Reddit reviews Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment
We found 7 Reddit comments about Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
NYU Press
First of all, sorry that you feel (or were) antagonized by atheistic groups. Everyone should remember the difference between factual critique and personal attack, and avoid the latter as possible. On the other hand, Christianity incorporates a lot of outrageously stupid, wrong and immoral doctrines, and if you perform apologetics for those doctrines, you might easily come across as immoral yourself.
To your points: absolutism abounds in theistic thought. Theologians throughout the ages loved to talk about the highest, the most ideal, the absolutely perfect, the perfectly good, the absolute and unquestionable Truth (with a capital T), pure love and so on. Everything that doesn't meet that standard of absolute perfection is equally doomed and unworthy. This line of thinking is always based on nirvana fallacies and fallacies of gray, and explains why theists frequently use the whole arsenal of fallacious arguments from epistemic relativism, moral relativism and presuppositionalism against any challenging philosophy.
To make it short, just because we can't create an ideal world, doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't improve our world. Arguing contrarily would commit a textbook example of the nirvana fallacy. Without reasonable doubt, a world without religion would be a much better place. Just some studies:
Negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence 1
Negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence 2
Negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence 3
Negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence 4
Negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence 5
Negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence 6
Negative correlation between religiosity and education 1
Negative correlation between religiosity and education 2
Negative correlation between religiosity and education 3
Negative correlation between religiosity and education 4
Correlation between religiosity and societal dysfunction 1
Correlation between religiosity and societal dysfunction 2
Correlation between religiosity and societal dysfunction 3
Correlation between religiosity and societal dysfunction 4
Correlation between religiosity and crime rates 1
Correlation between religiosity and crime rates 2
Correlation between religiosity and crime rates 3
Above all, I find it quite curious that religious moderates have apparently completely given up on arguing that there is any truth in religious doctrines. Instead they just try to argue (with very little success) that religion is useful. That always strikes me as intellectually bankrupt.
If you ask a fundamentalist, he will always give you normal reasons for why he believes. Those reasons are all complete bogus and easily refutable, but the fundamentalist isn't aware of that and if they were true, he would indeed have rational justification for his faith. The moderate on the other hand seems to have given up all concern about what is true or not. He just claims that having faith is beneficial.
What a bizarre frame of mind. I think that's philosophical suicide. First we have to establish what is true or untrue, then we can talk about what to make of it. The facts are that Jesus wasn't the son of God, never performed any miracle and didn't rise from the dead. The Bible isn't the word of a deity, it's neither divinely authored nor inspired. The Gospels are neither historically accurate accounts, nor written by witnesses of the described events, but in fact written many decades after Jesus' death and refuted numerous times by the historical record. Intercessory prayer has absolutely no effect. Miracles, as described in religious scripture or literature, never happened. Neither churchmen nor church doctrines were inspired by a deity. Dualism is bunk, souls don't get injected into human fetuses, and consciousness is a product and a process of the physical brain that ends with its death. Homosexuality is completely natural and occurs in basically every mammalian species. Faith is not a virtue, it's a vice that makes people gullible and exploitable by charlatans and conmen. Being religious doesn't make people more moral, tendentially rather to the contrary. The explanation for the diversity of life is biological evolution, and evolution is not guided by anything except the forces of nature. Sin and hell don't exist, humanity isn't fallen and doesn't need redemption or salvation. Those claims were purely made up by religious leaders as parts of a scare and control tactic.
Accepting the facts has to come first. Then we can talk about what is useful or beneficial.
Alltså. Det känns som om mannen är en kristen halmdocka av all dålig och moraliskt tveksam debatt-teknik man kan tänka sig.
Det finns så mycket värt att diskutera kring denna, men tråden lär knappast fyllas med folk som håller med honom, så jag fattar mig kort [höhö]: (alla markeringar är mina och jag har ändrat runt en del i citaten)
Det jag stör mig mest på är fulheten i det hela.
Listan över källor och påståenden:
Robert Sawyer - Science Fiction-författare, vars böcker är ganska religionskritiska om jag minns rätt.
Är som sagt en fiktionsförfattare, han kunde åtminstone ha valt en författare som delar hans åsikter: >"Enligt forskaren Orson Scott Card befinner vi oss just nu i krig med den utomjordiska rasen formics och har därför skickat upp 90% av våra intelligentaste barn för att stridsträna dem genom nollgravitations-laserdome."
Phil Zuckerman Sociologiprofessor, jag vet inte han personliga tro men personen har kommit ut till försvar för ateism och har gett ut en bok som utforskar varför sekulära icketroende norden är så framgångsrikt (alltså raka motsatsen till vad herr kristdemokrat tycker)
>Beräknar siffran till 92 procent [av troende på gud eller högre makt].
Det är säkert helt riktigt, även om det inte stämmer överens med wikipedia till 100%
Det finns många troende, det är ingen ateist som förnekar det. Det kan däremot vara värt att notera det fetstilta: eller högre makt, alltså inte bara den kristna guden. Även om kristendom är den enskilt största religionen så är det bara (enligt wiki) 31,5% som tror på den kristna guden, vilket alltså bryter mot det normala (inte för att det är någonting fel med att bryta mot det normala) som består av 68.5% av världens befolkning som inte tror på den kristna guden. Om man däremot lägger ihop de Abrahamitiska religionerna så får man 54% troende och 46% icketroende, frågan är hur många muslimer och kristna som verkligen går med på den där sammanfogningen som en religion under samma gud.
Religion Watch - Påstår att de oberoende visar religiösa trender och statistik. Hittade inte så mycket info om dem när jag snabbsökte, så kan inte ge min åsikt om dem.
>75 procent av alla forskare i världen tror på Gud, uppskattar Religion Watch Newsletter (1998, 13:8)
Två saker bör noteras, för det första årtalet, alltså 15 år sedan, för det andra att det är i hela världen. Forskarnas åsikter speglas givetvis av befolkningen, om 99% av befolkningen är troende så kommer majoriteten av forskarna också vara troende. Tvärtemot vad vissa internetateister tror så blir man inte helt magiskt icketroende så fort man har ett mikroskop i handen.
Det intressanta är däremot förhållandet mellan den generella befolkningen och forskarna i samma land. Där visas det att forskarna har en större andel icketroende, vilket antagligen säger någonting.
James Leuba - psykolog. Gjorde studier gällande psykologi i samband med religion.
>Till och med i 1900-talets mest rationalistiska forskningsmiljö, den på amerikanska universitet, har gudstron inte gått tillbaka under de senaste hundra åren
Ja. Jänkarna är verkligen kända för att vara rationalistiska och icketroende. Frågan är varför han inte visade någon liknande undersökning i Sverige istället, eller var han rädd för vad den visade?
>1914 gjorde James Leuba en undersökning bland USA:s forskare om deras syn på Gud. 40 procent trodde på en Gud. 40 procent trodde inte och 20 procent var osäkra.
Känns rimligt.
Edward Larson - historiker och Larry Witham - författare
>1996 upprepades undersökningen av Edward Larson och Larry Witham, och då trodde 40 procent på Gud, 45 procent trodde inte på Gud och 15 procent var osäkra.
I det stora hela känns det också rimligt men det finns flera saker att anmärka: Det första är åter igen årtalet, 17 år är tillräckligt lång tid för att kunna ge stora förändringar. Det andra är att den starka religiositeten ökade i USA under kalla kriget, vilket givetvis ger effekt på forskarvärlden också. Det tredje är att den amerikanska forskarvärlden i helhet inte är lika strikt som i Sverige. Det finns mängder av religiöst inriktade universitet som forskar om saker i stil med: "Vilken typ av dinosaurie red Jesus?" (detta är givetvis en överdrift, men andan är den samme), om undersökningen räknar med dessa "forskare" vet jag inte, men det är ingen omöjlighet.
Stephen Jay Gould - Biolog och paleontolog
>Han konstaterar att många av de absolut främsta forskarna tror på Gud: ”Antingen är hälften av mina kolleger enormt dumma, eller så är det fullt möjligt att förena darwinismen med konventionell religiös tro
Herr Gould sade det här som försvar för evolutionsteorin mot alla young earth-kreationister som påstod att evolutionsläran är satans påhitt och strider mot kristendomen.Att det inte finns någonting som har hindrat en gud från att ha skapat människan via evolution. Om det är rimligt eller ej är däremot en annan fråga. Samma sak gäller kombinationen av religiös tro och vetenskap. Visst, det är ingenting som gör att de direkt strider mot varandra, att man tror på att en gud skapade x hindrar inte en från att vilja ta reda på hur x fungerar.
DÄREMOT strider det rejält mot den vetenskapliga metoden att tro på någonting så starkt utan att ha några som helst bevis för det, till och med hårt ifrågasatta strängteorin har banne mig mer bevis än någon gud någonsin haft.
Så. Då kommer frågan: ljuger herr Skånberg medvetet för att lura till sig sympatisörer, för det är knappast särskilt kristligt, eller är han så korkad eller oinsatt att han helt enkelt inte förstår bättre, för då borde han inte ha en debattartikel i en högt ansedd tidning.
FL;LI
HJÄLP JAG ÄR INSTÄNGD I EN WALL OF TEXT OCH KAN INTE HITTA UT.
My go-to example is Norway, which, depending on how you parse poll responses, is possibly the most atheistic country in the world.
). In the same year, the United States had 5 murders per 100,000 people, meaning that the U.S. proportionally has 8 times as many homicides.
------
Also, Phil Zuckerman's book, Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment is quite relevant.
>What non-religious society has ever thrived?
Ever heard of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway?
>The fact is that there are two theories on what happens when you remove religion from society
Both of these theories are simplistic, silly, and unsupported by the data. You're presenting what's called a false dilemma. Both choices are wrong. There are countless factors besides religion that determine the success or failure of a society.
>The Soviet Union? North Korea? Cubans?
Irrelevant for many reasons, but here's one: You said societies inevitably fail without religion. Naming a few examples of failed societies doesn't prove your thesis. However, finding even one counter-example does disprove it. Which I've done.
>The Christian idea is that you lose the moral basis and society collapses
Except I've just given you three examples that directly contradict your theory.
>your claim that my pointing out the importance of Machievelli to political discourse is "stupid"
It is stupid. It's a fallacious appeal to authority. And there are real-life societies that disprove his thesis. You can even get in an airplane and fly to those places, and see with your own eyes that he's wrong.
Pro-tip: if a book says one thing, and reality says another, the book is wrong. Likewise, if a map says one thing and the terrain says another, it's the map that's wrong. (I only mention this, because at this point I can see you driving off a cliff because "muh GPS sed a Walmart was der."
>You have a LOT of learning to do before you can even begin to have an intelligent conversation about religion and politics.
Guess I should burn my degrees then, eh? You truly are a walking poster child for the Dunning-Krueger Effect.
Wikipedia suggests it's bullshit;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index
I guess looking at the Wikipedia stats, it's plausible that if you group countries by dominate religion then Muslim wins, but all the top countries are secular, rather than religion dominated, and Islam would only be ahead of those if you're counting them as Christian because of all the low scoring developing world Christian countries.
This book (and he has an essay somewhere with the basic facts) shows that countries that have the lowest religious participation rates have the highest life satisfaction, life expectancy, education rates, and per capita wealth.
https://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797237
> In my science classes in high school
Well, that would be an important place to learn about the scientific method. Glad you were taught it in science classes...
"I think part if the problem is the human mind isn't fully developed until it's mid-twenties, and philosophy and religous texts can be hard reads."
Eh, supposedly 25 is when it is fully developed. I think that childhood is being extended too much. In reality, people grew up way faster in the past. Even though the brain may technically fully develop at 25, I think people should be considered adults earlier than that. Would be highly problematic if we tried saying that someone is not legally an adult until 25. Besides, plenty of people have kids read the bible. I do not see why children could not understand religious and philosophical concepts. Might be helpful if the main tenants and philosophical ideas were taught but maybe not focusing on having kids read the original texts so much (particularly for philosophy... philosophers were awful writers in plenty of cases).
Oh, and regarding the relativistic morality comment, I think that it is a myth that religion gets you "objective" morality. Consider all of the different interpretations of the bible, christianity, islam, etc. I read the bible and it's quite easy to cherry pick what you consider to be literal, metaphorical, etc. People do it all the time. People justified (some still do) slavery using the bible and they also tried using the bible to argue against it. Some people overlook parts of the bible (I think there are like 8 of them) that explicitly condemn men having sex with men. Ultimately, religion provides some constraints on morality, but so does philosophy. Morality changes over time either way (dramatically) with or without religion and on the important issues, most people don't go around killing random people because they simply don't want to (same goes for stealing, raping, assaulting people, etc).
"Some things that are mostly overlooked in mainstream culture and schools are:
the power of selflessness empathy and compassion marriage and family values justice, love and charity tolerance happiness and peace"
I disagree. I think those things are hammered into us. I have no interest in marriage or "family values" and I feel inundated with such things. I wish there was less of it since we have waaaaay too many people on the earth (apparently will reach 9 BILLION in my lifetime). I also think that not everyone is prepared to be in a long term relationship or have children. If you don't want such things, I think it is a bad idea to be pressured into it. Let's not forget that Jesus and his disciples supposedly left family life behind anyway :-)
"the power of selflessness empathy and compassion marriage and family values justice, love and charity tolerance happiness and peace"
You know... looking over that list again... It's funny to me how the Republican Party in the USA supposedly is Christian, but they only really promote marriage, family values (their version), justice (their version) and happiness (their version). Otherwise, both Democrats and Republicans promote war. Republicans do not seem to speak much about tolerance. They generally focus on trickle down economics (not helping the poor).
But regardless of all of that, I highly recommend checking out the book Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment by soiologist Phil Zuckerman https://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797237 Scandinavian countries that have a lot of nonreligious people have way more help for the poor, plenty of compassion, a focus on helping everyone be happier (and Denmark has repeatedly been the happiest country in surveys), they still have family values, they are tolerant, plenty of empathy, very community oriented, peaceful, etc. If you look at the most religious countries (including the USA, which is actually relatively religious compared to plenty of countries), there is more violence and oppression.
Look at the middle east for a glimpse into the past and how awful it was to live in a theocracy. In Saudi Arabia, atheists can be beheaded publicly just for being atheists. There are morality police (or at least there were recently). Women and men can be stopped if they're walking together to ask why they are together. Women can't let their skin on their leg show. I read the bible and I found it to be a horrible text. The old testament was filled with nonsense about sacrifice, plenty of killing, genocide, rape, war... much of it done by "god" himself. Then, the new testament is supposed to be "better" because god had his own son killed in order to make it so that humans didn't need to perform sacrifices anymore... the symbol of the religion is a human sacrifice (jesus)... that's not a "family value" that I care for and I think we can do better. It made sense for people who believed in the importance of "burnt offerings" so much that the term is mentioned to a nauseating degree in the old testament. To me? I have never performed a sacrifice, so it isn't amazing news to me that "hey! did you hear the good news!!!??? God had jesus sacrificed so that all those sacrifices don't need to be performed anymore to appease god!!!"
I just watched a video on this book "Alpha God: The Psychology of Religious Violence and Oppression" by Hector A. Garcia. https://www.amazon.com/Alpha-God-Psychology-Religious-Oppression/dp/1633880206/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=alpha+god&qid=1558237288&s=books&sr=1-1 I plan on reading it. Sounds really interesting. Take care.
The sociologist Phil Zuckerman has written a book based on his experiences in Scandinavian countries. Here's a short interview about the book.
However, it's worth emphasizing that almost all scholars think that a more functional society leads to less religion. There's hardly any evidence that less religion will lead to more functional societies.