Ship of Fools: "Religious people are dumb"

Thread: "Religious people are dumb" - Science Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023861

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

OK,so attention grabbing headlines aside, there is some research that suggests a correlation between intelligence and atheism. I don't have links to hand, but the upshot is that the more intelligent you are the less likely it is that you will have a religious faith. For example, research into the religious beliefs of those in the topic scientific academy's would seem to confirm this.

I took this research for granted and it never really bothered me because correlation doesn't equal causation. There are probably many correlations that could be drawn out. I think this is because people reach conclusions on things like metaphysics for all manner of reasons.

However, I have recently encountered an individual who insists that this actually means something. Truth, it seams, boils down to a numbers game. IF 90% of the "top" people in industry X and Y are atheists or agnostics then the corollary is that non-belief is the rational view to hold.

Is there a counter argument to this apart from correlation =/= causation? I ask because it seems to be the type of argument that is at least superficially appealing and difficult to argue against.

Indeed, is there anyone here who thinks this line of argument is valid?

(I should add that in a twist of delicious irony the person who I mention above displays no signs of notable intelligence.)

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Is there a counter argument to this apart from correlation =/= causation?
<snip>
(I should add that in a twist of delicious irony the person who I mention above displays no signs of notable intelligence.)

The most direct argument would be that the notion of "intelligence" is too mushy to support anything, ISTM. You might as well say that "good" people are atheists. The premise is a Rorschach test, not a testable hypothesis.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Psmith (# 15311) on :

Intelligent people are as given as others (or nearly so) to intellectual fashion, even to the extent of irrationality (witness economists on limitless growth). Such being the case, I would not be inclined to read to much into it. I tend to think (but cannot really justify) that belief in God is still seen by many as the default position, and its rejection as the positive choice, and that such rejection is more likely among people who have given it thought, who will tend to be more intelligent. If I'm right about this the difference will decline (and perhaps reverse) as atheism becomes the default.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

I don't know if this helps but reading the content below Studies comparing religious belief and I. Q. on the linked page may be relevant.

A quick glance shows some correlations but many factors which may explain them.

Personally - I'd like to claim this as evidence for my possession of a towering intellect but those who know me well would, quite rightly, never let me get away with it.

I suspect that economic independence/confidence in one's future physical wellbeing is a major enabler of atheism. It may explain why some economically more-developed countries report lower levels of religious observance than others with fewer state-provided support systems and/or poorer average educational attainment.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It might be worth pointing out believers such as Rowan Williams (and any others you can think of) who is certainly very intelligent.

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
IF 90% of the "top" people in industry X and Y are atheists or agnostics then the corollary is that non-belief is the rational view to hold.

rational view to hold for what purpose? Fitting in with the crowd? Climbing the greasy pole?

You could as easily say 'if 90% of top people in industry are cannibals then it is rational to view cannibalism as right'.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Of course atheism is rational, religious belief is irrational in that it requires faith.

[ 11. September 2012, 14:08: Message edited by: Caissa ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
IF 90% of the "top" people in industry X and Y are atheists or agnostics then the corollary is that non-belief is the rational view to hold.

This particular argument seems to be fallaciously extending expertise in one particular area to universal expertise. Just because someone is a top person in X or Y doesn't mean there's any particular reason to take their opinion of Z any more seriously than any other random non-expert.

Which, of course, begs the question of what it means to be an expert in God?

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

Let's not go confusing rationality with scientific provability again, please.

I think Hughwillridmee has a point viz the economic stability of better educated people. I was thinking along those lines too with the added point that a person who has pride in his own intellect is less likely to set aside his own ideas in favour of other ideas requiring a degree of humility. Not intending to direct this at anyone in particular but I have noticed a certain intellectual arrogance among the numbers of neoatheists - witness the thankfully waning tendency to refer to themselves as "brights" [Ultra confused]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Let's not go confusing rationality with scientific provability again, please.

Not scientific provability, but rationality literally means the application of reason. Any belief arrived at by other means (e.g. faith) is, definitionally, irrational.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Meh, tell me something I didn't know.

quote:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

How did human intelligence increase so much in the past few centuries?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Oh, it's quite easy to get that sort of person sermonizing about the progress of humankind to a golden future. Not only are we getting more advanced, we are becoming better people. It's the whole premise of Star Trek.

It's an entirely different understanding of humanity. It's got nothing to do with "Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths."

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Of course, what is rational and logical depends on your prejudice and assumptions. Clearly those operating from one set of assumptions will do things which are internally consistent and logical but are quite different to those done by someone else operating from a different set of assumptions.

It seems to me to be a mistake to assume there is just one 'rational' explanation given we're all operating from different starting points. Even in narrow strands of science, one thing can be both irrational and rational at the same time.

Take conservation biology: one might argue logically that large numbers of species will inevitably die off all the time because they're not best fit to their niche, at the same time others might logically argue that it is rational to protect endangered species.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Let's not go confusing rationality with scientific provability again, please.
Not scientific provability, but rationality literally means the application of reason. Any belief arrived at by other means (e.g. faith) is, definitionally, irrational.

Not wishing to derail this thread, but puh-lease! Faith is not the process by which I came to belief in Christianity; faith in God is the result of my applying reasoned thought to things that I and others have experienced and observed. At least you didn't say "blind faith", so I'll give you one point for having a go.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's important that it's a correlation, as this means that other variables can come into play.

For example, there is some evidence that in the US, having a college degree makes it more likely that you will be religious, not less.

And also that working class white people are now leaving religion more than their middle-class counterparts.

I think this shows the complexity of these inter-relationships, and also the danger of seeing correlation as causation.

Of course, in 19th century England there was a kind of parallel situation, that the uneducated worker abandoned religion more than the middle-class person.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'

Free will.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Any belief arrived at by other means (e.g. faith) is, definitionally, irrational.

Not really. Most extra-rational processes would not generally be termed "irrational." For example, our feelings are typically not derived by deduction from any recognizable premise, but they would not usually be called "irrational." There is a pejoritive aspect to "irrational" that has overtones of something like "mad." That is pretty much hard-wired into the term, and applying it to those things that simply do not follow from a deductive system is always argumentative. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'

I deny there is zero evidence. Inconclusive evidence, sure. "That evidence doesn't prove it" is not the same thing as "that evidence doesn't exist."

I hold many other beliefs based on inconclusive evidence; for example, that my wife loves me without reservation. I have the same evidence that a man has whose wife is having a very well-hidden affair. Therefore the evidence for this proposition is inconclusive. Yet I believe it. By faith. Yet it would be a bizarre twisting of the word to say my faith in my wife is irrational.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Maybe I'm not understanding your point, mousethief, but it seems an odd thing to base your belief of unconditional love of your spouse on whether or not someone else is having an affair.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Maybe I'm not understanding your point, mousethief, but it seems an odd thing to base your belief of unconditional love of your spouse on whether or not someone else is having an affair.

Clearly you're not understanding my point. Really really not understanding my point.

The point about the affair is that the man whose wife is having a well-hidden affair has the same evidence of her fidelity as I do regarding my wife's fidelity. It is a point about the nature of the evidence. Which I explicitly said. How the hell you got to what you got to, I have no idea, other than not reading carefully and for content.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

You're right Long Ranger, you completely missed his point.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Any belief arrived at by other means (e.g. faith) is, definitionally, irrational.
Not really. Most extra-rational processes would not generally be termed "irrational." For example, our feelings are typically not derived by deduction from any recognizable premise, but they would not usually be called "irrational." There is a pejoritive aspect to "irrational" that has overtones of something like "mad." That is pretty much hard-wired into the term, and applying it to those things that simply do not follow from a deductive system is always argumentative. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Yes, you could also argue that all experiences are non-rational, since we do not arrive at them in a logical manner. They seem to be immediately presented to us. I suppose you could argue that the brain does go through a certain set of algorithms, in order to construct a certain experiential presentation, but this sounds odd to me.

I have noticed that the term 'non-rational' is used, to avoid the pejorative 'irrational', and I have even noticed 'transrational'.

[ 11. September 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

British Social Attitudes Survey 2011 looked at religious belief and related it to, among other thigns, educational qualifications- see table here. Graduates were the most likely to have a religious belief and to attend worship/ meetings. People without qualifications and graduates were the two groups most likely to say that they ha d a religion: people with intermediate qualifications- CSE to A level- were those most likely to have no religion.

Of course, qualifications don't necessarily equate to intelligence.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
How did human intelligence increase so much in the past few centuries?

I don't think it has - I think it is knowledge that has increased and been passed down to succeeding generations.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

Faith in Christianity, at least as far as I understand it, is not the "believing in the face of evidence to the contrary" that people like Richard Dawkins would have us believe. It is trust based on the evidence that is available. This evidence might be found in philosophical arguments, the historicity of people, places and things, science, personal experience or whatever else. To be sure people like Susan Doris, Crœsos and the like don't put any weight in such evidences and we are left with the tedious claim that there is no evidence.

Still, I was hoping to avoid such a debate in this thread unless it is somehow relevant to the topic at hand.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
How did human intelligence increase so much in the past few centuries?
I don't think it has - I think it is knowledge that has increased and been passed down to succeeding generations.

I don't think that it has, either. The observations are entirely contemporary, I assume, hence their applicability is limited.

If intelligence is reflected in curiosity, then it would be reasonable to suppose that in the middle ages the more intelligent people gravitated to roles that involved literacy and study. The church was the harbor for all such, as the preserver and disseminator of writings and the sponsor of universities and schools of various kinds. Chaucer's much-admired "Oxford cleric" epitomized the brilliant young man of humble origins in love with learning, who thanked God fervently for the generous people who had paid his tuition. He was still poor partly because he did not yet have a post in the church; but naturally he was in holy orders, and most men like him would make a living that way in due course.

If anything, I suspect that the centuries-long attraction of the most intelligent people into positions where they were not permitted to reproduce has been unfortunate for the gene pool of Christendom.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Of course a good bit of the recruitment pool for monasteries in the middle ages had less to do with intelligence and curiosity than with rights of inheritance. A lot more dull second brothers than intelligent first brothers in the monasteries.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

Purely anecdotal, but there's a significant pressure at certain levels of academia, particularly in the sciences, to conform to a notion that only sentimental fools believe in God, or at least to believe in the kind of personal, hands-on, exclusive God that Christianity posits.

