Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[Ak Mike]

Without commenting on anything else said by msmith, at #466 she said that Americans are more generous, giving more in charity. There were responses that other countries give more per capita in foreign aid. The two things are completely different, although it is quite interesting that some people conflate individuals making voluntary contributions of their disposable income to charity, with politicians using taxpayer money to fund foreign aid projects, many of which are for the primary benefit of donor-country businesses.

Foreign aid has been called "money given by poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries."

[Gideon]

Originally Posted by tompe

It has gone up from a very low value. It is still pretty low compared to what it used to be from my point of view.

Also as I have read the evidence it is the case that for example the higher eduction the less religiosity. For example

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/intelligence.html

claim that in the general population in US belief in god is 90% but for scientists with B.S it is 40% and for eminent scientists it is 10%..

I doubt it as simple as that. If I remember correctly there is also a higher correlation regarding education and liberal attitudes. And liberal attitudes tend to be more hostile towards religion because of the perception that religion fosters non-liberal attitudes. (And I'm very liberal myself.)

I doubt it is "I'm educated, so I don't believe in God." But I'd have to see those studies in more detail. The general tone of that website would make me suspicious towards its use in any real way.

Harris in his book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," manipulated a number of statistical findings to better make his case. Once you go and look at the data yourself you find that the studies were not saying what he said they did (and it wasn't always easy because his bibliography was crap). The numbers were usually the same but a slight rephrasing of the question can be very important. Harris, I believe, equated asking about the belief in a 'personal god' with the belief in god in general. The two aren't the same thing. I'm not sure I'd say yes to "do you believe in a personal God."

There's a reason Benjamin Disraeli/Mark Twain said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Statistics on the surface mean very little, you have to know a great deal of context and information about the data itself and even then you need to know what to look for that can cause bias in the answers or questions.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by msmith

... it was absurd and ignorant for a previous poster to infer that atheists are "smarter" that people of faith....

Did this compilation of actual studies on the subject somehow go unnoticed? Or was it hard to understand (the pictures should have made it easier?)

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/jesus/inte...20religion.htm

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Gideon

... I don't think what people believe matters terribly much. I'm only concerned with how people act....

This is a great rule to live by.

Unfortunately, too many act in accordance with their (sometimes absurd) beliefs, often to the detriment of scientific research, education, or personal freedom. And as you can see from this thread, even to the detriment of Japanese electronic manufacturers and British evolutionary biology writers.

[Gideon]

Yes, but my entire point is people are going to act on their absurd beliefs with or without science and research. Some of us may be able to look at research and reason our beliefs out on that, but most people don't. And most people won't.

People are stupid - they cling on to things with or without reason and often no amount of reason will change them. The whole argument is really moot on that point. I'm sympathetic with that particular part of the atheist polemic (trying to deal with these issues that get obfuscated by religion often) but I think they're screwing up by attacking religion en masse and treating it as all the same. It may have "unrational foundations" no matter what (and I'm not convinced it does. I think the evidentialist argument is a bit crap) but if we're talking about the values people pursue and what a reasonable society should look like...

Argue for that. Argue for the value of those reasonable beliefs. You don't attack someone foundationally - that just makes them defensive. You show them how what they believe foundationally doesn't necessarily lead to to the negative actions. There's a lot of common cause with atheists and liberal religionists (liberal in a theological sense) and that would be better served by working together against those problems than pretending like your local Episcopalian has much in common with your local Southern Baptist.

But even if you have a society of atheists - you're still going to have a lot of unreflective, idiot atheists that will do whatever someone tells them to. You'll have petty prejudices and constantly creates "others" and "outgroups" they can be against. The ways in which they passionately order their life will no longer be God but some other nonsense things. It's easy if you're a fairly intelligent person with some education to go "well, I'd not go along with that" but it happens. And your average intelligent, educated person is not a typical example of humanity.

