a Christian, or to put it bluntly, "What is the least a person can believe and still be a Christian?" I would have to say that if you do not believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened and was necessary then you are in no meaningful sense a Christian. At it's core, this is all I imagine Christianity to be. I realize there are many conflicting opinions within the church in regards many of the tenets and philosophies outside of that. However, you must understand that not being a Christian myself (not accepting the sacrifice), I'm inclined to take the words of the religious texts and to a lesser extent, the religious leaders at face value. When Joseph Ratzinger says that AIDS is bad, but not quite as bad as condoms - I don't think it's unfair of me to attribute this to some (and in this case, a large) sect of Christianity. Are these the literal words of Jesus Christ? Well, Ratzinger claims they are. Obviously I'm skeptical of the claim, but that doesn't matter. For the sake of this argument I'm only implying that religion itself is a force of evil in the world. Though I also believe that the purported words and actions of Jesus Christ were evil as well, that is a different topic.

Now, when I said I don't believe religion is a force for good in the world it is because when I look around me, I see people who curse each other, bomb other nations, bomb abortion clinics, exterminate Jews, exterminate Falun Dafa, exterminate Christians. No, of course religion does not have a positive effect on our world, and I think you summarized it quite well by saying that many of the religious practitioners are focussed on dogma rather than critical thinking. Now, if you had to pick one of the two (and let us assume we agree which is the better trait), which do you believe Jesus taught? Does Jesus teach us to think critically or does He teach us to believe dogma?

Perfect. This ties in well with my comments above. I do not think that Jesus did teach critical thinking. On top of that I don't believe that his preachings were moral. Jesus makes a clear appeal to the dogmatic approach in Matthew by confirming that he has come to uphold Jewish law. Matthew 5:17 reads: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." As we've defined, dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Jesus confirms the Old Testament law handed down by the creator of the universe as incontrovertible. But this isn't enough it would seem. Jesus goes on to take, which are in my opinion, the few legitimate and innate commandments and "religions them up" a bit. Lust in your heart is adultery. Hatred in your heart is murder. You're no longer being commanded on what you can and can't do. You're being commanded on what you can and can't think. This is not a moral preaching. This is thoughtcrime. The very essence of the totalitarian regime. I claim the right to look at anyone who implies it with disdain and with disgust.

Since you seem to be inquiring about my specific faith, I'd like to see your answer to this question, because I too like to encourage critical thinking and I think that if we investigate each other we may be able to share an understanding of what about Jesus' teaching I find good, and what about the religion which represents His teaching I find to not be so good for society. Are you willing to participate?

I'm more than willing participate, but as you may now realize there will likely be more hangups that you initially might have supposed. I don't find Jesus' teachings to be good. Given the hypothetical assumption that Jesus Christ did indeed exist as more than mere legend, I find him to be a lunatic or something worse.

 

[ericlawrence]

Firstly, saying whether religion is a force for good in the world generally is obviously too broad. I believe that Christianity is a force for good, and so are some other religions. Others, such as Islam, are a force for evil.

Fair enough. For the sake of discussion we can refine my assertion as "Christianity is a force of evil in the world."

On the issue of statistics, I have trouble taking them seriously. Your table gives each state a number for religiousness, but religiousness is not a numerical thing. One could, of course, give people a survey, weight their answers in certain ways, and purport to assign a number in that way, but then your definition of how religious a state is would depend on the survey and the weighting. Write a different survey and you'd get a different number. Similarly, generosity and contentment are not numerical quantities.

I'm not entirely sure what algorithm is used to calculate religiosity. However, I'm convinced that they got it right. Mississippi is more religious than Iowa. Iowa is more religious than Vermont. Unless if you believe that top ten religious states on the chart are significantly less religious than any of the other states, then the implication should hold water.

Your table has a number of different statistics which you sum up as "quality of life". However, one could easily name many other things that might be included under the banner of quality of life. Perhaps whoever made this table took statistics concerning fifty different measures of quality of life, threw out those which looked favorable for more religious states, and kept only those that served his agenda. This is a well-known and very common trick that is often used to produce misleading statistics.

Good point. What would be some examples of things encompassed by "quality of life" that you think would exhibit a positive correlation with religiosity?

