http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-brooks1oct01,0,3034570.story?track=hpmostemailedlink Quoted in full: October 1, 2005 latimes.com : Print Edition : Editorials, Op-Ed The dark side of faith By ROSA BROOKS IT'S OFFICIAL: Too much religion may be a dangerous thing. This is the implication of a study reported in the current issue of the Journal of Religion and Society, a publication of Creighton University's Center for the Study of Religion. The study, by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States. Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality. He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. This conclusion will come as no surprise to those who have long gnashed their teeth in frustration while listening to right-wing evangelical claims that secular liberals are weak on "values." Paul's study confirms globally what is already evident in the U.S.: When it comes to "values," if you look at facts rather than mere rhetoric, the substantially more secular blue states routinely leave the Bible Belt red states in the dust. Murder rates? Six of the seven states with the highest 2003 homicide rates were "red" in the 2004 elections (Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina), while the deep blue Northeastern states had murder rates well below the national average. Infant mortality rates? Highest in the South and Southwest; lowest in New England. Divorce rates? Marriages break up far more in red states than in blue. Teen pregnancy rates? The same. Of course, the red/blue divide is only an imperfect proxy for levels of religiosity. And while Paul's study found that the correlation between high degrees of religiosity and high degrees of social dysfunction appears robust, it could be that high levels of social dysfunction fuel religiosity, rather than the other way around. Although correlation is not causation, Paul's study offers much food for thought. At a minimum, his findings suggest that contrary to popular belief, lack of religiosity does societies no particular harm. This should offer ammunition to those who maintain that religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion. It should also give a boost to critics of "faith-based" social services and abstinence-only disease and pregnancy prevention programs. We shouldn't shy away from the possibility that too much religiosity may be socially dangerous. Secular, rationalist approaches to problem-solving emphasize uncertainty, evidence and perpetual reevaluation. Religious faith is inherently nonrational. This in itself does not make religion worthless or dangerous. All humans hold nonrational beliefs, and some of these may have both individual and societal value. But historically, societies run into trouble when powerful religions become imperial and absolutist. The claim that religion can have a dark side should not be news. Does anyone doubt that Islamic extremism is linked to the recent rise in international terrorism? And since the history of Christianity is every bit as blood-drenched as the history of Islam, why should we doubt that extremist forms of modern American Christianity have their own pernicious and measurable effects on national health and well-being? Arguably, Paul's study invites us to conclude that the most serious threat humanity faces today is religious extremism: nonrational, absolutist belief systems that refuse to tolerate difference and dissent. My prediction is that right-wing evangelicals will do their best to discredit Paul's substantive findings. But when they fail, they'll just shrug: So what if highly religious societies have more murders and disease than less religious societies? Remember the trials of Job? God likes to test the faithful. To the truly nonrational, even evidence that on its face undermines your beliefs can be twisted to support them. Absolutism means never having to say you're sorry. And that, of course, is what makes it so very dangerous.
article
by rmt1 1 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
ozziepost
mt1:
In the almost one year since you registered you have made two 'posts', both of which are simply 'cut&pastes' and with no formatting. In short, these aren't real posts and they're very reader unfriendly.
First Post:
Visualization: It covers a good deal of poor memory. When uploading new vocabulary (mainly new languages) into memory, I manually air-write it out on a blank surface while visualizing the letters I'm forming. If I visualize it, it can later be consulted like a physical image. When I'm required to remember a series of ideas that must be in RAM storage in case they are asked for on a test, I typically try to put each idea into a squadron with another 4-5 ideas/terms, so that they form a 2x3 matrix or a hexagon that can be visualized. As required, I also arrange ideas into internally visualized symmetric shapes like triangles, octagons and tetrahedrons. Regularity aids this method. Excess mental capacity is a symptom of our evolutionary success; there's no reason to avoid some apparently absurd things that do not require much additional processing power. (As for storage, you won't even realize that you're remembering things you couldn't before.) Not if you're _really_ shooting for top grade. Audio: use mnemonics, no matter how silly. Find auditory patterns. If a song occurs in tandem with a phrase, latch onto it as a mnemonic until you've taken the test and gotten the A. If a large series of data has to be memorized, throw your entire musical capacity at it until all the data is a sing-along. If apparently disparate ideas or terms must be memorized together, throw your entire narrative capacity at it: make up a miny story (or relational picture) of how they're related. Energy: Perhaps try studying while standing so that it's a longer time between fatigue. Daily exercise also means more energy without more sleep. Stressed-out R&R after midnight has a way of quickly turning into 3-4am. Be aware of when negative emotional energy means you really ought to turn in. Stress inventories: Get (the equivalent of) moderately smashed (salt to taste) at the start or middle of every weekend, but not the day before class. Get friends with whom you can laugh so heartily that you're adding years to your life. (I know, easy.) Teacher psychology: If you can ask the teacher a question after every other class, or at least once a week, you're well on your way to being evaluated upwards in marginal grade cases. If you can physically look good _while_ looking attentive/fascinated/focused/whatever, do so. The instructor is human and has the visceral unconscious Froidian and Faucaultian desire to implant their knowledge in attractive vessels where it will germinate. Be seen by them to be tracking their physical movements in the class space. A component of their career choice is performativity; acknowledge it not as an audience member who is duly surprised or predictably delighted, but as a seasoned observer who has already gotten in, and out, of their thought cycle, and who can show their seasoned appreciation by not showing novice appreciation. And depending on your academic aggression, I believe teachers do enjoy, in a masochistic way, to be challenged beyond their traditional ranges of knowledge by the new paradigm of adult student, even to be moderately disagreed during classtime with and to find a smooth transition out of the mis/dis-understanding. Find ways to push the teacher up to and completely beyond their range of knowledge YET allowing them every retreat for a smooth return. They will appreciate that YOU appreciate that the field is beyond any one person's ownership, and you will simulate a colleague if but for a second. Anyway, I believe I didn't type this out so much to help someone else as to see if I actually had some system I could document to myself. Some of this may be naive in hard sciences or mathematics. All I can say is that being an ex-Witness, I have my work cut out for me to get anywhere on this planet.
Second post:http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-brooks1oct01,0,3034570.story?track=hpmostemailedlink Quoted in full: October 1, 2005 latimes.com : Print Edition : Editorials, Op-Ed The dark side of faith By ROSA BROOKS IT'S OFFICIAL: Too much religion may be a dangerous thing. This is the implication of a study reported in the current issue of the Journal of Religion and Society, a publication of Creighton University's Center for the Study of Religion. The study, by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States. Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality. He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. This conclusion will come as no surprise to those who have long gnashed their teeth in frustration while listening to right-wing evangelical claims that secular liberals are weak on "values." Paul's study confirms globally what is already evident in the U.S.: When it comes to "values," if you look at facts rather than mere rhetoric, the substantially more secular blue states routinely leave the Bible Belt red states in the dust. Murder rates? Six of the seven states with the highest 2003 homicide rates were "red" in the 2004 elections (Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina), while the deep blue Northeastern states had murder rates well below the national average. Infant mortality rates? Highest in the South and Southwest; lowest in New England. Divorce rates? Marriages break up far more in red states than in blue. Teen pregnancy rates? The same. Of course, the red/blue divide is only an imperfect proxy for levels of religiosity. And while Paul's study found that the correlation between high degrees of religiosity and high degrees of social dysfunction appears robust, it could be that high levels of social dysfunction fuel religiosity, rather than the other way around. Although correlation is not causation, Paul's study offers much food for thought. At a minimum, his findings suggest that contrary to popular belief, lack of religiosity does societies no particular harm. This should offer ammunition to those who maintain that religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion. It should also give a boost to critics of "faith-based" social services and abstinence-only disease and pregnancy prevention programs. We shouldn't shy away from the possibility that too much religiosity may be socially dangerous. Secular, rationalist approaches to problem-solving emphasize uncertainty, evidence and perpetual reevaluation. Religious faith is inherently nonrational. This in itself does not make religion worthless or dangerous. All humans hold nonrational beliefs, and some of these may have both individual and societal value. But historically, societies run into trouble when powerful religions become imperial and absolutist. The claim that religion can have a dark side should not be news. Does anyone doubt that Islamic extremism is linked to the recent rise in international terrorism? And since the history of Christianity is every bit as blood-drenched as the history of Islam, why should we doubt that extremist forms of modern American Christianity have their own pernicious and measurable effects on national health and well-being? Arguably, Paul's study invites us to conclude that the most serious threat humanity faces today is religious extremism: nonrational, absolutist belief systems that refuse to tolerate difference and dissent. My prediction is that right-wing evangelicals will do their best to discredit Paul's substantive findings. But when they fail, they'll just shrug: So what if highly religious societies have more murders and disease than less religious societies? Remember the trials of Job? God likes to test the faithful. To the truly nonrational, even evidence that on its face undermines your beliefs can be twisted to support them. Absolutism means never having to say you're sorry. And that, of course, is what makes it so very dangerous.
Could we ask you to at least make a point in your posts. Thanks. Ozzie