Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Is Religion Dying Out? (2): When Religion Does Die Out

Image result for percentages of adherents to major world religions





Last time I raised the fair certainty that religion will cease to be  a major influence on society within the spice of this  century.[1] In this essay I will do two things: (1) I will discuss my own ideas about the cause of the great falling away, (2) Play the historian's "what if...?" game using the worst   case scenario. By "worst case" I mean realistically worst.

I ended last time talking about how the religious right in America has poisoned the well for young minds. That only applies to America [2] and while it means that a possible revival is short circuited it still assumes a larger world wide source of apostasy so the issue moves beyond America.

Twenty percent of American adults claimed no religious preference in 2012, compared to 7 percent twenty-five years earlier. Previous research identified a political backlash against the religious right and generational change as major factors in explaining the trend. That research found that religious beliefs had not changed, ruling out secularization as a cause. In this paper we employ new data and more powerful analytical tools to: (1) update the time series, (2) present further evidence of correlations between political backlash, generational succession, and religious identification, (3) show how valuing personal autonomy generally and autonomy in the sphere of sex and drugs specifically explain generational differences, and (4) use GSS panel data to show that the causal direction in the rise of the “Nones” likely runs from political identity as a liberal or conservative to religious identity, reversing a long-standing convention in social science research. Our new analysis joins the threads of earlier explanations into a general account of how political conflict over cultural issues spurred an increase in non-affiliation.
This tells us the decline is not due to loss of faith. Religious beliefs had not changed, it also tells  us it only pertains to America, We still have this larger  secularization looming over the world. I put oiut a dew ideas in the last issues. Here is what I said in last issue:
...economic growth brings freedom from traditional ways of life. Mass communication brings exposure to new ideas,physical security reduces the need for for spiritual consolation.[3] "An assumption lay at the core of the social sciences, either presuming or sometimes predicting that all cultures would eventually converge on something roughly approximating secular, Western, liberal democracy."[4] Thus there is an assumption that humanity is just   outgrowing outmoded belief. I think there is a better explanation. At least in term of the US the religious right is to blame.[5]
There is the modern background of "modernity" but given the fact that people have come to some kind of terms Bernstein ancient and modern over the last 500 years, that does not explain the decline. I think the overall decline tied to modernity is explained by Herert Marcuse's idea ofd one-dimensional man,

Herbert Marcuse (July 19, 1898 – July 29, 1979) was a German academic who fled to America to avoid the Nazis in the 30s. He worked for the OAS during the war and latter become the major intellectual powerhouse behind the New Left of the 1960s. He was based in San Diego where the taught, Ronald Reagan tried to have his Doctorate revoked to silence his criticisms of the war and the establishment. He was a Marxist, some say Neo-Marxist he was critical of Stalin and called a revisionist by Stalinists. Marcuse was best known for his seminal work One-Dimensional Man (1964), one of the greatest books of the era and one of primary importance for the century. In One-Dimensional Man, Marcuse argues that affluent capitalist society has been good at providing primary needs to a mass population (despite continuing poverty for some) and it has created a bourgeois society that perpetuates false needs. The American worker has bought into his place in the capitalist order as a cog in the machine, or a bit of overhead for the owners of the means of production, because in exchange will continue to supply the false needs upon which he has become admitted; that is the material trammels of an affluent society.
...The irresistible output of the entertainment and information industry carry with them prescribed attitudes and habits...The products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness which is immune against falsehood. And as these beneficial products have become available to more individuals, in more social classes, the indoctrination they carry ceases to be publicity; it becomes a way of life. It is a good way of life' much better than before and as a good way of life, it militates against qualitative change. Thus emerges a pattern of one-dimensional thought and behavior, in which ideas, aspirations, and objectives that, by their content, transcend the established universe of discourse and action are either repelled or reduced to terms of this [social-political] universe. They are re-defined by the rationality of the given system and of its quantitative extension.[6]