In any case, the measures that your table includes are not necessarily indicators of quality of life as much as ability to play by society's rules. You can count thefts, but that presumably only counts thefts by the official definition. If some guy in Mississippi breaks into a house and steals a TV, that's an official theft. But if a wealthy banker on Wall Street finds a new way to swindle his investors out of millions, it will probably not count as theft because it's not actually illegal.

I think most of the criteria is fairly clear cut. I suppose a column could theoretically be added for "number of Wall Street bankers who swindle investors out of money" but I don't think it would throw the general implication by more than a degree or so. The fact of the matter is that average rate of poverty, murder, and theft climbs with the rate of professed religiosity. We could say that perhaps poverty, murder, and theft cause religion as oppose to religion causing poverty, murder, and theft. That subject is up for debate. However, we must first acknowledge that the correlation is there.

It's worth considering that by these measures, individuals such as Martin Luther King, Ceasar Chavez, Mahatma Gandhi, and Saint Francis of Assisi would make negative contributions to quality of life, since many of them were poor, broke the laws, and died early. For that matter Jesus Christ would make a negative contribution to the quality of life for the same reasons.

This is interesting, though I doubt Mahatma Gandhi would have contributed to low IQ, theft, and murder rates. Still, living in poverty and dying early would rightly contribute negatively to quality of life.

In the end, I think that Jesus has answered this question already in the passage in Mark where the Pharisees point out that his entourage is full of tax collectors and other undesirables. Jesus responds "Yup, and I'm durn proud of it too." (That's a paraphrase, not his exact words, but it gets the point across.)

Not a very satisfying response in my opinion.

 

[Supreme]

Religion gets in the way. Jesus came to abolish religion. What a shame that some still live in the religious ways of the Pharisees. They haven't heard the message of Jesus.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Several thoughts:

If one removed the column of average religiousness and reordered it on average IQ, would it be fair to conclude that average lower intelligence is causal in violence--I am sure a case could be made that a lack of education is a contributing factor to criminal activity--but I have a feeling that if another case study were made, we'd find that some of the more violent persons in American history were intelligent people. This of course, I don't think, means that higher intelligence is bad or not a force of good, nor that there isn't a problem of criminality that most likely can be at least partially attributed to areas of general lower income and less education (and the two in many cases come together). My main thought here, therefore, is that I'm not convinced that a stat block such as the one presented is a reliable way of finding causality.

Following that, another point would be that if one were to, say, compare Mississippi and Louisiana, Mississippi has a higher rate of religiousness, but has half the murder rate of Louisiana, about 800 less occurrences of theft, and is statistically more generous.

Another way to look at it could be if one were to compare average ethnic minority; I don't think it's unfair to say that Mississippi probably has a larger African American population than Vermont, and with a stat block such as this one could make a conclusion that most of us would regard as intrinsically racist; though a better case could be made that in a lot of cases African Americans are still suffering from prejudice and discrimination and we are still living in a society of white privilege and it is harder for African Americans to share in the quality of life that many whites do. Thus we live in a culture that helps perpetuate criminality among the disenfranchised, the answer in that case would be not that African Americans are more likely to commit crimes (that is racist and only fosters further racial discrimination against persons of color) but instead to recognize the innate and intrinsic problems of racism and discrimination still prevalent in our culture and cut it at the root and provide better opportunities for those in our society to excel, not only those who face racial discrimination but those in general who also face struggles based on their income level and other factors.

There is also the problem with "religiousness" in general, as there is no such thing as plain "religion" there are, instead, religions; as Buddhism and Christianity are very different sorts of organisms that may at points intersect on points of ethics but in terms of what they are and how they operate are very distinct things and calling both "religion" is rather a case of categorical convenience. Religion itself being a rather fluid term. So when we talk about what is the majority and dominant religious system in operation within the United States--Christianity--it's a bit different than minority religions such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism; and even then is the issue that Christianity is bad or produces more bad fruit than the rest on the intrinsic nature of itself over and against the rest, or is it that it exists as the dominant religious structure in American life that for many it is just a matter of course and may or may not play a role in their acting out on their ethics? I'm sure that one examined those of minority religions in America we might find a somewhat different set of statistics, are practicing Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims in America more-or-less likely to engage in violent or criminal behavior than those who don't share their religiousness?

