Gee Phil thanks I allready felt 10/10 now I feel exuberant , what a great little Ozzie I am I am !

Hi Phil,

Now watch the fundamentalist nutters come out of the woodwork to decry the bleeding obvious as manipulated bullderdash.

All the while their leaders grow from rich to richer by preying on the fears of their followers, increasing their guilt complexes manyfold, creating division, havoc and hostility all in the name of God.

Only yesterday, the American Bishops issued a statement condemning Reiki and its practitioners and warning Catholics to stay away from what was in their perception a cult of evil. This fast on the heels of the Pope on AIDS prevention and condoms.

I think God must be laughing at these mortals' senseless and often childish attempts to read her/is mind.

The article did a good job of convincing me secular societies tend to be healthier by most measures. He didn't do a very good job of showing whether it was the cause, or the effect.

If their is a strong, rich central government to look after you in times of need, it hardly seem worth the effort to go to church, does it? We in richer countries have the dole, insurance, the SES, free health services, soup kitchens, free housing. In the poorer communities these things don't exist. If you are lucky you have a strong community you can fall back on in hard times. The usual way we humans to build up such a community is via the local church.

If that is what happens you would expect to see strong involvement in religion where there is no central society to rely upon. Where the government provides such support you might expect to see involvement in organised religion wither away over time.

In short: if the article sought to show that organised religion causes poor social health, it failed.

rstuart,

Agreed, there appears to be a strong correlation, however cause and effect is difficult to determine in this study. Your comment reminds me of Marx's aphorism that "religion is the opium of the people".

The belief that religion is necessary for morality was refuted, long ago, by classical philosophers.

The author’s premise is false and his logic faulty.

Jerry Falwell speaks for only an extreme minority of Christians, and his view are hardly shared by leaders of other faiths. Very few mainstream religious leaders would assert anything like the strong correlation between societal health and religious observance that the author requires to set up his straw man. On these pages, Peter Sellick has argued against the idea that the purpose of faith is to make us good.

Even if the article's premise were not false, as other posters have pointed out, its argument is a blatant example of the logical fallacy of "non causa pro causa” - assuming correlation equals causation. Rstuart and mac are right.

The secular countries listed have higher per-capita greenhouse gas emissions than the global average - does this mean that agnosticism makes you environmentally irresponsible?

Many have above-average rates of suicide - does that mean that lack of faith makes you miserable?

Rich western countries have relatively high obesity rates – does atheism make you fat?

The secular countries listed also have higher divorce rates, internet usage, urban population concentrations, and a host of other welfare indicators, some positive, some negative. Few if any are likely to be caused by the prevalence or otherwise of religious beliefs.

Hi,

I'm not sure where the list presented in the article was retrieved from, but in february the results of a global study carried out by Gallup Poll came out. Here's the list of most and least religious countries in the world: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Alabamians-Iranians-Common.aspx

Estonia is the least religious country in the world, partly as a result of the Soviet legacy, but more often due to never really accepting Christian faith when it was imposed on them in the 13th century. They might have went to church for some centuries, but at the end of the day, when they wanted good weather or their crops not to fail, they still hugged a tree or a stone and wished for the best (metaphorically speaking).

I suspect that the underlying factor contributing to both secularism and welfare is education. We know that more educated people tend to be less religious, and we hope that they will be more productive and less violent. It would be interesting to correlate these figures with the proportion of students attending state schools and the average age of school-leaving across the various countries.

Might guess that most philosophers would prefer Hope, Faith and Charity to be just Hope and Charity, leaving Faith last.

Over here in WA, just heard Rudd's latest speech, and certainly agreed with the Keynesian flavour, but reckon as well as for Obama, Hope must come before faith.

Cheers, BB, WA.

<<The information presented in this discussion in no way proves that high levels of organic atheism>>> interestingly i noted that term throughout the article

so this organic athiesm thing,i thought agnostics wernt organic[or wernt nessesarilly athiest, or some such open minded thing..but organics must be agnostics..right?..so organic athiests are the combi-nation of greenie non god believers athiests and agnostics in their combi?

any-how [this discusion in no way proves]..these greenie athiest ferals<<..cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills such as poverty or illiteracy.>>..im still not seeing how agnostics are organic

<<The wealth,poverty,well-being,and suffering in various nations are caused by numerous political,historical,economic, and sociological factors that are far more determinant than people's personal belief systems.>>..yeah i conqure..[but why hide this disclaimer near the end?