I just think this whole issue is a red herring. It divides our common purposes. It gives the people we both think are problematic a common cause and a rallying point. It's like the "war on Christmas."

Ultimately, I view it like this: If you're concerned about what the evil that religion may partake in - there are better ways to fight it - ways that might actually accomplish something. If you just want to complain about religion and religion people - you just keep doing what you're doing.

(and I mean "you," of course, in the sense of speaking to atheists that take the position of these "new atheists.")

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

Without commenting on anything else said by msmith, at #466 she said that Americans are more generous, giving more in charity. There were responses that other countries give more per capita in foreign aid. The two things are completely different, although it is quite interesting that some people conflate individuals making voluntary contributions of their disposable income to charity, with politicians using taxpayer money to fund foreign aid projects, many of which are for the primary benefit of donor-country businesses.

Foreign aid has been called "money given by poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries."

To take this observation a bit farther, the blog post (with numbers) that was linked to earlier in this thread was considering government foreign aid. But Americans give far more charity to other countries as private individuals than the sum total of the U.S. Gov't's foreign aid budget. (Reference missing. I had one, but I've misplaced it.) The charity given as private individuals may be what prior posters were talking about.

It's a cultural difference between the US and Europe (at least). Most Americans don't worry (much) about what aid the govt is giving out -- if we want aid to go somewhere, we find an appropriate charity and give them some money. By comparison (caveat: possibly speaking out of my *ss here) I have been told that in Europe there is more of a "already paid for that in my taxes" attitude (remember that caveat earlier in the sentence, though).

Not claiming any specific superiority here, by the way. It's a different approach to giving out aid. Not necessarily better, just different.

Xenophon

[Sonist]

Kind of on topic, I just saw this article in New Scientist, discussing research into why humans "see" gods. It might be interesting to some.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...od.html?page=1

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

By comparison (caveat: possibly speaking out of my *ss here) I have been told that in Europe there is more of a "already paid for that in my taxes" attitude (remember that caveat earlier in the sentence, though).

I've seen a fair amount of that attitude here in the states, actually, but it's not what I'd call all that common, at least not amongst the folks I have regular contact with, but that's hardly a scientific observation.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by msmith

... for a previous poster to infer ....

Apropos of nothing but my own picking of nits (this is a hang up of mine, I can't help myself):

Inferring is what the listener/reader does.

Implying is what the speaker/writer does.


With my thanks for your patience, I now return you to your irregularly scheduled discussion.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

To take this observation a bit farther, the blog post (with numbers) that was linked to earlier in this thread was considering government foreign aid. But Americans give far more charity to other countries as private individuals than the sum total of the U.S. Gov't's foreign aid budget. (Reference missing. I had one, but I've misplaced it.) The charity given as private individuals may be what prior posters were talking about.

Ah, my mistake. I actually looked for a reference that put government and private together and compared with respect to countries. I think the result will be similar.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Apropos of nothing but my own picking of nits (this is a hang up of mine, I can't help myself):

Inferring is what the listener/reader does.

Implying is what the speaker/writer does.


With my thanks for your patience, I now return you to your irregularly scheduled discussion.

NatCh, I agree completely with picking this nit but I wasn't sure whether I was reading the post a little wrongly or if the poster used the wrong term.

One of my favorite authors, Ed Howdershelt, uses "infer" both ways (i.e. to mean infer and also to mean imply) and it was driving me crazy so I looked it up & found that "infer" can be use (according to my college dictionary) to mean "imply". It still drives me crazy.

Along the same general lines, I wish we would invent the word "exply" to relate to explicit as imply does to implicit.

