UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:This thread may have just introduced me to the best website in the history of the internet.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Spurious correlations and ideas of relationship between things abound. For example, the correlation of per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese (US) correlates with civil engineering doctorates awarded (US) at the level of 0.96.
quote:It's interesting that the English working class appears to have largely stopped going to church from about 1800, whereas the middle class carried on. I'm trying to square this with the OP - does it mean that the working class were having sex with their knees crossed?
Originally posted by orfeo:
It gets even more ridiculous if one thinks through the observations. Suppose there IS a God gene that is a reliable predictor of theism. How does one explain the severe drop in the presence of the gene in European populations in recent centuries? It can only have been because those lacking the gene were outbreeding those who had it. That's the very opposite of the claimed theory.
quote:Tell you what, let's test this. Dibs on not being in the control group.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
People who eat chocolate live longer; therefore, eating chocolate makes you live longer. Well, no.
quote:I think it was a tabloid headline a few years ago. They regularly confuse correlation with causation. I'm OK with being in the control group, as at my age, one bar of chocolate = a larger jean size.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:Tell you what, let's test this. Dibs on not being in the control group.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
People who eat chocolate live longer; therefore, eating chocolate makes you live longer. Well, no.
quote:The flip side is, of course, that you get some who hear "correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation" and go too far the other way, interpreting it as "correlation doesn't mean causation" - that way can lead to denialism. e.g. with regards to climate change.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it was a tabloid headline a few years ago. They regularly confuse correlation with causation.
quote:That's really quite funny. In criticising an idea on the basis of its source you've just committed the genetic fallacy
Originally posted by orfeo:
In fact, asking a geneticist about this, instead of someone like a sociologist, is spectacularly wrong-headed and shows that the person asking the question has headed down the route of treating religious belief as if it's carried on chromosome 15 (just next to the genes determining eye colour) without any justification for doing so.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
People who eat chocolate live longer; therefore, eating chocolate makes you live longer. Well, no.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:That's not what it is saying, is it? It appears to be saying that theists have more children, not whether or not their children will be theists.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
quote:Yes, you're right: it's not. That is what the OPer is assuming. Fallaciously, as Orfeo points out.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:That's not what it is saying, is it? It appears to be saying that theists have more children, not whether or not their children will be theists.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
quote:It's both Nick. Globally, the cultures that have the most kids also hold to theistic worldview. The article itself (which has other interesting stuff in you fancy a read) draws particular attention to cultures with a Christian worldview. The problem with some of the counter arguments to this (children will not necessarily share the faith of their parents) is that they overlay a Northern hemisphere individualistic cultural worldview on cultures that operate to fundamentally different principles.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:That's not what it is saying, is it? It appears to be saying that theists have more children, not whether or not their children will be theists.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
quote:Isn't that the point of evolution? If you produce more offspring you are evolutionarily "fitter"... the fact that those offspring are thick, weak, or whatever is really not relevant...
Originally posted by Firenze:
So far, the contention seems to be that some people are having more children than some others - but not necessary better - in the sense of having an evolutionary advantage - children.
quote:The scholar of demography and religion, Eric Kaufmann, has said that even in Europe, for example, religious people tend to have more children than non-religious people. Even though secularisation ensures that some of these children will abandon religious belief and/or practice, the higher birthrate - especially among the strictest religious groups - will ensure that religion will remain a force in society.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:That's not what it is saying, is it? It appears to be saying that theists have more children, not whether or not their children will be theists.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
quote:Not necessarily. From an evolutionary point of view having more offspring isn't a success, having more offspring that survive to sexual maturity is. If thickness, weakness, or whateverness has a negative survival correlation higher than the positive boost associated with hyperfecundity, it's an evolutionary loser.
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:Isn't that the point of evolution? If you produce more offspring you are evolutionarily "fitter"... the fact that those offspring are thick, weak, or whatever is really not relevant...
Originally posted by Firenze:
So far, the contention seems to be that some people are having more children than some others - but not necessary better - in the sense of having an evolutionary advantage - children.
quote:The trouble with the Forces of Evolution and numbers is the subtext - 99.9% of these individuals will perish.
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:Isn't that the point of evolution? If you produce more offspring you are evolutionarily "fitter"... the fact that those offspring are thick, weak, or whatever is really not relevant...
Originally posted by Firenze:
So far, the contention seems to be that some people are having more children than some others - but not necessary better - in the sense of having an evolutionary advantage - children.
quote:It appears that even in majority muslim countries that the birthrates are falling, just like the rest of the world.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Moreover, the demographic decline specifically in secular Western Europe generates an ongoing need for immigration, which tends to be from much more religious countries. Immigrants do have smaller families over time, but they still have more children than the host population.
quote:Surely the number is actually 100%.