<<Rather,the conclusion to be drawn from the data provided above is simply that high levels of irreligion do not..automatically result in a breakdown of civilisation,a rise in immoral behaviour or in "sick societies"...Quite the opposite seems to be the case.>>

..funny how you state one thing[see previos paragraph]..then rebut it with the next paragraph..[seems almost phycotic]... but then athiests wouldnt note the inconguity..[agnostics would..[but hey lets join the two together to make the case in point;..re the athiest organic[sic] irreligionists

"Whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Sikh, there is one common belief that all religious fundamentalists share: worship of God and obedience to his laws are essential for a peaceful, healthy society."

YEEEEEEAH, sorta. For me faith is about treating others as you want to be treated. Can't see that as a bad thing. Anything else - (to me) - is a cover for personal agendas. IF you leave me alone to do my thing I won't have to resort to beating you to a messing pulp of human tissue with a large but comfortably swung blunt instrument. And vice versa.

...it's about fear, as well, on some level.

Dear all,

I came from Asia and I am quite surprised that you guys (the westerners) have forgotten what made you great in the first place - your history of Christian heritage and Greek philosophy.
It is your Christian faith practiced by your ancestors that make your civilization great and spread to the whole world including Asia.
It is Christianity especially the Catholic Church who had brought civilization to the world.We need to study history and look at present day reality.
Your culture whether consciously or not is influenced by your Christian heritage whether its political, economic, culture etc
If you fail to appreciate this, you will have no roots and a nation without roots will not last

Is faith good for us?
Possibly, if we are ravaged by religion and unable to find fact.

My experience residing in communities in the South Pacific, Asia and North America lead me to conclude that when I live among indviduals and families who not only profess faith but are fully engaged in their religion, then my life and the whole community is enriched. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) and my experience rubbing shoulders with fellow members of that church has been extremely rewarding. The same can be said of my friendships and other associations with people of other faiths who are also fully involved in their religion. My reading of this article leads me to believe that the author is confusing espoused belief with faith in action. The benefits that flow in individuals' lives, in families and in societies - when people of faith truly live their religions - are real and far-reaching. One of the fruits of such lifestyles and societies is that those with differing beliefs and those who choose to not believe, are respected.

I must admit I am confused about cause and effect.

I would probably see that as education and health levels increase, the population is less inclined to rely on mysticism.

Religion is the opiate of the ignorant, or the filler in place of education.

Healer, as an admitted Christian, also as a historian, I must give reminder that Christianity was truly lifted out of the Dark Ages, when Thomas Aquinas, a later Saint, used Hellenistic Reasoning to help Christian peoples become more earthly and scientific, yet never losing the compassion for others, as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.

Regards, BB, WA.

I have to note that of the top 25, almost all have Christian roots (and still at least nominally a Christian majority). The labels atheist/agnostic don't really apply seamlessly to countries like Japan or Taiwan, because those countries never were theist in the same sense (but nor were they western materialists).

On a related subject, some of you will love (er, hate) the atheist Matthew Parris's ideas on Why Africa needs God. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece

Thanks for reminding me Eckadimmock.

>>some of you will love (er, hate) the atheist Matthew Parris's ideas on Why Africa needs God.<<

I remember reading that piece when I was in Europe around Christmastime, and thinking "that would make a good starting point for a discussion on OLO".

But shame on you for falling at the first fence, by imagining that an atheist would "hate" a piece by another atheist, simply because it contained ideas he might not agree with. In fact, I suspect that the vast majority of atheists will immediately understand what Matthew Parris is on about.

He leaves a few clues around.

"Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought"

Through the ages, men have channelled the individual insecurities of others into a form of communal bravery, in order to exert control. What we see here is the same strategy being adopted with a warm and fuzzy Jesus-wrapper.

I can agree with Matthew Parrish, that in general terms, a dose of religion is no bad thing for an oppressed and impoverished people.

However, his comparing religion with the impersonal and somewhat random charity dispensed by NGOs is decidedly ingenuous. An NGO has no mandate for emotional support.

The problems with this strategy will evolve over time, as they did in Europe, from the inherent intolerance that embracing a particular religion engenders.

Nigeria is a classic example, with not only inter-religious warfare, but intra-faith issues too. There are Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, together about 50% of the population, then there are Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants and "African Christians" to squabble amongst themselves.

I admire Matthew Parris's work, and on many topics we agree. On this occasion, I suspect he has let a little of the fuzzy, rosy glow of Christmas, coupled with a touch of Africa-itis (which wreaks havoc with the nostalgia responses) to write his article for him.

In doing so, he recommends a short-term pain-reliever for a condition that needs a long-term remedy.

