What Are the Real Benefits of Science and Skepticism in the World?

[Wowbagger]

Take the average science-loving skeptic; and the average superstitious (or deeply religious) person, at any given point in history, and I suspect you will find that they both:
*Live about as long as each other
*Make roughly the same amount of money
*Claim they are just as happy (or unhappy) with their lives
* And, that the crime rate among them is probably roughly equal.

Of course, the skeptic person will probably gain more knowledge about the world, and would be more prone to make sensible decisions, but that seems of little use to the individual, in the long run, given the above generalities.

I suspect that it is actually society as a whole, that benefits from science and skepticism. When you look back, historically, it seems that whenever religion has yielded to scientific discovery, it is the entire society that benefits, even if no specific individuals are better off than their neighbors, on average, at any given time.

Science has made everyone, on average, live longer and become wealthier, etc. Even those that do not believe in the power of science have benefited greatly from its progress.

What evidence can we compile to test this idea? What are some examples we can use to prove it, or disprove it?

Here are some examples I shall contribute, myself, (though admittedly, they are all pro-science):

* Lightning rods on churches - Many religious leaders scoffed at them, because they assumed God would never strike a church with lightning. They all relented only after decades of being proven wrong, a whole bunch of times.

* The model of the Earth going around the Sun, which helped us develop space programs, which generated untold wealth for the global economy (even if the space missions, themselves do not seem to have much practical value, the science behind the scenes has lead to many discoveries that are more useful)

* A few months ago, I had read Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her observations exemplify this hypothesis: Squalor and corruption in every fundamentalist country she lived in, order and cleanliness in democratic countries where science and reason are encouraged.

* Civil Rights is another possible idea. I do not have much gathered to demonstrate this, yet. But this is how it seems to me, thus far: Religions have claimed that religion was necessary for the civil rights movement to kick off, in the U.S. I say it might have been the opposite: Religion had, historically, encouraged slavery, and had always tried to claim that certain human-like beings were not really humans.
It was the science of anthropology, among others, that said: No, all these human-like beings really are human beings, after all, and therefore deserve equal rights!

* Medical research is too huge an area for me to start rattling off specifics of. But, any really good examples you know of, might be nice to read about.

[Piggy]

To the world? None.

To human beings... that remains to be seen.

We're clearly better off now, materially, and I'd argue intellectually, because of science and skepticism.

But from an evolutionary point of view, this whole hyperintelligence thing may turn out to be a dead end before long.

One never knows.

[LawnOven]

I suspect that it is actually society as a whole, that benefits from science and skepticism. When you look back, historically, it seems that whenever religion has yielded to scientific discovery, it is the entire society that benefits, even if no specific individuals are better off than their neighbors, on average, at any given time.



You might be right.

The question is one of causation, and there is no clear answer. Whether religion leads directly to dysfunctionality, or religions merely flourish in dysfunctional societies, neither conclusion from this study flatters religion.The first tells us that religion is a hindrance to the development of moral character, and the second that religion hinders progress by distracting us from our troubles (with imaginary solutions to real problems). This study is complicated enough that I do not think that we can draw definitive negative conclusions about religion. But we can at least conclude, contrary to popular belief in this country, that it is not a given that religious societies are better, healthier, or more moral.

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html

[Wowbagger]

I wish to add, here, that I do feel as though I have personally benefited from being active in the skeptical and scientific-enthusiast community. I love gaining knowledge, and I feel like I can accomplish something by sharing all of it with others!

* I do not know if I will live longer than anyone else, (if not forever) because of this. But, at least I will be less prone do die from doing something stupid.

* I happen to be well-off financially, though this probably has a lot more to do with my mad programmin' skilz, than my enthusiasm for science.

* I am a relatively happy person, though. I enjoy thinking that I am in control of my life, even if that means I must be responsible for my mistakes. I suspect I would be a lot more miserable if I was under the impression that some other entity was ruling over my fate.

* And furthermore, I am not a criminal. Though, this probably has a lot more to do with my genetic heritage, where reciprocal altruism has become an optimal strategy for survival, than my own views towards science.

Individual results may vary.

Sister Threads
In a fit of lunacy, I decided to start this thread in multiple Forums. Here is an index of where you can find how others are responding to these issues:

Debate Nation: http://www.debatenation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=503
JREF: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106464
SGU Podcast: http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/viewtopic.php?t=8516
(Note: SkepChick no longer has its own brand of Forums. But, if it did, I would place it there, as well.)
Skeptic Society: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9409
NYC Skeptics: http://www.nycskeptics.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=125

[AkuManiMani]

Wowbagger, you seem to be under the naive assumption that most people share the capacity for the childlike wonder you are possessed of. Your thirst for knowledge and enlightenment for its own sake is very uncommon -- most human beings are fundamentally incurious and bound to their own little worlds.

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger, you seem to be under the naive assumption that most people share the capacity for the childlike wonder you are possessed of. Your thirst for knowledge and enlightenment for its own sake is very uncommon -- most human beings are fundamentally incurious and bound to their own little worlds.

My arguments have nothing to do with people's capacity for wonder. In fact, my argument is that it does not matter. Science, historically, has worked for the better of humankind, no matter what individuals are like in the society.
Although science is not perfect, its track record for bettering all of humankind is a lot better than religion's!

The more people recognize this, the more participants we can have, in science. Not that everyone will join in, of course.

Unless I am wrong. If so, I would like to see evidence. Counter-examples, etc.

[shadron]

* Civil Rights is another possible idea. I do not have much gathered to demonstrate this, yet. But this is how it seems to me, thus far: Religions have claimed that religion was necessary for the civil rights movement to kick off, in the U.S. I say it might have been the opposite: Religion had, historically, encouraged slavery, and had always tried to claim that certain human-like beings were not really humans.
It was the science of anthropology, among others, that said: No, all these human-like beings really are human beings, after all, and therefore deserve equal rights!

You might want to add there that the real factor in making slavery economically untenable, the huge increase in use of machinery on the farm, is the direct result of Watt's and Carnot's investigations into energy and thermodynamics, along with basic materials research and other sciences and engineering.

* The model of the Earth going around the Sun, which helped us develop space programs, which generated untold wealth for the global economy (even if the space missions, themselves do not seem to have much practical value, the science behind the scenes has lead to many discoveries that are more useful)

And there are also many space missions that are imminently practical. Telecommunications, weather, GPS, and even military uses of space are tangible, practical use of te sciences involved, including integral space sciences.

[drkitten]

Take the average science-loving skeptic; and the average superstitious (or deeply religious) person, at any given point in history, and I suspect you will find that they both:
*Live about as long as each other
*Make roughly the same amount of money

I suspect that this would depend very much on how you took your averages and what the samples were.

In particular, how superstitious is the average "deeply religious" person? Are we going to start arguing about the kilt length of a "True Scotsman"? If you simply define "deeply religious" as "would tick the YES box on a form asking about belief in God," then you're probably right. But if you confine "deeply religious" only to those people for whom religion has a substantial impact on their lives -- and similarly, "science-loving" to those for whom science has a substantial impact on their lives -- you might be surprised.

I suspect that most of the similarly comes from the great middle that really doesn't fall cleanly into either camp.

[AkuManiMani]

My arguments have nothing to do with people's capacity for wonder. In fact, my argument is that it does not matter. Science, historically, has worked for the better of humankind, no matter what individuals are like in the society.
Although science is not perfect, its track record for bettering all of humankind is a lot better than religion's!

The more people recognize this, the more participants we can have, in science. Not that everyone will join in, of course.

Unless I am wrong. If so, I would like to see evidence. Counter-examples, etc.

I'm not arguing that science doesn't matter. Science has given humanity greater power. Power is just a tool -- it doesn't DO anything except reflect the intent of person(s) wielding it. Welding science is like wielding fire; it only brings the potential to bring about greater good or ill. Increasing the number of people participating in science would collectively increase our power but it wouldn't necessarily improve us -- it merely ups the ante.

[Wowbagger]

You might want to add there that the real factor in making slavery economically untenable, the huge increase in use of machinery on the farm, is the direct result of Watt's and Carnot's investigations into energy and thermodynamics, along with basic materials research and other sciences and engineering. Good point!

But, I wonder: Even with all these discoveries, would slavery still be commonplace, if people still believed that certain "human-like-beings" were not really human beings?