The prognosis for one-dimensional man doesn’t end with just supporting capitalism as the basis of false needs. The whole concept of being a thinking person who lives in a society in which thinking people can determine their own lives is called into question and in fact done away with because the concept of freedom is illusory and not scientific. The scientistic crowd is telling us that freedom is a trick. The issues of one-dimensional man don’t stop Marxism because there is more to power than just capital vs labor, or capitalism vs. Marxism. Lurking behind the accumulation of false needs (technological version of bread and circuses) is operational thinking. This is what Marcuse means by "quantitative extension of the given system" (quotation above). " The trend [one-dimensional consumer society] may be related to a development in scientific method: operationalism in the physical, behaviorism in the social sciences. The common feature is a total empiricism in the treatment of concepts; their meaning is restricted to the representation of particular operations and behavior...In general, we mean by a concept nothing more than a set of operations...a positivism which, in its denial of the transcending elements of reason, forms the academic counterpart to the socially required behavior."[7] The positivist and reductionist tendencies of contemporary scientific thought, which props up the techno structure and furnishes it with "empirical proof," works to eliminate all concepts that cannot be quantified, and therefore, eventually ”commodified.”

This 1DM weighs on the sense of religious belief in that modern one-dimensional society  sells the sensations sexuality like popcorn, It trades in sexiness and sensitivities designs it into most advertising appeals, We learn to  measure selfhood by the sense of personal power and consumerism. One cannot bottle the spirit and sell sanctification like one can sell sensuality in perfume. Our consumerist society bottles personal power and sensuality and sells it in a thousand ways but we forget what spirituality is and we can;t sell that to our kids. A kid can find a cigarette butt and smoke it in secret and have her first taste of sin but she can't sneak her first communion. Not to say that I chalk it all up to a battle between holiness and sexuality.  Which would go down better for a pack of streaming teens, an episode of the bachelor or a Bible study? All amide the back drop of scientific pundits telling us we have the answers in science and religion has no place in such a world..

I don't suppose that religion will cease to exist, It will probably lose social clout  and then  be relegated to  the private realm. Religious doctrine will suffer with no institutional teaching mechanism. If the organisational structures decline the support for scholarship will wither away. Theology will become more diverse, more speculative, more absurd. Religious belief will become like philosophical ideas that are not popular but people still hold them like idealism.

On the other hand there is an upside. With no competing social stricture. with the disappearance of the older competitor that once held science back (supposedly--according to enlightenment propaganda)[8] Science will have no need to attack religion. Over time religious ideas more palatable to science will take the field. But it is likely that the theological support stricture will not wither away, although it may take a hit.After all even though some predict religion will disappear in England [9]  it will probably only decline to 2/3 of pop in America.[10]


Be that as it may  there are two basic reasons why religion will survive, at least as a private practice and philosophical idea, and probably with  some social structure: (1) Mystical Experience (2) God on the Brain.  Mystical experience is real, it is scientifically proven to be real, it is good for you it wont go away, it is also at the basis of all organized religion.[11] There is no Gene for religion but there does not have to be; it does have an adaptation that makes it hard wired. aside from a gene it could  be espadrilles.But it's part of our genetic structure and it's mot going away[12] 


Notes

[1]Joseph Hinman, "Is Religion Dyig out part 1," Metacrock's Blog, (

 FEBRUARY 17, 2019)


[2] Michael Hout, Claude S. Fischer, "Explaining Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Political Backlash and Generational Succession, 1987-2012." Sociological Science, October 13, 2014
DOI 10.15195/v1.a24
https://www.sociologicalscience.com/articles-vol1-24-423/  (access 2/19/19)

[3] Peter Harrison, "Why Religion is Not Going Away and Science Will Not Destroy It," Aeon,no page nimber
https://aeon.co/ideas/why-religion-is-not-going-away-and-science-will-not-destroy-it
[accessed 2/17/19]

[4]Ibid.

[5] Pew Research Center: Religion and Public Life, "The Future of Worlds Religions: Population growth projections, 2910-2050"(April 2, 2015)
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
[accessed 2/16/19]
[6] Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Soceity. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, 12.

[7] Ibid

[8] James Hannam, Genesis of science: How The Christian Middle Ages Launched The Scientific Revolution. New York.  Ny: Regnery Publsihinf In.,2011,4.

[9]  David Voas, "Hard evidence: is Christianity dying in Britain?The  Conversation,  US inc.(November 27, 2013 1)
http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-is-christianity-dying-in-britain-20734
[accessed 2/16/19]

[10] Pew Research Center: Religion and Public Life, "The Future of Worlds Religions: Population growth projections, 2910-2050"(April 2, 2015)
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
[accessed 2/16/19]

[11] Joseph Hinman, The Trace of God:Rational Warramt for Belief. Colorado Springs: Grand viaduct. 2014.

[12] Ibid
























16 comments:

im-skeptical said...

Since religion is a product of human evolutionary forces, I don't expect it to die out soon. However, it is worth noting that evolution could be the very thing that would eventually cause religion to go by the wayside. Where does religion thrive the most? In poor, indigent, and uneducated populations, where people lack control of their own lives. And where does it tend to fade into the background? In wealthy and technologically advanced societies. But that is the trend for the whole world. It could well be the case that material well-being becomes more prevalent, the evolutionary motivation for religion will recede, and the natural inclination for people to be religious will become less prominent over time.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
Since religion is a product of human evolutionary forces, I don't expect it to die out soon.

being a product of volition does not negate the reality of the object of devotion

However, it is worth noting that evolution could be the very thing that would eventually cause religion to go by the wayside. Where does religion thrive the most?

evolution doesn't contract God


In poor, indigent, and uneducated populations, where people lack control of their own lives. And where does it tend to fade into the background? In wealthy and technologically advanced societies.

I already answered that argumet, Everything in the post was about- why that is not true,btw how does come that the majority of people science degrees are religious? Most professes are religious



But that is the trend for the whole world.

Not at all true. atheism is 5% for the industrialized world. 90% believe in God that does not distribute to just reality.

It could well be the case that material well-being becomes more prevalent, the evolutionary motivation for religion will recede, and the natural inclination for people to be religious will become less prominent over time.

the fallacy of determinism you want OT make it out to be deterministic yet you want it it to fade away which it can' if it is determoinistit

8:19 AM

Kristen said...

I think you've pinpointed a lot of the reasons the US is becoming less religious, like the rest of the Western world. It's my understanding that there is a fairly extensive religious renewal going on in the African countries, though. I noticed that the sources you quoted tended to overlook Africa for the most part.

As far as the religious right poisoning the well, I think that's true. I also think that mainstream churches could be doing more to attract disillusioned and hurt people that are coming out of those churches. I'm in a Methodist church now, and it's very small, with an aging population, but they still continue with their old practices like responsive reading and singing obscure and difficult hymns. It's fairly clear that the more vibrant services favored by Evangelicals are more attractive to most people, but the mainstream churches don't seem to want to make changes in that regard.

im-skeptical said...

being a product of volition does not negate the reality of the object of devotion
- It simply indicates that religion has played a role in the well-being (and survival) of people, at some time in our evolutionary history.

evolution doesn't contract God
- It doesn't support the notion that God is real. That's why so many religionists hate science.

I already answered that argumet, Everything in the post was about- why that is not true,btw how does come that the majority of people science degrees are religious? Most professes are religious
- Nevertheless, there is a significant negative statistical correlation between religiosity and both IQ and educational attainment. (See meta-analysis) Not to mention the fact that among scientists, those who are the most accomplished tend to be less religious. A similar negative correlation exists between religiosity and societal wealth. (See here.)

Not at all true. atheism is 5% for the industrialized world. 90% believe in God that does not distribute to just reality.
- The point is that regardless of the numbers, this correlation strongly indicates that as the population are lifted out of poverty, they becomes less religious.

the fallacy of determinism you want OT make it out to be deterministic yet you want it it to fade away which it can' if it is determoinistit
- This has nothing to do with what I want.