Those are just a few of my thoughts here, and don't necessarily argue in favor or against the idea of religion as a force for good in the world, which I think is an entirely too broad a statement to be taken at face value and probably would deserve a better and more comprehensive undertaking.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[drich0150]

Because the chart is only concerned with America. However, you mentioned North Korea. I'd like to run with that. The president of North Korea is not among the living. Kim Jong Il is head of the party and head of the army - he's not the head of the state. That office belongs to his deceased father, Kim Il Sung. They have what you might call a necrocracy. When we drop crates of food down over their country to keep their civilians from starving to death the people of North Korea believe that these are devotional offerings to their great and infallible leader. When Kim Il Sung was born it is taught and believed that birds sang in Korean and he performed the cutting of his own umbilical chord. They believe that the son is the reincarnation of the father. It's one short of a trinity, I might add. Tell me now, do you truly believe that the problem with North Korea is too much skeptical inquiry - too little faith in the dogma of an infallible king?

당신은 더 많은 학위보다는는 CNN의 전문가인 한국의 정치

But I digress, I guess we speak on what we know. Or in your case what you think you know.

Now to the bulk of your message. Your chart offerers incomplete data to support your presumptuous inquiry. That is why I suggested you take data from other places where God and religion has been suppressed to give a more accurate picture of the dichotomy that you are trying to misrepresent. Now because the United states is supposed to be a place where religion and God can not be suppressed you will have to goto "other" countries to draw any sort of accurate conclusion. I offered three, it is fortunate that you happen to pick the one I am from to soap box the rest of your message on..

I could go through and pick apart your limited understanding of the relationship the people of the north have with their great leader, or point out that the US is not currently involved with any North Korean support. (That's what an embargo means) That is in fact China who is offering Aid to the North... outside of the food sent in 2008 by bush as an olive branch to get the talks on Kim's nukes on the table the US has not sent any food directly since '06. But none of this has anything to do with a true exploration of Christianity.

So back to the "exploration." The worship of an infallible King is not wrong. In fact it is commanded. The worship of a fallible man in place of the worship of an infallible deity is wrong. The people of the North have reaped what it is they have sown. In turn those as members of Christianity will also reap what they have sown.. In a small way even today, the yield of this nation's crop (As worshipers of the infallible King) far and away exceeds the worship of the people who have taken one of their own and have worshiped him as God..

So one sided chart aside how can you realistically condemn the actions of the faithful, to the actions of those who while in power have placed themselves in the role of God? If one only looked at the works produced by the faithful verses the self righteous, one could see a sharp contrast. It must take alot of hate and anger to say these two groups produce the same crop. What do you say?

 

[AlexBP]

I'm not entirely sure what algorithm is used to calculate religiosity. However, I'm convinced that they got it right. Mississippi is more religious than Iowa. Iowa is more religious than Vermont. Unless if you believe that top ten religious states on the chart are significantly less religious than any of the other states, then the implication should hold water.

More religious by what definition? Suppose we define a state's religiosity by the percentage of children who attend religious schools. If so, we'd probably find that the northeastern states are the most religious. More people up there can afford private school, and Lord knows almost anyone who is able to get their kids out of the American public school system will choose to do so.

I think most of the criteria is fairly clear cut. I suppose a column could theoretically be added for "number of Wall Street bankers who swindle investors out of money" but I don't think it would throw the general implication by more than a degree or so. The fact of the matter is that average rate of poverty, murder, and theft climbs with the rate of professed religiosity. We could say that perhaps poverty, murder, and theft cause religion as oppose to religion causing poverty, murder, and theft. That subject is up for debate. However, we must first acknowledge that the correlation is there.

A thief who breaks into a house and steals a television irritates one household. A banker who commits financial fraud may ruin the lives of thousands. Hence the two are not comparable, and merely counting up the numbers of each tells us nothing. Personally I feel that the rate of financial fraud is a much better measure of a society than the rate of ordinary theft. That's just my opinion, however.

The point is that all moral comparisons involve moral judgements. If I don't agree with the judgement, then I've no reason to agree with the correlation that you're finding. For instance, when you point to theft, you obviously believe that it's wrong to break into someone's house and steal their stuff. But is it also wrong for the government to levy a tax on me, take my money by force, and give that money to a well-funded special interest group? You obviously believe that it's wrong for someone to shoot his neighbor. But is it also wrong for the government to shoot thousands of people in a foreign country? If so, then comparisons that count up only certain types of theft and murder while ignoring others mean nothing.