Pericles, the problem atheism has is that it proposes no alternative. The communist regimes (conveniently excluded from this research) went furthest in trying to institute a rationalist, materialist society, but it failed as a basis for a society. If our view of life is that it is lived in a world of "blind, pitiless indifference" (Richard Dawkins) then there is no particular reason why we should prioritize human dignity, rights, or freedom of speech. Those things are not common sense, in Europe at least they owe much to Christian thought.

I suggest that it will take a while longer for the effects of atheism (as opposed to secularism) to be seen, if indeed it ever dominates. Europe at present has had over a thousand years of Christianity, and only relatively recently any significant atheist presence. The culture if not personal belief is still basically Christian. (and personal belief may not be as lacking as the author suggests, if you examine the statistics for, say, Sweden on http://adherents.com/adhloc/indexWhere.html.

Eckadimmock,
thank you for the link to the interesting article by Matthew Parris, (and Percles’ reaction to it that, I think, Parris implicitly predicted) that I did not know of.

As one can enrich one’s world view better by learning from scientists who do not let show their religious beliefs or “unbeliefs“, than from those who do, so is it also more rewarding to learn about the cultural and social make-up of an exotic (for a Westerner) world from those who do not let their a priori religion or anti-religion bias influence what they see and describe, than from those who do.

What an odd observation, Eckadimmock.

>>Pericles, the problem atheism has is that it proposes no alternative.<<

To whom is this a problem? Certainly not to the atheist.

And this is even odder.

>>If our view of life is that it is lived in a world of "blind, pitiless indifference" (Richard Dawkins) then there is no particular reason why we should prioritize human dignity, rights, or freedom of speech.<<

Surely, there is even more reason to do so in these circumstances - assuming of course that you go along with Dawkins' view.

The only difference between atheists and religionists is that we don't need an imaginary being to advise us of this, very simple and basic issue.

I don't begrudge your needing an additional emotional crutch with which to support your worldview. Unfortunately, you begrudge atheists the fact that they don't need one.

>>Europe at present has had over a thousand years of Christianity, and only relatively recently any significant atheist presence.<<

I might suggest that education has a great deal to do with this. As we learn more about the universe, we begin to realize how primitive is the concept of religion, and how it is not a prerequisite for being an acceptable citizen.

It comes largely from our increasing ability to think for ourselves, and ask questions, rather than simply accept an external authority based on an imaginary being.

So, which do you think will come first, the destruction of your religion by another religion, or by atheism?

The old saying that figures don’t lie but liars can figure, should be considered in this case. We are all members of a compulsory Anglican Church in Australia whether we like it or not, in 1899, we voted 371,000 to 141,500 to form an Anglican Republic in Australia under the head of the Church of England. The deal we did was taken to England and confirmed in the high court of Parliament, with a few minor amendments, and we still have it.

Christianity as the compulsory State religion, was ensured by s 116 Constitution, and all Christians, Roman Catholic and others were made equal. The insertion of the words The Queen or Her Majesty, present over forty times in the Constitution, ensure Christianity is the state religion, because to be Queen, the Monarch must take the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp). While similar States based upon Roman Catholic principles have crumbled and failed, the protestant Christian principles have sustained Australia but the atheist infractions on our institutions have led to a suicide rate that is unacceptable. They say that every day, five men commit suicide, over family law problems. That is many times more than get killed on the roads. Accurate figures are hard to find, but the unfair legal system introduced by the atheists and agnostics, since 1970, is the root cause of much misery.

Christianity as legal system is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Every matter involving over $20 is guaranteed a jury trial in civil disputes. Once again liars can figure, and the lawyers of Australia figure that if they like the Scribes and Pharisees of the New Testament got total control of the law, it would be better, have had a forty year trial of that theory. It is totally un Christian, to have total control of the law in the hands of lawyers. Judges and Magistrates cannot be Christian, but a Justice could, because he observed the Christian principles of the separation of powers. When we abolished two JP’s and substituted a Magistrate we went Roman Catholic, because a magistrate is a State Priest.

Phil,

It would also be interseting to include the countries' Gini Co-efficents.

Also, it would probably hold that "within" Chistianity, the past colonies, now countries, of Catholic Spain, are poorer than past colonies of Protestant Great Britain.

healer,

Christianity took hold in the death knell of the Roman Empire, to become the Holy Roman Church.

In the West, after the fall of (Western) Rome (476), Feifdom and the Christian Church led to the Dark Ages. Greek knowledge was maintained by the Muslims, some of which reached the West (via Spain) c. 1300. It was then not until the Enlightenment and the Great Divergence, Greek philosophy re-emerged stronger, when the Christian Church's role diminished and we have the Industrial Revolution.

Also, it should be remembered, from c. 1600 until the twentieth century, with the East India Companies and colonisation, Christian GB, Christian Spain and Christian Portugal, exploited other countries.

