The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

ISAW · 07-06-2006 10:10PM

robindch wrote:

> [ISAW] You could pick the murder rate among clergy (who practice daily and
> all believe) worldwide. These would, I guess, show a low level of
> violence among practitioners.

FYI - the Irish Catholic had a frontpage headline a year or two back saying that "Only Four Percent of Convicted Paedophiles are Priests", apparently unaware that priests form around 0.1% of the population at large. Dividing 4 by 0.1, it turns out that Irish clergy are *forty* times more likely to be convicted child-abusers than non-clergy.

A "low level of violence"? 'fraid not!

Let us assume child abuse is all violent.

Your claim is that child sexual abuse among clergy is higher than among other groups.

I dispute this claim.
I accept that most abuse happened in industrial schools or schools run by religious in the past. today most schools are run by lay people. Other foci of abuse i.e. where children gather are playgrounds sports etc. are not mainly run by clergy today either. I would defy you to produce the stats form say the last ten years and show me that clergy per capita are the highest offenders. Maybe they are, I do not know. I do not believe it however. But YOU made the claim so you go and prove it!

You claim that fur per cent of clergy are pedeophiles and 0.1 per cent of Ireland at large is. Care to prove it?

ISAW · 07-06-2006 10:28PM

Scofflaw wrote:

In which case I'd like to see a criticism of the methodology.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You brought up the study in defence of a claim that lower belief causes higher crime and vice versa.

It is not usual to just cite a reference without showing specifically where in that reference the claim is supported. I asked you to do that. You refused and resorted to "go and read the study". It is not for me to do your work for you. If you make a claim YOU support it! It oisnt good enough to ask me to find where the study supports your claim! You are trying to shift the burden of proof onto me!
I mean if I stated "it is in ( take your pick :- the bible/origin of the species/ de revolutionibus orbius caelestium/two world systems) somewhere go and read it and you will see" you would think that a daft line of reasoning wouldnt you? If I stated the chapter and verse from Galileo/Darwin/copnericus etc. then you would have to accept that as supporting eveidence or show how it isnt supporting evidence.

Now where in your survey is there support for the following claim and I am using the actual words in the original claim here. It does not matter if it is a counter claim or if the claim to which it was a counter claim waws also wrong. You have stated on several occasions that it was not your claim and it was not what you meant and every time I re quoted the claim and asked you to retract it or explain what the actual words mean you go back to the "less belief creats less crime" line and you claim the survcey supports that.

Here are the actual words used:

We should compare stats - but I think you'll find them in my favour, as far as general populations go. The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

Now where does your "survey" say that the above claim is true or support the above claim?

Zombrex · 07-06-2006 10:54PM

ISAW wrote:

I dispute this claim.

Why? As in what is your motivation for not believing it.

You have posted a lot of attacks on the statitics posted here, but little reason as to where these attacks are coming from.

Do you, like Wolfbane, believe that following a structured religion does make you more moral and law abiding than someone who doesn't?

Or is it that you simply don't accept that religious outlook has any bearing on the morality of a person?

Or do you simply not like the inaccurate manner statistics are presented here, and have no opinion either way on the content of the statistics?

ISAW · 07-06-2006 11:08PM

Wicknight wrote:

Why? As in what is your motivation for not believing it.

What I personally believe does not come into it for the purpose of disputing a claim.

The claim is that child sexual abuse among clergy is higher than among other groups.
I dispute this claim.
I am sure you are aware of "ad hominem"? i.e. when you cant win the arguement attack the person. Whether I believe pigs can fly or am a transgendered plutocratic nazi or a member of whatever group people want to single out is beside tohe point.

the claim is the point and whether the claim is supported with evidence. clearly the literal biblical creationist case is frequently dismantled by valid reasoning. One cant apply those standards to one side (those arguing against creationism in this case) and ignore it when "one of our own" commits the similar errors. This may seen the issue swing from "the Earth is as old as the bible says" to "the bible isnt a science text" "you cant trust the bible" to "religion is bad for society" to "clergy are more criminal and abuse more children than the rest of the population ".

You have posted a lot of attacks on the statitics posted here, but little reason as to where these attacks are coming from.

I don't have to. I am not making the claim that the stats prove something. and I havent posted a lot of attacks on statistics posted here.

1. the statistics were not posted here. a single citation to work which contained graphic descriptions of stats was posted.

2. whether or what I believe of don't believe is aside from whether the line of reasoning is rational or scientific

Do you, like Wolfbane, believe that following a structured religion does make you more moral and law abiding than someone who doesn't?

I may believe that but I am not preaching it to others and insisting it is a scientifically proven fact.

Or is it that you simply don't accept that religious outlook has any bearing on the morality of a person?

I believe that given the evidence shown to date (which even stated itself that further study is necessary) that it is unproven whether societies of unbliievers or societies of "followers" are "better" than each other. Of course any group can claim that is because the societies dont all subscribe to the one true religion or even to atheism.

Or do you simply not like the inaccurate manner statistics are presented here,

Liking doesnt come into it. I do not believe they supported the point made no matter what way they were presented but I do think the presentation misrepresented the actual research.

and have no opinion either way on the content of the statistics?

I have an opinion but I am not claiming my opinion is correct.

Scofflaw · 07-06-2006 11:16PM

ISAW wrote:

You brought up the study in defence of a claim that lower belief causes higher crime and vice versa.

It is not usual to just cite a reference without showing specifically where in that reference the claim is supported. I asked you to do that. You refused and resorted to "go and read the study". It is not for me to do your work for you. If you make a claim YOU support it! It oisnt good enough to ask me to find where the study supports your claim! You are trying to shift the burden of proof onto me!

No. This is your tediously repeated misinterpretation of what I said to someone else - you were not invited to comment, and you certainly have gone about it in a pointlessly impolite manner. If you consider reading such a study to be "work", then there's no point in you trying to pretend that you're arguing from an informed position - you can't be, can you?

ISAW wrote:

I mean if I stated "it is in ( take your pick :- the bible/origin of the species/ de revolutionibus orbius caelestium/two world systems) somewhere go and read it and you will see" you would think that a daft line of reasoning wouldnt you? If I stated the chapter and verse from Galileo/Darwin/copnericus etc. then you would have to accept that as supporting eveidence or show how it isnt supporting evidence.

No. It's been standard practice on this thread to reference material by linking it. You would know this if you had bothered to read (at least some of) the rest of the thread before jumping in.

ISAW wrote:

Now where in your survey is there support for the following claim and I am using the actual words in the original claim here. It does not matter if it is a counter claim or if the claim to which it was a counter claim waws also wrong. You have stated on several occasions that it was not your claim and it was not what you meant and every time I re quoted the claim and asked you to retract it or explain what the actual words mean you go back to the "less belief creats less crime" line and you claim the survcey supports that.

Now where does your "survey" say that the above claim is true or support the above claim?

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

I imagine you will continue to quibble, but at least you'll have read a paragraph of the study you're dismissing, even if you can't be bothered to read the rest.

Scofflaw

ISAW · 07-06-2006 11:28PM

Scofflaw wrote:

No. This is your tediously repeated misinterpretation of what I said. If you consider reading such a study to be "work", then there's no point in you trying to pretend that you're arguing from an informed position - you can't be, can you?

It is not for me to show where YOUR citation supports your point. You claim it does! Where does it?

No. It's been standard practice on this thread to reference material by linking it. You would know this if you had bothered to read (at least some of) the rest of the thread before jumping in.

It is standard practice of creationists to misquote or misinterpret peoples work. Now you claim that this survey supports your claim that more religious means more crime. However you fail to show where in that work that you claim is supported.

I imagine you will continue to quibble, but at least you'll have read a paragraph of the study you're dismissing, even if you can't be bothered to read the rest.

You again assume that I havent read the whole thing. I suppose you can also prove that assumption? I don't think so since it isn't true. Mind you the reference you supplied does not show all the statistics. It only seems to show several plots and not the actual data. so maybe you are correct and I have no idea of the original work.

Scofflaw · 07-06-2006 11:30PM

ISAW wrote:

It is not for me to show where YOUR citation supports your point. You claim it does! Where does it?

In the section I quoted in my post. Read my post. Ideally, think before answering, too.

Scofflaw

ISAW · 07-06-2006 11:54PM

Scofflaw wrote:

No. This is your tediously repeated misinterpretation of what I said. If you consider reading such a study to be "work", then there's no point in you trying to pretend that you're arguing from an informed position - you can't be, can you?

It is not for me to show where YOUR citation supports your point. You claim it does! Where does it?

No. It's been standard practice on this thread to reference material by linking it. You would know this if you had bothered to read (at least some of) the rest of the thread before jumping in.

It is standard practice of creationists to misquote or misinterpret peoples work. Now you claim that this survey supports your claim that more religious means more crime. However you fail to show where in that work that you claim is supported.

I imagine you will continue to quibble, but at least you'll have read a paragraph of the study you're dismissing, even if you can't be bothered to read the rest.

You again assume that I havent read the whole thing. I suppose you can also prove that assumption? I don't think so since it isn't true. Mind you the reference you supplied does not show all the statistics. It only seems to show several plots and not the actual data. so maybe you are correct and I have no idea of the original work.

You quote paragraph 18 I thought you might.

That is in a discussion section. Later in paragraph 20 under conclusions the author states :

It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies.

Clearly the author is not convinced that reasons for social distress are all to do with theism or non-theism.

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9).

where are the actual data for these figures? One can readily see that the Us and Ireland stand out and skew the data.

The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly.

But this is not proof that high level of social disfunction is caused by more religious belief.

The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors.

So there is an exception even in these stats? If religion causes social dysfunction why does it not cause suicide as well?

No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health.

But the Catholic church does not insist on biblical literalism! It doesnt popularly deny evolution. Nor do the anglicans or the Orthodox. thats the vast bulk of christians. It is only in the fundamentalist US. (which skews the figures and which is the only democracy in thsi survey which combines "religiosity and popular denial of evolution". I mean do you really believe that the viewpoint of western democracies are some "coalition of believrs" supporting the George Bush view of the world?

Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional.

Yes they correllate i.e. this doesnt show a causal factor or a mechanism.
they might also correllate with militarism or colonialism and that be a causal factor for dysfunction. Or it might be that in a depression more people turn to prayer.

None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.

well this just isnt true based on current news. Germany and France are in turmoil. But that isnt because of muslims or christians it is probably because of economics.

In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

In other words the correlations are not all so strong as you make out. So what are the actual correlations? Also what are the p levels? I mean at what level could this occur only by chance? If the standard social science 5 per cent level then how many of the countries applied in all cases?
The 5pc level by the way is about enough to say "further research is needed". 3pc or 1pc would be convincing that something is going on.

ISAW · 08-06-2006 12:03AM

Scofflaw wrote:

In the section I quoted in my post. Read my post. Ideally, think before answering, too.

I replied in line. You will note the replies to what you later state are dealt with as they arrive. If you want to insuniate I am not thinking or am lacking in some mental capacity then I suggest you try that on someone else you are wasting your time trying to taunt me in that way. I will either continue to nail the arguement down or if you are going to resort to insult or personal attack then I will be forced to ignore you. Maybe that is what you want but if you continue to allude that I am incapable of thinkin then that is what you will get.

Wasnt it you by the way who above stated that you couldnt be bothered arguing abut a claim you didnt make and you now are eventually going into the supporting evidence on that claim which you refused to post and also claimed I didnt read? thick and ignorant now am I? Well we shall see.

samb · 08-06-2006 12:09AM

I can't find the link you guys are arguing about. was it this study http://people.eku.edu/falkenbergs/psy397/2005-11.pdf

Seems fairly damning of the US in particular. I just thought they were (generally of course) just ignorant and arrogant....I suppose we should feel sorry for them rather that let them annoy us too much.

Scofflaw · 08-06-2006 12:11AM

ISAW wrote:

You quote paragraph 18 I thought you might.

Then why did you waste my time asking?

ISAW wrote:

That is in a discussion section. Later in paragraph 20 under conclusions the author states : "It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies."

Clearly the author is not convinced that reasons for social distress are all to do with theism or non-theism.

Except that it's particularly about the US, not about the general conclusions.

ISAW wrote:

where are the actual data for these figures? One can readily see that the Us and Ireland stand out and skew the data.

In the case of one or two graphs (STD and teenage pregnancies), that's true. In general, the graphs show pretty good correlations - even if you excluded the US.

ISAW wrote:

But this is not proof that high level of social disfunction is caused by more religious belief.

Nor have I said it was.

ISAW wrote:

So there is an exception even in these stats? If religion causes social dysfunction why does it not cause suicide as well?

Could be the chocolate. On the other hand, surely you'd expect suicide (a sin) to correlate pretty negatively with religious faith.

ISAW wrote:

But the Catholic church does not insist on biblical literalism! It doesnt popularly deny evolution. Nor do the anglicans or the Orthodox. thats the vast bulk of christians. It is only in the fundamentalist US. (which skews the figures and which is the only democracy in thsi survey which combines "religiosity and popular denial of evolution". I mean do you really believe that the viewpoint of western democracies are some "coalition of believrs" supporting the George Bush view of the world?

No. The graphs do show a pretty clear trend line, whether you include the US or not. Just because the Catholic Church formally accepts evolution doesn't mean that most/all Catholics do.

ISAW wrote:

Yes they correllate i.e. this doesnt show a causal factor or a mechanism.they might also correllate with militarism or colonialism and that be a causal factor for dysfunction. Or it might be that in a depression more people turn to prayer.

Correlation was all I specified. The mechanisms involved may be very complicated - for example, the US might have more religion because it has a lot of inequality, which would also give the negative social indicators. I don't know, and don't claim to.

ISAW wrote:

well this just isnt true based on current news. Germany and France are in turmoil. But that isnt because of muslims or christians it is probably because of economics.

Perhaps the author is talking about the kind of dysfunction he's measuring, rather than a load of media drama?

ISAW wrote:

In other words the correlations are not all so strong as you make out. So what are the actual correlations? Also what are the p levels? I mean at what level could this occur only by chance? If the standard social science 5 per cent level then how many of the countries applied in all cases?
The 5pc level by the way is about enough to say "further research is needed". 3pc or 1pc would be convincing that something is going on.

Did I make a statement about the strength of correlations? Why no, I didn't. Kindly refrain, once again, from putting words in my mouth. I don't think what you think I think, thank God.

It's reasonable research, and it's the only such study available. If you want to dispute it, either effectively criticise the methodology (so, go read the references), or produce some counter-examples.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 08-06-2006 12:19AM

samb wrote:

I can't find the link you guys are arguing about. was it this study http://people.eku.edu/falkenbergs/psy397/2005-11.pdf

Seems fairly damning of the US in particular. I just thought they were (generally of course) just ignorant and arrogant....I suppose we should feel sorry for them rather that let them annoy us too much.

Actually, that's a nicer version than the one I linked. On the other hand, copy and paste from PDF is a pain!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 08-06-2006 02:47AM

Wicknight wrote:

Why? As in what is your motivation for not believing it.

You have posted a lot of attacks on the statitics posted here, but little reason as to where these attacks are coming from.

Do you, like Wolfbane, believe that following a structured religion does make you more moral and law abiding than someone who doesn't?

Or is it that you simply don't accept that religious outlook has any bearing on the morality of a person?

Or do you simply not like the inaccurate manner statistics are presented here, and have no opinion either way on the content of the statistics?

On the whole, I think he's a "skeptic".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod · 08-06-2006 03:01AM

Two interesting pieces that should prove of interest to JC and Co

Ancient relatives of today's plants and animals may have survived Earth's oldest, longest winter, when the planet was covered in a deep sheet of ice.
Scientists refer to this chilly period as "Snowball Earth," which first occurred more than two billion years ago. Some computer models suggest the planet was encased in a shell of ice at least a half-mile thick.
Inside rocks collected near Elliot Lake in Ontario, Canada — rocks older than Snowball Earth — scientists found oil trapped in water droplets in the crevices of rock crystals.
Early Life May Have Endured 'Snowball Earth' Most oil is a residue of tiny organisms that once lived in the ocean. The oil contains biomarkers, or molecular fossils, that scientists can use to determine what types of life went into making it.
Alive and kicking
The Ontario oil held answers to age-old questions about when oxygen-producing bacteria and multi-cellular living organisms, called eukaryotes, first appeared on Earth.
"We can use these biomarkers to say something about what the early history of life and the planet was like," said astrobiologist Roger Buick of the University of Washington. "It gives us another powerful tool to understanding the evolution of life and Earth."
Buick and petroleum geochemist Adriana Dutkiewicz of the University of Sydney in Australia found evidence in the oil that suggests eukaryotes and bacteria were alive and kicking 100 million years before the planet froze over.
The finding fits with a study last year that concluded bacteria actually caused the first snowball scenario by producing oxygen that destroyed a warm blanket of methane in the atmosphere.
Details of Buick and Dutkiewicz's study are published in the June edition of the journal Geology.

Australian Mounds May Be Three-Billion-Year-Old Fossils
WASHINGTON *—*Odd-shaped mounds of dirt in Australia turn out to be fossils of the oldest life on Earth, created by billions of microbes more than 3 billion years ago, scientists say in a new report.
And these mounds are exactly the type of life astrobiologists are looking for on Mars and elsewhere.
A study published Thursday in the journal Nature gives the strongest evidence yet that the mounds dotting a large swath of western Australia are Earth's oldest fossils.
The theory is that these are not merely dirt piles that formed randomly into odd shapes, but that ancient microbes burrowed in and built them.
"This is the pointy end of the fossil record; this is the first really compelling record," said study lead author Abigail Allwood, a researcher at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology. "It's an ancestor of life. If you think that all life arose on this one planet, perhaps this is where it started."
The mounds come in different shapes — like egg cartons, swirls of frosting on cupcakes or waves on the ocean. They are called stromatolites and have been studied for a long time, but the big question has been if they were once teeming with life.
Allwood's research, which included examining thousands of the mounds and grouping them into seven subtypes, is the most comprehensive and compelling yet to say the answer is yes, according to a top expert not on her team.
"It is the best bet for the best evidence of the oldest life on Earth," said Bruce Runnegar, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute in Moffett Field, Calif. "These are too complicated to be attributed to non-biological processes — but we don't know that for a fact."
Allwood said her study made the case for life solidly by looking at how the stromatolites fit with the rock formations around them, with each other, and what would have been happening on Earth at that time.
One of the clinchers was putting them in seven repeating subtypes, which indicates they weren't random.
"It's just the sheer abundance of material and to be able to put it all in context," Allwood said.
Runnegar who has examined the mounds in western Australian several times said the first time he saw them — some of which jut out from hills at eye-level — he experienced an otherworldly feeling.
In a similar situation 10 years ago, scientists at NASA claimed they found evidence of fossilized microbial life in a Martian meteorite. Those claims have been sharply disputed.
One of the chief skeptics of the Martian meteorite claims, Ralph Harvey, a geology professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said he is far more inclined to believe that the Australian mounds were once alive.
The key difference is that on Mars, scientists were looking for evidence of life on "a potentially dead planet" and the requirement for proof is extraordinary, Harvey said.
Less evidence, he said is needed for Allwood's claims because "we already know that life has been on Earth for a very, very long time; all we're trying to do is push it further back."

robindch · 08-06-2006 10:17AM

> [ISAW] I would defy you to produce the stats form say the last ten years
> and show me that clergy per capita are the highest offenders. Maybe
> they are, I do not know. I do not believe it however. But YOU made the
> claim so you go and prove it! You claim that fur per cent of clergy are
> pedeophiles and 0.1 per cent of Ireland at large is. Care to prove it?

I don't wish to sound excessively rude, but I don't think that you actually read my posting where I did "prove" it as best I could, with the figures available to me.

To recap: The Irish Catholic said that four percent of convicted paedophiles are priests. The IC is a publication which, to say the least, is pro-(catholic-)church, so I think it's reasonable to assume that the figures that they quote concerning "their own" are probably accurate, particularly when they're rather damning (as they'll probably tend to underestimate) and particularly when it's a front page lead story.

Clergy make up 0.1% of the population at large -- this figure is publicly available from the 2002 Census, available from the Central Statistics Office website, specifically volume 6, which is available as a PDF download here; page 36 says that there are 3977 members of the clergy of both sexes in Ireland.

So, the sums work out as follows - all other things being equal, we'd expect the same ratio of convicted paedophile clergy to convicted paedophile non-clergy present in the prison population to be roughly the same as the ratio of clergy to non-clergy present in the non-prison population. (Actually, if one were to believe the church's propaganda about how necessary the church is to society's moral leadership, we'd confidently expect that there would be no convicted paedophile clergy. However, what the church says and what the church does are completely different things, as this example unfortunately shows.)

However, we don't see this ratio at all: the IC says that the number of convicted paedophile clergy is actually 4% of the irish paedophile prison population, not 0.1%. Therefore, we can, fairly safely assume that a member of the clergy is around 40 times more likely to be a convicted pedophile than a non-member of the clergy.

Note in this that I've not taken account of (a) the difference between male and female clergy (males are more likely to offend), or (b) the difference between working and non-working members of the population or (c) the lingering suspicion that the IC's figures are wrong. While each of these three items will change the magnitude of the figures somewhat, they're unlikely to change the overall conclusion that members of the clergy are far, far more likely to abuse kids than non-members.

ISAW · 08-06-2006 10:26AM

Scofflaw wrote:

Then why did you waste my time asking?

You made a claim about religion causing crime. I asked you for evidence. You cited a paper and said "go read it". I asked you where in that paper was the support for your claim. After obfuscating claiming that it didnt matter about the claim you eventually re stated the claim. I pressed you for where in your single source it was supported. You eventually quote paragraph eighteen. When I state I thought you might do that you claim I wasted you time since you by now know that I read the paper.

1. It is your claim it is for you to support it.
2. As I see it the paper does not prove your claim. It at best suggests a correlation between some countries where some religious practice is down and increase in crime. How weak or strong the correlation is not given.

Except that it's particularly about the US, not about the general conclusions.

Now it seems the references on Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, and Doyle, provide the argument specific to the US. Have you read them?

The conclusion begins (emphasis by me:

The United States

ISAW · 08-06-2006 10:55AM

Scofflaw wrote:

On the whole, I think he's a "skeptic".

cordially,
Scofflaw

you would be right in this assumption. But you havent been very cordial to me.

08-06-2006 11:04AM

Son Goku wrote:

Off topic:
What were the modules actually?

topology which I did alright in,
metric spaces, group theory, and complex analysis
complex is evil don't do it!!
group theory is useful but I just forgot so much I messed up and metric wasn't great either
plus I tried learning them off in 2 days which as I said wasn't the best idea

ISAW · 08-06-2006 11:48AM

Scofflaw wrote:

So what?
It's not "proving a negative", you eejit. It's proving a negative correlation!

Please refrain from ad hominem. whether or not I am an eejit does not come into it.
As I have pointed out correlations suggest relationships. They do not prove anything. Quite possibly babies born at a cartian time of the year may get more summer air and be more healthy or may be the oldest in the class and therefore perform better at sports and develop a "winning" attitide. consequently they may go on to be statictically better sportsmen. It is one thing to show this correlation. It is another to say it is because of a specific star sign. Correlation is not causality. you claim that

The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

was questioned by me because you suggested that as belief goes down so does crime and that atheism is therefore somehow "good" for society. You have not shown that belief has gone down. Nor have you shown that it corelates world wide with drops in criminality in society. Finally you have not shown any causal mechanism.

I've shown you the evidence of a positive correlation between religion and negative social indicators.

You have shown some scant evidence for a correlation betwen changes in measures of practice and beliefs in some countries and crime rates and social dysfunction rates. social dysfunctions like STDs or abortions (which is not a crime in the US) by the way were not part of your claim.

Now you show the opposite - that's the negative correlation. If you can't, you can't, and all we have is the positive correlation already demonstrated.

You havent shown the positive! You have not shown that The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.
It is not for me to disprove this. But I have suggested places where ther may be negative correlations Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.

Mind you one should begin with a null hypothesis if one is going to employ ststistical methods. Reducing false positives and false negatives or Type I and II errors I think
they call them in the US. Anyway that is only conjecture from my "eejit" memory. i suppose I can now ask you to prove it wrong?

The several surveys in question obviously support the same conclusions, or they wouldn't in the synthesis, would they? Your constant repetition of this irrelevant point will not make it any stronger.

This is argument from secondary sources. You supplied ONE citation. In that there are other sources. You insist that others read your source but you do not show if you have done so yourself. Now where in other surveys in particular is the point supported. Stating "the secondary sources must support it or they would not be referred to" is not scholarship, it is reliance on unchecked and unverified secondary sources. Again YOU claim these are correct then iti s for YOU to show it.

They're not used in the study, so this point is also irrelevant.

Just because census data is not in your survey does notmean it is irrelevant to the claim you made that : The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

Indeed "percentage of belief" can be directly determined by census data.

Don't start telling me what I think again.
Here are your words:

you are trying to make out that I'm claiming it as some kind of general rule, which I'm not

and

So, as far as I'm concerned, you've taken a sentence of mine out of context, and are using it to claim that I have made a universal claim that the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

I that point I conceeded that the claim has been knocked on the head and that you didnt intend to make any general claim. In fact you stated that you never made a general claim. then you backpeddaled and ressurected the claim couched in terminology.

Since higher levels of irreligion in the only available statistics do correlate with lower incidence of violence in general populations in the only statistics we have available, we can safely say that as far as the statistics show, higher levels of religious practice do not correlate with decreased crime levels, whereas lower levels of religious practice do. As far as I'm concerned, that was the point under discussion.

this is just "well the claim is true but enough research hos not been dont to prove it yet"

Well, it can be shown from the statistics. What more do you want?

It cant! You contradict yourself again. abovr you admit there are not enough stats available to do so!

There are no footnotes. What are you referring to? There are some notes about accuracy of data, but they're not sufficient to invalidate the data.

There are footnotes. Footnote 5 states:

...the multivariate analyses utilized by Barro and McCleary to demonstrate links between economic growth as functions of different aspects religiosity have been criticized as overly manipulative (Kasman). The great majority of nations with high rates of belief in heaven and hell are not prosperous, and most prosperous developing democracies exhibit low rates of such beliefs, the U.S. being an outlier. The positive relationship between church attendance and economic difficulties appears to hold up better, with the U.S. again being an outlier (as in the results by PEW).

"hold up better" for the minority in the sample?

What data have you "suggested above"?

I suppose I can now suggest you "go an read it". Ill get back to you on that. I cant be bothered in making a counter claim as you have. for the present I withdraw and positive counter claim. I want to see you support your claim first.

Oh. Okay then.

the very first paragraph states " a cross-national study verifying these claims [of theists] has yet to be published" - so it is not known either way?
The period and source of data in paragraph 9 discounts future recent indicators of lawlessness.
Para. 10 self reported rates are higher
Para 12 statistical analysis not intensive. Actual correlations rates not mentioned. Relates also to "footnote" 5.
Japan is classified as the "least religious" nation when Buddism and shinto ansestor and emperor worship are common.

This would be the case, assuming you're talking about general populations, yes. I doubt it would be a black-and-white picture of violent anarchy versus peaceful co-existence as you imply, though.

Just what do you think the "correlation" is suggesting. It is suggesting that as belief goes down so does crime and vice versa. you brought it up to suggest that atheistic societies were not necesarily criminal but you progressed to claiming the belief/crime correlation.

No. Nor did I claim this earlier.

You diod and couched it in "as far as stats go" type terms.

I AM claiming, now, that lower belief correlates with lower crime. As far as we have statistics, this is borne out.

and the single the paper you quote admits that the stats are not subjected to rigourous and extensive analysis and that the case is not proven either for those who claim religion is good for society.

If you can manage not to misinterpret this, you can have a discussion.

You clearly have scant evidence to support the hypothersis that religion is good or bad for society or that lower belief in or subscription to religion causes lower crime.

Scofflaw · 08-06-2006 11:48AM

ISAW wrote:

you would be right in this assumption. But you havent been very cordial to me.

True. From my point of view, you misinterpreted me as a result of butting into a discussion between me and wolfsbane and have persistently refused to accept my correction of your misinterpretation. You have aggressively pursued this misinterpretation, repeatedly dismissing any attempt at clarification. You have loudly proclaimed that you can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread, while complaining about things that are common practice. Your tone is invariably accusatory, and you appear to assume that I am an idiot who is incapable of reasoning or scientific thought.

If you're a skeptic, you have managed to come across as a rude and stupid one.

Scofflaw

Zombrex · 08-06-2006 12:31PM

ISAW wrote:

You made a claim about religion causing crime.

That was not the claim.

The original claim wasn't that religion causes crime. It wasn't even that atheism lowers crime, only that there is a correlaton between countries with non-religious populations and low crime, which seems to disprove wolfbane's original theory that you are more at risk from crime and "immorality" in a non-religious society.

Scofflaw's claim doesn't have to prove or mean anything by itself, it is simply evidence that throws huge doubt on wolfbane's original theory.

You seem to have great objection to all this. Why exactly I'm not sure, to me it makes a lot of sense since I'm an atheist but also law abiding and would consider myself having a high level of internal morality, so before Scofflaw had even posted I doubted Wolfbane's claim that unlawfulness and disorder increases in societies with less religious following.

Scofflaw · 08-06-2006 02:28PM

ISAW wrote:

Please refrain from ad hominem. whether or not I am an eejit does not come into it.

I'm not dismissing your argument because you're an eejit. I'm calling you an eejit because your argument is stupid - there is a world of difference between proving a negative correlation and proving a negative.

FYI, an ad hominem would be something like "shouldn't you be studying for your Inter" - which would suggest that you're too young to be worth arguing with, and would be irrelevant while being dismissive. That you make idiotic arguments is germane to the discussion, and certainly suggests that you're an eejit, but it's not an ad hominem.

ISAW wrote:

As I have pointed out correlations suggest relationships. They do not prove anything...your claim that

The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

was questioned by me because you suggested that as belief goes down so does crime and that atheism is therefore somehow "good" for society. You have not shown that belief has gone down. Nor have you shown that it corelates world wide with drops in criminality in society. Finally you have not shown any causal mechanism.

You think my claim is a causal claim. You're an idiot.

I haven't claimed anything other than correlation! Look, I'll repeat that for your benefit: I haven't claimed anything other than correlation! Now I'll repeat it in bold: I haven't claimed anything other than correlation! Now in CAPS: I HAVEN'T CLAIMED ANYTHING OTHER THAN CORRELATION!

Do you understand what I'm saying here? Do I need to go to caps and bold?

ISAW wrote:

You have shown some scant evidence for a correlation betwen changes in measures of practice and beliefs in some countries and crime rates and social dysfunction rates. social dysfunctions like STDs or abortions (which is not a crime in the US) by the way were not part of your claim.

You havent shown the positive! You have not shown that The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.
It is not for me to disprove this. But I have suggested places where ther may be negative correlations Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.

Well, for a start, you haven't suggested them before. For a second, their levels of development, government, and political status are sufficiently different to make comparison on the basis of religion alone almost impossible. But, hey, if you want to hide behind something that can't possibly be tested, work away. The available statistics show that "the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers."

ISAW wrote:

This is argument from secondary sources. You supplied ONE citation. In that there are other sources. You insist that others read your source but you do not show if you have done so yourself. Now where in other surveys in particular is the point supported. Stating "the secondary sources must support it or they would not be referred to" is not scholarship, it is reliance on unchecked and unverified secondary sources. Again YOU claim these are correct then iti s for YOU to show it.

It's a widely cited and widely known study. I am not aware of any work that disproves the conclusions, and I'm not aware of anyone who has succesfully picked methodological holes in it. It's in a peer-reviewed, publicly available journal. All of that makes it OK by normal scientific standards.

If you don't like the conclusions (and it appears you don't), you get to pick holes in its veracity and reliability.

ISAW wrote:

Indeed "percentage of belief" can be directly determined by census data.

Rubbish. Read the discussion on the Atheists board about putting down your religion on the census form.

ISAW wrote:

I that point I conceeded that the claim has been knocked on the head and that you didnt intend to make any general claim. In fact you stated that you never made a general claim. then you backpeddaled and ressurected the claim couched in terminology.

this is just "well the claim is true but enough research hos not been dont to prove it yet"

It cant! You contradict yourself again. abovr you admit there are not enough stats available to do so!

What on earth does "couched in terminology" mean?

I have made the claim that as far as we have statistics, my claim is proven true. You are now simply quibbling, either because you don't like the conclusion, or because you don't like being wrong.

ISAW wrote:

There are footnotes. Footnote 5 states:

"hold up better" for the minority in the sample?

Damn my pop-up blocker!

ISAW wrote:

I suppose I can now suggest you "go an read it". Ill get back to you on that. I cant be bothered in making a counter claim as you have. for the present I withdraw and positive counter claim. I want to see you support your claim first.

Which claim? The claim I originally made, which I consider well-supported by the available evidence? The claim I have gone on to make, that the implication of the available evidence is the generally applicable conclusion that "The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers." - in other words, that given the claim is well-supported in the available evidence (and you still haven't produced any counter-evidence) it is likely to be applicable across the board?

Or are we talking about a claim to a provable causal connection? I haven't made that one, as I have noted repeatedly.

ISAW wrote:

the very first paragraph states " a cross-national study verifying these claims [of theists] has yet to be published" - so it is not known either way?

Well, at least it's not just me you misinterpret and quote out of context. A longer version of the quote would be:

Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published.

Perhaps you don't understand the word "verify"? It means "to prove true". That would mean that no-one has published a study supporting these claims.

ISAW wrote:

The period and source of data in paragraph 9 discounts future recent indicators of lawlessness.
Para. 10 self reported rates are higher
Para 12 statistical analysis not intensive. Actual correlations rates not mentioned. Relates also to "footnote" 5.
Japan is classified as the "least religious" nation when Buddism and shinto ansestor and emperor worship are common.

Now, if the author felt any of these were sufficient to discredit the study, he wouldn't have published (scientific option), or he wouldn't have mentioned them (creationist option). In addition, we're talking about theism here - Buddhism, Shinto, etc don't count as theist

ISAW wrote:

Just what do you think the "correlation" is suggesting. It is suggesting that as belief goes down so does crime and vice versa. you brought it up to suggest that atheistic societies were not necesarily criminal but you progressed to claiming the belief/crime correlation.

I brought it up to counter the claim that atheists/unbelievers are more likely to be criminal than (specifically) Christian believers. I have progressed to making the claim that belief (as per the study) correlates positively with negative social indicators (with the exception of suicide), again as per the study.

ISAW wrote:

You diod and couched it in "as far as stats go" type terms.

Oh. And you feel that adding riders and provisos of that kind, to indicate that one is not making a universal claim, is in fact a sneaky way of making such universal claims while pretending not to. Is that right?

ISAW wrote:

and the single the paper you quote admits that the stats are not subjected to rigourous and extensive analysis and that the case is not proven either for those who claim religion is good for society.

Again, this is either a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation. Footnote 5: "For example the multivariate analyses utilized by Barro and McCleary to demonstrate links between economic growth as functions of different aspects religiosity have been criticized as overly manipulative (Kasman). The great majority of nations with high rates of belief in heaven and hell are not prosperous, and most prosperous developing democracies exhibit low rates of such beliefs, the U.S. being an outlier. The positive relationship between church attendance and economic difficulties appears to hold up better, with the U.S. again being an outlier (as in the results by PEW)."

The author says he has not used a variety of statistical analysis techniques that manipulate the data, for the reasons cited. You are implying, incorrectly, that he has failed to examine his data properly.

ISAW wrote:

You clearly have scant evidence to support the hypothersis that religion is good or bad for society or that lower belief in or subscription to religion causes lower crime.

You don't like the data, but it's good data. Quibble all you like - you seem incapable of disproving my contention, or of even understanding it.

Scofflaw

ISAW · 08-06-2006 02:38PM

robindch wrote:

> [ISAW] I would defy you to produce the stats form say the last ten years
> and show me that clergy per capita are the highest offenders. Maybe
> they are, I do not know. I do not believe it however. But YOU made the
> claim so you go and prove it! You claim that fur per cent of clergy are
> pedeophiles and 0.1 per cent of Ireland at large is. Care to prove it?

I don't wish to sound excessively rude, but I don't think that you actually read my posting where I did "prove" it as best I could, with the figures available to me.

To recap: The Irish Catholic said that four percent of convicted paedophiles are priests.

Where and when did the IC state this?

The IC is a publication which, to say the least, is pro-(catholic-)church, so I think it's reasonable to assume that the figures that they quote concerning "their own" are probably accurate, particularly when they're rather damning (as they'll probably tend to underestimate) and particularly when it's a front page lead story.

It would require an "Imprimi potest" and a "nihil obstat" just to be not against doctrine. Given it is a newspaper i doubt it has either.

Clergy make up 0.1% of the population at large -- this figure is publicly available from the 2002 Census, available from the Central Statistics Office website, specifically volume 6, which is available as a PDF download here; page 36 says that there are 3977 members of the clergy of both sexes in Ireland.

Lets us say 4000.

So, the sums work out as follows - all other things being equal, we'd expect the same ratio of convicted paedophile clergy to convicted paedophile non-clergy present in the prison population to be roughly the same as the ratio of clergy to non-clergy present in the non-prison population.

No. I dispute this!
1. convicts are from a time long ago. they do not necessarily represent today. If you take those convicted of acts committed in the last decade then okay but not people convicted of anything from 20 or 30 years ago, since that does not represent current "society".

2. Numbers of convictions does not prove anything about numbers of crimes committed. It is generally accepted that most rape goes unreported. It could be that the concentration on clergy and the willingness of people to come forward lead to higher convictions among clergy related to sexual abuse. Higher rate of convictins does not necessarily mean higher rate of offence.

What is clear is the clergy make up one in ten thousand of the population. Four per cent of that is four per million. If the overall number of pedeophiles in the population is less than twice that - eight per million - then you would be correct that there is a higher rate of pedeophiles in the clergy. Irelans is about four million. this means there should be less than 32 pedeophiles in the Republic. I think exculding those whose crimes are more than from ten years ago that there are more than that in prison let alone the number who remain undected or uncharged.

(Actually, if one were to believe the church's propaganda about how necessary the church is to society's moral leadership, we'd confidently expect that there would be no convicted paedophile clergy. However, what the church says and what the church does are completely different things, as this example unfortunately shows.)

i am quite happy to criticise any institution (consultants, Unions, beaurocrats, the church, the GAA, The IFA) protecting themselves but that is wholly different to the claim that clergy currently have a higher rate of pedeophiles than the general public.

However, we don't see this ratio at all: the IC says that the number of convicted paedophile clergy is actually 4% of the irish paedophile prison population, not 0.1%. Therefore, we can, fairly safely assume that a member of the clergy is around 40 times more likely to be a convicted pedophile than a non-member of the clergy.

If 4 per cent of the prison population is clergy then 96% is not! all that says is that it is nineteen times more likely for those in sex offender prisions to be non clergy. Some reasons why the numbers in prison is high are suggested above.

The proportion of priests in prison for sex offences may indeed be forty times highr than the proportion in the normal population. That does not prove that the normal popolation has a fourty times less offending rate. It may prove that the society is effectively rooting out bad priests.

Note in this that I've not taken account of (a) the difference between male and female clergy (males are more likely to offend),

Arguable when it comes to violent offence. Nuns (agaion in institutiona in the past) were apparently viscious on orphan girls and unmarried mothers.

or (b) the difference between working and non-working members of the population or (c) the lingering suspicion that the IC's figures are wrong. While each of these three items will change the magnitude of the figures somewhat, they're unlikely to change the overall conclusion that members of the clergy are far, far more likely to abuse kids than non-members.

