Stumpjumper

Ligesh

Back to your stats because you've been making me google this topic a little more.

First this site says that the religious affiliation of the CDC matches those of the general population of California:
http://www.accss.org/practicing%20faith.htm

However, I would tend to agree that a survey that asked for Prison inmates religious affiliation is going to be skewed against the religious affiliation of the general population in the manner that your stats show. I still don't think it supports your general hypothesis though.

There are probably many different factors that combine to affect the stats but I think religious conversion (or a more active view of God) while in Prison is something that should be kept in mind. The majority of Prison inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses or crimes that are related to drugs and many treatment programs are faith based or encourage prayer and other types of faith based treatment. Also, many people reassess and reaffirm their religious beliefs in tramatic situations and I think prison definitely qualifies.

If you then add in other factors like environment, social class, intelligence etc, I think you will find that you cannot support your initial position.

Autonemesis

This tends to confirm Ligesh's points, not refute them. A putative atheist convict who converts to religion in prison is merely continuing in his well-established pattern of executing logically faulty judgments.

Stumpjumper

No. His point was that religious belief causes crime because the theist will pray for protection while committing the crime.

If the person was non-religious when (s)he committed the crime and converted in jail that goes against ligesh's hypothesis.

ligesh

This is called as absurd ad-hoc'ing. I mean, you just say yeah, factor in this, throw in that, and add 1 and divide it by 3, and then everything will disappear, but I am sure that 40 times is a bit too much, and it will take more than mere environment to make it go away.

And I think Autonemisis is right too. If a person converts to theism in prison, then he wasn't really an atheist to begin with. I don't think any of the atheists will convert to theism just because they spend a couple of days in prison. Of course, I do agree that a mind under stress can ephemerally entertain ideas of God, but CONVERSION due to incarceration is rare.

Prison populating is just ONE of the data that supports my hypothesis. The most important proof is a Jihadi. Or general theistic behavior. Or even all the brutalities that are justified/endorsed/condoned/exhorted in Bible/Koran. In fact, this statistics is only a minor part of the whole picture.

ligesh

Autonemisis point is that, if a person converts to theism, he wasn't really an atheist to begin with. First of all you don't have any statistics to prove your case, but even if you do, you will have to clearly show a MARKED difference in religious attitude post and prior prison term.

But yours is a fallacy arising from the concept that people can simply switch between belief and disbelief. That doesn't happen. I haven't really heard of extremely strong atheists suddenly switching belief overnight based on a single incident. At least it is not common, and I don't think it is prevalent enough to offset the "40 times" factor, which is pretty much a huge figure to accommodate.

Stumpjumper

You're making me laugh again :grin:

That is pretty much the no "True Christian" fallacy in reverse. If you ever talk to a "once saved always saved" person that is exactly what they would say about a deconverted Christian.

I am not prosecuting an argument; you are. I am simply saying that your conclusions are not supported merely by some correlative statistics.

"Extremely strong atheists" are not generally representative of a majority of those who claim no religious affiliation. Regardless, conversion after arrest is only one factor that would go against your initial claim.

ligesh

That statement was worded wrong. I should simply say that you are creating absurd ad-hocisms. People do not switch beliefs overnight, and thus the scenario that you describe - that is, an atheist becoming a believer in prison - even if it exists, is going to be rare, and is counter to our experience regarding atheists and theists.

Simply because I used the term 'true-athiest', doesn't mean it is no-true-scotsman fallacy. I am simply rejecting your ad-hoc explanation as being contrary to recorded human behaviour. People do not switch beliefs overnights. To prove me wrong, you have to give me the specific statistics.



I think nothing is going entirely account for the 40 times other than my hypothesis.

But this isn't just in US. Actually US crime rates are higher than in Europe or Asia, which are more atheistic societies. So even among inter-society statistics, atheistic societies tend to face fewer social ills than theistic ones.

Stumpjumper

Who said an overnight conversion, though? A survey of religious affiliation of current inmates would include those who have been in prison for 50 days or 50 years. Anyway, it is generally life circumstances that make people rethink their view of the world and many times the compelling issue for conversion or deconversion is a specific event. There are many people who rethink their belief after a trying circumstance with a "why would God let this happen to me?" in or a "man I really have to rethink my life" etc.

Anyway, that would only be one factor as I'm sure there are others.

I've been around long enough to see people use the exact same statistics to prove completely different premises. I don't put much weight in using statistics in philosophical arguments.

Again, you cannot establish the claim that "atheistic societies face fewer social ills than theistic societies" based upon statistics. There are many differences between the US and Europe such as government, social structure, demographics, and economy (to name a few). One of the major differences is the idiotic "war on drugs" that has been raging in the US for decades and is responsible for a lot of our crime statistics.

The best you can say from those statistics is that belief in God does not have a statistically significant correlation with lower crime rates. The only thing it does is empty out the argument -- that is used by theists from time to time -- that theists are more moral than atheists.

ligesh

There are a lot of reasons for a person being atheist. If it is rationally deduced, then he won't revert back, but if the atheism was simply based on some illogical premise, then there is a chance of conversion.

And again you have to adduce proper evidences that show that the person was a proper atheist before, but a believer later.

Mine is not a philosophical argument. It is an evolutionary one, and my theory stands or falls on the basis of empirically falsifiable predictions. So everything for me is statistics.




Nope, the statistics point the other way; God seems to be deleterious to the welfare of the society, and there are informal studies that is pointing to this. But there has not been any peer review paper, but I think we should really make attempts to find out if there is a correlation between God and social ills. People assume God will promote Social cohesion, or at least be neutral, but I am claiming that God is harmful for the overall wellbeing of the society.

Actually America and Europe have a lot in common, and thus would make ideal case study about why there are so many radical differences in certain areas. So in the statistics, we have pretty much everything staying the same, other than belief and also a more materialistic outlook. But currently there are no official statistics, but soon we will have the full picture.

--
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com

Stumpjumper

You are assuming that atheism is the only logical position to hold and that is, except on atheist discussion boards, not a defensible position.

There are many reasons to hold some form of theistic belief and most of them are not logically inconsistent. Sure, some fundamentalists that hold to the inerrancy of the Bible may practice some cognitive dissonance when assessing our empirical understanding of nature; but, by and large, most systematic theologies and logically consistent whether or not you personally find them palatable.

Subsituting True for "proper" does not get you away from the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Perhaps you could define a "proper atheist" and list the dogma that this group of atheists must hold?

The last I checked the ToE was a biological theory of biodiversification (and a successful one at that). Since we are discussing philosophy of religion, your argument is a philosophical one whether or not you wish to admit so

It all depends upon your ethical system. If you were to remove Christian ethics from the board than that hole has to filled with another ethical system. We could get into a lengthy debate over the issue of the emergence of humanism and how Christianity was responsible for its development in western society but I doubt that would go anywhere either.

Your claim is one that is expressed by some, a vocal minority of militant atheists like Dawkins, but it is not supportable by what we see in the world. There are many causes of conflict and "evils" and fundamentalism in all of its forms are one of those causes.

How is the position that theism is the cause of crime and harmful to society any less intolerant than religious fundamentalists who consign all those who disagree with them to eternal hell?

America and Europe have a lot of in common yes but there are also a great many differences as well. You most certainly do not have "pretty much everything staying the same" and any comparison that you perform can and will be affected by factors that you may not be able to determine.

No comparison is going to be able to establish ultimate causation unless all other factors were identical.