The Opium Wars were over Queen Victoria's GB, taking Opium from India to create drug addicts in China. When the China's attack to stop the trade, Christians, they were attacked by them and subdued, because GB needed to correct its trade imbalance.

As late as 1950s, Ho Chi Min tried to build alliances with the West; yet, Christian, Harry Truman, did not wish to become involved, because Viet-nam was a French colony. We know what happened then.

Sells,

I know you will have read this article.

Can you refute the data? Phil's data seem A-OK to me.

Pericles,

"Imaginary being" "emotional crutch" and "think for myself" doesn't really address the issue at all. Since you're so much cleverer than a mere theist, I'm sure you know why an "argumentum ad hominem" is invalid. (Nor have you provided any kind of alternative, a problem that Nietzsche recognized).

George,

Thanks for the observation, but leaving out nonChristian scientists would remove Newton, Pascal, Polkinghorne and Francis Collins from the scene, and we still need them.

Peter the Believer,

The Coronation Oath also requires incoming the Monarch to declare he/she does not believe in transubstantiation. Interesting because the Romans felt that the Christians of pre-Nicaea enacted cannibalism with Euchist. They thought the rite pretty sick. Here, it seems, the Catholics could be closer the original faith than the Protestants, based on this understanding* of the rite before Nicaea. That is, the actual body and blood is consumed.

Rome was tolerant of the various religions in the Republican and Imperial eras, both. Monothesism thought history has been more problematic.

One reason the Christians found themselves in strife with Rome was they would not burn incense to the good health of the Emperor, noting that they didn't have to believe (forget Hollywood). The deed was enough. Yet, now just listen the praise given in the Last Night of the Proms music and in prayers for the Monarch in church services. A full about face, from the early Christians.

* Assuming the Roman historians recorded the purpose of the rite accurately

The problem with GB was that both the America’s and the colonies in the east were a long way from Britain. It was still a superb colonist, compared to Belgium, Portugal and Spain, and probably France. France was not so bad, they taught the Vietnamese to cook marvelous bread and pastries, as some Patisseries in Australia attest. The faith of the Brits, was placed in the New Testament as early as 1215, and it was good for them.

The Magna Carta is almost directly lifted out of the Gospel of Matthew. The faith based system was where the first step was to go talk with your brother, and since everyone was a Roman Catholic in 1215, they were all brothers in Christ. The Pope got annoyed because instead of a Priest owing allegiance to him being the judge, the Brits appointed 12 disciples drawn from the faithful. The second step of faith was to take two of your fellows and go and talk to him, and see if it could be sorted. The last resort was to take it to the ecclesia, the gathering of the people translated as Church, but in reality a court.

There as an act of faith, the truth was submitted to the twelve who decided which of the opponents was a bl**dy liar. This system works still in the United States which insisted upon it when they booted the Brits out for being stupid. Ninety five percent of cases tried by the faith system settle. Faith works wonders.

The Star Chamber was erected at the Pope’s request to bring Brits into line with Rome. It was a Priests Court, totally anathema to Protestant Christian faith. The English had a maxim of law, The Pope never sleeps, and since 1970, in Australia in New South Wales we are asked to put our faith in a lawyer instead of the Christian jury, and it is bad for us. In fact the country is littered with honest men and women still shattered by the verdict of a Judge. Lack of faith is very bad for every society.

Eckadimmock,

I know, that was a very long sentence of mine, hence easy to misunderstand: I certainly never suggested "to leave out Christian" (I think this is what you meant, not "nonChristian") scientists.

What I had in mind was that when reading explanations to non-specialists (popularisations) I prefer those popularisers who do not make it clear from the beginning that they want their explanation to be compatible with the theist or atheist world-view held by the populariser. Dawkins is a clear example of one who does, but in his case it does not matter that much since in his very informative Blind Watchmaker (and I presume also in his Selfish Gene) his anti-religious non-sequiturs are very explicit and easy to bracket out by the reader. (The same with letting show the scientist's gender, ethnicity etc.)

Non of the scientists you name have made themselves a name as science popularisers, although their world-view preferences are well known since they themselves are well known. Especially Polkinghorne, writing as a double-specialist on the relation of science and Christian theology, obviously cannot hide his world-view presuppositions.

Nice way to sidestep answering the questions, Eckadimmock.

>>Pericles, "Imaginary being" "emotional crutch" and "think for myself" doesn't really address the issue at all. Since you're so much cleverer than a mere theist, I'm sure you know why an "argumentum ad hominem" is invalid.<<

But it isn't ad hominem at all, is it?.