You have not proven they are more likely to abuse. all you have shown is that they make up a larger proportion of the prison pupulation. If i were to claim the same for blacks, unemployed people, gypsuies, jews or any other minority, people would rush to call me a bigot.

ISAW · 08-06-2006 03:48PM

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not dismissing your argument because you're an eejit. I'm calling you an eejit because your argument is stupid.

Ad homonem

You think my claim is a causal claim. You're an idiot.

Ad homonem. please stop this or I shall ignore you. Now you are on yout last worning. apologise for the insult and please dont resort to name calling again. If you cant attack the arguemtn then doent attack the person.

I haven't claimed anything other than correlation! Look, I'll repeat that for your benefit: I haven't claimed anything other than correlation! Now I'll repeat it in bold: I haven't claimed anything other than correlation! Now in CAPS: I HAVEN'T CLAIMED ANYTHING OTHER THAN CORRELATION!

At best you have a weak correlation between higher crime (and your claim was higher crime and NOT dysfunction in society) and some indicators of lower practice.
From this you are in my opinion clearly are attempting to advance a proposition that atheistic societies are preferable. If you do not believe that atheistic societies are preferable then please say so. You have avoided stating what you meant by the claim on several occasions when I asked you. So pleas tell me
Are atheistic societies more preferable?
What evidence have you for that?

Well, for a start, you haven't suggested them before. For a second, their levels of development, government, and political status are sufficiently different to make comparison on the basis of religion alone almost impossible. But, hey, if you want to hide behind something that can't possibly be tested, work away. The available statistics show that "the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers."

No they don't. a single source which you produced (not "the available statistics" but a single source which weakly supports some of your claim) do not SHOW but suggest a statistical link ( to use the word "show" you would have to produce p levels and even then it could by chance be wrong) between dysfunction (part of which is crime but part other factors e.g. abortion (which in the sample is not taken from anywhere it is a crime)

It's a widely cited and widely known study. I am not aware of any work that disproves the conclusions, and I'm not aware of anyone who has succesfully picked methodological holes in it. It's in a peer-reviewed, publicly available journal. All of that makes it OK by normal scientific standards.

Indeed it does. and the claim you make is not about correlations between dysfunctionalism and measures of practice of religion or belief in the bible/God in prosperous democracies but about correlations between criminality and religiouness in society. You r claim is only weakly supported by statistics and offers no causal factor or mechanism some things which are "normal scientific standards"

If you don't like the conclusions (and it appears you don't), you get to pick holes in its veracity and reliability.

The conclusions of the paper and the statement of your claim are two different things. I will admit the paper may be singualr and is interesting but it is only weakly related to your claim. If you were claiming what the paper claimed then you should have stated that. You didnt you made a DIFFERENT calim and then suggested that it was supported by statistics. When quized on this you produced a single statistical survry which itself states that further research is needed.

Rubbish. Read the discussion on the Atheists board about putting down your religion on the census form.

I dont have to. Bring them here if you want. The census asks people their religion. I accept there were problems with the options of reply. If you are suggesting that there is a huge error because people lie about believing then I suggest you are wrong. It is a valid survey.

What on earth does "couched in terminology" mean?

It means you made a claim that lower belief means lower crime. This suggests support for a atheistic society is more preferable than for a theistic one. The claim is however couched in "as far as we know" and "from available statistics" and "it is safe to conclude that". But what you are really saying is "lower belief means lower crime."

I have made the claim that as far as we have statistics, my claim is proven true.

there you go again. "as far as we have stats" i.e. "it isnt proven true and all I have is a weak statistical correlation"

You are now simply quibbling, either because you don't like the conclusion, or because you don't like being wrong.

Again you can prove none of the above either/or suggestions can you? the truth is that the single survey you produced as PROOF is a best a weak support for your claim that "lower belief means lower crime"

Damn my pop-up blocker!

See? footnotes! Who does not like admitting they are wrong now?

Which claim?

lower belief correlates with lower crime.

or
"The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers." -

given the claim is well-supported in the available evidence (and you still haven't produced any counter-evidence) it is likely to be applicable across the board?

It isnt! The "evidence" you produced (a single paper) is about correlations between dysfunctionality and measures or religiousity. The dysfunctionality measures dont even come into your claim The religiousity included "is the earth only as old as the bible" - hardly a judge of modern Roman Anglican or Orthodox Catholics. The survey included other prosperous democracies which were not so biblically fundamental like Germany and France who have recently had high crime rates probably due to unemployment. Japan is rated as an atheistic country when either by the view that shinto is a religion or that "atheistic" communism had similar structures to organised religion it can be looked upon as "religious".

The paper itself can be criticised as whether what it represents is valid today but YOUR claim is only partly related to the single paper you cite. This is hardly huge evidential support is it?

Or are we talking about a claim to a provable causal connection? I haven't made that one, as I have noted repeatedly.

As I have accepted. You have hinted at it. But I note you don't deny it. I mean do you believe there is any causal link between people believing in God/religion and crime? Bet you woint answer that? It might indicate bias in your approach. Go on! Tell the truth. You believe it dont you?

Perhaps you don't understand the word "verify"? It means "to prove true". That would mean that no-one has published a study supporting these claims.

In statistical analysis "valid" has a specific meaning. It means that you are measuring the thing you claim. The data to which you refer is not a valid measurement of your claim. Where for example is the level of correlation between belief and crime? Secondly is it a reliable or valid metric of society

Now, if the author felt any of these were sufficient to discredit the study, he wouldn't have published (scientific option), or he wouldn't have mentioned them (creationist option). In addition, we're talking about theism here - Buddhism, Shinto, etc don't count as theist

First rule of fudge "if the stats dont show what you want them to say fix the sample" i.e. leave out the ones which pull the correlation one way and put in excuses for those which pull it the other way. I am not suggesting the Author you refer to is dishones here.

I brought it up to counter the claim that atheists/unbelievers are more likely to be criminal than (specifically) Christian believers. I have progressed to making the claim that belief (as per the study) correlates positively with negative social indicators (with the exception of suicide), again as per the study.

I don't believe either claim or counter claims have been shown to be true.

Oh. And you feel that adding riders and provisos of that kind, to indicate that one is not making a universal claim, is in fact a sneaky way of making such universal claims while pretending not to. Is that right?

I dont know about sneaky but yes. Put it this way why wont you answer the following question?

Do you believe atheistic societies are more preferable and that they would have lower crime?

Again, this is either a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation. Footnote 5:...

The author says he has not used a variety of statistical analysis techniques that manipulate the data, for the reasons cited.

yes that one could be "overly manipulative"

You are implying, incorrectly, that he has failed to examine his data properly.