And there are also many space missions that are imminently practical. Telecommunications, weather, GPS, and even military uses of space are tangible, practical use of te sciences involved, including integral space sciences. Of course.

I suspect that this would depend very much on how you took your averages and what the samples were. Actually, for first-approximation purposes, I do not think that really matters. You could define "religious person" or "science-loving skeptic", any reasonable way you want, with the line drawn anywhere in the grayness between, and you will find both sides live about as long as each other, etc.

As we investigate this, in more precise detail, we will discover trends were certain beliefs clearly lead to shorter lives (suicide cults, to name one obvious example), or longer lives. But, in the global view, life span averages out about the same for both sides, near as I can tell.

I'm not arguing that science doesn't matter. Science has given humanity greater power. Power is just a tool -- it doesn't DO anything except reflect the intent of person(s) wielding it. Welding science is like wielding fire; it only brings the potential to bring about greater good or ill. Increasing the number of people participating in science would collectively increase our power but it wouldn't necessarily improve us -- it merely ups the ante. My point is that science has a better track record than religion. Not a perfect record: nuclear weapons were the product of science. But, a better record, overall.

[Cuddles]

*Make roughly the same amount of money

I agree with the rest, but I'm not so sure about this one. Better educated people are less likely to be superstitious or religious, although obvsiously many still are. Better educated people certainly make more money. In addition, subjects which have a strong focus on science and other areas where skepticism is relevant, such as business, are the ones which have the highest earnings. For example: http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/research-gradprem.pdf

From figure 2, the highest gross earnings, in order, are medicine, engineering, physical science, maths and computer science, architecture, business and finance. The pattern is similar no matter how you measure it, although law and management are generally higher up with other methods.

What's interesting is when you say "at any point in history". These figures obviously apply to the present day, and I suspect would be similar for the last century or so. However, religion used to be a much more important force socially. In some cultures, such as the UK a few centuries ago, educated younger children of the upper classes would go to the clergy, while in other cultures, the priests would be by far the most highly educated people. While I'm fairly sure that more educated people are currently less likely to be superstitious, in the past it may well have been the exact opposite, and therefore I don't think you can generalise the benefits of being skeptical now as being representative of the benefits throughout history.

All that aside, from my point of view the benefits are very simple - I want to know how everything works, and science and skepticism let me find out.

[Wowbagger]

Better educated people are less likely to be superstitious or religious, although obvsiously many still are. Better educated people certainly make more money. In addition, subjects which have a strong focus on science and other areas where skepticism is relevant, such as business, are the ones which have the highest earnings. Yeah, perhaps you are right. There are plenty of rich religious folks, and certainly plenty more middle-class religious folks.
If we can show that most of the richest folks are not religious, and most impoverished people are religious, we might have to knock out that bullet point. If so, it would only strengthen some of the other points about economics.

What's interesting is when you say "at any point in history". These figures obviously apply to the present day, and I suspect would be similar for the last century or so. However, religion used to be a much more important force socially. In some cultures, such as the UK a few centuries ago, educated younger children of the upper classes would go to the clergy, while in other cultures, the priests would be by far the most highly educated people. But, that says nothing about how long the educated person lived, or how happy they were with life, etc. compared to others.

While I'm fairly sure that more educated people are currently less likely to be superstitious, in the past it may well have been the exact opposite, and therefore I don't think you can generalise the benefits of being skeptical now as being representative of the benefits throughout history. In the past, skeptics and atheists would be declared heretics. But, the advances they brought have been beneficial to everyone, none-the-less. That is something we can generalize on.

[Piggy]

From a personal perspective, science and skepticism have made me afraid and miserable.

They are also the only reasons I want to live.

On the one hand, they have denied me the comforting illusions of a loving God and an eternal paradise. When I contemplate oblivion, my body rebels in fear of annihilation. I'm trying to overcome that, now that I'm middle aged, but evolution has put those feelings there, and so far I can't banish them.

Science and skepticism have also separated me from many members of my family, and from most of the members of my community.

But my saviors and prophets -- Einstein, Sagan, Feynman, Hubble, Hawking, Penrose, and others -- have also given me the world. And what more precious gift could there be?

No myths of gods, heavens, and hells can hold a candle to the real wonders of the Big Bang, the expanding universe, superclusters of galaxies, relative time, or quantum paradoxes. The world that we dream in our petty minds is a cheaply painted slap-dash diorama compared to the jaw-dropping realms we encounter when we merely figure out how to look properly.

In fact, when I consider how brief my time is, my principle pain comes from knowing just how much more we have to learn, and how much of it I will miss out on.

On the whole, though, I'll take the trade.

It doesn't matter one whit to me if it won't make me richer, add years to my life, or help me win friends and influence people.

Because instead, it helps me understand -- truly -- who I am.

[arthwollipot]

Nominated.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Actually, for first-approximation purposes, I do not think that really matters. You could define "religious person" or "science-loving skeptic", any reasonable way you want, with the line drawn anywhere in the grayness between, and you will find both sides live about as long as each other, etc.

Where do science-loving religious persons fit into your dichotomy? (And I realize it's a myth amongst some of us that they don't exist, but they do.)

As we investigate this, in more precise detail, we will discover trends were certain beliefs clearly lead to shorter lives (suicide cults, to name one obvious example), or longer lives. But, in the global view, life span averages out about the same for both sides, near as I can tell.

Mormons tend to live exceedingly long lives so obviously they're right... right.

I don't think lifespan is a particularly informative metric.

[Georg]

As we investigate this, in more precise detail, we will discover trends were certain beliefs clearly lead to shorter lives (suicide cults, to name one obvious example), or longer lives. But, in the global view, life span averages out about the same for both sides, near as I can tell.



Mormons tend to live exceedingly long lives so obviously they're right... right.

I don't think lifespan is a particularly informative metric.

Depends on the superstition in my opinion. As Wowbagger wrote, certain beliefs do shorten your life, it is difficult to argue against his example.
I add another one: sCAM.
Take 100 people that have the same sort of cancer. 50 will be treated only with EBM, 50 will only be treated with sugar pills (homoeopathy). Which group will, on average, live longer?

[Darth Rotor]

What Are the Real Benefits of Science and Skepticism in the World?

May it please the court, Your Honor, I offer exhibit A:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1096247bdd2001a8af.jpg
Isn't that enough?:cool:

DR

[Wowbagger]

Where do science-loving religious persons fit into your dichotomy? (And I realize it's a myth amongst some of us that they don't exist, but they do.) Any where you want to stick 'em! The dichotomy was only used for simplification. It does not really matter where, in the gray areas between, you throw anyone. On average, they are all the same on the scale, I think. And, that is part of the point.

I don't think lifespan is a particularly informative metric. Within members of any given society, yes. That is, in fact, supposed to be one of my points.

I add another one: sCAM.
Take 100 people that have the same sort of cancer. 50 will be treated only with EBM, 50 will only be treated with sugar pills (homoeopathy). Which group will, on average, live longer? I think such cases are relatively rare. It seems sCAMs, (Complementary and Alternative Medicines, for those who don't know) for the most part, make no significant impact, except in rare, extreme cases. Most sCAM suckers live perfectly ordinary, healthy lives in their delusional state.

However, I think a serious crack-down of sCAMs will do wonders for the overall health of everyone in the society. More money will be spent on real medicine and research, and less wasted on phony-baloney stuff.

May it please the court, Your Honor, I offer exhibit A:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1096247bdd2001a8af.jpg
Isn't that enough?:cool: The court would rather see real-life skepchicks, before it, than these mere paper copies, thank you.

From a personal perspective, science and skepticism have made me afraid and miserable. Don't forget: You are also the Master Over Your Own Life! You can do whatever you want, and no overlord from above will be judging you, in the end. Of course, your fellow humans will, so it pays to be nice. But, without the fear of God, you can be nice in way religious people can not!

You can support lots of science projects that make 'em shake, even though the outcomes will be promisingly positive for everyone, all over the world! Embryonic stem cell research, for example! Or any number of biological studies where the Theory of Evolution plays a significant role (which I think is all of them, actually).

You can also support equal rights in ways a lot of religious folks can not. You can, for example, stand up to get gender discrimination removed from marriage policies!