It is my opinion that Christians believe in an imaginary being.

There is nothing ad hominem in that, it is simply my opinion. If we were arguing over evidence, that might be different. But there is none, is there?

It is my opinion that the only use to which religion is put in this world is to address the individual's emotional response to the proposition that "there's nothing out there", and "there's only us here".

It is not a personal attack on you.

Nor did I suggest you should "think for yourself". I'm sure that you do.

I was merely suggesting that there is an inverse correlation between our growing understanding of what is around us, and our need to trust others to think on our behalf. Go look at the sentence again.

>>(Nor have you provided any kind of alternative, a problem that Nietzsche recognized).<<

Nietzsche's life and work is a classic example of what happens if you try to think too hard about all this. He literally drove himself mad, trying to come to terms with the fact that the only alternative to God is ourselves.

He saw chaos:

"I foresee something terrible, Chaos everywhere. Nothing left which is of any value; nothing which commands: Thou shalt!"

The giveaway is his anxiety to be told what to do by an external "somebody", which turned into a fear, when he continued to dig and dig, and still found nothing.

To this extent, he is a classic example of someone in desperate need of that emotional crutch.

It's sad, in a way, that he was too intellectual to allow himself that luxury.

Peter the Believer please note:

S.116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

Ah yes, that is exactly what it says Seneca, but what it means is what matters.

S.116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, which means that we must not depart from the existing Christian system without a referendum under s 128.

or for imposing any religious observance, which means we must continue to observe the religious observance in existance in courts at Federation. That is the Father 's representative on the throne/bench. The twelve apostles as the judges on the right hand of the Father, representing Jesus Christ,and the Holy Spirit in the collective minds of the twelve, representing the promise of Matthew 18:20.

or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, prohibits the free exercise of any religion, by no longer offering/allowing at Commonwealth expense, a true Christian common law court to be convened in that court.

and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth, which means that so long as a Justice owes allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second as the representative of God Almighty,he must uphold Her oath, which is to uphold the Christian Gospels.

This is typical lawyer deception and why Jesus Christ warned us against a lawyer takeover of the Law in Luke 11 :46 and 52. The plain English words of S 116 and S 79 Constitution, mean we should never have to worship one of the State Appointed False Gods, who befoul the benches of all Courts in Australia.

S 2 Judiciary Act 1903, was enacted that whenever a Judge sits in a Court an Australian is entitled to a new trial. The word Appeal includes an application for a new trial and any proceedings to review or call in question the proceedings decision or jurisdiction of any Court or Judge. We would be free of Courts and Judges, and have courts with judges, if we just got totally fed up with lawyers dictating to us. Freedom to follow our faith would be very good for Australia.

Undoubtedly, Nietzsche was a megalomaniacal philosopher of culture with penetrating psychological and cultural insights, forcing us to face up to the half-truths and evasions in the history of philosophy and in our own lives. Very few have been able to travel to where he has been – indeed, he’s one of the most admirable of all atheists, whose thinking and logic lead to the inevitable conclusion. The honesty we have with ourselves when ‘alone’. It was certainly enough to drive him mad.

A ‘playful’ kind of wisdom and crazy merry making allowed for a recovery from the dreary and tortured emotional Romanticism of his age. His outrageous songs, wonderful parables, riddles and ditties allowed this nerdish and nifty dresser – a philology professor, a place in history. He assumed, morality is purely a matter of interpretation taking us away from nature – a ‘nature’ which is essentially morally neutral. "Evil", afterall, is really an invention of the weak to control the independent brilliance of the strong, who define their own place in the world. Western intellectual culture and Christianity especially, blames it ‘all on the heavens’ – people prefer the world of their illusions, with their comfortable pretend games about a real God as a foundation for morality.

The Übermensch is not the perfect human, living life according to the moral law, for there is no moral law. Once having fully understood, there is no God to command or reward, most are daunted. In the vision of Nietzsche, most react to this ‘impossible’ state through violence and self-destruction, wars will rage, hopelessness will reign. The ‘Great War’ proceeded, the second one reinforced his prediction.

If we survive the madness that results, once the death of God is recognised, a new morality extends, so it seems, transcending the ‘moral law’; truth transcending the truths of human knowledge. Love and joy and community are created out of nothing while on the way of life, somehow created with courage and humility, and somehow, created beautifully. Don the mask of the outstanding individual, and you, too, can experience a transformative if not, illusory moment.

Hope versus Faith?

There is a philosophical saying that as human greed in the long run can prove stronger than faith in the family, just as human greed can also destroy faith in religion.

a sincere hope is therefore more desirable

cheers< BB< WA