Another point worth mentioning is that correlation is wherever you're determined to find it. Consider, for instance, that woman are vastly more likely to self-identify as religious, pray daily, and attend church weekly than men are. Now men are scores of times more likely to commit a violent crime than women. So if divide the population by gender rather than by state, the results point to religion not being associated with crime. Or, likewise, the elderly are much more likely to attend church than teens and young adults, while teens and young adults are much more likely to commit crimes. So if we divide the population by age, again less crime correlates with more religious observance.

 

[razeontherock]

I would have thought that "strong belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" would have been more accurate. How do you feel?

Well first I know both Drich and oi antz quite well, and I'm not about to get their responses confused. Next up, the definition of "Faith" is not something Christians are about to fork over to Webster or the likes.

Here's a primer:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

While this at first no doubt seems to be even more muddied, as a first step to what our Lord means by the concept, it's unbeatable.

What does this have to do with your chart? My original point, that it doesn't really portray what's going on the way it seems. There's a whole lot not accounted for! For example, if you merely took an overlay of economic opportunity and compared it to the geographic areas in question, you might see a pattern emerge ...

 

[oi_antz]

There is an ongoing debate over what constitutes a Christian, or to put it bluntly, "What is the least a person can believe and still be a Christian?" I would have to say that if you do not believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened and was necessary then you are in no meaningful sense a Christian. At it's core, this is all I imagine Christianity to be. I realize there are many conflicting opinions within the church in regards many of the tenets and philosophies outside of that. However, you must understand that not being a Christian myself (not accepting the sacrifice), I'm inclined to take the words of the religious texts and to a lesser extent, the religious leaders at face value. When Joseph Ratzinger says that AIDS is bad, but not quite as bad as condoms - I don't think it's unfair of me to attribute this to some (and in this case, a large) sect of Christianity. Are these the literal words of Jesus Christ? Well, Ratzinger claims they are. Obviously I'm skeptical of the claim, but that doesn't matter. For the sake of this argument I'm only implying that religion itself is a force of evil in the world. Though I also believe that the purported words and actions of Jesus Christ were evil as well, that is a different topic.


Perfect. This ties in well with my comments above. I do not think that Jesus did teach critical thinking. On top of that I don't believe that his preachings were moral. Jesus makes a clear appeal to the dogmatic approach in Matthew by confirming that he has come to uphold Jewish law. Matthew 5:17 reads: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." As we've defined, dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Jesus confirms the Old Testament law handed down by the creator of the universe as incontrovertible. But this isn't enough it would seem. Jesus goes on to take, which are in my opinion, the few legitimate and innate commandments and "religions them up" a bit. Lust in your heart is adultery. Hatred in your heart is murder. You're no longer being commanded on what you can and can't do. You're being commanded on what you can and can't think. This is not a moral preaching. This is thoughtcrime. The very essence of the totalitarian regime. I claim the right to look at anyone who implies it with disdain and with disgust.


I'm more than willing participate, but as you may now realize there will likely be more hangups that you initially might have supposed. I don't find Jesus' teachings to be good. Given the hypothetical assumption that Jesus Christ did indeed exist as more than mere legend, I find him to be a lunatic or something worse.

Ok, thanks for telling me that before taking me too far, it sometimes gets extremely disheartening when I think I could have spent my time in the shade and fresh air instead of speaking to a wall. So, all the best for you as you try to figure out your own concept of what is good for society, I know that you will one day find that regardless of the institution that dictates a society, it will be victim of human corruption through greed. Nonetheless, I must tell you if we are to take sides on Jesus, I stand with the one who tells us what my conscience tells me even when I don't like what it says, you may very well choose to take side with someone who tells you things that tickle your ears and achieve by that whatever your heart desires.

Again, I must thank you for your honesty and being upfront instead of taking me for a walk down an endless path, I appreciate that much more than pretending to care what I think

 

[ericlawrence]

Again, I must thank you for your honesty and being upfront instead of taking me for a walk down an endless path, I appreciate that much more than pretending to care what I think

I wouldn't want you to get the impression that I don't care what you think. I'm here because I'm interested in exploring the implications of theism with those who accept the premise.