Science students routinely mock not just obvious anti-intellectualism like that of the creationists, but believe in any God, and there's an implicit (or sometimes explicit) assumption that if you really believe in God, you're no better than a fanatic or a child that believes in Santa Claus.

There's also a tendency in the liberal arts that any cultural expression that's consensual is valuable and that Christianity is nothing but a means toward quashing expressions it doesn't like.

As a result, people who want to fit in either profess no belief in a God or they adopt a form of deism where they don't stick out as a target. But it seems to me that many atheist intelligentsia haven't really considered religious claims themselves, but rather they didn't have anything invested in religious belief and it's just more socially acceptable not to buy into it.

(By that same token, I think many, but by no means all, Christians are Christian because that's just what your family or peer group does.)

They seem to often present the same pre-packaged canards that the fundamentalists tend towards: either you believe that God literally created heaven and earth in six days a few thousand years ago and that Adam lived to be several hundred years old or you might as well not bother to believe any of it, including the claims of Christ.

So I guess what I'm getting at is that rather than intelligence (however we measure it) directly causing people to reject religion or the existence of God, it could very well be caused by differences in culture and class among people at different levels of intelligence/education.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'

So...you are saying there is zero evidence for the existence of God?

I'll give some that some thought and then get back to you.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

A couple other issues come to mind.

1) An article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer by a long-time Harvard professor who has done research in adherence to ethical standards. It is entitled, "Harvard scandal reveals ethical rot." This scandal transpired on Aug. 30 with a revelation that half of the 250 undergraduates taking a certain course are under investigation for allegedly cheating on their final exam.

Other troubling observations: when a dean was fired for having lied about her qualifications in her application, students tended to object. "She's doing a good job; what's the problem?" "Everyone lies on his resumé". There was also a dearth of objection, in a discussion about Enron, to "traders who manipulated energy prices." "No student condemned them; responses varied from 'Caveat emptor' to 'It's state officials' job to monitor the situation."

These are presumably, among our best-and-brightest, ergo (according to the hypothesis mentioned in the O.P.) least likely to have religious faith. But young scientists who don't have ethics are liable to be worse than useless for the scientific endeavor. Not only will they fail to advance knowledge, but they will bring disrepute on the entire effort. They are hence mislabeled as scientists, no matter how intelligent and credentialed they may be. Should their intelligence be counted in the balance if, as far as science and society are concerned, it is going to waste?

There have also been scandals in the public schools regarding cheating on standardized tests, sometimes on a systematic scale encouraged by teachers and principals.

So I'd be interested in data regarding a correlation between academic cheating, and other forms of dishonesty among the intelligentsia, and religious faith. If religious people don't cheat as much, then they will be more reliably well qualified, and more productive, even if not quite as intelligent.

Second, the above circumstnaces may have something to do with the fact that the U.S. is no longer producing enough scientists, doctors, and engineers (Ph.D earners in general) for its own needs. Many are from Asia and elsewhere abroad-- educated here and then remaining. Some aren't even educated here. It would be interesting to know if those from abroad have the same incidence of religious faith (or lack-of) as the domestic crop. Furthermore, if a religious social environment conduces to their education and their rising to their potential, this should be considered even if these individuals themselves have below-average levels of belief and observance.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'
Free will.

Various others - Metaphysical truths (.e.g there are minds other than my own - the other supposed humans I encounter are not automatons programmed to respond to me rather than being rationallybfree agents in their own right; the external world is real - you might be a disembodied mind sitting in a vat somewhere - the past wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age). All reasonably held beliefs - but you can't prove any of them scientifically.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
OK,so attention grabbing headlines aside, there is some research that suggests a correlation between intelligence and atheism. I don't have links to hand, but the upshot is that the more intelligent you are the less likely it is that you will have a religious faith. For example, research into the religious beliefs of those in the topic scientific academy's would seem to confirm this.

And who decided that scientists are the most intelligent people?

Oh yes, that's right. Scientists.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
How did human intelligence increase so much in the past few centuries?
I don't think it has - I think it is knowledge that has increased and been passed down to succeeding generations.

Yes. This is one of the things that annoys me THE most, the idea that ancient people were somehow 'dumb'. They simply weren't.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'
Free will.
Various others - Metaphysical truths (.e.g there are minds other than my own - the other supposed humans I encounter are not automatons programmed to respond to me rather than being rationallybfree agents in their own right; the external world is real - you might be a disembodied mind sitting in a vat somewhere - the past wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age). All reasonably held beliefs - but you can't prove any of them scientifically.

Yes, there are also some really strange ones - for example, that the present moment exists. Is there any evidence for this?

Also logic. Isn't it correct that logic just has to be accepted ab initio, or deductively?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The odd thing about the intelligence/religion link, is that in American sociology, it is almost a truism now, that graduates are more likely to retain their religion than non-graduates.

In fact, this came up bizarrely in the Presidential campaign, when some Republicans seemed to suggest that going to university was a kind of Democrat conspiracy, since it tends to make people atheist or secularist.

But in fact, the opposite seems to be true.