Originally posted by Firenze:
The trouble with the Forces of Evolution and numbers is the subtext - 99.9% of these individuals will perish.
quote:Sunday trading was long unregulated in Scotland because, it was reasoned, a nation so enthusiastically Sabbatarian needed no laws on the subject. Yes, well.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
It's just a statistical fact that cultures that are more populous also hold theistic worldviews which are so strongly embedded in their societies that there is no indication that this will change in any foreseeable future.
quote:I should have specified 'will perish before getting born/maturing/mating/reproducing'
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Surely the number is actually 100%.
Originally posted by Firenze:
The trouble with the Forces of Evolution and numbers is the subtext - 99.9% of these individuals will perish.
quote:Well, it's all relative, isn't it? There is a prediction that the worldwide population is going to start to decline in the 2nd half of the 21st century, but the interesting question is whether the birthrate in 'the Muslim world' (which is huge and varied!) will fall to below replacement level, as is happening in several European countries.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It appears that even in majority muslim countries that the birthrates are falling, just like the rest of the world.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Moreover, the demographic decline specifically in secular Western Europe generates an ongoing need for immigration, which tends to be from much more religious countries. Immigrants do have smaller families over time, but they still have more children than the host population.
I have a hunch about all of this: Urban families have fewer kids than rural and suburban families. Nations are becoming more urbanized. Does anyone have anything on this?
quote:Europe.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Interesting. Where's the evidence that children of theists in African, Asian and South American countries are less likely to be theists than their parents?
quote:Just to be clear, that isn't even the claim. The fact that you think that's the claim just demonstrates that you haven't understood what I or several others have said. Go back and read again. The claim is NOT that there's zero correlation between ones beliefs and ones parents beliefs. The point is that it's not genetically inherited. There is no evidence of a genetic difference between theistic countries and atheistic countries that would CAUSE THEISM OR ATHEISM. If there were, the European switch from theism to atheism becomes logically inexplicable as I've pointed out.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Europe.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Interesting. Where's the evidence that children of theists in African, Asian and South American countries are less likely to be theists than their parents?
quote:And in that you are absolutely right. You need to have a look at the original article. The correlation between the decline of atheism and regional birth rates is sociological. The fact that the person raising the issue is a geneticist isn't the key point.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Just to be clear, that isn't even the claim. The fact that you think that's the claim just demonstrates that you haven't understood what I or several others have said. Go back and read again. The claim is NOT that there's zero correlation between ones beliefs and ones parents beliefs. The point is that it's not genetically inherited.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Europe.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Interesting. Where's the evidence that children of theists in African, Asian and South American countries are less likely to be theists than their parents?
quote:Maybe you need a broader frame of reference. Throughout the history of humanity, atheism has been a minority worldview. It's a minority worldview today, with a few large geographical concentrations. Current demographic trends indicate that the numbers of people likely to continue to hold an atheistic worldview are in decline whereas those who don't are increasing. Basically, this minority view is starting to slide back towards its pre-enlightenment levels.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:Sunday trading was long unregulated in Scotland because, it was reasoned, a nation so enthusiastically Sabbatarian needed no laws on the subject. Yes, well.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
It's just a statistical fact that cultures that are more populous also hold theistic worldviews which are so strongly embedded in their societies that there is no indication that this will change in any foreseeable future.
It's like men in hats. For centuries - millennia even - you wore something on your head: it was unthinkable not to. There were a whole set of behaviour and social signifiers which depended on it. And then you didn't.
quote:Religious people =/= people who attend religious service out of social obligation
Originally posted by Candide:
If religious people have more children than atheists, this is constant over time, and if the faith / non-faith of parents by and large carry over to their children.... then this begs the question : why did atheism gain a substantial following in the first place?
quote:The fact that he's raising birth rates is the key point, because it is a false assumption that the children of theists will consistently remain theists. The children of European theists did not consistently remain theists, did they?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:And in that you are absolutely right. You need to have a look at the original article. The correlation between the decline of atheism and regional birth rates is sociological. The fact that the person raising the issue is a geneticist isn't the key point.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Just to be clear, that isn't even the claim. The fact that you think that's the claim just demonstrates that you haven't understood what I or several others have said. Go back and read again. The claim is NOT that there's zero correlation between ones beliefs and ones parents beliefs. The point is that it's not genetically inherited.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Europe.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Interesting. Where's the evidence that children of theists in African, Asian and South American countries are less likely to be theists than their parents?
quote:For a large - possibly the greater part - of human history there was a view that unless you kept killing animals and frequently people on their altars, the gods would send plague, fire, flood and defeat in war on you.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
throughout the history of humanity, atheism has been a minority worldview. It's a minority worldview today, with a few large geographical concentrations. Current demographic trends indicate that the numbers of people likely to continue to hold an atheistic worldview are in decline whereas those who don't are increasing. Basically, this minority view is starting to slide back towards its pre-enlightenment levels.
quote:It's not that religion always makes people have more children; rather, the circumstances that make people religious may also make them have more children. Rural people who have a need for many children to work the land and to provide them with security may be religious because their lives are precarious; and the connection between their way of life and a God who provides is fairly direct.