Iam answering the question as to where the data used might not be valid. "The positive relationship between church attendance and economic difficulties appears to hold up better, with the U.S." compared to poorer democracies not listed among those the survey. The US is "an outlier" by admission in the paper. It is a valid criticism to say so.

You don't like the data, but it's good data.

Yet you havent produced the raw data! You fail to produce the actual figures of the basic correlations and argue from a secondary graphic. If they are "there to see" then what quantifabily are they? If you cant produce the raw data for anyone to scrutinise then how can you claim it is good data?

robindch · 08-06-2006 04:12PM

> You have not proven they are more likely to abuse. all you have shown is
> that they make up a larger proportion of the prison pupulation.

If we agree that being convicted of a crime is a reasonable indicator that one actually carried out the crime, and bearing in mind my other caveats that I listed above, then I'm afraid that I have shown that members of the clergy are more likely to abuse kids than non-members. I'm sorry for you if you don't like this conclusion.

BTW -- this discussion is wildly off-thread-topic, as are your other contributions to this thread, so I suggest we either take this to another thread, possibly on a more appropriate board, or return to the thread topic.

Scofflaw · 08-06-2006 04:33PM

ISAW wrote:

Ad homonem. please stop this or I shall ignore you. Now you are on yout last worning. apologise for the insult and please dont resort to name calling again. If you cant attack the arguemtn then doent attack the person.

Do please ignore me! Also, learn to spell.

Just to put your mind at rest before we start ignoring each other: no, I don't feel that "atheist societies are preferable" (leave out the 'more', it's redundant) - I believe tolerant societies are preferable. No, I don't see any evidence for a causal link from atheism to lower crime - I suspect they're both related to levels of inequity and "social capital".

Scofflaw

ISAW · 08-06-2006 06:42PM

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to have great objection to all this. Why exactly I'm not sure, to me it makes a lot of sense since I'm an atheist but also law abiding and would consider myself having a high level of internal morality, so before Scofflaw had even posted I doubted Wolfbane's claim that unlawfulness and disorder increases in societies with less religious following.

I wouyld also doubt it. But I also doubt the opposite i.e. that atheism is good for society ot that high athiesm means low crime:
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2005 Dec;49(6):682-95

inmates whose conviction involved violence were more likely to consider themselves religious but less likely to endorse statements that religious beliefs influenced their behavior.

i.e. they claimed to be religious but didnt follow the teachings. This casts doubt on the self professed "religious" from Scofflaws reference. they talk the talk but do not walk the walk.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/jpr-98-2.htm

in every major field of intellectual endeavor, including social science and criminology, the expert consensus has been that religion has either no effect on human behavior and social outcomes ...or a net negative effect on human behavior and social outcomes.
...the dominant theory has been that religiosity (almost universally assumed to be highly correlated with low intelligence and less than average formal education) probably conditions people to be more rather than less prone to poor physical and mental health outcomes, and no less likely to commit deviant, delinquent or criminal acts.

i.e. more religion also does not make crime less likely. that is not to say less religion makes it more likely either.

But later under Religiosity and Youth Crimeis the point that:

The relationship between religiosity and delinquency has been an area lacking research review, study, and explanatory consensus in the research literature

Also the suggestion of a singular piece of research is an error since immediately following are seveal references :
(Benda, 1995; Brownfield and Sorenson 1991; Tittle and Welch, 1983), others have suggested that religion has only a weak or insignificant effect on delinquency (Cochran, Wood, and Arneklev, 1994).
One might try:
Johnson, Byron R., Spencer De Li, David B. Larson, and Michael McCullough
2000 A systematic review of the religiosity and delinquency literature: A research note. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 16: 32–52
It is the 14 most cited article in that journal as of this month.

ISAW · 08-06-2006 06:51PM

Scofflaw wrote:

Do please ignore me! Also, learn to spell.

Scofflaw

When uyou resort to spelling flames you really must be losing the debate.

As to your comment. Let me put it this way. I consider calling me an idiot and an eejit as personally insulting. Are you going to insist on doing that or are you going to retract the insult? If you keep offending me I shall put you on ignore.
Up to you. Your argument has been shown up and you now resort to personal insult and complaining about spelling. Neither is an excuse for lax scholarship. Please deal with the issues and not the individual who raises them.

Why for example won't you answer the question:

Do you believe Atheism is better for society than religious belief?

You keep avoiding this dont you? How come you wont answer it?

ISAW · 08-06-2006 07:05PM

robindch wrote:

> You have not proven they are more likely to abuse. all you have shown is
> that they make up a larger proportion of the prison pupulation.

If we agree that being convicted of a crime is a reasonable indicator that one actually carried out the crime,

I will certainly agree to this. Central to the justice system is that the innocent are not punished even if it means guilty people might go free.

and bearing in mind my other caveats that I listed above,

which ones please care to list them?

then I'm afraid that I have shown that members of the clergy are more likely to abuse kids than non-members. I'm sorry for you if you don't like this conclusion.

No you havent. all you have shown is that the proportion of clergy in prison for sex offence (and you already admitted you just trust second hand estimates on this so you havent even shown that) is higher than the proportion of the normal population in prison for sex offences.

If I show you a prison population of a group where there is a disproportionate number in relation to the same group in society (like a higher level of priests in gaol for sex offence compared to the level of priests in society) will you then conclude that that population are more likely to commit that crime?

for example if there is a higher level of black people in prison for rape than there are blacks in the popolation of a country as a whole would you conclude that blaxk people are more likely to rape? How about if I show more travellers than expected guilty of assault. Would you conclude that travellers are more violent?

BTW -- this discussion is wildly off-thread-topic, as are your other contributions to this thread, so I suggest we either take this to another thread, possibly on a more appropriate board, or return to the thread topic.

I didnt bring up the suggestion that priests are more likely to be child abusers. Nor did I suggest that societies with more or less religion are more or less prone to criminality. dont blame me for disputing other peoples claims.

robindch · 08-06-2006 07:30PM

> which ones please care to list them?

Er, I already did. Please refer to my original posting on the topic.

> I didnt bring up the suggestion that priests are more likely to be
> child abusers. [...] Dont blame me for disputing other peoples claims.

You did not bring up the topic, but you did dispute it and I responded to your criticism until it became obvious that the topic was no longer moving forward. If you're not happy with my reply, then I suggest you create a new thread somewhere else and I'll continue there if there's anything substantial which I can add to what I've said already, though I don't think there is.

Also, as a polite comment, I note that much of what you write disputes, not altogether politely, what you and others may or may not have said in previous postings. This style of writing does not move any argument forward and tends to annoy other posters, so I would respectfully ask you to consider changing your posting style to avoid it wherever possible. Thanks.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments