You can use a hammer to cave a skull or build a house.

@skado Agreed. But we understand in the grand social analysis this tool has crushed more than it has built. He professes to have clarity on social analysis. It's a puzzling paradox regarding this man and many others like him.

@kensmile4u
“But we understand in the grand social analysis this tool has crushed more than it has built.”

I can’t include myself in that “we”. I wouldn’t know how to make such an analysis scientifically. If you know of such a study I hope you’ll share it. It seems an impossibility to me. How could you ever measure the built or the crushed?

My starting point would be the evolutionary role of Axial Age religions in the survival of Homo sapiens after the invention of agriculture, and in light of the extinction of all other Homo species.

@skado We are talking about the hammer (and crushing vs building) being a metaphor for religion as a social tool correct? If so then here is a good place to start your critical analysis of religion. In this link you will find roughly 100 other links which provide more depth and breadth on the subject.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@kensmile4u

Thanks for the link.

There is always the initial problem of defining religion. From your link: "However, there is still no scholarly consensus over what a religion is."

So we may not even be talking about the same thing when we say "religion".

Also from your link: "These [religious] narratives were intended to give solace and a sense of relationship with larger forces. As such, they may have served several important functions in ancient societies."

I understand how a person might easily feel that religion has done more harm than good. But of course science doesn't proceed according to feelings. In order to make a credible claim there must be verifiable data.

In this case, both the harms and benefits would have to be quantified and compared against each other; a task I doubt is possible. A list of a million harms, alone, isn't a comparison. There might be three million benefits.

But, as your link tells us, where such studies have been attempted, they more often exonerate religion:

"A metareview of 850 research papers on Religion in the United States concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse".
A review review of 147 studies states that religiousness is mildly associated with fewer depression symptoms and that life events can still increase depressive symptoms.
In a metareview of 498 studies states that religious involvement in general is associated with:less depression, lower drug and alcohol abuse, less promiscuous sexual behaviors, reduced likelihood of suicide, lower rates of delinquency and crime, educational attainment and purpose or meaning in life.
A meta analysis of 34 studies states that a positive relationship still emerges between religion and mental health even when using different conceptualizations of religiosity and mental health used in different studies.
According to Robert Putnam, membership of religious groups in the United States was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations, higher level of commitment, better self-esteem, lower risk of suicide, higher life satisfaction.
According to Pew Research Center's 2019 global study, when comparing religious people to those who have less or no religion, actively religious people are more likely to describe themselves as "very happy", join other mundane organizations like charities or clubs, vote, and at the same time were less likely to smoke and drink. However, there was no correlation between religiosity and self perception of better health.
An investigation on subjective well-being representing 90% of the world population has noted that, globally, religious people are usually happier than nonreligious people, though nonreligious people also reach high levels of happiness.
Cross-national studies polled from 1981–2001 on views of science and religion have noted that countries with higher religiosity have stronger trust in science."

So most of the criticisms of religion in your link are just the opinions of individuals, whereas the counterarguments are actual scientific studies. This says to me that the belief that religion does more harm than good is, quite ironically, similar to many religious beliefs, which may seem to be intuitively correct... but are not supported by scientific evidence.

@skado You are welcome on the link. I'm always interested in helping sincere pursuit of knowledge. I see that you have focused on, and provided excerpts from, 2 sections from the link which provide counterarguments to religious criticism. I'm sure you read the other 28 sections which provide data in support of religious criticism. Additionally I have added a link below to a list of academic papers which address religious genocide. I provide this because I think the previous link I gave you does not adequately address this major crushing religious issue.

[scholar.google.com]

@kensmile4u
I’m happy to make an effort toward understanding with anyone who is as civil and rational as you always are. I thank you for that.

What I’m probably not prepared to do is pore over reams of material to find a single reference that could probably have been stated in only a sentence or two.

I scanned your first reference for mention of studies, and found only the ones I mentioned. The rest appeared to be the personal opinions of influential people.

If I have missed a scientific study, in that Wikipedia article, that demonstrates the net harmful effect of religion, could you please tell me exactly where it is located - what section it can be found in - so I can go directly to it?

I’m not arguing that great harm hasn’t been done in the name of religion. More documentation of such harm doesn’t address my complaint.

I’m only taking issue with the statement that “this tool has crushed more than it has built.”

Listing all that it has crushed, without listing all that it has built, is not an answer to my question. We first have to find a way to make a scientific comparison. Opinion won’t do.

If reams of such material does exist, that’s fine, I may be willing to pore over it after I see a thread of well-designed studies that support that position. But I’ve looked before and haven’t found any scientific consensus.

So what I’ll need, in order to reignite my interest, will start with a reference to one, well-designed study that supports the view that “this tool has crushed more than it has built.”

Thanks.

@skado I thank you for your continued civility, curiosity, and shared respect. Please see the attached academic study titled Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy.This paper was peer reviewed then published on Nov 27 2018. It is a scientific analysis focusing on General Social Survey (GSS) data collected from 2006 to 2016. I invite you to read the entire paper to gain trust in the effort because you were looking for a study that supports the view that "this tool (Religion) has crushed more than it has built." The findings of this study can be found in the General Discussion at the bottom of the paper. The first sentence in the General Discussion states the following:

"The findings from these four studies show that religiosity is negatively related to science knowledge and is associated with more negative attitudes towards science."

I assert here that science and the scientific method are universally held to be the process used to build all knowledge of our existence. Subsequently, this paper establishes that religion has a net negative effect on Science. Therefore we must conclude religion crushes more than it builds at least within the period covered in this study.

[journals.plos.org]

@kensmile4u

I'm still looking for a comparison.

If you claim that A is greater than B, then you have to first quantify both A and B to see which is greater. In this case what we have to quantify is harm done and benefit created.

This study does not attempt to quantify either the harm or the good that religion has caused, let alone compare the two.

All it claims to have shown is that there is a correlation between religiosity and low science literacy/appreciation. And of course correlation does not prove causation.

From the study:

"However, it’s important to note that cross-sectional mediation models do not indicate causation..."
"Another limitation to consider is that all of the studies described herein are based in the US."

This study lends no support to the claim that “this tool has crushed more than it has built.”

We know harm exists. What we don't know is how much, especially in comparison to how much benefit exists.

@skado "All it claims to have shown is that there is a correlation between religiosity and low science literacy/appreciation". And of course correlation does not prove causation." I will have to disagree with you on this point. The general conclusion of this research is stated clearly. "The findings from these four studies show that religiosity is negatively related to science knowledge and is associated with more negative attitudes towards science." To put it mathematically, A(religion) delta B(science) = X. If x is a negative number (which this paper illustrates) then religion causes a net harm and how much it causes is at least quantified in the paper. Any other harm from any other cause that we could identify would simply be additive to the harm captured in this paper. What harm could be greater than the one quantified here to science?

@kensmile4u
Fine but you are drawing a conclusion which the paper specifically states it does not draw.

@kensmile4u

Ken: "then religion causes a net harm"

Paper: "It’s also important to note that, while these models are consistent with our hypothesis that religiosity is linked to lower science knowledge because of less positive attitudes towards science, cross-sectional mediation models do not indicate causation.

@skado I am using the general conclusion of the paper. Any other conclusion is part of the minutiae and therefore subordinate.

@kensmile4u
The general conclusion does not use the word "cause". It uses the word "related".

You understand the difference between correlation and causation, right?

@skado The relationship is quantified as negative. There are thousands of causes which are elucidated in the paper. That's how these documents are constructed.

@kensmile4u

We understand it differently.

@skado Perhaps I should have been more detailed in my answer to causation. Paragraph 5 of the General discussion states:

"However, it’s important to note that cross-sectional mediation models do not indicate causation because we did not manipulate religiosity or science attitudes in these studies. In line with this consideration, we presented in the supplementary file formal tests of alternative models. Some resolution of this issue may be obtained only with longitudinal research."

This is a somewhat confusing paragraph because they did perform longitudinal research in Study 2. Using data from the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY), study 2 establishes empirically that negative attitudes toward science were in inherited from religious parents. See study 2 for details. So when I said thousands of causes are elucidated in the paper, this is what i meant specifically. I hope this answers your question.

@kensmile4u

At this point I'm not very motivated to invest the time in arguing whether this is a sound study or not, because if we assume it establishes causation (and I don't see that it does) it still only claims to demonstrate that some harm is caused by religious practitioners.

We don't really need a study to tell us that; we can see it with our own eyes. But this study does not, as far as I have noticed, even obliquely address the question of whether any good is done by religious practitioners, let alone compare the two - the harm vs. the good.

So even if this study adequately establishes everything it claims to... it doesn't even claim to show that religion does more harm than good. This is the point that you haven't addressed.

@skado There is no argument. If science is the foundation of U.S. societal knowledge (past, present, and future) and this study proves that religion has a U.S. societal negative impact on scientific knowledge, then by extension, religion does more harm than good to U.S. society at least for the period of time covered in the study. I appreciate the irony of you arguing for religion on a site full of Agnostics and Atheists. Much respect...

@kensmile4u
It’s true I have argued elsewhere on this site for religion, but that’s not what I’m doing here. Here, I’m arguing for science. I’m arguing for reason. I’m arguing for objective reality.

Demonstrating that something causes harm, is not the same thing as demonstrating that it causes more harm than good, unless you also measure the good, which this study doesn’t do.

We agree; there is no argument.

I'm not sure you have the level of greed we see in America. I know the whole brexit thing showed how divided Britain has become. Do you think companies hold the power over government there that they do here?

@silverotter11 yes, but I think there is more transparency, so that if you have a decent income you can make choices that influence industry and production to some extent.

@girlwithsmiles Operative word is transparency!! Not happening here in the states. I edited. Glad you were able to make sense of my 1 cup of coffee brain fog. On my second and doing better.

@silverotter11 yes, this is what has been concerning me about leaving the EU and possible trans Atlantic agreements. If our product labelling and therefore quality of items get eroded it will make it more difficult to create a more ethical future here’s hoping you come our way, and not vice versa