Originally posted by Candide:
If religious people have more children than atheists, this is constant over time, and if the faith / non-faith of parents by and large carry over to their children.... then this begs the question : why did atheism gain a substantial following in the first place?
quote:I agree with this. At the very least, it is an argument of correlation and causation that fits observable history.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:It's not that religion always makes people have more children; rather, the circumstances that make people religious may also make them have more children. Rural people who have a need for many children to work the land and to provide them with security may be religious because their lives are precarious; and the connection between their way of life and a God who provides is fairly direct.
Originally posted by Candide:
If religious people have more children than atheists, this is constant over time, and if the faith / non-faith of parents by and large carry over to their children.... then this begs the question : why did atheism gain a substantial following in the first place?
European atheism was a product of urban life, and of an expanding middle class. Now, those values have spread throughout society as society has changed.
quote:Well done. You have carefully pointed out the 'confounds', which militate against a direct link between religion and fertility. It's like chocolate and longevity.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:It's not that religion always makes people have more children; rather, the circumstances that make people religious may also make them have more children. Rural people who have a need for many children to work the land and to provide them with security may be religious because their lives are precarious; and the connection between their way of life and a God who provides is fairly direct.
Originally posted by Candide:
If religious people have more children than atheists, this is constant over time, and if the faith / non-faith of parents by and large carry over to their children.... then this begs the question : why did atheism gain a substantial following in the first place?
European atheism was a product of urban life, and of an expanding middle class. Now, those values have spread throughout society as society has changed.
quote:Just to return to this... why exactly would the newspaper advertise him as a professor and geneticist, then?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The fact that the person raising the issue is a geneticist isn't the key point.
quote:I'm sure it was unintentional, but that came across as a bit patronising!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
]Well done. You have carefully pointed out the 'confounds', which militate against a direct link between religion and fertility. It's like chocolate and longevity.
quote:Agreed! The more that young people learn about the universe , the more they will see that the answers are there, or being investigated, and that no invisible gods or spirits are required!
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
quote:I agree. Atheism, or at least lack of interest in religion, is at least partially the result of wealth, in particular reasonably well-divided wealth.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's not that religion always makes people have more children; rather, the circumstances that make people religious may also make them have more children. Rural people who have a need for many children to work the land and to provide them with security may be religious because their lives are precarious; and the connection between their way of life and a God who provides is fairly direct.
European atheism was a product of urban life, and of an expanding middle class. Now, those values have spread throughout society as society has changed.
quote:Or, as we learn more about the universe the more we will wonder at the marvel of it all, and the more questions will be raised. That's not guaranteed to drive people into the arms of atheism, though we may need to be clearer in describing our faith to avoid making it appear that we believe in an overly simplistic deity.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Agreed! The more that young people learn about the universe , the more they will see that the answers are there, or being investigated, and that no invisible gods or spirits are required!
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd describe it as a fallacious assumption that the children of theists will be theists.
quote:I wonder if this argument isn't about biological evolution per se, but rather is a thinly veiled version of social darwinism.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I would describe this as nonsensical. Ignoring the points made about theism not being a genetic linked attribute, you fundamentally misunderstand evolution.
Some species have very large number of offspring. Others have very few. Neither extreme is a figure of merit that prevents species from going extinct. In changing environments what was an extremely successful survival strategy can become a very unsuccessful strategy.
quote:Given that that writer seems concerend with simple birth rates, rather than physical changes wrought by natural selection, I'd say the culprit for him might be accurately described as malthusianism. Or, at least a sort of cultural malthusianism, focussed on supposedly undesirable behaviours among the fecund, instead of just the empty mouths.
I wonder if this argument isn't about biological evolution per se, but rather is a thinly veiled version of social darwinism.
quote:Sorry about that. I didn't intend to, but it does sound a bit like a comment on a student's essay. I'd give it a B++!
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:I'm sure it was unintentional, but that came across as a bit patronising!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
]Well done. You have carefully pointed out the 'confounds', which militate against a direct link between religion and fertility. It's like chocolate and longevity.
Kaufmann (the chap I referred to earlier) doesn't deny entirely that there may sometimes be direct links between religion and fertility; the American Quiverful movement is, after all, a deliberate religious attempt to change society by having large families. This movement obviously isn't typical, but Kaufmann's wider argument is less about 'typical' religiosity, and more about the gains to be made by certain ultra-strict religious groups. You could say that some of these groups have 'evolved' to survive and even thrive in particular conditions, whereas atheism hasn't.
It does look as though moderate forms of religion are likely to have the worst of both worlds, losing ground to stricter forms of religion in environments where religion has the most mileage, and losing out to non-religion in more secular environments. But there are lots of variables.
quote:As I said in my previous post, I don't expect religion to disappear, but I expect it to change. Ecological crises are likely, as they have in the past, to lead to upsurges in frenzied, millennial sects troubling deaf Heaven with their bootless cries.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Will the whole earth ever be so rich and 'advanced' as to dispense with God entirely? I think there's something strangely old-fashioned about this sort of (atheistic) prediction. It obviously contradicts the fears about climate change, over/underpopulation, the growing economic dominance of China and India, etc. And although the Westernisation of the world will be welcomed by liberal Westerners if it leads to more tolerance and personal freedom, it could also become a problem if everyone demands the living standards of the 'average American', which would famously require almost five planets to achieve!
quote:Not sure anyone's arguing that theism is "simply inherited." It's more a case that theism and atheism are worldviews that are embedded in different societies. The former are expanding whereas the latter are declining. You would need a reason to argue persuasively that the decline in theism in Europe ine that's two hundred or so years will be repeated elsewhere. Looks more like this trend is localised in both time and geography.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The fact that he's raising birth rates is the key point, because it is a false assumption that the children of theists will consistently remain theists. The children of European theists did not consistently remain theists, did they?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:And in that you are absolutely right. You need to have a look at the original article. The correlation between the decline of atheism and regional birth rates is sociological. The fact that the person raising the issue is a geneticist isn't the key point.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Just to be clear, that isn't even the claim. The fact that you think that's the claim just demonstrates that you haven't understood what I or several others have said. Go back and read again. The claim is NOT that there's zero correlation between ones beliefs and ones parents beliefs. The point is that it's not genetically inherited.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Europe.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Interesting. Where's the evidence that children of theists in African, Asian and South American countries are less likely to be theists than their parents?
It's fundamentally flawed to look at the situation right here, right now, label Europe as 'atheist' and ignore that it hasn't always been 'atheist'. The failure of theism to be successfully passed down the generations in Europe is the most perfect demonstration I can think of that theism is not simply inherited, which disproves the thesis at one stroke.
quote:The correlation between prosperity and atheism is a complex one. The United States is the world's largest and most prosperous economy. If the logic is true that greater prosperity = greater atheism, then you would expect the US to be leading the decline in theism. Yet Christianity remains the dominant worldview (Niall Ferguson has written some interesting stuff on this). The situation in emerging economies is also instructive in this regard. Christianity is growing at a phenomenal rate in China at the same time that the Chines economy is expanding. Brazil has a bigger and faster growing economy than all but three EU members and continues to have a society that is overwhelmingly theistic.
Originally posted by Candide:
quote:I agree. Atheism, or at least lack of interest in religion, is at least partially the result of wealth, in particular reasonably well-divided wealth.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's not that religion always makes people have more children; rather, the circumstances that make people religious may also make them have more children. Rural people who have a need for many children to work the land and to provide them with security may be religious because their lives are precarious; and the connection between their way of life and a God who provides is fairly direct.
European atheism was a product of urban life, and of an expanding middle class. Now, those values have spread throughout society as society has changed.
Some other people in the thread has shown that birth rates are dropping many places, not just the West. By being materially secure, then the need for security in the shape of organized religion, no longer has the same appeal.
(There might be other forms of spirituality explored, indeed the West has seen a lot of New Age-y stuff, but that becomes a somewhat different ballgame).
If that's the chief cause for growth or decline of religion, then whether or not atheism will fall, depends on the level of prosperity in society as a whole. .
quote:I agree that it is just one of many possible causes. However, the evidence seems to point to a decent correlation between wealth and atheism, when the wealth is substantial, roughly evenly divided between the population, and has been in existance for long enough to be accepted as the normal situation.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:The correlation between prosperity and atheism is a complex one. The United States is the world's largest and most prosperous economy. If the logic is true that greater prosperity = greater atheism, then you would expect the US to be leading the decline in theism. Yet Christianity remains the dominant worldview (Niall Ferguson has written some interesting stuff on this). The situation in emerging economies is also instructive in this regard. Christianity is growing at a phenomenal rate in China at the same time that the Chines economy is expanding. Brazil has a bigger and faster growing economy than all but three EU members and continues to have a society that is overwhelmingly theistic.
Originally posted by Candide:
I agree. Atheism, or at least lack of interest in religion, is at least partially the result of wealth, in particular reasonably well-divided wealth.
Some other people in the thread has shown that birth rates are dropping many places, not just the West. By being materially secure, then the need for security in the shape of organized religion, no longer has the same appeal.
(There might be other forms of spirituality explored, indeed the West has seen a lot of New Age-y stuff, but that becomes a somewhat different ballgame).
If that's the chief cause for growth or decline of religion, then whether or not atheism will fall, depends on the level of prosperity in society as a whole. .
Using Europe as the lens through which to interpret the direction of other societies is too narrow. The point that the article is making is that we need to consider the future of Europe in the light of wider influences.
quote:Ourselves, of course. The context of my remark is the malleability of religion to serve our ends, be it to authorise hierarchy or justify the revolution; legitimise wealth or enjoin poverty; support killing or inspire works of mercy. At the moment, AFAICS, it is batting for the subduing of nature and the exploitation of natural resources, the increasing of humankind, and the rise in material prosperity. Unfortunately, this is not going to end well.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Firenze
You wrote Maybe our poetry (since that is what it is) will save us, or maybe it will be the death of us.
What do you reckon we need "saving" from?
[code]
quote:And I'd say that you would need a reason to argue persuasively that history isn't going to repeat itself. At the very least, you should be a lot more wary about arguing that it ISN'T. "Embedded"? What basis can you give for 'embedded' theism that successfully distinguishes Europe and explains that really, theism/Christianity was just a passing phase there?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Not sure anyone's arguing that theism is "simply inherited." It's more a case that theism and atheism are worldviews that are embedded in different societies. The former are expanding whereas the latter are declining. You would need a reason to argue persuasively that the decline in theism in Europe ine that's two hundred or so years will be repeated elsewhere. Looks more like this trend is localised in both time and geography.
quote:Neither, really. It simply underlines the fact that both reasonably high levels of prosperity for society as a whole, and high levels of equal distribution, are important.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Candide. Thanks for the link re income equalit and the Gini index. It adds an interesting slant on the wealth/belief question. I did notice this rider from Investopedia:
"Don't mistake the measurement of income distribution with the measurement of wealth. A wealthy country and a poor country can have the same Gini coefficient, even if the wealthy country has a relatively equal distribution of affluent residents and the poor country has a relatively equal distribution of cash-strapped residents. "
Is that enlightening or benighting?
quote:Those are interesting figures. The UN projects declining birthrates across the developing world, although their birthrates will remain higher than in the developed world. Interestingly, the UN calculates that birthrates in the developed world will rise. This could be as a result of the increasing immigration (as in Texas and New York State, for example?) of younger, fertile people from the developing world, and also because many Western women are having children later in life.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Iran's fertility rate declined by more than 70 percent between 1975 and 2005. Its level is comparable with the New England states, the region in America with the lowest fertility.
A woman in Oman today has 5.6 fewer babies than a woman in Oman 30 years ago.
Algeria, Bangladesh, and Morocco all have fertility levels corresponding to the state of Texas, while Indonesia's is almost identical to Arkansas'.
Lebanon's fertility level is lower than New York State's.
quote:There are new religions starting all the time. The question is, will there be one to challenge the dominance of Christianity or Islam? Not for about 100 years, according to the stats I've seen.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Since religion is a human construct, we might even see the rise of a new one.
quote:I suppose one might ask whether the world's leaders would be able or willing to sustain a social and financial situation like this at the global level, or whether places like Sweden and Denmark benefit from the confluence of particular conditions that have made it convenient for them. It might even be the case that their wealth and social equality rely to some extent on lower wages and greater inequality in other parts of the world. I don't know, but consumerism elsewhere in the West has been partly blamed on this.
Originally posted by Candide:
By and large, places that rank high in both GNP per capita, AND equal distribution of wealth, tend to be the countries that have a considerable amount of non-religious / atheists.
quote:Huh? On what do you base such a comment? From all the information I have been able to garner, ‘No Religion’ (including atheism) continues to be the fastest growing affiliation, whether in the United States, Australia or the United Kingdom.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Not sure anyone's arguing that theism is "simply inherited." It's more a case that theism and atheism are worldviews that are embedded in different societies. The former are expanding whereas the latter are declining.