However, this is a correlation, not a causation.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
British Social Attitudes Survey 2011 looked at religious belief and related it to, among other thigns, educational qualifications- see table here. Graduates were the most likely to have a religious belief and to attend worship/ meetings. People without qualifications and graduates were the two groups most likely to say that they ha d a religion: people with intermediate qualifications- CSE to A level- were those most likely to have no religion.

Of course, qualifications don't necessarily equate to intelligence.

I can't find the stuff about graduates there. Can you show me where it is?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
How did human intelligence increase so much in the past few centuries?
I don't think it has - I think it is knowledge that has increased and been passed down to succeeding generations.
Yes. This is one of the things that annoys me THE most, the idea that ancient people were somehow 'dumb'. They simply weren't.

Quite. One of the fallacies of the scientism agenda is that it requires everyone born before about 1700 to have been either stupid or wicked.

The thing is - and this may be why surveys come up with conflicting results - "intelligence" is a social construct. It's up to a society to decide whom it's going to count as "intelligent". It so happens that in our contemporary Western society, intelligence is constructed in a very narrow and exclusive way. It's defined as having the ability to score highly in I.Q. tests.

The thing is, you can score highly in an I.Q. test and yet not be able to make an omelette, play the lute or write a novel (or even read one). Similarly you can score low in an I.Q. test and excel at any or all of those.

I think there's a real danger to society in this narrowing of what's accepted as intelligence. The risk is that those who don't make it through the narrow gate (see what I did there?) are gradually excluded from positions of influence, public forums, and ultimately from society itself.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I don't think that is fair. Science says that the sum of human knowledge has increased over time. Hence someone believing today what was known 200 years ago is illogical, because knowledge has moved on. But that isn't the same as saying someone believing something 200 years ago was illogical or stupid - because they lived 200 years ago without today's knowledge.

Years ago there were not the scientific skills and techniques, so it is hardly surprising that the focus was on knowledge outwith of the methods we use today, but I don't think anyone could argue the ancient philosophers and thinkers were stupid.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Some atheists argue that the Bible was written by bronze-age goat roasters, with the implication, I would think, that they were primitive idiots. Rather unlikely, really.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Years ago there were not the scientific skills and techniques, so it is hardly surprising that the focus was on knowledge outwith of the methods we use today, but I don't think anyone could argue the ancient philosophers and thinkers were stupid.

All the same (and having done some research on this for the Book), Aristotle suggested that light emerged from the eyes to illuminate objects he could see, amongst half a dozen equally strange ideas.

Because of philosophy's refusal to test hypotheses with real-world experiments, some really stupid concepts kept in currency long after they ought to have done, simply because educated men revered the ancient philosophers and thinkers and didn't question their answers.

A considerable amount has come out in the last decade or so about Arabic and Persian science in the 5-15th centuries. These guys were running rings around Aristotle, Plato, Ptolemy et al because they'd already discovered the scientific method and put it into practice.

Quite what you'd put this difference in approach down to is speculation: the Islamic/Zoroastrian scholars were no less religious than their Christian counterparts, but they were a lot less worried that they'd get into trouble for simply poking things with a stick.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
British Social Attitudes Survey 2011 looked at religious belief and related it to, among other thigns, educational qualifications- see table here. Graduates were the most likely to have a religious belief and to attend worship/ meetings. People without qualifications and graduates were the two groups most likely to say that they ha d a religion: people with intermediate qualifications- CSE to A level- were those most likely to have no religion.

Of course, qualifications don't necessarily equate to intelligence.
I can't find the stuff about graduates there. Can you show me where it is?

Found it.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Quite what you'd put this difference in approach down to is speculation: the Islamic/Zoroastrian scholars were no less religious than their Christian counterparts, but they were a lot less worried that they'd get into trouble for simply poking things with a stick.

I think there are two major factors.
The first is that the Islamic scholars were building upon a foundation provided largely by Oriental Orthodox Christian scholars. When the Caliphs commissioned people to gather together what was known in the Hellenistic world the people they commissioned were naturally Christian. But the Muslims had the areas that had been the Hellenistic heartlands, where the intellectually interesting stuff had happened. (Nothing much interesting happened in natural philosophy in Latin in the ancient world. I think maybe Galen wrote in Latin.)

The second is that the Arab empire was just a lot more unified than the Christian West, until the Popes stamped their authority on the Church. There's been quite a lot of work done on what the late scholastics did in natural philosophy, building on what the Muslims had done, and the late medieval natural philosophers really didn't have anything to be ashamed of compared to the natural philosophers of any other era or region. (And certainly they got much further than the pagan Romans did.) But prior to the Gregorian reforms and the resurgence of the Holy Roman Empire, there wasn't a lot of scope for intellectuals in one part of the West to correspond easily with intellectuals in other parts of the West. (There is of course the usual question as to whether the intellectual-cultural chicken or the political-economic egg comes first here.)

Byzantine natural philosophy has I think been less studied, but they threw up a couple of interesting figures as well.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(Nothing much interesting happened in natural philosophy in Latin in the ancient world. I think maybe Galen wrote in Latin.)

As an aside, the way Galen's work was treated is the exemplum of the way early scholars were sanctified by Europeans and challenged by Asians/Africans.