Kristen said...

It's no secret that those who are poor, oppressed and marginalized have a more deeply felt need of religion than those who are wealthy and privileged. It isn't evolutionary; it's been part of human nature all along, as is shown by mentions in some of the earliest-written sections of the Bible. But as Joe says, wealthy and privileged people (who also tend to be better educated) usually still believe in God, they just feel less need of religious community and observance. In fact, our wealth and privilege seem to increasingly isolate us from all types of community and in-depth social interaction, and this is hardly a good thing. There's a reason why Jesus said "Blessed are the poor."

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger Kristen said...
I think you've pinpointed a lot of the reasons the US is becoming less religious, like the rest of the Western world. It's my understanding that there is a fairly extensive religious renewal going on in the African countries, though. I noticed that the sources you quoted tended to overlook Africa for the most part.

glad to see you feeling better Kristen.These social science types have an ethnocentric first world bias.Academia.

As far as the religious right poisoning the well, I think that's true. I also think that mainstream churches could be doing more to attract disillusioned and hurt people that are coming out of those churches. I'm in a Methodist church now, and it's very small, with an aging population, but they still continue with their old practices like responsive reading and singing obscure and difficult hymns. It's fairly clear that the more vibrant services favored by Evangelicals are more attractive to most people, but the mainstream churches don't seem to want to make changes in that regard.


ad you know I too am Methodist. Prkin s school of theology

12:13 PM

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
being a product of volition does not negate the reality of the object of devotion

- It simply indicates that religion has played a role in the well-being (and survival) of people, at some time in our evolutionary history.

evolution doesn't contract God
- It doesn't support the notion that God is real. That's why so many religionists hate science.


Neither does it contradict, when something doesn't support or contradict it's not a factor in counter argument,

I already answered that argumet, Everything in the post was about- why that is not true,btw how does come that the majority of people science degrees are religious? Most professes are religious


- Nevertheless, there is a significant negative statistical correlation between religiosity and both IQ and educational attainment.


no there's no,t the IQ argent was BSm arteriosclerosis it.the Zuckerman study was shame he didn;'t even include most of the counter evidence,

(See meta-analysis) Not to mention the fact that among scientists, those who are the most accomplished tend to be less religious. A similar negative correlation exists between religiosity and societal wealth. (See here.)

Suckwerman's meta Malaysia was crap He simply did not include most of the damaging iridescence,

Joe Not at all true. atheism is 5% for the industrialized world. 90% believe in God that does not distribute to just reality.


- The point is that regardless of the numbers, this correlation strongly indicates that as the population are lifted out of poverty, they becomes less religious.

with 80% population of industrialized first world US believing you have no case,

the fallacy of determinism you want OT make it out to be deterministic yet you want it it to fade away which it can' if it is determoinistit


- This has nothing to do with what I want.


your arguments are totally a matter of what you want

12:49 PM

Joe Hinman said...



Against Zuckerman's (phil) thesis

Against Zuckerman (not Phil) IQ study

Against Zuckerman (not Phil) IQ study part 2

two different Zuckerman's. One is thr IQ gyy one is the Sweden guy



im-skeptical said...

Neither does it contradict, when something doesn't support or contradict it's not a factor in counter argument
- Actually, (scientific) evolution theory directly contradicts the notion that God is the designer of biological species.

no there's no,t the IQ argent was BSm arteriosclerosis it.the Zuckerman study was shame he didn;'t even include most of the counter evidence
- That's what some anti-science apologists are screaming. However, Zuckerman's general results have been re-confirmed. In a 2016 re-analysis, the IQ/religiosity correlation was found to be somewhat weaker, but "still robust. Furthermore, a similar correlation "was also found when comparing intelligence with other variables like education and income." (See discussion here.)

