Recently, an inquisitive commenter asked this question:
... could you give some examples of the "explanatory powers" and "success rates" of the theory of god [I assume he means theism], that relate to it being true.
I wasn't then, and am not now attempting to prove theism is "true". I'm not sure I'd even know how to construct such a proof, for or against. I can give evidence, but that's another story...
But I assume his question is why I think theism dominates other religions, and what impact that has on it's being true or not. In particular, why do I think it's a more successful worldview than many others. These fall into two categories, positive effects, which don't directly relate to the truth or falsity of a belief system, and explanatory power, which do.
This is, in fact, a huge area to cover, so I'll be necessarily brief. Similarly, this list is incomplete, but you have to start somewhere. In no particular order...
Positive Effects
1. Fertility - From the beginning, Judaism and Christianity have banned infanticide, shunned abortion, and discouraged sexual activity outside of marriage, channeling that energy into useful economic behavior and raising families. So this has given JudeoChristian theists an increased rate of fertility and higher standard of living.
2. Science - Most other belief ancient systems either viewed the universe as incomprehensible or an illusion (e.g. the Hindu conception of maya), a manifestation of God (pantheism) and thus subject to thoughts and feelings, or locked into endless cycles (Hinduism, Plato). All these ideas precluded the existence of natural laws and progress.
In contrast JudeoChristian theism posited a creation which was separate from God -- thus rocks didn't have whims, etc. as some Greek philosophers assume -- behaved according to definite laws, and allowed the idea of progress. Like fertility, this led to organized scientific experimentation and a higher standard of living, which, again, conferred an advantage.
3. Abolition of Slavery - Both Judaism and Christianity, although neither banned slavery outright, ended up effectively abolishing the practice. Jewish laws on slavery required such good treatment of slaves that the institution soon became uneconomical except for the wealthiest. Likewise, Christian Europe had already effectively banned slavery before 1000AD. In contrast, slavery continued everywhere else on the globe.
The ban on slavery elevated the importance of technology. The Romans had invented, for example, the steam engine, but found it useless because they already had slaves to do that work.
4. Altruism - A huge reason Christianity beat out, say, Roman paganism was the emphasis on moral behavior. When plague struck the Roman world, many pagans dumped their loved ones in the streets or fled, but many Christians risked martyrdom to nurse loved ones, or even strangers, back to health -- resulting increased fertility (see #1) and conversions due to the positive example. This tradition continued with the idea of the hospital, and charitable groups like the Salvation Army and World Vision.
5. Work Ethic - The Chinese, Greeks, and Hindus all considered manual labor to be a lowly thing which excluded spiritual enlightement. In contrast the pillars of the Christian movement did work: Jesus was a peasant, Peter was a fisherman, and Paul spent his time making tents. Likewise, Judaism also valued hard work and study, eventually contributing some of the top intellectual minds to the Western world.
Explanatory Power
6. The Nature of Man - Most secular movements believe humans to be basicly good, and focuses on restructuring society. In constrast JudeoChristian theism teaches that man has profound propensitives toward evil which we need to guard against, first by guarding our own thoughts and actions. I find the JudeoChristian model to be more correct and in better agreement with my observations.
7. Man's Problem - Generally, secularists (and many others) hold that man's main problem is a lack of knowledge. Christianity teaches that the main problem is man's propensity to do wrong, even when we know better. Again, my observations lead me to believe the second assumption is more correct.
8. The Problem of Meaning - Atheists often attack "God belief" on the grounds that people believe it because it gives their lives ultimate meaning. I agree, and also agree it does so more effectively than atheism. I notice that most people, even atheists, act like their life has some transcendent meaning. So, whether it's true or not, it's certainly an assumption which is more consistent with most people's behavior, including that of sceptics.
9. The Lifecycle of the Universe - The traditional materialistic belief, circa 1800s and early 1900s, was that the material universe had always existed. A common competing belief was that the universe was cyclical. In the end, Einstein finally had to admit to expansion, allowing for the big bang: the theistic description of the universe prevailed.
10. Existence - The universe seems configured in an odd, improbable way, apparently to maximize complexity. Such observations are only subjective, but they do tend to re-enforce the impression that there was more than "blind luck" operating. (The anthropomophic principle strikes me as a subtle form of circular reasoning.)
11. Morality - People are born with a mostly-common sense of morality, but they seek to fit it into a rational framework. Atheists have much more trouble with this than theists. The reverse is true also: although there are counter-exceptions, people will generally behave better if they believe they will be judged, and that a moral God is watching them.
12. Psychology - Most of what Freud told me turned out to be wrong. Most of what the bible has told me about humans has turned out, so far, to be dead right. That's worth something.
13. The Supernatural - I've considered it carefully, and I don't buy arguments, like those from James Randi, which completely deny the possibility of super-natural phenomenon. I've also seen evidence which leads me to conclude such things exist, and I've also noted that most arguments against such are based in logical fallacies.
14. Reason - Many atheists strike me as deeply irrational. This doesn't lead one to the suspicion they're particularly careful about their thoughts and observations, and tends to undermine their credibility about larger existential matters. Atheism has usually accompanied or underpinned a host of hugely-wrong philosophies such as Marxism and logical positivism.
15. Outcomes - When your mental model doesn't match the universe, people get hurt or are less functional. Yet, compared to secularists, people who attend church or synagogue regularly are happier, have better health, lower crime rate and drug use. That seems to indicate something is working better, regarding the matchup between their mental model and what actually works. See above for a few details.
These are huge areas: one or two of these factors alone could explain why one civilization stood while another fell. Together, I hope they at least start to provide a comprehensive explanation of the world which we see, where theism is the dominant belief system.
None of this "proves" God's existence. I wouldn't think to try. I'm simply answering the question as to why I think JudeoChristian theism has outcompeted most other philosophies and religions. There are many positive things to be said in favor of other outlooks, but the form of the question necessarily constricts my answer.
Thank you, and good day!
Tom,
I feel I have to show you something. I won't quote myself quoting you quoting me.
First, thank you for re-posting me. Second, thank you for supplying the link. I find it interesting very few people were willing to come here and post -- thus for others (not you) it's truly a "straw man" debate, since the one being discussed was safely "out of the room".
So very, very brave. :-)
He then goes on to list 15 Positive Effects and Explanatory Powers of religion, or as he calls it, theism.
As a later commenter highlights, there's a huge difference between "religion" (which you mention) and "JudeoChristian theism" (which I'm describing above). I'm not at all describing any and all religions -- such as Buddhism or atheism -- I'm simply describing one particular set of values and its historical effects.
Dawkins says UNLIKELY Set of circumstances...
True, but you still have to supply the circumstances. You can't build your entire claim up the the preface that said circumstances must at least be possible, but then wiggle out by saying they're "unlikely". I don't care if it's likely or not: what are the circumstances?
Even in thought experiments they supply the circumstances. They don't say, essentially: "Well, assuming someone else can come up with the details that will prove my point, then my point is proven!" -- as Dawkins does, repeatedly.
Given the theist proposition that God is all powerful and wise I think he should be able to think of a solution, even if this blogger couldn't.
Err, um missing the point entirely. For those who aren't paying close attention: I'm arguing AGAINST Dawkins. Thus it's not my job to try to figure out some way to make his assertions true. Also, I've already pointed out the circumstances in question: an alternate universe with precludes doubt.
My humble attempt - I could imagine saying. God, put mickey mouse ears on the sun.
Right! You make my point exactly: The only way God could reasonably make some atheists believe is to do absurd things on demand, at the drop of a hat -- like putting Mickey Mouse ears on the sun. It would be a universe in which disbelief was effectively prevented.
... making theists smart - you know impossible stuff...
Ad homen attack: an indication we're out of ammo. Thank you, Tachion.
----
So he thinks people are just all evil...
As I stated, I believe all people have a strong propensity to evil. And, again, thank you for making my point: you clearly find this idea absurd.
So you make my point as to why it is (sadly) somewhat rare to find wisdom among atheists: if you say people have a propensity toward evil, many secularists will laugh their head off. Despite over 100 million cruelly slaughtered in the last century alone.
Thank you for the illustration, Hugo.
theism and religion are two different things. One can be a non-religious theist or a religious atheist.
Excellent point, Spinoza. Very perceptive.
None of his positive effects require theism...
You are absolutely right, "The Paul". I'm not at all saying each and every idea or point can only be found in theism. I'm simply explaining why I believe theism has dominated every other religious outlook, starting from a rather small minority. It's true you can achieve each one in individual cases, but large-scale effects and trends seem to exist, and should be considered.
most of [his arguments] show why it suceeded over athiestic spirituality, not regular-flavoured atheism...
Only a few apply primarily to atheism.
[Tim:] Most secular movements believe humans to be basicly good, and focuses on restructuring society... [The Paul:] Strawman. Secular movements tend to have a focus on human power and potential but I don't think a lot of athiests argue humans are just basically good...
I just noticed I was laughed at for saying we have a profound propensity towards evil. It's a bit hard to call my claim of a serious difference a "strawman" when you can see it demonstrated just a few comments above your own.
I don't know how many atheists would profess this belief directly or not, but my statement was that "secular movements" were based on this assumption, and seek to reform the environment ("society"), not the individual* -- regardless of what individual adherants might say when questioned. And I stand by that assertion.
...religion is a construction of man...
Well, if there's no supernatural, then what you're saying must be true. But please note that your statement is predicated on your own final assumption and statement of belief: that there is no supernatural.
Otherwise, you're confronted with considering the possibility that religion is a result of humanity confronting the supernatural, or vise-versa.
[Tim:] Generally, secularists (and many others) hold that man's main problem is a lack of knowledge. [The Paul:] ...there's a negative relationship between crime and education...
Quite possibly. But I'm talking about doing wrong, not just committing crimes. If "doing wrong" were only limited to crime in society, we'd be looking at a much better world. But adultery isn't illegal, lying to your friends is not illegal, politicians taking money is not illegal, etc. Learn to think about "doing wrong", not just illegality.
But you again illustrate my point: I believe the problem is our innate temptation toward evil and selfishness, and you respond by trying to link a lack of education with crime. (In truth, I just think smarter people get caught less often.) You believe the problem is a lack of education, I do not.
Thank you for the illustration.
(This also touches on another huge problem with I have with secularism, one which you highlight well: The tendency to conflate morality and legality. Thanks for raising the issue.)
[Tim:] In the end, Einstein finally had to admit to expansion, allowing for the big bang: the theistic description of the universe prevailed. [The Paul:] No it didn't.
Sorry, but it quite did. I'm not a "creationist" as you'd think of it. Einstein called the idea that the universe expanded from a central point "a monstrosity" because it conflicted with the atheistic assumptions of his day, including his own. Not theistic ones, though, which taught the universe had a beginning. (He spent decades trying to prevent the conclusion by introducing the "cosmological constant", which he later called the biggest mistake of his life, if I'm not mistaken.)
Go read Bertrand Russel's "Why I'm not a Christian", where he argues against theism by stating that we should just assume the universe had no beginning.
Care to explain what's circular about the anthropomorphic argument?
Perhaps in another post. Additionally, anthropomorphic arguments strike me as being a quick way of dismissing any "improbable-seeming" evidence prima facie, when probability is readily considered when it cuts the other way.
People will also behave worse if they believe that a moral God approves of their rape, robbery, and slaughter.
You are exactly right. That's why I carefully talked about people who believe in a moral God who could judge them. And, for the record, the Christian God does not give Christians permission to commit "rape, robbery, and slaughter."
[Tim:] Most of what Freud told me turned out to be wrong. Most of what the bible has told me about humans has turned out, so far, to be dead right. [The Paul:] This is just a terrible argument. What did Freud and the bible say?
Purchase and read The Question of God, which juxaposes Freud's views against those of C.S. Lewis. I've already stated some of the bible's views about man: do you not know what Freud taught? The Edipus complex? His promotion of cocaine? His view of the stages of development? Crowd psychology? Again, it's a bit too long to cover here in any detail.
Heh: It's funny that you claim "it's a terrible argument" but then confess you have no idea about it. :-)
[Tim:] Many atheists strike me as deeply irrational. [The Paul:] Atheists are wrong because he doesn't, personally, think they're right. Show what's irrational about atheism or discard this point.
I haven't claimed atheism is inherantly irrational; please read closely. I have claimed that atheists generally strike me as a- or sometimes even anti-rational, and have explained why on point after point, and given specific examples, some including Dawkins.
[Regarding positive outcomes:] This is a benefit of theism, not an argument for the truth of it...
I'm not sure it isn't both. I freely concede I can't "prove" it beyond the shadow of a doubt, but, as I've stated before, it would be incredibly ironic if, in this one area alone, the people who the "truer" mental model (assuming God didn't exist) were those who had the worse outcomes.
Can this relationship actually be proven?
What is "proof"? I accept the studies finding improved health, more happiness (etc.) among those who are seriously religious than those who are not.
[lpetrich:] This tripe is barely worth a response.
Then please don't respond. But apparently even you don't believe your own words, since you've produced one of the lengthiest responses so far. :-)
[Tim:] From the beginning, Judaism and Christianity have banned infanticide, shunned abortion... [lpetrich:] Historical illiteracy. I wonder what he thinks the family lives and fertility of priests and monks and nuns has been.
Hehehe! You crack me up! You harrumph about "historical illiteracy" and then start talking as though celibate nuns and monks were (a) present from the beginning (they weren't) (b) universal (it wasn't) and then (c) present an argument which would support my position if true.
My assertion about the condemnation of abortion and infanticide -- which I contend was much practiced among Pagan groups -- is historically true and universally accepted among historians. Simply stating it isn't is hardly counter-evidence: your error simply convicts you on the very grounds you accuse others.
Controlling one's fertility is an essential part of self-determination.
Right! You prove my point entirely. You think "self-determination" is more important, say, than limiting abortion. (Are you paying any attention to what you're saying here?)
And finally, this seems like Khrushchevian "We will outbreed you!"
I'm explaining the past, lpetrich, not predicting the future. This isn't a threat, simply an explanation.
[Tim:] In contrast JudeoChristian theism posited a creation which was separate from God -- thus rocks didn't have whims, etc. [lpetrich:] In other words, God had created a godless, materialistic Universe, which seems like a concession of defeat.
This is one thing I find so amusing about atheists: many know so very little about that which they reject so vehemently -- making huge gaffes like this one -- but yet act so very assured about it.
What you call a "defeat" has been a basic Christian and Jewish doctrine from the start: that God created something outside himself. A Christians who believes this hasn't "conceded" some point to atheists -- is his own religious hertiage. (To the contrary, the entire reason modern atheists believe this is because Christians believed it first.)
I'll try to consider your comments about Epicurus and Mohammed later, perhaps in another post. Too much detail for here, and not enough time for to seriously consider and answer at the moment.
The New Testament doesn't exactly feature a big scientific revolution of observations and experiments and so forth...
Hard to expect from a 30-year old movement whose members are being killed off. Look to the middle ages, in Christian Europe.
Except that many people weren't slaves -- they were serfs, legally tied down to the estates they lived in.
True, but that didn't make them slaves, any more than I'm a "slave" because I owe the US government taxes (i.e. a large portion of my labor) because I've been born here. Serfs had rights, they had a degree of discretion in their lives and work. They married who they wish, and their families could not be sold off or otherwise dispersed. In some places, serfs owed their lords only a certain number of days of labor, and the obligation was more like hired labor than slavery. They could keep the products of their work, and could pass their land onto their children.
In fact, if you look at the percentage of their labor serfs gave to their lords (which topped out at 33-35% maximum, I understand) it was well below the 38-50% of everything we do which is confiscated by our modern "liberal" government.
[Slavery was absolished, but] ...it took over 1400 years for the Industrial Revolution to happen...
No, actually, it didn't take that long. Slavery was mostly abolished by the tenth century, and within a few hundred years mills were springing up all over europe.
[Tim:] When plague struck the Roman world, many pagans dumped their loved ones in the streets or fled, but many Christians risked martyrdom to nurse loved ones, or even strangers, back to health... [lpetrich:] Where's the evidence of that?
Both Christian and Pagan commentators recorded these events. We have commentary from bishops like Cyprian (251) and Dionysius (260), as well as Pagans like Thucydides who described earlier pagan responses. Concerning Christian charity in general, the Pagan Roman Emporeur Julian complained: "The pious Galileans support not only their poor, but ours as well, everyone can see that our people lack aid from us"!
[Christian evangelists] did not finance those careers with their trades...
To the contrary, some clearly did. Paul, for example, recorded how he usually paid his own way so that he wouldn't be a burden to others.
And what's wrong with a preacher getting paid for his work? Somehow, it's acceptable for a rock star to get paid to do what people want him to, but not okay for a preacher to do the same. There's nothing wrong with a group of people paying a man for having served them as a preacher.
And, since most of these people lived in poverty went to horrible deaths for their beliefs, it's a bit absurd to imply they preached and believed as they did in order to "sponge off" others. ;-)
[Tim:] JudeoChristian theism teaches that man has profound propensitives toward evil... [lpetrich:] Except that Judeo-Xianity is NOT a unified front.
On that point, except for modern "liberal" Christians (who believe pretty much anything) it certainly is. Yes, there are differences in the fine-grained details among theologians, but so what? They're all unified on the point I've stated -- a point secularists frequently explicitly or implicitly reject.
Jews don't believe in original sin.
Of course not. But they believe humans have a choice between good and evil, and many religious Jews understand that evil can be more attractive, and a profound problem. This is precisely what I've stated.
[Tim:] Generally, secularists (and many others) hold that man's main problem is a lack of knowledge [lpetrich:] Another caricature. We have both good and bad tendencies; we are not original sinners.
It's not a "caricature", it's simply a generalization. "Original sin" is a notion which implies a God: I haven't argued for it, since one cannot accept it without assuming a God: it would be unreasonable to expect atheists to believe in such a doctrine.
But it would be reasonable to expect them to understand the profound tendency people have to do evil, and tend to embrace solutions and viewpoints which take that strongly into account. But, historically, that doesn't seem to have happened, in general. As one of my critics above just mentioned, the focus has been primarily, and sometimes exclusively, on "human potential" -- meaning for good, not evil.
... that the Universe can still be cyclic, or else can be a bubble in some super-Universe.
It *could* be: but I'm not aware of any evidence, whatsoever, for your belief. At the moment, such a suggestion is nothing more than wishful thinking.
But again, you supply evidence that even today, many atheists would rather not think of a universe which had a definite, non-repeatable beginning.
Heh, I'm endlessly wrong: except that each argument seems to confirm what I've said.
I notice that he doesn't talk about biological evolution...
Contrary to your assumption, not all theists are -- or have even been -- "creationists" in the way you probably think of the term.
"Our side" has never been fully unified on any particular view of evolution. But it seems to me that most atheists like -- yea, need, apparently -- to simplify "the enemy" down to one particular view. Dawkins even admits, in his writings, that not all theists oppose evolution. Won't you at least believe him on this point, if not me?
