David Sloan Wilson: "Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion"

[andyandy]

My point is that even if group behavior can be modeled by evolution, it does NOT at all mean this is automatically a good thing or a benefit to the organism that is a member of the group.

No, I agree that it is not automatically good for an individual - much like ΔF508 within a population is good at a utilitarian level but not necessarily at an individual level. I've said this throughout. Nevertheless you seem to want to make the case that religion is bad for all members of the group, yet every example you've given so far has been found wanting - suicide and death penalties were your last tries.

Hence my examples which are germane and telling. They do show that trends resultant form the evolution of the group can be entirely destructive to it's members and moreover almost necessarily as a result of the evolutionary model the individual must considered to be entirely disposable.

they're only telling if you accept an all good/all bad false dichtomy and if you ignore the evidence to the contrary. ΔF508 has been beneficial to European populations as a whole - that is how evolutionary pressures work. My sugestion has never been that religion has had an evolutionary benefit for every person who ever subscribed to any notion of such. This is the strawman you keep trying to knock down. Instead my suggestion is in the evolutionary benefit at a utilitarian level - which is the level at which we can judge population evolutionary benefit.

 

[Faithkills]

No, I agree that it is not automatically good for an individual - much like ΔF508 within a population is good at a utilitarian level but not necessarily at an individual level. I've said this throughout. Nevertheless you seem to want to make the case that religion is bad for all members of the group, yet every example you've given so far has been found wanting - suicide and death penalties were your last tries.



they're only telling if you accept an all good/all bad false dichtomy. ΔF508 has been beneficial to European populations as a whole - that is how evolutionary pressures work.

Straw Man. I have made so such all good/all bad assertion.

And your genetic example is not germane to proposed group dynamics. It's an interesting example of evolution, not hypothetical group evolution.

I am asserting that religion is bad for many people, demonstrably, and further, if you see living your single life in a deluded state so that you may better serve the purposes of others as and be manipulated by them as a 'bad' thing then, then yes, bad for all members.

Further there is no evidence that religion has any benefit that would not be filled by other means. Atheists as a group earn more, are more intelligent, are less criminal, have lower divorce rates, etc.

Atheists seem to have better lives, so why do we think religion is worth the cost? At a group or at an individual level?

 

[andyandy]

I am asserting that religion is bad for many people, demonstrably, and further, if you see living your single life in a deluded state so that you may better serve the purposes of others as and be manipulated by them as a 'bad' thing then, then yes, bad for all members.

spare the rhetoric and the weasel words. Why are you suddenly talking about "single life"? Why are you now making value judgments? These as have already been established are irrelevant to the question.

Further there is no evidence that religion has any benefit that would not be filled by other means. Atheists as a group earn more, are more intelligent, are less criminal, have lower divorce rates, etc.

ok - show me your evidence.

here's some from Wilson

These studies were performed on such a massive scale and with so much background information that we can compare the psychological experience of religious believers vs. nonbelievers on a moment-by-moment basis. We can even compare members of conservative vs. liberal protestant denominations, when they are alone vs. in the company of other people. On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality.

and from the scientific literature

Many studies have linked a lack of religiosity to depression. Religious commitment is associated with a reduced incidence of depression13 and a quicker recovery from depressive illness for the elderly.15 Two separate reviews of the literature have supported this: those with high levels of "religious involvement", "religious salience" and "intrinsic religious motivation" were at reduced risk,14 and religious commitment was inversely related to suicide risk in 13 of 16 studies reviewed.13 One study showed a fourfold increased risk of suicide for non-churchgoers compared with regular attenders,22 and no study has shown an increased risk of suicide among churchgoers.