Suckwerman's meta Malaysia was crap He simply did not include most of the damaging iridescence
- These results were not from Zuckerman.

with 80% population of industrialized first world US believing you have no case
- Argumentum ad populum is not logically valid. By your (faulty) logic, Christianity must be wrong because the vast majority of humanity does not buy it. YOU have no case.

your arguments are totally a matter of what you want
- You think you are above motivated reasoning? You desperately want God to be real, but objective evidence doesn't support that belief.

two different Zuckerman's. One is thr IQ gyy one is the Sweden guy
- Citing your own extremely biased analysis does nothing to bolster your case. It only shows how desperate you are to deny the truth, which (as I pointed out) has been verified in further studies.


Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
Neither does it contradict, when something doesn't support or contradict it's not a factor in counter argument


- Actually, (scientific) evolution theory directly contradicts the notion that God is the designer of biological species.

how so? science merely doesn't include God's activity but it doesn't rest upon God not being there, It;s not in competetriton

no there's no,t the IQ argent was BSm arteriosclerosis it.the Zuckerman study was shame he didn;'t even include most of the counter evidence


- That's what some anti-science apologists are screaming. However, Zuckerman's general results have been re-confirmed. In a 2016 re-analysis, the IQ/religiosity correlation was found to be somewhat weaker, but "still robust. Furthermore, a similar correlation "was also found when comparing intelligence with other variables like education and income." (See discussion here.)

No name the study you think confirms it? You didn't even rad therlinksdidyoiu


Suckwerman's meta Malaysia was crap He simply did not include most of the damaging iridescence


- These results were not from Zuckerman.

Yes you didn't look at the note I posted on it didf you? Miron Zuckerman did the only major Malaysian, read it,

with 80% population of industrialized first world US believing you have no case



- Argumentum ad populum is not logically valid. By your (faulty) logic, Christianity must be wrong because the vast majority of humanity does not buy it. YOU have no case.

your arguments are totally a matter of what you want


- You think you are above motivated reasoning? You desperately want God to be real, but objective evidence doesn't support that belief.

God is real and you can't make him go away not with science or anything.Motivated reasoning>aka bias, stupid,

two different Zuckerman's. One is thr IQ gyy one is the Sweden guy


- Citing your own extremely biased analysis does nothing to bolster your case. It only shows how desperate you are to deny the truth, which (as I pointed out) has been verified in further studies.

It's a research paper clown, reamer research the thing you can't do, I document studies he left out of his analysis.

you are not capable of doming that kind reach that puts my work head and shoulders above your opinionated drivel


im-skeptical said...

how so? science merely doesn't include God's activity but it doesn't rest upon God not being there, It;s not in competetriton
- Did you ever hear of natural selection? It's not called supernatural design for a good reason. It's about evolution without any intentional intervention - a completely natural process.

No name the study you think confirms it? You didn't even rad therlinksdidyoiu
- Webster and Duffy, 2016. Honestly, Joe, just because you (wrongly) think you have debunked one single study, that doesn't mean there aren't more that back it up. We're talking about real science here, not your simple-minded analysis of 200 studies providing "warrant" for belief.

Yes you didn't look at the note I posted on it didf you? Miron Zuckerman did the only major Malaysian, read it
- You obviously didn't read what I cited, did you? I never even mentioned that guy. Why don't you address what I was talking about?

God is real and you can't make him go away not with science or anything.Motivated reasoning>aka bias, stupid
- You're right about one thing, Joe. No amount of reason or evidence will make God go away from your deluded one-dimensional mind.

It's a research paper clown, reamer research the thing you can't do, I document studies he left out of his analysis.
- Your biased blog posts attempting to debunk real science are NOT research.

Joe Hinman said...

how so? science merely doesn't include God's activity but it doesn't rest upon God not being there, It;s not in competition.


- Did you ever hear of natural selection? It's not called supernatural design for a good reason. It's about evolution without any intentional intervention - a completely natural process.

No passage in Bible says God only works in SN. God created the natural realm. Go is in the natural and works in the r natural all the time.

This is a case where it makes a huge difference that the original meaning of SN is different from the thing you men when you use that term.


No name the study you think confirms it? You didn't even read the links did you?


- how so? science merely doesn't include God's activity but it doesn't rest upon God not being there, It;s not in competition.



Joe Hinman said...

JoeNo, name the study you think confirms it? You didn't even read the links did you?

- Webster and Duffy, 2016. Honestly, Joe, just because you (wrongly) think you have debunked one single study, that doesn't mean there aren't more that back it up.



obviously it does because Zyckerman did a meta analysis of all the studies theist had been none,except he didn't include them all that is a debugger. Also in part 2 I attacked the concept of IQ = intelligence.

It should be obvious that Z was meta analysis based upon what I said making your comet obviousness indicative of not reading my post


We're talking about real science here, not your simple-minded analysis of 200 studies providing "warrant" for belief.

Let's look at some of that "real science" he mentions. He says Webster and Duffy corroborate Zuckerman (who he also claims not to have mentioned. (neat trick)

a summary of Webter and Duffy on research gate says the connection between lesser IQ and religious beef may not hold up over time. What that means is very likely that as you go forward over time more destinies contradict. Backs up what I said about he doesn't include all studies.

Listed in with the work backing Zuckerman you have Nyborg, listed same article, also Lynn and Harvey these three are racist who support bell curve and racialist superiority of Northern Europeans.I'll post more on Monday

the summary also says: "multiple verifiable moderate" this is not corroboration by many means, but it spells out the fact that Skepy is a lousy scholar and knows nothing of social sciences,




Link

Real science is where you assert things without reading what you are attacking right?

JoeYes you didn't look at the note I posted on it did you? Miron Zuckerman did the only major Malaysian, read it


- You obviously didn't read what I cited, did you? I never even mentioned that guy. Why don't you address what I was talking about?

I mentioned him if you had read it you would know. But look he did the first met analysis and I don't know if there has been another one It is a very significant study and not that long ago.

God is real and you can't make him go away not with science or anything.Motivated reasoning aka bias, stupid.



- You're right about one thing, Joe. No amount of reason or evidence will make God go away from your deluded one-dimensional mind.

you are obstructionism real discussion

It's a research paper clown, reamer research the thing you can't do, I document studies he left out of his analysis.


- Your biased blog posts attempting to debunk real science are NOT research. Honestly, Joe, just because you (wrongly) think you have debunked one single study, that doesn't mean there aren't more that back it up.

yes it does I'm about to demonstrate


We're talking about real science here, not your simple-minded analysis of 200 studies providing "warrant" for belief.

I had two major researchers who are the top people in the field checking out my work. Hood said the best introduction to the field.

JoeYes you didn't look at the note I posted on it didf you? Miron Zuckerman did the only major Malaysian, read it


- You obviously didn't read what I cited, did you? I never even mentioned that guy. Why don't you address what I was talking about?

stop repeating yourself I mentioned him stupid.

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

No passage in Bible says God only works in SN. God created the natural realm. Go is in the natural and works in the r natural all the time.
- It doesn't matter what the bible says. If God has any effect at all in the material world, then that is some non-physical thing that has a physical effect. That is by definition supernatural, and it is contrary to all scientific theories. In science there are no observed non-physical causes, and there are no theories of non-physical causation. And I don't care how YOU define supernatural. I'm talking about the definition that the whole world goes by.

obviously it does because Zyckerman did a meta analysis of all the studies theist had been none,except he didn't include them all that is a debugger. Also in part 2 I attacked the concept of IQ = intelligence.
- Joe, you're a moron. There have been more studies done that the ones Zuckerman used. There have been other studies after his. Webster and Duffy did a re-analysis of Zuckerman's data and re-confirmed the general findings of Zuckerman, while changing some of the specific numerical results, and adding some caveats.

Let's look at some of that "real science" he mentions. He says Webster and Duffy corroborate Zuckerman (who he also claims not to have mentioned. (neat trick)t
- Joe, you're a moron. YOU mentioned two different Zuckermans (neat trick), and I was pointing out that I never mentioned one of them. Now you seem to be pretending that they are the same person. That's either really dishonest, or really stupid.