 

[salida]

There are a lot of variables involved:

What do you mean by religious? Just showing up at church? You said the world-you just mentioned the U.S.? If the religion gives to the poor,charities and helps the widow, etc-it helps the world.

Is religion the cause of most wars?
http://www.gotquestions.org/religion-war.html

 

[razeontherock]

The idea is not necessarily that religion directly causes a lower quality of life (though it isn't something we can overlook either), but that (in the United States) lower levels of religiosity generally equate to higher levels of intelligence and wellbeing. I think a more important question, and I hate to point this out, is what to make of the negative correlation between religiosity and IQ.

I think this deserves commenting on. For your comment to be valid, you have to lump all "religious persons" together. That can't be done. What can be done, with limited success, but well enough to become statistically significant, is for socio-economic trends to shape the mindset of a region.

Now contrast this to what Jesus taught, and you see there's virtually no overlap. You have not provided a causal link.

As poverty is considered a virtue by many religions, its appeal to the poor is not surprising. But does religion help those with minimal wealth? I say not.

Ok first of all, your chart targets rural America. Especially the South, IIRC. So the word "religions" just does NOT apply. Let's call a spade a spade, and not tiptoe around the word "Christianity." (C for short)

Is C supposed to make you rich? Does it value poverty? No to both, but there are horrible false ideas and teaching on both. So it's quite likely (or at least plausible) that any effect seen in your chart is caused more by false teaching than by C itself. Now if your point were that "false teaching within C is bad..."

Religion has been a driving force for maintaing the existence of poverty, namely due to its position on birth control and women's rights.

I see you don't live in the US, but you left the door wide open for joking about you being prejudiced enough to be part of the KKK. Now if you want to say that RC's position on birth control helps to maintain poverty, you won't get an argument from me. I'm not sure RC still oppresses women's rights. It would be interesting to compare those States at the top of your chart to % of C's that are RC vs other.

C has no position on birth control or women's rights that maintains poverty. The Bible teaches the opposite, all the way back to King David.

As religiosity goes up so does the rate of reproduction all the while the rights of women go down. This is a dangerous formula. What I believe to be a driving factor behind the statistics in said chart.

Your belief in this instance is mere bias. It's unsubstantiated, yet it may pertain to "religiosity," while having no bearing on following Jesus. So if you're trying to join antz, Drich and myself on our crusade to make the difference clear, welcome aboard!

Is the man who murders his wife for adultery a true believer or has he "distorted" the faith? Surely you can see were one might get confused, given the explicit (and often contradicting) instruction written in the religious text itself.

You just tipped your hand as one who is not familiar with the subject matter. Yet again, the distinction between "religiosity" and actually following Jesus is what's at issue. And ultimately, the only "authority" for making that distinction in this lifetime lies on the individual. Obviously, your chart makes no such distinctions, but presents socio-economic trends, and uses rather subjective means to do so.

 

[razeontherock]

When Joseph Ratzinger says that AIDS is bad, but not quite as bad as condoms - I don't think it's unfair of me to attribute this to some (and in this case, a large) sect of Christianity.

I started a thread on that To sum it up, we agree.

I also believe that the purported words and actions of Jesus Christ were evil as well, that is a different topic.

You should start a thread on this. I'm not sure how you could do it and tiptoe around the rules - scratch that; you could simply ask questions rather than make statements. and either as an OP or a later post, this would keep things for a while:

I do not think that Jesus did teach critical thinking. On top of that I don't believe that his preachings were moral. Jesus makes a clear appeal to the dogmatic approach in Matthew by confirming that he has come to uphold Jewish law. Matthew 5:17 reads: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

 

[razeontherock]

another point would be that if one were to, say, compare Mississippi and Louisiana, Mississippi has a higher rate of religiousness, but has half the murder rate of Louisiana, about 800 less occurrences of theft, and is statistically more generous.

So cajuns are ebil - no more blackened catfish for me The statistics prove it!

Joking aside, I enjoyed your post. I find it interesting to see the common ground emerging in the responses.

 

[Sketcher]

Is your issue that the statistics are somehow flawed or misrepresented then? Or are you suggesting that the data does not demonstrate that religion causes these statistics. In the later case I'm inclined to agree. However, it cannot be argued that they do not go hand in hand.

