Happy Atheist Forum

I found this to be an interesting read.

EXCERPT;

...So why is David Ewing Duncan, a capable freelancer journalist with a record of solid reporting, hopping mad about this outcome over at MIT's Tech Review?

Well, to start with, apparently none of these countries, the world's economic powerhouses, are all that science literate to begin with. 28 percent literacy means that 72 percent of Americans aren't literate enough to understand the average science story in a newspaper. But according to Duncan, it gets worse:...

SOURCE (http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=americans_more_science_literate_than_jap&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&ref=rss)

Interesting indeed, but I disagree with the author's last point.  I do think ignorance - particularly about science - has a lot to do with the success of religion here.  Or maybe "poor education" is a better way to put it.  Kids just aren't being taught this stuff.

I read an article not long ago about many of the developed nation's knowledge of science, especially biology and evolution.  As I noted on my board when I posted this, a picture is worth a thousand words (this graph is in relation to acceptance of evolution):

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atheistcoalition.com%2Fimages%2F765-1-med.gif&hash=2f451930788bf03008e4268322f874d5963d23ad)

QuoteThe study found that over the past 20 years:
The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.
The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however.
And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.

Anyone seen the movie Idiocracy?

Yup...soon to be remade as a documentary, I fear.  

I watched Idiocracy last night on HBO On Demand.  While I laughed a few times, it just wasn't all that funny to me--more frightening, rather.  I expected more from Mike Judge.  I don't know, maybe I missed a bunch of subtle aspects of it.  I might wait a week or two and watch it again.

MysticalChicken, I felt the same way... I'd laugh then realize that we're closer to that than not, and I'd get all depressed and bummed.  Frightened, yes.  The first part, with the "smart" couple putting off having a child until they can be responsible until the guy passes away of old age vs. the "trailer trash" guy with multiple partners and dumber than dirt kids procreating all over the place, world be damned... THAT sets the negative tone for me right off because it's so true!  I know it' supposed to be funny... but it's just not.  Religious folk and 12 kids is the norm around these parts and it's so darned sad.

QuoteMysticalChicken, I felt the same way... I'd laugh then realize that we're closer to that than not, and I'd get all depressed and bummed. Frightened, yes. The first part, with the "smart" couple putting off having a child until they can be responsible until the guy passes away of old age vs. the "trailer trash" guy with multiple partners and dumber than dirt kids procreating all over the place, world be damned... THAT sets the negative tone for me right off because it's so true! I know it' supposed to be funny... but it's just not. Religious folk and 12 kids is the norm around these parts and it's so darned sad.

So, let's assume that Idiocracy is correct and that the future will be populated by dumb fundamentalists. According to Darwinism, wouldn't this be an affirmation of the value of religion?

Quote from: "pip"So, let's assume that Idiocracy is correct and that the future will be populated by dumb fundamentalists. According to Darwinism, wouldn't this be an affirmation of the value of religion?

An affirmation of the idiocy of religion, maybe... not the value.  Unless we're saying that religion has no more value than opaque white extra-large panty-hose on a blue-light special.  In that case, I agree. :roll:

QuoteAn affirmation of the idiocy of religion, maybe... not the value. Unless we're saying that religion has no more value than opaque white extra-large panty-hose on a blue-light special. In that case, I agree.

The ultimate measure of worth is the ability to survive. If religious rednecks inherit the earth, then it will be because by some criterion of natural selection they deserve to do so. If this is due even in part to their religiosity, then the value of religion is undeniable.

Quote from: "pip"According to Darwinism, wouldn't this be an affirmation of the value of religion?

Could you please define "Darwinism" for us?  It is not a term most of us use.

If you're asking if there is a value of religion in a sort of evolutionary sense, then it is entirely possible, maybe even probable, that there is a survival advantage inherent to religious belief.  That is to say, a population of religious followers may well be able to survive better than a population of non-religious followers.  Especially if the religious followers find their god instructing them to stamp out and kill all the people of differing opinion.  Then the only survivors would be the religiously minded.

Or, it may inspire altruistic behavior that is beneficial to the group.  If you don't believe you're really going to die when you die, you may be more likely to sacrifice yourself (i.e. 9/11 terrorists).  It is possible that altruistic sacrifices could benefit the group at large.

Or course, in opposition to these ideas, we have some observations from the modern world.  Religious conflict drives war and instability in many parts of the world.  With the threats of environmental change or asteroid collisions destroying all human life it would seem like a coordinated response to these threats may be the best option for survival --- how is religion assisting with this?

I'd say that any evolutionary advantage to religious belief is too sketchy an idea to make a conclusion about one way or the other.  But that's not the really important part.  The really important part is that NONE of this discussion bears any fruit as to the truth of the religious belief.  Even if religious belief were shown to be beneficial to group survival it would not address whether or not the religious beliefs are actually true.

A follow on to this thought is that it would not be the belief, per se, that is the beneficial part but rather the behavior that follows from holding the belief.  If a person can isolate the beneficial behavior from the belief --- what is the difference?  In other words, a non-religious population could acquire all the benefits without the belief, right?  And, wouldn't this be a position of better understanding?

Quote from: "pip"

QuoteAn affirmation of the idiocy of religion, maybe... not the value. Unless we're saying that religion has no more value than opaque white extra-large panty-hose on a blue-light special. In that case, I agree.

The ultimate measure of worth is the ability to survive. If religious rednecks inherit the earth, then it will be because by some criterion of natural selection they deserve to do so. If this is due even in part to their religiosity, then the value of religion is undeniable.