Galen was simply wrong about almost everything, yet his ideas prevailed in the west for almost 1500 years despite, not because of, the evidence.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some atheists argue that the Bible was written by bronze-age goat roasters, with the implication, I would think, that they were primitive idiots. Rather unlikely, really.

I always thought it was more to do with the fact that they didn't have our wealth of knowledge about how the universe works, with the implication that if they had had that knowledge they wouldn't have written such a load of old tosh.

Or to put it another way: sticking to a "bronze-age goat roaster"'s understanding of how the universe works is like a modern army trying to fight a battle with bits of flint lashed to sticks. It may have been the best possible way to do it back then, but it's not any more.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some atheists argue that the Bible was written by bronze-age goat roasters, with the implication, I would think, that they were primitive idiots. Rather unlikely, really.
I always thought it was more to do with the fact that they didn't have our wealth of knowledge about how the universe works, with the implication that if they had had that knowledge they wouldn't have written such a load of old tosh.

Or to put it another way: sticking to a "bronze-age goat roaster"'s understanding of how the universe works is like a modern army trying to fight a battle with bits of flint lashed to sticks. It may have been the best possible way to do it back then, but it's not any more.

Well, that's a reasonable argument against creationism, but not Christianity itself, I would think. I don't see theism as failed science.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's a reasonable argument against creationism, but not Christianity itself, I would think. I don't see theism as failed science.

Seems to me to be a reasonable argument against Christianity, which is seen by many as being a perfect sort of knowledge/science. It seems to have only been fairly recently that there was a division between 'science' as we understand it and other kinds of knowledge.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's a reasonable argument against creationism, but not Christianity itself, I would think. I don't see theism as failed science.
Seems to me to be a reasonable argument against Christianity, which is seen by many as being a perfect sort of knowledge/science. It seems to have only been fairly recently that there was a division between 'science' as we understand it and other kinds of knowledge.

I think your 'by many' needs a bit of unpacking!

Who do you think states that Christianity is a perfect science? I think creationism is failed science (and failed theism also, but that's another can of worms), but who else?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

@quetzalcoatl - quite possibly you're thinking of science as the form of natural philosophy we associate today with inductive reasoning based on experimentation in the real world.

In the past, the term was much wider and encompassed all learning.

It is possible to read Christianity as a science developed out of wishful thinking and hope, which has been disproved by more recent science (including philosophy and reasoning in a large variety of fields).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, my original comment was addressed to Marvin's point that:

sticking to a "bronze-age goat roaster"'s understanding of how the universe works is like a modern army trying to fight a battle with bits of flint lashed to sticks. It may have been the best possible way to do it back then, but it's not any more.

Is it correct that non-creationist Christians do this? For example, those of my friends who went to Catholic schools were taught evolution in biology with no apparent qualms by anybody.

They were not taught that the universe has three tiers, with waters under the earth, and so on.

So I don't see that non-creationist Christians have stuck with the views of ancient Jews about the universe.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's a reasonable argument against creationism, but not Christianity itself, I would think. I don't see theism as failed science.

The reasoning is that people invented gods to explain things they couldn't understand. Hence ancient societies had gods for rivers, wind, storms etc., which allowed them to parse flooding, hurricanes, lightning strikes etc. as acts of god and thus understandable.

As our understanding of what really causes these things to happen grows, our need for supernatural explanations diminishes. So an earthquake is now understood to be caused by tectonic plate movements rather than by an angry god. It follows that theism can be seen as a failed science if by "science" we mean "how we understand the way the universe works" - we no longer need the "goddidit" explanation for how existence works, and our flood protection technology is no longer "make offerings and sacrifices to the river god".

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Or to put it another way: sticking to a "bronze-age goat roaster"'s understanding of how the universe works is like a modern army trying to fight a battle with bits of flint lashed to sticks. It may have been the best possible way to do it back then, but it's not any more.

I think this illustrates quite well the point I was making about intelligence: the idea of illusory progress.

It's partly Karl Popper's fault (and in Britain, certainly, you'd have to go a long way to find a practising scientist whose philosophy of science embraced anything more recent or sophisticated than Popper). Popper would have you believe, for example, that Einstein's theories "falsified" Newton's, and that that's what we call progress. But was Einstein, therefore, more intelligent than Newton? And would it be intelligent of me, or not, if, wanting to get an idea of how a ball might move across my desk, I invoked the full weight of General Relativity instead of scribbling a quick calculation in Newtonian physics on the back of an envelope? The point being that Newton isn't "false": he is, in fact "good enough" for everyday use.

This suggests to me that in some very important ways, not only am I not more intelligent than a broze-age goat roaster, I'm quite possibly less: I may know Newtonian physics, I may even know a bit about General Relaivity, but I don't even know how to roast a goat, let alone smelt bronze.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's partly Karl Popper's fault (and in Britain, certainly, you'd have to go a long way to find a practising scientist whose philosophy of science embraced anything more recent or sophisticated than Popper). Popper would have you believe, for example, that Einstein's theories "falsified" Newton's, and that that's what we call progress. But was Einstein, therefore, more intelligent than Newton? And would it be intelligent of me, or not, if, wanting to get an idea of how a ball might move across my desk, I invoked the full weight of General Relativity instead of scribbling a quick calculation in Newtonian physics on the back of an envelope? The point being that Newton isn't "false": he is, in fact "good enough" for everyday use.

Which is exactly what I taught 1st year physics students at university, and am reasonably certain is still taught in schools up and down the land.

Someone might argue that Newton was wrong, and in the strict sense he was. However, since for most values of v, Einstein's equations and Newton's are equivalent, I never knew a single person who used a relativistic equation in preference to a newtonian one when they didn't have to.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's a reasonable argument against creationism, but not Christianity itself, I would think. I don't see theism as failed science.
The reasoning is that people invented gods to explain things they couldn't understand. Hence ancient societies had gods for rivers, wind, storms etc., which allowed them to parse flooding, hurricanes, lightning strikes etc. as acts of god and thus understandable.

As our understanding of what really causes these things to happen grows, our need for supernatural explanations diminishes. So an earthquake is now understood to be caused by tectonic plate movements rather than by an angry god. It follows that theism can be seen as a failed science if by "science" we mean "how we understand the way the universe works" - we no longer need the "goddidit" explanation for how existence works, and our flood protection technology is no longer "make offerings and sacrifices to the river god".

Yes, well, my reasoning is that that's a completely inadequate description or explanation of how religions begin and develop.

However, I can see that you are enamoured of it, so there we are.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
British Social Attitudes Survey 2011 looked at religious belief and related it to, among other thigns, educational qualifications- see table here. Graduates were the most likely to have a religious belief and to attend worship/ meetings. People without qualifications and graduates were the two groups most likely to say that they ha d a religion: people with intermediate qualifications- CSE to A level- were those most likely to have no religion.

Of course, qualifications don't necessarily equate to intelligence.
I can't find the stuff about graduates there. Can you show me where it is?
Found it.

Still looking and my lunch break is running out. Could you point me to the page?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Sorry- thought it would link straight to page. p179 (p 201 in the little clicker box over 'view a chapter')- table 12.5.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, well, my reasoning is that that's a completely inadequate description or explanation of how religions begin and develop.

In what way?

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Sorry- thought it would link straight to page. p179 (p 201 in the little clicker box over 'view a chapter')- table 12.5.

Thanks

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Quite. One of the fallacies of the scientism agenda is that it requires everyone born before about 1700 to have been either stupid or wicked.

St. Clive calls this "the chronological fallacy."

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's a reasonable argument against creationism, but not Christianity itself, I would think. I don't see theism as failed science.
Seems to me to be a reasonable argument against Christianity, which is seen by many as being a perfect sort of knowledge/science.

Then it is at best a refutation of their belief that it's a sort of knowledge/science, not an argument against Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The reasoning is that people invented gods to explain things they couldn't understand. Hence ancient societies had gods for rivers, wind, storms etc., which allowed them to parse flooding, hurricanes, lightning strikes etc. as acts of god and thus understandable.

When in point of fact we have no proof of that at all. It's pure conjecture bordering on wishful thinking. It is just as possible that the people believed in gods for some other reason(s), and then ascribed these things to the gods later. Therefore to base any conclusions on that conjecture about the beginnings of religion is iffy at best. "It seems to me that it happened this way" is not a firm foundation for a chain of reasoning.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's just another just-so story about religion. And there are countless just-so stories like that.

Why should a just-so story have any credibility?

It also has a sort of unspoken qualification - this is true because I say so.

[ 12. September 2012, 22:51: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's just another just-so story about religion. And there are countless just-so stories like that.

Why should a just-so story have any credibility?

It has credibility only to those who want to use it to vilify religion. By a sort of wish-fulfillment.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's just another just-so story about religion. And there are countless just-so stories like that.

Why should a just-so story have any credibility?
It has credibility only to those who want to use it to vilify religion. By a sort of wish-fulfillment.

What amazes/amuses me is that they are usually advanced without a shred of evidence. Somehow, somebody's personal speculations are supposed to be taken seriously.

And as you say, they are tailor made for their confirmation bias.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

A related, wholly-unsupported anti-Christian myth is the Jean Auel (et al.) one: there was a time when the priestesses of the Goddess were in control and everybody lived in harmony and love and nobody ever got mugged or raped, then the nasty evil male priests of the male God(s) took over and the world has been a horrible place ever since.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The reasoning is that people invented gods to explain things they couldn't understand. Hence ancient societies had gods for rivers, wind, storms etc., which allowed them to parse flooding, hurricanes, lightning strikes etc. as acts of god and thus understandable.
When in point of fact we have no proof of that at all. It's pure conjecture bordering on wishful thinking.

Naturally. But then, so are all other conjectures about how religions start. There's no proof for any of them, so they're all in the same philosophical boat.

That said, let's look at what we do know about people. We know that they seek to have control over their lives. We know that they seek explanations for those things that they can't control, because such explanations may provide them with a solution to controlling them. We know that they often retreat into superstition or "magic thinking" in order to provide the illusion of control even where it doesn't exist (if I don't wear my lucky shirt to the game, the team won't win).

Yes, there's a leap from those sociological observations to the suggestion that in a world where science has hardly provided any explanations for natural phenomena such superstition will be rife, and will even develop into full-blown religion. But is it really such a large one?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What amazes/amuses me is that they are usually advanced without a shred of evidence. Somehow, somebody's personal speculations are supposed to be taken seriously.

And as you say, they are tailor made for their confirmation bias.

Of course, you could say the same thing about believing in a religion.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What amazes/amuses me is that they are usually advanced without a shred of evidence. Somehow, somebody's personal speculations are supposed to be taken seriously.

And as you say, they are tailor made for their confirmation bias.
Of course, you could say the same thing about believing in a religion.

Well, exactly, hence my amaze/amusement. Atheists commonly criticize religious belief for being underdetermined by evidence or argument, but then often give 'theories of religion' which are just-so stories.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, there's a leap from those sociological observations to the suggestion that in a world where science has hardly provided any explanations for natural phenomena such superstition will be rife, and will even develop into full-blown religion. But is it really such a large one?

Yes, because it's question-begging. We presuppose there is no god, and then show that religion has a naturalistic origin, thereby proving it is made-up and doesn't refer to any real being called "god".

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The reasoning is that people invented gods to explain things they couldn't understand. Hence ancient societies had gods for rivers, wind, storms etc., which allowed them to parse flooding, hurricanes, lightning strikes etc. as acts of god and thus understandable.
When in point of fact we have no proof of that at all. It's pure conjecture bordering on wishful thinking.
Naturally. But then, so are all other conjectures about how religions start. There's no proof for any of them, so they're all in the same philosophical boat.

That said, let's look at what we do know about people. We know that they seek to have control over their lives. We know that they seek explanations for those things that they can't control, because such explanations may provide them with a solution to controlling them. We know that they often retreat into superstition or "magic thinking" in order to provide the illusion of control even where it doesn't exist (if I don't wear my lucky shirt to the game, the team won't win).

Yes, there's a leap from those sociological observations to the suggestion that in a world where science has hardly provided any explanations for natural phenomena such superstition will be rife, and will even develop into full-blown religion. But is it really such a large one?

Are you really calling those things sociological observations? Could you give some scholarly citations for them, then?

To me, they just sound more made-up stuff, or just-so stories.

Whenever people say 'we know that ...', I think they are saying, 'this is true, because I say so'.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

Cargo Cults, while obviously not demonstrating how religions originated, at least give an idea of how they can develop.

Edited cos of typo.

[ 13. September 2012, 22:59: Message edited by: Grokesx ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Capitalism is the ultimate cargo cult, isn't it? Keep saying the same mantras, keep doing the same rituals (quantitative easing), keep making the same sacrifices to the same hungry monsters (IMF, World Bank, etc.), and lo and behold, great glory will come to us. OK, we will then drop into great shit again, but we can always do the same mantras and rituals and sacrifices again!

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'

Intelligence Tests?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'
Intelligence Tests?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, because it's question-begging. We presuppose there is no god, and then show that religion has a naturalistic origin, thereby proving it is made-up and doesn't refer to any real being called "god".

A fair criticism. But I'd say that you can't "prove" anything with relation to the existence or otherwise of god(s) - all you can do is decide which explanation of natural and sociological phenomena seems the most likely to you. Whether that's that religious belief is a human construct designed to help us make sense of the world in which we live or that there really is a god (or gods) running the show is up to the individual.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I would say that religion is a fantastically complex human phenomenon, and people who actually study it in field research, such as anthropologists, find it very difficult to define it.

Just to isolate one possible facet of it - the explanation of natural phenomena - seems very tunnel-visioned to me.

But as mousethief stated, you generally find that a particular 'theory of religion' flows from that person's prejudices.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'
Intelligence Tests?

Anaesthesia is another. We trust it but this is what 'How Stuff Works' says about general anaesthetics:

"It's not completely clear exactly how general anesthetics work, but the current accepted theory is that they affect the spinal cord (which is why you end up immobile), the brain stem reticular activating system (which explains the unconsciousness) and the cerebral cortex (which results in changes in electrical activity on an electroencephalogram)."

- which says exactly nothing about how it works! It describes what is affected but it's pretty hazy about how these things are affected. As I understand it anaesthesia is sleep or unconsciousness or a near-death state so just what is it?

If there's a medic. on board I be genuinely interested to learn how this stuff works.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
our flood protection technology is no longer "make offerings and sacrifices to the river god".

Would that be more accurately described as "superstition" than religion ?

Similarly, clinging to pre-scientific ideas - such as creation of the universe in 7 days 4000 years ago - seems characteristically conservative rather than characteristically religious.

If you wanted to say that superstitious and conservative people are less intelligent (rather than religious people as such are less intelligent) you might have more chance of making a case.

I see nothing in the teachings of Jesus or Buddha (for example) that encourages people to be either superstitious, conservative or stupid.

If you're implying that the popular image of a religious person in the US is one of conservatism and superstition then I'd agree that that is a problem for non-conservative non-superstitious American Christians, and by extension for Christians everywhere given the way that cultural ideas seem to flow from America to the rest of the world.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :

There's nothing quite like the hubris and/or defensiveness of those seeking to assert their fundamental 'rightness' over others.

I will cheerfully argue that 'knowledge' has no correlation to 'intelligence'; 'intelligence' in no way obviates 'stupidity'; and the fact that some 'religious' people behave like blithering idiots, merely reflects the undeniable fact that if you get any sufficiently large group of people together under a generalized label we will find a percentage who are/behave like idiots under the banner of the said label.

In other words: the proposition that 'religious' people are somehow inherently less 'intelligent' than 'atheists' is, at best, merely playing to the gallery, and is at it's heart an example of intelligence being used stupidly.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

To be frank, I don't really care if some intellectual atheists want to call me stupid.

I cherish wisdom a thousand fold more than intellectualism.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Uh huh.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A related, wholly-unsupported anti-Christian myth is the Jean Auel (et al.) one: there was a time when the priestesses of the Goddess were in control and everybody lived in harmony and love and nobody ever got mugged or raped, then the nasty evil male priests of the male God(s) took over and the world has been a horrible place ever since.

[Tangent] I've read all Auel's books, and it has never occured to me that she was being anti-Christian. Clearly, she wanted to portray a society in which religious values were important, and the peg upon which she hung those values was that of a continent-wide cult of the Mother (for which there is some (far from conclusive) evidence. As for the details of those values, they seem somewhat oversexualised, but not otherwise inimicable to Christian thought. They are, of course, seen through the eyes of the adherents, and thus viewed favourably. But it seems more of a "garden of eden" myth than anything explicitly or implicitly anti-Christian. If there is a gender agenda, so to speak, it is of the interdependence and mutuality of the sexes. Priests are depicted as being of either (and in one case of indeterminate) sex, so I'm not sure from where you get the bit about the "nasty male priests" ruining the primordial paradise. It isn't in any of the books, as far as I can see (there is one example of an abberant society where the females decide they can do without the males, but this is seen as being against the mutuality which the Mother asks of her children;). Furthermore, since you mention rape, the main character is herself, in fact, the victim of rape, so I just wonder a bit whether you've actually read the books, or drawn your conclusions from heresay.

Of course, it's fiction, liberally laced with late 20th century hokum. I suspect paleolithic society was probably tougher than she depicts it, though probably less awful than Hobbes' "nasty, brutish and short". But as an imaginative project, I found it convincingly life-affirming.

[/tangent]

[ 17. September 2012, 23:00: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[more tangent] I thought the biggest problem was in the last book, where apparently men knowing that they have a share in the procreation of children is tantamount to spoiling earhtly paradise and bringing about the imminent enslavement of women. It seemed anti-male to me, honestly, rather than anti-Christian. Given the world she had developed, why should allowing men to discover they had an equal role in procreation lead inevitably to them behaving like jerks?

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
our flood protection technology is no longer "make offerings and sacrifices to the river god".
Would that be more accurately described as "superstition" than religion ?

Sounds like an irregular verb.

I have religious belief
You are superstitious
(S)he has lost all connection to reality

It's true that pinning down a meaningful definition of religion is somewhere between very tricky and completely impossible, but that cuts both ways. You can't criticise opponents of religion for making unsupported assumptions about what is or isn't religion, and then go on to dismiss any belief that would now be considered silly or ignorant as "superstition", very different from our sophisticated religion.

As for the discussion about where religion came from, I was under the impression that atheists tended to spend so much time on constructing explanations like this because theists so often ask how they explain the existence and prevalence of religion if none of it's true. The point is to show that "religion exists, therefore God" isn't actually a very good argument.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I would think that atheists also produce 'theories of religion' in an attempt to denigrate. This is not always true - for example, Scott Atran, the anthropologist, has theorized about the development of religion, for example, in his book, In Gods We Trust, but I don't see him as a denigrator.

But the quick-fire explanations of religion often seem designed to be pejorative. It's all about consolation, or emotional need, or an infantile projection, or superstition. In other words, religious people are dumb. Hence, there is no need to actually study religious behaviour in its social context - I am perfectly able to do this in my arm-chair!

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Similarly, clinging to pre-scientific ideas - such as creation of the universe in 7 days 4000 years ago - seems characteristically conservative rather than characteristically religious.

If you could point to some conservative atheist creationists, or show that there are no left-wing Christian creationists you might have a point. But as it is I suspect it is a pretty safe bet that the common characteristic amongst believers of a 4000 year old, 7 day creation is that they are religious, not that they are conservative.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I suspect it is a pretty safe bet that the common characteristic amongst believers of a 4000 year old, 7 day creation is that they are religious

You have a point. Because the source of that idea is religious, and it lacks merit of its own, it seems unlikely that it has many adherents among those who have rejected religion.

But please don't confuse "conservative" with "right-wing". For example, Mrs Thatcher may have been conservative when she talked of "Victorian values", but in the 1970s her economic ideas - enterprise culture, share-owning democracy - were radical.

Not that I'm a great fan of Mrs T - that's just who comes to mind when I read the words "right-wing". I'm just trying to argue for using words accurately where possible.

The category "religious people" includes Buddhists, who are not normally thought of as being notably stupid. Because Buddhism is not our cultural tradition, that may not be the image of religion that first comes to mind.

If you ask the question "what sort of religion is it that comes over as being unthinking or stupid ?" it's not the sort that is about behaving ethically or seeking a path of wisdom and enlightenment. It's the sort that's to do with clinging on for the sake of keeping faith with tradition to ideas that don't work. In other words, arch-conservatism, the idolatry of tradition.

Best wishes,

Russ

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0