Religion is certainly not a cause, and there are too many holes in the statistics to even reasonably suggest a correlation. Divorce rate? Oh snap, there's South Carolina right down there with Vermont. Generosity? The top five religious and non-religious states are about even. Murder? Uh oh, there's Utah. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it is the adherent Christians who are doing the bad things reported in the religious states. Environmental and economic issues weren't even factored in (Louisiana is still hurting from Katrina, for example).

 

[ericlawrence]

Now to the bulk of your message. Your chart offerers incomplete data to support your presumptuous inquiry. That is why I suggested you take data from other places where God and religion has been suppressed to give a more accurate picture of the dichotomy that you are trying to misrepresent. Now because the United states is supposed to be a place where religion and God can not be suppressed you will have to goto "other" countries to draw any sort of accurate conclusion. I offered three, it is fortunate that you happen to pick the one I am from to soap box the rest of your message on..

The topic at hand is not the results of religious suppression. My argument is not "Religion bad. Therefor religious suppression good." As I attempted to illustrate, religious suppression is largely accompanied by competing claims of supernaturalism and dogma. If you believe that I have offered a misrepresentation then you have only replied in kind.

I could go through and pick apart your limited understanding of the relationship the people of the north have with their great leader, or point out that the US is not currently involved with any North Korean support. (That's what an embargo means) That is in fact China who is offering Aid to the North... outside of the food sent in 2008 by bush as an olive branch to get the talks on Kim's nukes on the table the US has not sent any food directly since '06. But none of this has anything to do with a true exploration of Christianity.

Actually, it would be interesting if you did pick apart my understanding of North Korea. As I've never been there myself, I know only what I've read and seen in documentaries. Is it not true that the food sent (in 2008, as you so politely emphasized) was believed to be a devotional offering to Kim Jong Il?

So back to the "exploration." The worship of an infallible King is not wrong. In fact it is commanded. The worship of a fallible man in place of the worship of an infallible deity is wrong. The people of the North have reaped what it is they have sown. In turn those as members of Christianity will also reap what they have sown.. In a small way even today, the yield of this nation's crop (As worshipers of the infallible King) far and away exceeds the worship of the people who have taken one of their own and have worshiped him as God..

I disagree. There very idea of an infallible king is wrong. You say Kim Jong Il is a fallible man masquerading as an infallible deity. I'm sure he has a different opinion. But it wouldn't matter to me if he was a god or not. I don't accept the premise infallibility and absolutism and I don't accept the premise of an eternal kingdom from which there is no appeal - be it in this world or the next.

So one sided chart aside how can you realistically condemn the actions of the faithful, to the actions of those who while in power have placed themselves in the role of God? If one only looked at the works produced by the faithful verses the self righteous, one could see a sharp contrast. It must take alot of hate and anger to say these two groups produce the same crop. What do you say?

Of course, the faithful are capable of performing good and moral actions. I'm not all that impressed. I'm significantly more impressed by a good and moral action performed by one who does not believe he is being compelled to do so by a celestial dictator. So some religious people are sort of okay. I don't oppose this. They are of the same crop only that they both exhibit faith itself - a belief for which there is no evidence. This I do not find to be a virtue, but that is not to say that I wish to suppress it. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. However, it is alarmingly frequent that this boundary is overstepped. If you want to believe that you are created from dirt, born into sin, bound by a 2000 year old human sacrifice, and constantly monitored by an invisible judge, jury, and executioner who can convict you of thoughtcrime - then you a free to believe such. But you mustn't tell me that my children learn this babble under the guise of science, or that the laws must reflect that of these ancient beliefs, or that I'm not a citizen of this country until I believe these things too. This is the only time that hatred and anger ever begin to enter the picture.

The purpose of this thread is not to say that religious suppression is answer to all of Earth's problems. Simply to discuss the correlation between religiosity, intelligence, and general well being in the United States.

 

[ericlawrence]

You should start a thread on this. I'm not sure how you could do it and tiptoe around the rules - scratch that; you could simply ask questions rather than make statements. and either as an OP or a later post, this would keep things for a while:

I plan to. I think it's a topic that many people take a granted. "Are the doctrines of Jesus Christ ethical?"