Ms. Siv

John Page,

You had stated that all great/successful societies had used religion, thereby implying that religion had something to do with their being great and successful.
That is the pattern that you claimed.

Given 2 variables .... y denoting the success of a society and x the religiosity of the society.

You're saying y = f(x). That is the pattern you're claiming.

1. Since, by default we dont assume 2 variables are related, if someone claims that they are, it is upto them to prove that they are.
It is a logical fallacy to say "Can you prove that y is not = f(x) ? If not, then y = f(x)

2. If you have to prove that x causes y this is how your proof should go.....

Establish correlation
Everytime x happens, y happens(other variables remaining the same). If x increases, y increases.

Then .... establish relationship and causation.
Eliminate common factors. For eg. a third factor z which causes both x and y.

Then and only then have you established that y = f(x).

You have not even established Step 1 in this process.

- Sivakami.

John Page

Siv:

Thank you. I agree that my hypothesis is not proven - but neither is it yet a fallacy. I also agree that just because religion was present in a number of societies doesn't mean it was the cause of their success (or failure).

My thinking is that religion is an important determinant of success in competing societies.

You stated earlier that "Actually theistic religion is just one form of religion. Communism and Nazism were other forms." In fact, communism was specifically established as an atheistic society and I think the Soviet Union and China are two of our best examples of control groups.

Given the failures of the communist experiments (if you agree they were), what can we learn in order to contemplate a succesful atheist society? This is a key question for us all (here), I'm very interested to hear your correlation method.

Cheers.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Ms. Siv

If there is nothing to support your hypothesis, then in all logic, I abandon it
If you find objective evidence to support it, then we can re-look at it .

But there is absolutely no evidence to support this view.

This is a standard practice... trotting out communism and Nazism as counter-examples. Communism and Nazism were religions. Because they were based on untruths.
Look at the definitions of religion :
" A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. " .. is one of the meanings as well.
Any system where there are sacred precepts which are believed in spite of (and maybe even because of) a lack of evidence to support them - is a religion.
Theistic religions are only one form of religion.

Hitler believed that the Jews were responsible for all the world's myseries. Was there any evidence to support this belief ? No. But he believed it anyway. He also believed that his race was superior to that of the Jews and other races. Again, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support it (the irony is that he claimed this was scientific !).

Communism, although IMO it has some good aspects to it, totally ignores basic facts about human nature. About what motivates us, private ownership etc. So again ... believe in spite of a lack of evidence. Or belief in spite of evidence to the contrary.

They were both religions. Not theistic religions, but religions nevertheless.

- Sivakami.

John Page

Siv:

I find your views on religion curious and I would like to agree a definition of religion before we go back to its effect/non-effect on the success of societies.

OK, we're agreed that Communism was not a theistic religion. Assuming we agree that religions are societal systems (if I may use that expression) "based on untruths", I'm having problems because truths are relative to the observer - a Moslem will claim that Allah is the true god for example, but an atheist will not. Are you claiming that systems of logic are without fault and completely objective? Are you defining systems of logic as those without fault?

In the above paragraph, what I am trying to illustrate is that logic, depending on how it is defined, could easily be categorized as a religion. If true, this would put a different spin on any debate about why religion kicks butt!

I look forward to your response.

Cheers.

Anthemic

Going back to the original post:

Is one's goal to "cope with the world" or to experience it? Evaluating a belief in god as positive or negative based upon its effect on one's ability to "cope", is by nature a denial of that belief. There is a difference between actually believe something, and saying you believe it for the sake of its societal benefits.

John Page

Agreed, but humans are, perhaps, infidels by nature. Consider also the individuals who a) really do believe things but still do the opposite and b) believe or pretend to believe things for their perceived societal benefits.