The reasons why people with a sense of religious commitment are less likely to become depressed may include a feeling of social connectedness, exposure to messages about healthy living, or perhaps the reduced exposure to drug-taking behaviour. However, studies controlling for these factors have still found religiosity to be independently protective. So there may be other reasons, such as the comfort that comes from believing in a benevolent and caring God, the view that justice always prevails in the end, or that adverse events always have a meaning and a message. Such attitudes would buffer enormously against the ill-effects of life stresses and the depression that often follows.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...ed/hassed.html

Philadelphia–Depressed seniors who believe their life is guided by a larger spiritual force have significantly fewer symptoms of depression than those who do not use religious coping strategies. Moreover, this relationship is independent of the amount of social support those individuals receive, according to results of a prospective study presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

"This is a pretty remarkable study–and when you see these kind of data coming out from both medical and psychiatric populations, it’s hard to continue ignoring religion as a variable in the recovery from depression," said Harold G. Koenig, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

According to study author Hayden Bosworth, PhD, attempts in the literature to distinguish the effects of religion from the effects of social support on depression have led to mixed success (Husaini BA et al. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1999;48:63-72). Dr. Bosworth, associate director, health services research and development, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and his colleagues attempted to address the issue by examining the effects of religious practices, coping mechanisms and social support on recovery among individuals diagnosed with major depression.

"These results indicate that clinicians should encourage reconnection with religion as a way of coping in patients whose spirituality has been important to them," concluded Dr. Bosworth.

"Physicians need to pay attention to their patients’ religious beliefs and practices," added Dr. Koenig. "Rather than continuing to see it as a liability or unhealthy crutch, they should see it as a potential strength in overcoming depression."

http://www.mental-health-today.com/a...irituality.htm


these are direct comparisons between believer and non believer - so there is no need to try and avoid addressing it by claiming other means.

Atheists seem to have better lives,

seemingly contradicted by the evidence above. Time for some more value judgments?

 

[Meadmaker]

No, that's the clever part. They get people to vie for the privilege to give them stuff Do you think for one moment the quality and quality of their donations has no impact on their 'worthiness' to give? If I offer something very desired by the Jain I suspect the Jain will look at my daughter and find her to be pure, chaste, and noble;p The system is brilliant. They get to cherry pick and they get to have some rich people kiss their.. ascetic regions

Regardless, how does this support your position that people would not take up begging for individual benefit?

The point is that, apparently, there aren't any material benefits for the ascetic, at least not according to Wilson's article. The ascetics live a miserable, difficult, life of difficult labor and little food, while the lay people have above average incomes for their region of the world.

Perhaps you know more about the subject than Wilson does, and he's all wet with his assertions, but according to him, the ascetics are not leading good lives, while the lay people are. Perhaps I have accepted a false authority on this subject, but I'm guessing that he has done his research, while you have not. It's just a guess, but it's one I'm sticking with unless I have evidence to the contrary.

 

[Faithkills]

spare the rhetoric and the weasel words. Why are you suddenly talking about "single life"?

Because that's all we have any evidence exists outside of fiction?

Why are you now making value judgments? These as have already been established are irrelevant to the question.

Did you see me say I forfeited the right to value judgments somewhere? In any case I was not making one, I said if you consider a life of delusion a bad thing then yes religion is a bad thing. I didn't say it was bad, it's only bad if you think delusion is bad. That's the value judgment for you to make.

here's some from Wilson

and from the scientific literature

...

seemingly contradicted by the evidence above. Time for some more value judgments?

What an impressive pile of opinion. Appeal by Wall of Text.

Just lovely.

Now then, can you explain why atheists make more money, are smarter, have lower divorce rates, lower incarceration rates, if, as that lovely truckload of opinion would have us believe, that religion is so beneficial to individuals?

Can you explain why when they did the first scientific test on the matter of intercessory prayer, they found people who know they are being prayed for they have surprisingly poorer post surgical CBP results?

 

[Faithkills]

The point is that, apparently, there aren't any material benefits for the ascetic, at least not according to Wilson's article. The ascetics live a miserable, difficult, life of difficult labor and little food, while the lay people have above average incomes for their region of the world.

