daniel-p,
I see you are easily sucked in by bullshit.
:Farkel: what is it about the argument that makes it worth five cents? Because you don't agree with it?
Well, if you are going to answer a question you ask me, then why should I bother?
:Look at countries where there is a popular religion : Iran, for instance. How is the above not true?
:Or do you just snub your nose at all scholars and products of higher education, as "high falutin' nonsence"? Rather read your favorite sound-byte blog, only confirming your own views?
That's a "do you still beat your wife" loaded question, isn't it? Plus you're again answering a question that was supposed to be for me, using a false dilemma logical fallacy. "Your honor, he is leading the witness!"
The opening line is a good example of bullshit.
"Better understanding the nature, origin and popularity of varying levels of popular religion versus secularism, and their impact upon socioeconomic conditions and vice versa, requires a cross national comparison of the competing factors in populations where opinions are freely chosen."
Translation: "We need data to understand the dynamics of religion versus secularism and how they affect society."
"Utilizing 25 indicators, the uniquely extensive Successful Societies Scale reveals that population diversity and immigration correlate weakly with 1st world socioeconomic conditions, and high levels of income disparity, popular religiosity as measured by differing levels of belief and activity, and rejection of evolutionary science correlate strongly negatively with improving conditions."
"strongly negatively?" That's simply, really, and adversely a gravely atrocious butchering of consecutive adverbs in grammar!
After reading this pedantic uber compound sentence about ten times, I sorta kinda understand what it might be saying.
"We used 25 indicators from a nifty scale called the Successful Societies Scale. We discovered that diverse populations and immigration don't much affect first world social and econonic conditions. However, a high disparity in income, lots of religion and disbelief in evolution make it difficult to improve conditions."
(At least, that's what I THINK it means. It is so poorly written, it is rather ambiguous.)
"The historically unprecedented socioeconomic security that results from low levels of progressive government policies appear to suppress popular religiosity and creationist opinion, conservative religious ideology apparently contributes to societal dysfunction, and religious prosociality and charity are less effective at improving societal conditions than are secular government programs."
Translation: "When times are good due to a bunch of liberal politicians running things, religion which tends to fuck things up, loses its popularity. Besides that, religion doesn't do much for improving society compared to what liberal governments can do."
"The antagonistic relationship between a better socioeconomic conditions and intense popular faith may prevent the existence of nations that combine the two factors."
Translation: "People who are religious just hate the idea of having a better society or more money. That is why nations with a stable and high standard of living aren't religious, and fucked up nations are religious."
"The nonuniversality of strong religious devotion, and the ease with large populations abandon serious theism when conditions are sufficiently benign, refute hypotheses that religious belief and practice are the normal, deeply set human mental state, whether they are superficial or natural in nature."
"Religious belief is not ingrained. When times are good, religion goes into the toilet."
"Instead popular religion is usually a superficial and flexible psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety produced by sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environments. Popular nontheism is a similarly casual response to superior conditions."
"When times are bad, people use religion to cope. When times are good, nontheism is prevalent."
Oh, wait! He already said that, so it's just a bunch of redundant bullshit.
:I know, "correlation does not imply causation", still ...
Only if you use those 25 indicators on the Successful Society Scale(tm) which as we all know, is a pretty nifty thing to have.
So this is what the author used way too many words to say:
"We need data to understand the dynamics of religion versus secularism and how they affect society.
"We used 25 indicators from a nifty scale called the Successful Societies Scale. We discovered that diverse populations and immigration don't much affect first world social and econonic conditions. However, a high disparity in income in a society, lots of religion and disbelief in evolution make it difficult to improve conditions in such a society.
"People who are religious just hate the idea of having a better society or more money. That is why nations with a stable and high standard of living aren't religious, and fucked up nations are religious. "Religious belief is not ingrained. When times are good, religion goes into the toilet. When times are bad, people use religion to cope. When times are good, nontheism is prevalent."
Now tell me: which version is easier to read and understand? In what way did fifty dollars words and gigantic compound sentences better communicate the argument than twenty-five cent words and short sentences?
If you want to boil the whole argument down to something really simple, you could just say what is already well known: "Religion fucks up people and society."
Farkel
