coComments related to tomrees

On secularization: this

2009-06-05T09:53:42.737+02:00

On secularization: this is the term used in the academic literature to describe the progressive loss of the important of religious beliefs in society. See, for example, Prof Steve Bruce's book, "God is dead: secularization in the West". Review here. The reason is that there is no verb for 'loss of religious belief' (de-religify???), so 'secularize' is employed instead!

Problem is that 'democracy' is

2009-06-04T15:26:37.098+02:00

Problem is that 'democracy' is a binomial so doesn't really provide much statistical power. I have done an analysis where I look at the importance of factors like income inequality, GDP etc. And these can explain a lot of the variance in religiosity (and the covariance with social problems like violence). It's due to be published in the Journal of Religion and Society, hopefully next month. Still doesn't prove cause and effect, of course. For that you would need long time series and/or an instrumented variable, neither of which are available for religiosity.

Thanks everyone for the commen

2009-06-04T14:26:51.522+02:00

Thanks everyone for the comments - quite a response to this one. Firstly I'd like to say that this analysis of course says nothing about causation, and certainly doesn't mean that atheism makes for peaceful nations. What it does is support an accumulating body of evidence which shows that nations with high levels of non-religious people also tend to have better living conditions and generally be better places to live. It's probable that this is because if you face a lot of stress in your life, you turn to religion. It may also be that religion changes the nature of support the members of a society offer each other (i.e. direct charity rather than state welfare), which is less effective as a means of cushioning people from stress. But the main point is absolutely as mentioned by one of the posters above. It is definitely not the case that a society that loses religion will go bad. Quite the opposite. Good societies also tend to be non-religious (for whatever reason. Therefore, if you want to make a good society, you should not try to do it by making people more religious. It isn't what separates good societies from bad.

Andy, I think you're probably

2009-05-21T11:38:10.229+02:00

Andy, I think you're probably right - it was a 'what would Jesus do' situation. It would be interesting to see how they would behave if in an anonymous situation, and without all the heavy priming. It also would've helped if the researchers had simply asked the participants why they chose to give what they did, but it doesn't look like they did ask.

"there is more to it than the

2009-05-18T17:07:55.778+02:00

"there is more to it than the sheer level of noise and numbers" Really? The stats are clear. Across the western world, religion is fading away. The young are, for the most part, irreligious. Yes, religion is on the political agenda, but this is a top-down movement from the establishment fighting a rearguard action against popular secularisation. It's ridiculous to mistake this for a grass roots movement.

The problem is that for religi

2009-05-12T15:32:19.667+02:00

The problem is that for religion to be effective, adherents have to believe that it reflects some kind of reality. In order to rationalise their behaviour, they have to believe that there is an entity (or entities) that exists and also has effects in the real world. It's a dichotomy at heart of religions!

Ahh, it's here. Primate Diaries got the award this month!

That's true in a general sense

2009-01-23T17:51:23.921+01:00

That's true in a general sense but in this specific case it's difference because religion has been the cause of a mass migration to a specific location, and thereby precipitating the land dispute. In that way it's different to, say, the dispute between Greece and Turkey. That's a land dispute that's exacerbated by religion.

Yeah, but why are they fightin

2009-01-21T12:54:09.124+01:00

Yeah, but why are they fighting over the land?

There is absolutely a correlat

2009-01-19T12:44:34.996+01:00

There is absolutely a correlation between atheism and acceptance of evolution. The Miller paper works through the stats to show it. I've reviewed the evidence here: http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-darwin-is-poster-child-for-atheism.html

This has precious little to do

2008-12-02T11:36:19.408+01:00

This has precious little to do with the specific religion - similar things are common in the Hindu parts of India. The response should never be cruel and unusual punishment - and certainly never 'an eye for an eye'. We (society at large) are supposed to be better (more humane, more decent) than the perpetrator. Also, a large part of the state's response should be to try to stop this sort of thing happening again. Violent forms of punishment are not effective in this regard. Far better to build a society in which violence, killing and abuse is shunned - with the state taking the lead.

If they really wanted to reduc

2008-10-07T10:16:08.587+02:00

If they really wanted to reduce abortion, they would be praying for easier access to contraception. http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2007/10/abortion-in-news-passions-run-high.html

Ian, these aren't scientific d

2008-10-02T09:59:09.620+02:00

Ian, these aren't scientific debates, but philosophical ones. The philosophy of science is, I think, a valid topic for a science magazine, and nothing highlights it better than contrasting the scientific and religious approaches. Sure there are religious viewpoints out there that accomodate science (Ba'Hai is another example). But a debate between two people who largely agree is less interesting, I think. Sam Harris is not exactly your typical atheist either. But I agree, it would be interesting to explore the viewpoints of people who manage to be both religious and pro-science. We would see that their religion is radically different from the religion of the evangelists.