[Elfwreck]

Comparisons of Nations:

Life Expectancy (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf)
Top Three: Macau (84 yrs), Andorra (82), Japan (82)
US Rank: 45th, 78 years
(France: 11th, 80 yrs)

Education Index
Top Three: Australia, Denmark, Finland (all .993)
US Rank: 20th, .968
(France: 12th, .978)

GDP per capita (http://tinyurl.com/4kqj8o)
Top Three: Luxembourg ($103,125), Norway (83,485), Qatar (78,754)
US Rank: 12th, $45,725
(France: 18th, $42,034)

Infant Mortality (http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...lights_rev.pdf)
Lowest three: Singapore (2.3 deaths/1000 live births), Sweden (2.75), Japan (2.8)
US rank: 43rd, 6.3 deaths (just slightly worse than South Korea & Cuba).
(France: 6th, 3.36)

Teen Pregnancy (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...ncy-per-capita)
Top Three: US (1,672 births per million people), Slovakia (1,113), New Zealand (972)
(France: 16th, 297)

Hey look! We are best at something!

Incarceration Rates (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/rese...op-seventh.pdf)
Top three: US (738 per 100,000), Russian Federation, (611), Turkmenistan* (489)
*Skipping St Kitts & Nevis & the Virgin Islands, both of which have populations below that of many US cities, and lots of tourists. They each have several hundred--total--incarcerated persons, which puts them in the low 500's per capita.
(France: 146th, 85)

We're tops in two fields!

US States, Percent of College Graduates by State: (http://www.epodunk.com/top10/collegeDiploma/index.html)
Top Three: DC (46.4%) (which might not count, given the career-base involved, so I'll do top 4), Massachusetts (37.6%), Maryland (37.2%), Colorado (36%)
Lowest Three: West Virginia (15.3%), Arkansas (17.4%), Mississippi (19.3%)

(Why does the bible belt have the lowest rate of college graduates?)

I love my country. I think we've got terrific innovation skills, and an incredible history of valuing human rights that much of the world doesn't believe should exist. We're technological groundbreakers. We treasure diversity in a way that inspires advances in every field--arts, medicine, sciences, technology, foods, leisure--the list is endless.

But that doesn't make us "best." It makes us potentially "most fun"... but fun doesn't always make people happy, and it doesn't make them healthy. And it certainly doesn't make them moral, or smart, or kind.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

(Why does the bible belt have the lowest rate of college graduates?)

Nothing to back it up I'm afraid, but I'm wondering if part of it may have something to do with the industries prevalent in the respective areas -- the more "professional" an area is, the more cash folks seem to have for things like college.

Then too, "Bible Belt" areas may have a generally higher regard for "tradesmanship" -- i.e. carpenters, plumbers and such.

Then there's the question of the statistic itself -- which is it counting?

• College degrees earned in each state (affected by number of universities)
• College degree holders resident in each state (affected by employment types available)
• Number of natives of each state that get college degrees (affected by any number of things)
• Something else entirely (all bets are off! )

Personally, I don't really care if a person is a garbage collector or a CEO -- the real question to me is, "is he/she the CEO of anything worthwhile?"

Th fundamental contribution of garbage collectors to society is brutally obvious.

[msmith]

In the following interview, Dawkins categorically admits that no one knows how life began, including evolutionary biologists. He has absolutely no answers when it comes to a First Cause of life.

It shows, I think, that most of the vitriol he spews has much more to do with his own anti-religious bias and opinion rather than actual research and application of the scientific method.

He goes on to say that life on Earth could have begun by the seeding of a "higher intelligence" or "intelligent design". Noting the fact Dawkins does not believe in God, this seems to imply that he may believe in aliens and/or spacemen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

[slayda]

Originally Posted by msmith

In the following interview, Dawkins categorically admits that no one knows how life began, including evolutionary biologists. He has absolutely no answers when it comes to a First Cause of life.

It shows, I think, that most of the vitriol he spews has much more to do with his own anti-religious bias and opinion rather than actual research and application of the scientific method.

He goes on to say that life on Earth could have begun by the seeding of a "higher intelligence" or "intelligent design". Noting the fact Dawkins does not believe in God, this seems to imply that he may believe in aliens and/or spacemen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Some people have anti-religious biases because of the bias directed toward them by religious people!