Real science is where you assert things without reading what you are attacking right?
- Joe, you're a moron. The link you cite is the same study that I mentioned - the one that re-confirms Zuckerman's general results. I quote the key part of their abstract that you conveniently left out: "Although the negative intelligence–religiosity link appears more robust across people than countries, multiple variables moderate or mediate its strength". What they are saying is that the picture is complex, and a simple two-variable correlation doesn't tell the whole story. BUT, Zuckerman was correct in a general sense (his results remain robust). There IS a negative overall correlation between IQ and religiosity.

yes it does I'm about to demonstrate
- Joe, I cited the Webster and Duffy study. There are others, such as Dutton and Van der Linden (2017) and Lewis, Richie ans Bates (2011). These are examples of independent studies that don't include Zuckerman's data, but generally confirm it. Whatever YOU have to say about all this is uninformed, unscientific, and religiously biased. Your conclusions disagree with the scientific consensus.

Joe Hinman said...

No passage in Bible says God only works in SN. God created the natural realm. Go is in the natural and works in the r natural all the time.


- It doesn't matter what the bible says. If God has any effect at all in the material world, then that is some non-physical thing that has a physical effect.

that's just bull shit, it;s a s nonsense statement,if he has an effec t in the physical world it must be a physical effect. That doesn't mean you would recognize it as God's doing. God might make rain you would not know it from ordinary rain but it would be physical.


That is by definition supernatural, and it is contrary to all scientific theories.

No it's not that's no one;s definition. The definition of SN is not that it has to be non physical that's pure stupidity,

In science there are no observed non-physical causes, and there are no theories of non-physical causation.
so what? In Mr Joe Studebaker land and there islso there,science does not own reality,


And I don't care how YOU define supernatural. I'm talking about the definition that the whole world goes by.

That is why I will never take you seriousness as a thinker. that's like saying X does not do A but I blame X for A away because other people say it should be so blamed.



obviously it does because Zyckerman did a meta analysis of all the studies theist had been none,except he didn't include them all that is a debugger. Also in part 2 I attacked the concept of IQ = intelligence.


- Joe, you're a moron. There have been more studies done that the ones Zuckerman used. There have been other studies after his. Webster and Duffy did a re-analysis of Zuckerman's data and re-confirmed the general findings of Zuckerman, while changing some of the specific numerical results, and adding some caveats.

Let's look at some of that "real science" he mentions. He says Webster and Duffy corroborate Zuckerman (who he also claims not to have mentioned. (neat trick)t



- Joe, you're a moron. YOU mentioned two different Zuckermans (neat trick), and I was pointing out that I never mentioned one of them.

I mentioned it studio! screw your head on and try to follow along. That is the only major study you have no corroborating study, Web and Duffy don;'t corroborate it. I'm not sure they really are a study


Now you seem to be pretending that they are the same person. That's either really dishonest, or really stupid.

Real science is where you assert things without reading what you are attacking right?


- Joe, you're a moron.

double dumbass on you.

The link you cite is the same study that I mentioned - the one that re-confirms Zuckerman's general results.

except it doesn't, stupid. The only study on religious belief and IQ they mention is Zuckerman. Obviously they are not saying Zyckerman coroborates Zuckierman, the point they make is the correlation doesn;t hold up over time. I wil be postingon this on Monday,,



I quote the key part of their abstract that you conveniently left out: "Although the negative intelligence–religiosity link appears more robust across people than countries, multiple variables moderate or mediate its strength".


that says the Opposition of what you want. the "negative intelligence–religiosity link" is the hypothesis that religious people are stupid. He says multiple variables mediate it;s strength that mean it doesn;t hold up over time. mediating ones strength means imnitingit,


What they are saying is that the picture is complex, and a simple two-variable correlation doesn't tell the whole story.

right which taps out to you can;t say religious people are less smart than theirs,

you have no idea what that stuff sasys, but you can talk about it on Monday because I will postpone it;


this topic is closed
closed.



10:15 AM Delete