Interesting comment. I agree with all of it except the end conclusion. Accepting anything unconditionally is dogmatic and dogmatism corrupts. The medical industry is a fine example of how science can be used to direct opinion, obedience, and profits. Just like religion.

@rainmanjr
Notice that I said "long-form" science. Like any other human endeavor, science can make mistakes at the cutting edge. It is only after examination by competing teams, and usually subsequent generations, that science becomes increasingly reliable. Even then, it can't be guaranteed to be flawlessly accurate, but it can still be relied upon to be more likely accurate than any other source known today. By "unconditionally" I don't mean dogmatically. Dogmatism is when you believe what you believe regardless of evidence. Unconditional reliance on continuously evolving evidence is the opposite of that.

Pew is not a scientific group. We cling to science when it is true, when it is pseudo-science we understand that that is the worst form of anti education, and anti intelectualism there is, exactly because it is trying to wear sciences clothing. And yes since science takes a long form, so why are you still pedaling things which have long been discredited even as bad pseudo-science.

@Fernapple
Can you cite a more accurate and thorough survey of world religious affiliation that shows a trend in the opposite direction?

@skado [worldatlas.com]

@Fernapple
This link takes me to a list of the 10 least religious countries in the world, not to a survey of world religious trends. It doesn’t say anything about the religious countries, or how they compare in numbers to the non-religious, or which direction they’re trending. It doesn’t in any way refute the Pew survey. Can you provide evidence that any, more credible, institution has challenged the Pew survey’s accuracy, or even Pew’s reputation in general?

Can you be more specific about what you think I’m pedaling that has long been discredited? I’d like to learn. I’m only going by the best information I can find. If you know of better, I’d be happy to see it.

@skado Here you go, you only have to compare the lists for yourself.
[worldometers.info]
[en.wikipedia.org]

Hold on to your hat, if I have time there will be a lot more to come on all the other issues over the next few weeks.

@Fernapple
I don’t see how comparing a list of world life expectancy to a wikipedia entry on the social progress index refutes the Pew survey on whether religious affiliation is growing or diminishing worldwide. Maybe you can explain?

Regardless of whether it has been discredited, what do you think I’m pedaling? What are you referring to?

@skado Well sorry it is not my job to fix stupid. I am not even sure that is possible.

@Fernapple
Apparently it is also not your job to back up your claims with evidence. While you’re working on fixing that stupid, are you able to at least say what you think I’m pedaling?

@skado No. Quite the contrary, I was well prepared to back up my claims with evidence, and posted this as a starting point. A starting point which was in many ways open to critical debate, and I myself could, and still can, see many weaknesses in the line I was planning to take, and was therefore planing to address several critical lines you could engage in. But instead of a genuine counter argument all I got was a shallow version of the argument from ignorance fallacy, which is just plain frustrating.

If however you do not want to do the evidence from demographics, perhaps you would prefer to do genetic determinism ? I take it that you believe in genetic determinism, since you believe that a preference for religion is an evolved trait ?

@Fernapple
I don’t know anything about genetic determinism other than it has nothing do with my question. You say Pew is not a scientific group. I don’t know what you mean. They are very transparent about their methodology and have excellent ratings.

If you know of any group who has made a similar survey and found opposite trends for religious affiliation as a percentage of world population, then I’d be happy to look at their results, but don’t feel bad if you haven’t found any - I haven’t either.

@skado The Pew research centre is not even by its own statements a scientific institution, it self defines as a. "public oppinion polling" organization, I quote its own statement directly.

I did not make any claim that religion is in decline globally. Only that where religion declines, then social welbeing increases.

If you want accurate stats on religion globally, then a few seconds search turned these up, it was not hard. The second does indeed come from PEW, which I think should amuse you.

[statista.com]

[pewresearch.org]

@Fernapple
I’m glad it wasn’t hard because it didn’t support your position, unless your position is that you agree with me.

A direct quote from the Statista site you supplied:

“While in some regions, particularly Western Europe and East Asia, religious adherence is currently in sharp decline, the number of religious adherents as a share of world population is in fact predicted to increase over the coming century.”

[statista.com]

They won’t disclose their source for this information without signup, but I would bet money they did not conduct the survey themselves, and in all likelihood the source was Pew, because the statement is, practicality verbatim, identical to Pew’s.

You have not been able to find any contradictory data, so you, understandably, want to change the subject (to another unfounded bluster) which is outside the context of this discussion, but if you’d like to start a new discussion where you claim “where religion declines, then social welbeing increases” I’ll be interested to see if you have any better luck supporting that claim. Meanwhile I’ll continue holding onto my hat because there’s a lot of wind around here.

@skado Did you not read my comment above, I said quite plainly. "I did not make any claim that religion is in decline globally." Nor was I even interested if it was. My only point which should have been self evident from the stats I posted, was that welbeing is clearly seen to increase where religion does decline.

@Fernapple
I read all of your comments above and none of them support your innuendo about pseudoscience, nor do they supply contravening data from more reliable sources. Your comments about wellbeing don’t address anything I’ve said on this post so I won’t respond to them here.

I’ll look forward to your new post where you present your case that global wellbeing is declining.

@skado I am not atempting to present the case that global wellbeing is declining, nor have I atempted to supply any evidence for anything else yet. Where do you get this all from ? Are you not able to read ?

It was an interesting conversation for this community, I thought, but your assessment of Justin seems accurate to me.

Yeah. I return to this being an illusion. In such a state everything is possible within an illusion because we simply create the place or circumstance when we need it to exist. Our body/brain is also illusion so we go where we want and how we do that is simply a mechanical exercise.

I see no reason to think that some are wired to religion and some aren't. I see it as more likely that we are all born with the same determination on this and then we are socialized.

@rainmanjr I would like to think that is true, but I suspect otherwise.

@David1955 If the legend becomes real then go with the legend. I have yet to see why my theory can't be true, or why Tao can't be real, and making it my structure hurts nobody. It is not from threat of pain or any other eternal disaster which calls me to adopt it as truth. The worst that can happen is people will call me nuts. They have called me that for over 55 years so I'm immune to it and don't mind. The biggest plus is that, like the article states, a large enough following could eliminate dogmatic religions within a generation. Determinism is merely a state of mind.

Children are born into this world with an innate sense of a being greater than themselves. A being who loves them unconditionally. Who protects them from danger. Who supplies all their needs from the moment they enter this world as a helpless infant. This being is…

…the child’s mother.

If this innate evolutionary adaption persists into adulthood, then this person is more likely to have a “god-shaped” hole in their heart that needs to be filled with religion. If it doesn’t, then such a person will become either neutrally predisposed, as you put it, or wired not to believe at all.

Something to think about, but it’s not my theory. But I like it, and believe it has some merit for the origin of the religious impulse.

@NostraDumbass Also as the article says. "we have an innate, natural propensity to believe what our parents teach us."

@NostraDumbass When you take religion back far enough then god is female just like your mother.

@Fernapple That is clearly the most dominant factor in determining religious BELIEF. But what this theory is referring to is the experiencing of “God’s presence”, which would then be the first step in formulating an explanation for this phenomenon. The resulting explanation then evolves into a religious narrative. It’s described in detail in The Illusion of God’s Presence by Dr. John Wathey. Or you could just listen to the Nov. 22 episode of The Thinking Atheist podcast.

@NostraDumbass It certainly sets one up for such an idea. Yes.

@NostraDumbass, @DenoPenno In fact, Tao is said to be a Feminine idea because it gives birth to the 10,000 things (this is a metaphorical saying).

@NostraDumbass No need I saw that too.