Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion

[bush_cheney2004]

.... In the US, more religious states are almost universally less economically successful, the net recipients of significant federal handouts, and this situation is unlikely to change as these states undermine their future generations by teaching them nonsense instead of science in schools.

Playing fast and loose here, as this U.S. state GDP per capita map demonstrates.

Edited January 11, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[carepov]

I'd say that economic and scientific progress and decline in monotheistic religion came hand in hand, since the times of the Renaissance. While the Church was dominant, progress, both economic and scientific, was held back for centuries. Similarly in the Islamic world, its centuries of relative prosperity and pre-eminence correlated with a relatively secular period where religion did not hold as much power, while the re-assertion of power by Islamic religious groups has often led to economic collapse. In the US, more religious states are almost universally less economically successful, the net recipients of significant federal handouts, and this situation is unlikely to change as these states undermine their future generations by teaching them nonsense instead of science in schools.

Yes, you are right, oppressive systems - including oppresive religious systems do hold back progress. I was thinking more in the last 100 years where the level of religiouslity seems to decline only after economic progress, no?

[-1=e^ipi]

Yes, you are right, oppressive systems - including oppresive religious systems do hold back progress. I was thinking more in the last 100 years where the level of religiouslity seems to decline only after economic progress, no?

To be fair, the past 100 years have been fairly globalized, so religious societies can leech off of the technological advancements of non-religious societies, meaning that they can have similar rates of technological progress even if their societies create cultures that have negative impacts on technological progress.

[bush_cheney2004]

To be fair, the past 100 years have been fairly globalized, so religious societies can leech off of the technological advancements of non-religious societies, meaning that they can have similar rates of technological progress even if their societies create cultures that have negative impacts on technological progress.

Of course, a very religious America learned how to control powered flight and eventually land on the moon this way. [/sarcasm]

[-1=e^ipi]

Of course, a very religious America learned how to control powered flight and eventually land on the moon this way. [/sarcasm]

1. America isn't as religious as some people exaggerate. And for most of the past 200 years has been less religious than most of the rest of the world (conservative religious people outbreeding liberal secular people is the dominant reason why religion is so prevalent in America today; it is also one of the reasons why conservative evangelical religions are so strong today where as in the past more moderate versions of Protestantism were dominant).

2. There are other factors that affect technological progress and advancement. Freedom, peace, order, property rights, etc. are all very important.

[bush_cheney2004]

1. America isn't as religious as some people exaggerate. And for most of the past 200 years has been less religious than most of the rest of the world

Nevertheless, the U.S. is and has been a "religious country" (by definition and at founding), and it has been at the fore of "technological progress" since that time. America is a poor example to demonstrate your premise.

2. There are other factors that affect technological progress and advancement. Freedom, peace, order, property rights, etc. are all very important.

And yet we saw "technological advancement" in/from the Soviet Union. Sorry, but this theory needs more work.

[-1=e^ipi]

Nevertheless, the U.S. is and has been a "religious country" (by definition and at founding), and it has been at the fore of "technological progress" since that time.

Yeah cause Thomas Jefferson was so totally religions and its not like there were deists involved in founding the country. The first amendment? What's that? *sarcasm*

America is a poor example to demonstrate your premise.

I never brought up America as an example, you did. And rather than focus on one country and one factor involved in determining technological progress (religion), wouldn't something like a cross-section multi-regression analysis that considers many factors that affect the rate of technological progress (or generation of new technology) be better?

And yet we saw "technological advancement" in/from the Soviet Union. Sorry, but this theory needs more work.

What part of 'there are many factors that affect technological progress and advancement' is hard for you to understand?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah cause Thomas Jefferson was so totally religions and its not like there were deists involved in founding the country. The first amendment? What's that? *sarcasm*

The First Amendment did not exclude religion, only that government shall not establish religion. Still, several founding colonies kept state religions long after 1776. The practice of separation between church and state was not developed until the early 19th century.

I never brought up America as an example, you did. And rather than focus on one country and one factor involved in determining technological progress (religion), wouldn't something like a cross-section multi-regression analysis that considers many factors that affect the rate of technological progress (or generation of new technology) be better?

Of course, but it is still not clear that religion would prevail as the predominant indicator of technological failure or success, however defined.

What part of 'there are many factors that affect technological progress and advancement' is hard for you to understand?

The part where you initially propose "religious societies" as technological leeches without regard to other factors.

[On Guard for Thee]

Let's see, 35 states in the uS still have the death penalty on the books. That tells anyone with a brain that the US still has not learned how to seperate church and state. I wonder just how many innocent, mostly black, people have been killed by that system, whilst the education system gets ever decreasing grades.

[carepov]

Let's see, 35 states in the uS still have the death penalty on the books. That tells anyone with a brain that the US still has not learned how to seperate church and state. I wonder just how many innocent, mostly black, people have been killed by that system, whilst the education system gets ever decreasing grades.

Are you saying that religious people support the death penalty more than non-religious people?

This is getting ridiculous.

The USA is one of the most religious countries in the OECD. Their money says "In God we trust." Therefore religion is to blame for:

-high murder rates

-teen pregnancy

-high school drop-outs

-drugs

-discrimination

-the death penalty

-the Great Recession

-Iraq

-smelly armpits, etc...

Meanwhile, all of the USA's achievements (Nobel prizes, flight, skyscrapers, National Parks, US Aid, Apple, Google, the Internet, medical advances, so many athletic and artistic achievements...) were strokes of good luck that happened despite religion. Just imagine how much better and how many more accomplishments they could have had if it was an atheist country like all the other successful atheist countries.

[carepov]

Look, I don't think it is helpful to lump all religions together. Can we at least agree that some religious beliefs are harmful, some religious beliefs are harmless and some religious beliefs might be beneficial for society and that each religion should be examined on a case by case basis?

Look it depends. You need to be more specific. All I'm saying is I don't think people who have religious beliefs that go against the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees have common ancestors should be employed in any scientific field that involves the theory of evolution.

Also, I wouldn't hire, want to work with, shake hands with or want to associate myself with anyone who has a religious belief that requires them to separate themselves from people of the opposite sex like this York student:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/york-university-student-s-request-not-to-work-with-women-stirs-controversy-1.2490514

I would prefer you more clearly define the set of religious people, but to answer your question I do not think that all religious people are intellectually below me (some religious people maybe, but that would apply to non-religious people as well).

I agree with all your points above. Thanks for answering my questions, I was surprised by how similiar our opinions are after you explained your position.