The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Five atheist miracles > Comments

Five atheist miracles : Comments

By Don Batten, published 2/5/2016

Materialists have no sufficient explanation (cause) for the diversity of life. There is a mind-boggling plethora of miracles here, not just one. Every basic type of life form is a miracle.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 84
  7. 85
  8. 86
  9. Page 87
  10. 88
  11. 89
  12. All
.

An interesting thought, AJ.

Thanks for the quote from Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" though I'm a bit dubious about his claim that "violence has declined". If it has, it still has a long way to go.

I have saved the quote for future reference.

However, I am more inclined to think that violence has simply evolved and adapted to the changing circumstances imposed on us by modern society (the so-called "better angels of our nature").

At the last count, here in France, another 84 innocent by-standers have just "bit the dust" while watching the fireworks during the annual Bastille day celebrations.

The pro-Brexit voters in the UK were protesting against ecomomic violence.

Domestic violence doesn't seem to be declining significantly anywhere in the world, to the best of my knowledge.

Rapists still get-off free in their large majority in every country without exception, and is increasingly practised as a regular weapon of war against civil populations not directly engaged in the conflicts.

Just a few examples ...

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 15 July 2016 7:11:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Banjo Paterson,

Although it’s hard to gauge precisely to what extent, violence on the whole certainly has declined. This is well known amongst criminologists. Pinker goes into great depth on this in his book (832 pages). Most people (particularly older generations) find this counter-intuitive, so Pinker dedicates the first chapter of his book to giving a brief rundown of violence throughout human history from the Stone Age up until now.

As I touched on briefly earlier, multiple factors influence our perception of the extent to which violence is occurring now in comparison to the past, such as social media, a 24-hour news cycle, improved communications, increased media reporting on violence, nostalgia, increased awareness, and broader definitions of what constitutes a crime.

It’s interesting that you mention domestic violence, because it’s a good example of the last two factors that I listed. Decades ago, domestic violence was treated by police as a private issue, and it was considered inappropriate for police to get involved in such matters. Child sex abuse is another example. My father was gang-raped at the age of twelve by a group older teenage boys; when he tried to tell his mother about what had happened, she told him to stop being so silly.

The Honeymooners was a ‘50s sitcom that was a good example of how frivolously domestic violence was once treated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98qw86DsdZ0). Ralph, the main character played by Jackie Gleeson, was always threatening to hit his wife (Alice). That was funny stuff in the ‘50s. Of course, Alice never believed that Ralph would actually do it, but not because she thought he was too much of a nice guy to ever hit her, no, it was because she didn't think he was man enough to do it.

Anyway, you can check out Pinker’s TED talk on all this at the following link if this topic interests you.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence?language=en.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 15 July 2016 8:24:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ,

Thanks for the Pinker quote. I have circulated it. From my limited view of the world I would say there is much less violence now then there has been in the past. I recently read Jared Diamond's "The World until Yesterday". He has spent much time with tribal people particularly in New Guinea. With all the sophisticated weapons of modern warfare the casualty rate in tribal warfare is much greater than it is in our current wars. I intend to read Pinker's book.
Posted by david f, Friday, 15 July 2016 8:37:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear AJ & David,

.

Sorry to have taken so long to get back to you. My computer stubbornly refused to open. For no apparent reason, it has now decided to get back to work again.
.

AJ wrote :

« Although it’s hard to gauge precisely to what extent, violence on the whole certainly has declined. This is well known amongst criminologists »
.

That may be so, AJ, but I suspect that the criminologists’ vision of “violence” is limited to what is classified as “crime” in terms of the law. That is the problem with specialists. Their specialist knowledge tends to narrow down their vision to their specific field of expertise.

Unfortunately, I have not read Steven Pinker's book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature", which I see was published in 2011, and therefore cannot comment on it.

However, I watched the video, for which you provided the link, on his talk (filmed in 2007), that he, himself, indicates was originally entitled “Everything you know is wrong” but has been presented as “The surprising decline in violence”. He does not say who made the change, but it could possibly have been on the suggestion of the talk organiser, TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design).

I mention this because he may not have wished to convey the idea that his talk was about violence in general – because it is not. It is about deaths due to warfare, genocide, and homicide, where more or less reliable statistics are available.

Seen in that light, i.e., for what it is, it is an excellent historical study. His references are impeccable and his analyses, particularly perspicacious.

However, I regret his overshooting the line by generalising as he does when he asks :

« Well, why has violence declined? No one really knows, but I have read four explanations, all of which, I think, have some grain of plausibility ».

.

(Continued ...)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 19 July 2016 1:22:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued ...)

.

What bothers me is that “deaths due to warfare, genocide, and homicide” do not cover all the violence in the world. There is much more to it than that. Much of it is hidden, underhand and insidious: people dying early deaths as a result of poverty, famine and lack of health care due to economic and political factors; poorly constructed buildings collapsing in known earthquake zones; domestic violence that continues to penetrate the inner circles of families in epidemic proportions, etc., etc., …

It seems to me that the modern era that sees the violence of “deaths due to warfare, genocide and homicide” diminishing, gives rise to different types of violence that probably did not exist 10,000 years ago, the point of departure of Steven Pinker’s talk. As for domestic violence, though it is not difficult to imagine that it has always existed, there is little sign of it diminishing. If anything, it has possibly even increased with the increased stress and frustrations of our modern lifestyles.

Perhaps he expanded out his study in the book he published four years later.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 19 July 2016 1:25:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo Paterson,

I have a degree in criminology and I can assure you that’s not the case.

<<...I suspect that the criminologists’ vision of “violence” is limited to what is classified as “crime” in terms of the law.>>

There are many acts that criminologists consider to be crimes despite being legal. Particularly where white-collar crime is concerned. Criminologists consider all the forms of violence that you mention too.

Regarding Pinker’s TED talk, the reason he uses homicide, genocide, and death is because he only had twenty minutes and homicide is considered indicative of overall “crime” rates due to its lack of ambiguity, its steadiness in rates, and the fact that people tend not to be killed without others noticing.

Curiously, you mention the age of the book twice in your response (a mere four years) as if this were relevant or worthy of noting. Although I may be sensing innuendo where there is none.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 19 July 2016 10:02:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 84
  7. 85
  8. 86
  9. Page 87
  10. 88
  11. 89
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy