NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

Just wondered what people thought about this.

There was a thread on this topic the other day... I didn't think the numbers supported that conclusion, but don't let that stop anyone.

Plumbridge']http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

Just wondered what people thought about this.
Just a brief read of the article makes it look like the central claim is that, although citizens in the U.S. think it is a Christian society, there is still a lot of violence. What they don't consider is that we have a very secular government. You'd probably have to do this on a town by town, or county by county basis to even start understanding how religious beliefs influence criminal behavior.

Just a brief read of the article makes it look like the central claim is that, although citizens in the U.S. think it is a Christian society, there is still a lot of violence. What they don't consider is that we have a very secular government. You'd probably have to do this on a town by town, or county by county basis to even start understanding how religious beliefs influence criminal behavior.
Yeah unless I see more on the study itself I would have to say there are just too many variables to avoid type 1 and 2 errors at an unacceptable rate

I don’t know how the even started doing the regression on this sort of complex situation and got out with an acceptable standard of error

This was commented on already. The study is flawed because it assumes a cause and effect relationship, but there is no reason to think their is. The US is more religious then most of the countries they surveyed, but it also has more violent crime. So they conclude that religion causes violent crime. There is no reason given for why one should think the two are related.

Plumbridge']http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

Just wondered what people thought about this.
The study is comparing apples and oranges, it seems. Just because the US has a high percentage of "believers" does not mean that is the "cause" of "high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide."

It's a logical fallacy called "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which means, literally translated, "after this, therefore because of this." I'm unimpressed.

The study is comparing apples and oranges, it seems. Just because the US has a high percentage of "believers" does not mean that is the "cause" of "high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide."

It's a logical fallacy called "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which means, literally translated, "after this, therefore because of this." I'm unimpressed.

You are right that correlation doesn't imply causation as there are many other factors at play, but the correlation in and of itself is... interesting.

At the very least this is good ammo against those who automatically assume that more religious = better society; like Islamic militants and Neo-cons.

Oh, and I figure this image is appropriate for the message of this thread -

http://gallery.image4free.com/albums/userpics/11154/image_274780.jpg
:D

That is a pretty silly study. Its like saying that because women are allowed to vote now, and society is becoming crappy, women's voting rights must be responsible.

Still, I think religious beliefs do damage society. And atheistic beliefs damage society too. The fact that humans are what makes up human society means damage is unavoidable. If you build a house on weak foundations, the house is going to start crumbling eventually, and as foundations go, humans are pretty damn weak.

The study is comparing apples and oranges, it seems. Just because the US has a high percentage of "believers" does not mean that is the "cause" of "high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide."

It's a logical fallacy called "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which means, literally translated, "after this, therefore because of this." I'm unimpressed.

I agree that there really isn't causation between the two, and I don't think that they could prove it as I doubt they have an adequate control sample to choose from.

Christians, however, would like to believe that religious belief causes people to be more moral and kind, when this article shows that it is not true at all.

That is a pretty silly study. Its like saying that because women are allowed to vote now, and society is becoming crappy, women's voting rights must be responsible.

I look at as saying we have allowed women to vote, but they are still oppressed, so women's sufferage just isn't working.

I think where this article goes wrong - other than the ridiculous assumption that the entire populace of all countries act entirely the same, only differing because of their beliefs, as pretty much everyone who's already posted has pointed out - if equating 'religious beliefs' with 'religious practices'. Now, ideally, everyone who held religious (for the sake of argument I'll take Christian beliefs) beliefs would practive them fully - loving everyone as you do yourself, turning the other cheek, blessing your enemies and so forth. However, simply saying you believe in God, or the Christian message, doesn't mean you actually practice Christianity. It's like Al Queda (sp?) who claim to be Muslims, yet flout the Qu'ran (again sp?) by killing hundreds of people.

It's people like this (by which I mean people who claim to be Christian but aren't at all) who give the rest of us who actually try to practice the Message in our lives a crappy name. No doubt practicing Muslims feel the same about Al Queda.

lol... I doubt society would even EXIST if it weren't for religious beliefs :)

It's bollix. This study is on a par with those that say eating (fill in favourite food here) can cause rectal cancer.

"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." Yes, well, correlation is not causation, not even, in this case, an indicator of it. As far as can be seen from the article, there has been no direct connection demonstrated between religion and these social factors. Perhaps that's elsewhere, though.

The study is comparing apples and oranges, it seems. Just because the US has a high percentage of "believers" does not mean that is the "cause" of "high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide."

It's a logical fallacy called "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which means, literally translated, "after this, therefore because of this." I'm unimpressed.
Maybe, but there seems to be a correlation between religious beleif and dysfunctional societies. Look at the people we're at war with, the terrorists and the nations that support them. They are devout beleivers. Look at the nations that have failed to develop and rely on international aid to get by, especially in sub-saharan Africa. They are very religious. Now look at the nations where religion is mainly ignored. The nations of Europe, China and Japan, they're prospering and modernizing.

I think this article serves better as a counter-argument than an argument.

If used as an argument that immorality and religion are linked, it becomes flawed, as pointed out.

If used as a counter-argument to the claim that lack of religion causes immorality (or religion creates morality), it works because it shows the most religious places to also have the greatest immorality.

Therefore, I think it works better to say that:
Religion =/= morality
Lack thereof =/= immorality

though it cannot say:
Religion = immorality
Lack thereof =morality

This study reflects the nature of secularism, which says that religin does impede on the ability of people to remain unbias; that it is a means of justifying ignorance and any form of discrimination (it can come in any form and not just racist or sexist...), which appears more rampant in the USA than the other countries mentioned in this study, which have shown to have less religious influence in their everyday doings as a society.

I think this article serves better as a counter-argument than an argument.

If used as an argument that immorality and religion are linked, it becomes flawed, as pointed out.

If used as a counter-argument to the claim that lack of religion causes immorality (or religion creates morality), it works because it shows the most religious places to also have the greatest immorality.

Therefore, I think it works better to say that:
Religion =/= morality
Lack thereof =/= immorality

though it cannot say:
Religion = immorality
Lack thereof =morality

And with that, you win this thread.

Have a cookie.

*hands cookie*

I figure this image is appropriate for the message of this thread -

http://gallery.image4free.com/albums/userpics/11154/image_274780.jpg
:D
Um ... I don't get it! :confused:

Um ... I don't get it! :confused:

... niether do I frankly. But it just keeps making me laugh. So much so that I printed it out and hung it in my dorm room.

Have you seen the new Burger King commercials? That King guy is just creepy, but in a funny way. It draws off of that methinks.

And since it says "where is your god now?," I was just employing it to poke fun at the religious people who say that more religion = better society. Where IS their God now?... muwahahaha.

... no I'm not high. Just so we're clear. :p

And with that, you win this thread.

Have a cookie.

*hands cookie*

*eats cookie*

I knew those philosophy classes were good for something

*munches*