Again, I disagree... you're being WAY too simplistic in your reasoning.  If the non-believers are being responsible and not over-procreating, while they red-neck believers are cross-breeding and over-populating because of their religious beliefs, that can hardly be called "natural selection."  Especially if they are breeding humans that will not be educated and continue to believe in invisible sky-protectors.  While there are more of "them" than of "us," the "us" are truly evolving while the "them" are merely clones of each other.

The belief that "a million _________ can't be wrong" is a big fallacy.  A million people CAN be wrong... it just takes someone to have enough courage to tell them.  A million milk drinkers are wrong to someone with an allergy to lactose.  A million murderers are definitely wrong to the remainder of humanity.  So just because there are more believers than non-believers doesn't make them the right ones or the more moral ones or the ones with the more valuable belief system.

Quote from: "SteveS"I'd say that any evolutionary advantage to religious belief is too sketchy an idea to make a conclusion about one way or the other.  But that's not the really important part.  The really important part is that NONE of this discussion bears any fruit as to the truth of the religious belief.  Even if religious belief were shown to be beneficial to group survival it would not address whether or not the religious beliefs are actually true.

Yeah, what STEVE said.  :o

QuoteCould you please define "Darwinism" for us? It is not a term most of us use.

From Wikipedia:

QuoteDarwinism is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Discussions of Darwinism usually focus on evolution by natural selection, but sometimes Darwinism is taken to mean evolution more broadly, or other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.

I'll use the definition "evolution by natural selection."

QuoteI'd say that any evolutionary advantage to religious belief is too sketchy an idea to make a conclusion about one way or the other. But that's not the really important part. The really important part is that NONE of this discussion bears any fruit as to the truth of the religious belief. Even if religious belief were shown to be beneficial to group survival it would not address whether or not the religious beliefs are actually true.

The fact that religion is so prevalent in human culture despite the obvious disadvantages seems to me like a pretty powerful argument in favor of the "evolutionary advantage to religious belief."

I'm ignoring the question of truth for the sake of simplicity. Determining whether something is valuable according to the narrow criteria of "evolution by natural selection" seems to me to be far easier than determining whether it's true.

You seem to consider truthfulness of primary importance while almost dismissing usefulness. Is that correct? If so, why?

To examine your argument on similarly simple terms, if you consider the overall development of the human species, religion has become gradually less of a feature in our lives, not more. It can also be seen in the structure of our legal systems and so on; basing themselves less on scripture and more on independently devised ethics (for example, we no longer hang homosexuals, atheists are far more accepted now than they were fifty years ago and so on). This would suggest that its value/purpose, whatever that may have been, has become or is becoming redundant. I think of religion as a psychological appendix. Unsurprisingly, this trend is more the case since Newton & the birth of modern scientific thinking (baring in mind that archaic 'science' was simply superstitious speculation and involved studying werewolf hunting methods and such more than anything else).

I don't know whether or not the world is becoming more stupid (though I imagine that the overall trend would suggest not) but more religious? I very much doubt that.

Hi pip!

Quote from: "pip"I'll use the definition "evolution by natural selection."

Interesting choice --- 'cause it seems like you're really using "other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.".  Or, do you think there is a "faith gene"?  Is religious belief, in your opinion, simply a function of genetic makeup?  Is faith inherited from your parents?  You don't think faith is environmental - taught to children by their parents?

Quote from: "pip"The fact that religion is so prevalent in human culture despite the obvious disadvantages seems to me like a pretty powerful argument in favor of the "evolutionary advantage to religious belief."

The fact that a specific trait is prevalent does not necessarily mean that it is a guaranteed advantageous outcome of natural selection.  Also, traits can be coupled - how do we know that our belief system isn't misfiring when contemplating religious thoughts, but that it simply doesn't matter because the belief-forming development is so advantageous in other ways that it over comes any attached disadvantage and results in a net positive?

Personally, I think religion may be a by-product of the way our minds work - and I think the way our minds work has a lot to do with evolution.  So I see a strong possibility that religious thought is a by-product of an evolutionarily advantageous development.  Not necessarily an advantageous development itself.

One thing I do agree with you on --- religion is very prevalent in human societies, both now and historically.  It seems that there is probably some reason for this.

Quote from: "pip"You seem to consider truthfulness of primary importance while almost dismissing usefulness. Is that correct? If so, why?

I don't recall dismissing usefulness......in fact I specifically speculated on ways in which religious belief could perhaps have been important to survival, and therefore useful.

Truthfulness is important to me, though.  Why?  Because I want to know what's real.  That's all.  If something is true or false I have a natural intellectual curiosity that wants to know the correct answer.  Did the universe have a beginning?  Is the universe cyclical?  It might not make a whole lot of "useful" difference to my life to know the answer to questions like this, but I still have a desire to know anyway.  Don't you?  Or should I conclude that you dismiss truthfulness as irrelevant while focusing on what's useful?  If the usefulness of a religion outweighs any concerns over where or not it is true - why do people belief it is true?  Or are they lying - they simply choose the most useful religion and then go on to "pretend" they believe it?

And what of the theologians who perceive that science and religion conflict because they are both searching for the truth?  Are they wrong - science and religion are really just trying to hash out which is more useful?

Anyway truth and usefulness are at least coupled a lot of the time.  For example, suppose that someone was able to conclusively demonstrate that prayer performed no function what-so-ever .... wouldn't this "truth" impact the "usefulness" of religious behavior?