What about feeding yourself and getting to make the high and mighty kowtow to you is not attractive to people who were looking at begging as a career choice anyway?

Perhaps you know more about the subject than Wilson does, and he's all wet with his assertions, but according to him, the ascetics are not leading good lives, while the lay people are. Perhaps I have accepted a false authority on this subject, but I'm guessing that he has done his research, while you have not. It's just a guess, but it's one I'm sticking with unless I have evidence to the contrary.

Oh appeal to authority does not at all surprise me from you. God said, Wilson said, it's all the same to you isn't it? When people say things you can't comprehend much less refute there's always an authority to point to. Thank God.

Anyhow to the extent you were making a point, Jain ascetics may or may not be miserable lives from the perspective of the onlooker depending on their situation. There are LOTS of people to whom that life would be a vast improvement. They have motive beyond some magical evolutionary group drive, but more importantly if there were by your own statements the 'ascetics live a miserable, difficult, life' so this wouldn't be a good thing for the individual would it?

 

[andyandy]

Did you see me say I forfeited the right to value judgments somewhere? In any case I was not making one, I said if you consider a life of delusion a bad thing then yes religion is a bad thing. I didn't say it was bad, it's only bad if you think delusion is bad. That's the value judgment for you to make.

it was irrelevant to bring value judgments into it - but a tactic that is becoming wearily familiar.

What an impressive pile of opinion. Appeal by Wall of Text.

good grief. It's three articles all with referenced scientific studies. To dismiss it as an "appeal to wall of text" and "pile of opinion" is both ignorant and disingenuous.

Now then, can you explain why atheists make more money, are smarter, have lower divorce rates, lower incarceration rates, if, as that lovely truckload of opinion would have us believe, that religion is so beneficial to individuals?

So you're happy to ignore the referenced scientific studies? I'm also waiting to see your evidence - or would that just be an appeal to a "wall of text" as well?

Can you explain why when they did the first scientific test on the matter of intercessory prayer, they found people who know they are being prayed for they have surprisingly poorer post surgical CBP results?

show me the scientific study on it. And rather than simply asking me to comment on studies for which you've provided no link, how about commenting on the studies i've provided with links and details? Or do you just ignore everything that challenges your myopic world-view?

 

[andyandy]

Oh appeal to authority does not at all surprise me from you. God said, Wilson said, it's all the same to you isn't it? When people say things you can't comprehend much less refute there's always an authority to point to. Thank God.

Are you claiming to know more about Jainism than Wilson? Do you have any evidence to base your assertions about Jainism upon? You don't appear to be very knowledgeable on the subject so forgive people for doubting whether you know what you're talking about.

 

[Meadmaker]

Oh appeal to authority does not at all surprise me from you. God said, Wilson said, it's all the same to you isn't it? When people say things you can't comprehend much less refute there's always an authority to point to. Thank God.

 

[newlyfound]

These studies were performed on such a massive scale and with so much background information that we can compare the psychological experience of religious believers vs. nonbelievers on a moment-by-moment basis. We can even compare members of conservative vs. liberal protestant denominations, when they are alone vs. in the company of other people. On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires....

This is great, so what we are doing here in this thread, being mostly atheists, is 'gratifying our impulsive desires'. This guy is brilliant....and I suppose one could feel better about thyself upon handing over their lives' reigns to their b s-ing preachers along with their, ...wallets? If any question regarding the b s that gets thrown at them about the existence of this frightful god comes up, they immediately suppress it because according to their logic, that's Satan taking over their minds. This definitely sounds like it's a major self-esteem booster.

On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy,

crack smokers are happy too, let's see who else in that category? ...alcoholics when at the peak of their buzz? heroin and cocain addicts? yeah, this makes sense...as one can see, religious, believers are not the only 'happies' around.

active, sociable, involved and excited.

this is absolutely meaningless. Could one assert that atheists in general might be socially limited because of the threats bestowed upon them by theists for the simple reason that they have a different belief system? If he read TGD then he must have read that part that covers this. Supposedly being atheist himsef he should know that omitting such part makes him a dishonest one.

Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality. More fine-grained comparisons reveal fascinating differences between liberal vs. conservative protestant denominations, with more anxiety among the liberals and conservatives feeling better in the company of others than when alone.

Could that be because anxiety comes from the fact that one is more in touch with reality vs. constanly living in the clouds?

Religions are diverse, in the same way that species in ecosystems are diverse. Rather than issuing monolithic statements about religion, evolutionists need to explain religious diversity in the same way that they explain biological diversity.

What does this have to do with what Dawkins points out????? religion is deadly poisonous garbage, no exceptions, all one has to do is take a look around, if this dude is not even willing to do that, it is not Dawkins' fault.

 

[Faithkills]

show me the scientific study on it. And rather than simply asking me to comment on studies for which you've provided no link, how about commenting on the studies i've provided with links and details? Or do you just ignore everything that challenges your myopic world-view?

I saw no data to support your wall of opinion. If I missed it point out where that lives. Yes yes, sorry, I do like to see evidence, I'm just a stickler that way.

On the other hand I do have data to support the questions I asked you however or I would not have asked them. Every one. Alas I'm for bed and the references are in my offices so the references will have to wait the morrow. Smart money would be google the data yourself, so you'd be prepared. But you won't do that

 

[Faithkills]

Are you claiming to know more about Jainism than Wilson? Do you have any evidence to base your assertions about Jainism upon? You don't appear to be very knowledgeable on the subject so forgive people for doubting whether you know what you're talking about.

Excellent! Back up an appeal to authority with.. wait for it.. more appeal to authority. Sweet! Damn aren't you the clever bunny!

I'm not claiming anything other than what I asserted. If you disagree please say where. If you can't think for yourself and are certain Wilson knows more than you and must be right then say that and we can stop wasting our time.

A flaw in argument is a flaw no matter the pedigree of the positer or the person pointing out the flaw. If you find issue with my points address. But you can't, of course, or you would not have had to resort to appeal to authority.

 

[Meadmaker]

religion is deadly poisonous garbage, no exceptions,

That's my mother you are talking about.

 

[andyandy]

I saw no data to support your wall of opinion. If I missed it point out where that lives. Yes yes, sorry, I do like to see evidence, I'm just a stickler that way.

you saw no evidence in the three articles to support the notion that religion may have some benefit to people? It's not a "wall of opinion" it's a number of scientific studies. There is a difference.

On the other hand I do have data to support the questions I asked you however or I would not have asked them. Every one. Alas I'm for bed and the references are in my offices so the references will have to wait the morrow. Smart money would be google the data yourself, so you'd be prepared. But you won't do that

you want to discuss your studies showing lower divorce rates, and yet you still are unprepared to actually address the studies referenced in the articles showing increased happiness and decreased risk of suicide/depression? Unbelievable. I'm happy to look at evidence from both sides, your myopia on the other hand is rather apparent.

 

[andyandy]

Excellent! Back up an appeal to authority with.. wait for it.. more appeal to authority. Sweet! Damn aren't you the clever bunny!

I'm not claiming anything other than what I asserted. If you disagree please say where. If you can't think for yourself and are certain Wilson knows more than you and must be right then say that and we can stop wasting our time.

A flaw in argument is a flaw no matter the pedigree of the positer or the person pointing out the flaw. If you find issue with my points address. But you can't, of course, or you would not have had to resort to appeal to authority.

*sigh*

the "appeal to authority" shrill cry much beloved by fundies, loons and holders of unsubstantiated opinions everywhere.

With a newly developed tropical illness given the choice between the medical opinion of a trained doctor in tropical medicine or the opinion of a bloke propping up the bar in the pub i'd choose the former - Appeal to Authority! - that i, not being an expert on tropical medicine weight his opinion higher is entirely logical.