There is a Sheol of a lot of Universe just plain gone to waste, however.
Who cares? It's just space. There's plenty of it to go around. Would you have preferred a 20 x 30 x 40 mile universe? Me neither.
Atheists are often VERY moral...
Some atheists are quite moral, in my experience, but many others are not. (Just as is true of any group.) But I'm not interested in judging or picking on individuals so much as the larger effects of their actions and beliefs.
...and are less of the prison population.
I've taken a few moments to research this claim, and yes, I've seen the stats which show various stated affiliations of prisoners from 1997.
I think this is a reasonable response:
A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religionists prior to incarceration. That is, they exhibited none of the standard sociological measures of religiosity, such as regular prayer, scripture study, and attendance at worship services.
Thus, some commentators on one side have claimed that being religious is associated with incarceration. This is based only on religious preference statistics. American sociologists are well aware that nearly all Americans profess a religious preference. But there is a major difference between those who are actually religious affiliated, that is, members of a congregation (approx. 45 to 65% of the population, varying by region), and those who merely profess a preference, likely the name of the denomination that their parents of grandparents were a part of....
In the federal prisoner statistics, a full 20% of the respondents either answered "none" or provided no response to the question on religious affiliation. Based on response patterns to similar questions on nationwide surveys, it is likely that all or nearly all of these persons would be in the "nonreligious" category (or the "atheists" category, to use the terminology from the atheist web page itself). Even without adding the ".209%" of the population that specifically identified themselves as atheists, the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population. [1]
Futher, I'm not accusing individual atheists of being criminals. I'm simply stating I believe the atheistic outlook has been more problematic, historically, in terms of the effects of the movements it has created, and their predictions about human nature, and effects thereof.
Are you willing to accept the reality of the miracles of religions other than yours?
Of course: if the same criteria apply.
[Tim:] Many atheists strike me as deeply irrational... [lpetrich:] Although it's possible to be an irrational atheist, just about every atheist I know of who's seriously advocated atheism does so from a standpoint of reason.
Yes, most certainly speak a great deal about reason, and lay constant claim to it. Often, while being incredibly irrational or at least counter-factual.
Northern European countries are, for the most part, remarkably irreligious. Yet they are anything but the degenerate hellholes that some religious apologists undoubtedly believe them to be...
You amuse me. :-)
First, you have to compare apples to apples. You must compare churchgoing Europeans to their more secular peers, for example. I could pull the same trick and point out China is officially atheistic, and thus compare Chinese crime rates to the more-Christian US.
Such comparisons are invalid and thus fallacious.
Second, Western Europe's average standard of living is equal to that of the bottom four US states, so its amusing that you've chosen an example which undermines your argument, even if used in the incorrect manner you suggest.
Further, you point to countries which have largely embraced socialism, and other "progressive" policies -- and are now reaping the benefits of it.
Well, I apologise: that's all I have time for at the moment. Lots of counter-factual statements, a good number of straw men, one or two ad hominem insults, a few places where people made my own point why they thought they were opposing me, and a number of contradictory arguments.
Many atheists are wonderful, kind, rational people. Keith Burgess-Jackson, for example, and some of the more reasonable top-flight representatives of the movement (which would not include Dawkins, IMO). But, as I said above, I also see a lot of fallacious and counter-factual stuff.
I thought the apostles and their wives were supported by gifts from people, a lot less work and a lot safer than being a fisherman. Even Paul received gifts.
Work , in Judeo-Christian values, was a curse from God.
'The reverse is true also: although there are counter-exceptions, people will generally behave better if they believe they will be judged, and that a moral God is watching them.'
Any evidence that criminals in American prisons are not religious? What percentage of prisoners call themselves atheists?
Posted by: Steven Carr on November 24, 2006 12:13 AM