|
Post by Retrograde on May 29, 2008 3:33:57 GMT -4
Sorry to flame out like that. I just recently read this long document, that did that. After the first few dozen instances, it was obvious what was to come. Like watching a car crash, totally unable to prevent it I suppose I will become less sensitive to this one with passing of time. It's just that that particular nerve was badly inflamed already when I read this thread
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 11:07:58 GMT -4
Okay, okay. I think I get what you're saying. If society doesn't have those values 'embedded' in it, or if those values have decreased - sacrifice, daring etc. - then the chances of individuals taking on some of the adventurous undertakings are lessened. Right? Basically, yes. My tool analogy yesterday was not perfect because you need some tools for some jobs. A better analogy might be vitamins. You don't need vitamins to live a healthy life, but it becomes easier if you have them, and a population with vitamins available will tend to be a healthier one than one without. It would be difficult to show that a lack of religious values was the direct cause of a society choosing not to take a risk. I see it more as a contributing factor than the sole and only cause of any circumstance. How about dealing with Saddam Hussein? During President Clinton's era he was mostly content with keeping the status quo. Once a more religious individual was in the office the status quo was no longer good enough, and the more risky course was taken. Religion wasn't the only prompting there (obviously) but I think a case can be made that it was a contributing factor. I also realize that this could be viewed as a negative example - taking a risk where it didn't have to be taken. Another example - the failure of the plan to reform Social Security into personal accounts that you would actually have some control over. The parts of the country more in favor of the idea were the more conservative and religious parts, whereas the more liberal portion were against it because they felt it was more risky than leaving the government in full control. Absolutely I think it will have an effect. I can only think that learning the lesson that you can sit and be entertained rather than having to go out and work at it must have a bad effect on someone's work ethic.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 11:09:37 GMT -4
Sorry to flame out like that. I just recently read this long document, that did that. After the first few dozen instances, it was obvious what was to come. Like watching a car crash, totally unable to prevent it I suppose I will become less sensitive to this one with passing of time. It's just that that particular nerve was badly inflamed already when I read this thread Sorry. Are you sure it can't be used either way? I suppose I could go back and change all my uses of the phrase to "adverse to risk" which would be more proper. Or I could just use other phrases.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 11:13:22 GMT -4
I'm not sure that net religiosity has decreased: the overtly religious may be fewer in number, but the nature of their religion has become more extreme and fundamentalist. If the total number of people who are religious is fewer then I think society as a whole has become less religious, despite the extreme elements becoming more extreme. If I bought a bag full of 100 M&Ms, and 50 of them were red while the others were other colors, and then a few years later I bought another bag of 100 M&Ms and only 10 of them were red but they were a much brighter and colorful red, I would still say that overall my M&Ms had become less red over time, despite the minority being "much more red" than they were before.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 29, 2008 11:58:26 GMT -4
But would the quantity of the poisonous red dye #2 be lesser or greater?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 29, 2008 12:05:06 GMT -4
A better analogy might be vitamins. You don't need vitamins to live a healthy life, but it becomes easier if you have them, and a population with vitamins available will tend to be a healthier one than one without. Then again it might not: the "vit" part of "vitamin" is short for vital: without them you die of Scurvy or Beri-Beri, go blind, develop rickets or various other nasties depending on which vitamins you don't have. With a varied and sufficient diet, you don't need supplementary vitamin pills, but you definitely need the vitamins.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 12:11:42 GMT -4
I meant vitamins in pill form, yes.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 29, 2008 12:23:21 GMT -4
You know, I've been thinking about this, and what's important is a sense of wonder. The failing of certain religious types is to think that "sense of wonder" is the same as "religious nature." (And remember, I'm religious myself.)
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 29, 2008 12:37:20 GMT -4
My point is more that a strong religious commitment tends to make a person or society less selfish and uncaring... Says who.... you? This is exactly what I was talking about. You seem to be going out of your way to "push" other posters "buttons" by saying outrageously ignorant things unsupported by anything other than your personal belief system. ...and only those possessing a belief system similar to yours qualifies as the "best tool" Please explain this remark. WOW...welcome to the 20h Century.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 29, 2008 12:43:58 GMT -4
I had not read the following before making my last post...although it makes little difference... A better analogy might be vitamins. You don't need vitamins to live a healthy life, but it becomes easier if you have them, and a population with vitamins available will tend to be a healthier one than one without. This "analogy" is worse than the last. Now you're saying that those who don't share your belief system are "lacking" something or that you are in some way "healthier" because of your beliefs.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 13:29:12 GMT -4
RAF, I don't really care what your opinion is, and I care even less when you don't express it civilly.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 29, 2008 13:43:18 GMT -4
Everybody chill. It's just a discussion.
Jason, when I said yesterday that I was sure you believed your claim to be true -- I was just saying that I didn't think you were posting it just to tick people off.
But I think your vitamin analogy is bad, too. I see little evidence that believing in God makes a society healthier. In fact, too much God is almost always a bad thing. Religion that is restrained by a secular society is all right, but unrestrained religion (particularly monotheism) is almost always bad.
The opposite of your argument might be that religion (and very specifically Christianity) in this country has worked overtime to put science in a bad light. Anything that contradicts the Bible must be put into doubt. Unfortunately, science and the Bible very rarely agree on much of anything. So maybe a lack of will to go into space is based in part on the negative undercurrents that Christianity brings to the subject of science in general.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 29, 2008 13:54:37 GMT -4
Actually, with the clarification to vitamin pills, Jason has come about as close as I suspect he can to admitting that religion is absolutely unnecessary...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 14:06:07 GMT -4
But I think your vitamin analogy is bad, too. Does it help a bit if I make it more clear that I intended it as vitamin supplements in pill form instead of "vitamins" in a generic "nutrients" idea? In other words something that is strictly supplemental rather than vital. I thought the vitamin analogy would be better than the tool analogy because sometimes you do need specific tools to do particular jobs. Quite a few studies have determined that religious people are on average happier, healthier, and live longer than the non-religious. Some other studies have purported to show the opposite. It's probably quite difficult to isolate religious devotion as a testable factor in someone's health, so these studies can be viewed with some suspicion, but it would seem obvious to me that avoiding risk behaviors like illegal drug addiction, extra-marital sex, and smoking and drinking (in the case of Mormons) can contribute to making a society more healthy overall. I would agree that extremes of almost everything are bad. Unrestrained secular societies can be just as bad, if not worse, than unrestrained theocracies. It's a possible argument, but along a different path than my original subject. I wasn't arguing that religion promotes science, but that it places value on self-sacrifice, and that a non-religious society may not view self-sacrifice and risk-taking in quite the same way. I think the opposition that some religious individuals have to some parts of science has more to do with suspicions about the motivations of those proclaiming scientific conclusions that seem inconsistent with religion rather than opposition to the actual science involved.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 29, 2008 14:06:38 GMT -4
RAF, I don't really care what your opinion is... I don't recall asking if you cared or not. I'm simply tasking you to provide evidence for the opinions you present here. Are you up for that challenge??
|
|