Both myself and meadmaker have qualified our opinions by giving you the opportunity to demonstrate that you do actually know what you're talking about - just like the man from the bar could happen to be a world renowned tropical medicine specialist whose just finished a study into the illness your exhibiting, it's not a case of dismissing that viewpoint entirely - simply not weighting it strongly until given evidence to suggest otherwise. You have given no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[andyandy]

Firstly we need to look at the data religious vs non-religious, not religious vs atheist - so your claims immediately set up an incorrect comparison. But leaving that to one side, as just a thoughtless slip, we can certainly look at the stats for religious vs non religious.

firstly, re religion and prison....

the only link to come up that supports your assertion is

www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

which looks less trustworthy a source than wiki - no cites, no verifiable sources for claims, just a webpage with some claims based on an email that we have to take at face value....i hope you've got something better than this in mind

in any case, if we are to take such websites at face value, then there is a
discussion of these stats here

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

David Rice has written to us (23 October 2002) concerning the origin of the data in the table below:
The data came from Denise Golumbaski, who was a Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The data was compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997. (Note that as of the year 1999, Analyst Golumbaski is no longer working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons; I had telephoned Analyst Golumbaski to request the latest figures, and was told by another analyst that Golumbaski was no longer employed there.) The data was requested by Mr. Rod Swift, who passed it on to me for my web site. I later called the Federal Bureau of Prisons and confirmed that the data did in fact come from their database.

Catholic 29,267 31.432%
Protestant 26,162 28.097%
None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%

which makes the data much less clear cut. We're interested in religious vs non-religious not religious vs atheist and so the figure we actually want is buried within that 19.9% figure.

however as a counter argument, this is much more substancial....

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1501.pdf

a UK government 30 page pdf on religion and prison

No religion forms 32% of inmates
and No religion is the fastest growing subsection (up 181% to 1993-2000)

when compared to the Uk census
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293

No religion forms 15.5% of respondents.

So people with no religion would appear twice as likely to be incarcerated.

More evidence that doesn't fit your assertions. Are you going to ignore this as well? So far with regards to

suicide,
death setences,
happiness,
depression,
incarceration

the evidence hasn't fitted your claims.

 

[andyandy]

With regards to divorce rates, non-religious actually conform to the average (9%) although they do show a slightly smaller rate relative to some religion (see http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/resea...udies/aris.pdf)

In the "No Religion" category measuring lifestyles of the 29-million or so members of this cohort, 33% were single, 22% single and co-habiting, 19% married, and 9% divorced. Six percent were widowed. Only Buddhists (47%) and Muslim/Islam believers (37%) exceeded the numbers in the singles category. But the "No Religion" group showed low rates of divorce compared to religious counterparts. Pentecostal Christians had the highest divorce rates at 14%, followed by Episcopalian/Anglicans at 12%, Baptists at 12%, and the Assemblies of God at 10%. Non-believers had comparable divorce rates along with Methodists, Roman Catholics, "Christians," Church of Christ members and others. ARIS noted, "the no religion group was far more likely to be either single, never married or single, living with a partner than any other group." Evangelical Christians and Assemblies of God followers were more likely to marry (73% and 74%), thus possibly contributing to the high divorce rates.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist4.htm

and even this (weak at best) evidence illuminates other evidence in support of selective pressures with regards to much higher propensity to be single/non married. Indeed, looking at the pdf survey, 33% of non-religious respondents were single - which is significantly higher than the average (20%)
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/resea...udies/aris.pdf

I do look forward to all this evidence you've been promising - i know you're such a stickler for it.

 

[Beth]

This is great, so what we are doing here in this thread, being mostly atheists, is 'gratifying our impulsive desires'. This guy is brilliant....and I suppose one could feel better about thyself upon handing over their lives' reigns to their b s-ing preachers along with their, ...wallets? If any question regarding the b s that gets thrown at them about the existence of this frightful god comes up, they immediately suppress it because according to their logic, that's Satan taking over their minds. This definitely sounds like it's a major self-esteem booster.

This is a biased inaccurate view of most people who are religious. Are you interested in forming a more realistic picture of religious believers? If so, Wilson's work isn't a bad starting point.

crack smokers are happy too, let's see who else in that category? ...alcoholics when at the peak of their buzz? heroin and cocain addicts? yeah, this makes sense...as one can see, religious, believers are not the only 'happies' around.

I doubt the study was able to delineate drug users since it's an illegal activity that few would admit to. However, I would not assume that they are 'happies' because they also have the 'coming down' aspect of using, the physical side effects, etc. The study asked people, at random times during the day, to report how they were feeling. Religious people came out as generally feeling happier. Thus, it is evidence that religion provides some benefit to the believer.

this is absolutely meaningless. Could one assert that atheists in general might be socially limited because of the threats bestowed upon them by theists for the simple reason that they have a different belief system? If he read TGD then he must have read that part that covers this. Supposedly being atheist himsef he should know that omitting such part makes him a dishonest one.

I don't think it's meaningless, although I don't know exactly how they measured such things as 'happy", "sociable" etc. I presume that if I were to review his work, the way those feelings were assessed and quantified would be laid out in detail. If you want to review his work and post why it isn't an accurate way to measure such things, that's fine. But what you've posted here comes across as denigration just because you don't like the results.

BTW, why is it if he disagrees with Dawkins on this particular point - a point he's studied in depth and Dawkins hasn't - you refer to him as "supposedly being atheist"? After all, he isn't claiming there is evidence for God, just evidence that religion has some benefits for humans.

Could that be because anxiety comes from the fact that one is more in touch with reality vs. constanly living in the clouds?

Possibly, but before you have a case, you need to establish that atheists are more in touch with reality than religious people are. What's your evidence for that? They believe in God? The existance of God is not factually established one way or the other, so that isn't a convincing argument (at least not to this agnostic) that religious people are less in touch with reality than athiests.

What does this have to do with what Dawkins points out????? religion is deadly poisonous garbage, no exceptions, all one has to do is take a look around, if this dude is not even willing to do that, it is not Dawkins' fault.

Wilson has been taking a look around. He's actually done research in the area. That's his point. The evidence does not support the type of wholesale condemnation that you and Dawkins make regarding religion.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

The study asked people, at random times during the day, to report how they were feeling. Religious people came out as generally feeling happier. Thus, it is evidence that religion provides some benefit to the believer.

No, it's not. All it shows is that the verbalisation of the subjective degree of happiness someone experiences is positively correlated with religiosity. Since there is no clear objective basis on which two persons' happiness index can be ascertained, let alone compared, it could be something as simple as a semantic effect at work where words are understood slightly differently. Or perhaps naturally happier people or more content people or people of more stable moods have a greater affinity for religion.

Consequently, it is invalid to infer that the correlation implies a genuine benefit to the believer, and a perceived benefit suffers from issues of subjectivity.

'Luthon64

 

[Beth]

No, it's not. All it shows is that the verbalisation of the subjective degree of happiness someone experiences is positively correlated with religiosity. Since there is no clear objective basis on which two persons' happiness index can be ascertained, let alone compared, it could be something as simple as a semantic effect at work where words are understood slightly differently. Or perhaps naturally happier people or more content people or people of more stable moods have a greater affinity for religion

Consequently, it is invalid to infer that the correlation implies a genuine benefit to the believer, and a perceived benefit suffers from issues of subjectivity.

'Luthon64

You're right in that other explanations are plausible, that measuring subjective feelings such as 'happiness' is a difficult scientific task and that correlation does not imply causation. I also agree that this study does not provide proof that religion is beneficial to believers.

On the other hand, what I said was that it provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that religion is beneficial to believers. Which it does. Further, the existance of evidence of benefit refutes the person I was responding to who said "religion is deadly poisonous garbage, no exceptions".