Those are just a couple of examples. Science has great and mighty powers, over and above anything the religious folks can ever hope to muster.

Science and skepticism have also separated me from many members of my family, and from most of the members of my community. It depends on how you handle the situation. If you could demonstrate that you are a good, trust-worthy, and responsible person, people will notice, eventually.

It doesn't matter one whit to me if it won't make me richer, add years to my life, or help me win friends and influence people.

Because instead, it helps me understand -- truly -- who I am. That is, indeed, good to know.

Cheer up. If life gets you down, make it more exciting! And, hopefully, by doing something good.

[Piggy]

It depends on how you handle the situation. If you could demonstrate that you are a good, trust-worthy, and responsible person, people will notice, eventually.

<Claus von Bulow> You have no idea. </Claus>

[Piggy]

Cheer up. If life gets you down, make it more exciting! And, hopefully, by doing something good.

Hey, I appreciate where you're coming from.

Thing is, I don't believe in good and bad. Or right and wrong. Sure, I use the terms, but only loosely and metaphorically.

But don't get me wrong. Don't miss the part of my post where I say that science and skepticism have given me the world, given me myself, given me a reason to care about something in this meaningless world.

I remember a few years ago, I was at a really low point. And my low points are seriously low.

I was standing in the bedroom of the tiny apartment I was renting, late at night, trying to take my mind off the gun in my dresser drawer.

I walked to the window and stood watching the rain.

Maybe at those moments, other people think of people they love, or good memories they cherish.

But I stood listening to the rain, and the sound of the wind. At that place, when the wind picked up, it made an odd and eerie sound, not quite like anything I've ever heard elsewhere, not exactly.

And I started wondering, what makes that sound? Is it the shapes of the buildings, how they're arranged? Is it the pattern and installation of the siding?

And it hit me that, even then, I could not stop my curiosity. And that's what I'm passionate about.

I want to KNOW. Whatever it is, whether it's kind to me or not, doesn't matter, I just want to know what this world is. I want to find out as much as I can before I die.

And only skeptical inquiry can give me that.

When I said skepticism is the only reason I want to live, I really meant it.

[rwguinn]

Yeah, perhaps you are right. There are plenty of rich religious folks, and certainly plenty more middle-class religious folks.
If we can show that most of the richest folks are not religious, and most impoverished people are religious, we might have to knock out that bullet point. If so, it would only strengthen some of the other points about economics.

But, that says nothing about how long the educated person lived, or how happy they were with life, etc. compared to others.

In the past, skeptics and atheists would be declared heretics. But, the advances they brought have been beneficial to everyone, none-the-less. That is something we can generalize on.

I think, if you go back to what are called "biblical times" and before, the "religous people" would probably have longer life-spans than the non-religous.
Many of the prohibitions in the bible, for example, are based on health:
People who don't eat poorly cooked pork don't get sick, so we ban pork
People who don't eat shellfish dont get as sick, so we ban it.
The fact that pigs and shellfish eat anything in front of them, and can harbor some real nasties (and some pig diseases/problems can come over to humans) didn't matter...

[Piggy]

Many of the prohibitions in the bible, for example, are based on health:
People who don't eat poorly cooked pork don't get sick, so we ban pork
People who don't eat shellfish dont get as sick, so we ban it.
The fact that pigs and shellfish eat anything in front of them, and can harbor some real nasties (and some pig diseases/problems can come over to humans) didn't matter...

I dunno about that.

I haven't been able to find any good evidence for this explanation of the Hebraic dietary restrictions. It appears to be purely speculative.

To my mind, it's much more likely that these restrictions were intended to preserve tribal identity. If the locals do it, and we don't, then don't do it.

[Wowbagger]

I think, if you go back to what are called "biblical times" and before, the "religous people" would probably have longer life-spans than the non-religous.
Many of the prohibitions in the bible, for example, are based on health:
People who don't eat poorly cooked pork don't get sick, so we ban pork
People who don't eat shellfish dont get as sick, so we ban it.
The fact that pigs and shellfish eat anything in front of them, and can harbor some real nasties (and some pig diseases/problems can come over to humans) didn't matter...I agree the evidence is speculative, but even if we were to assume this is true: What prevents someone who was not religious from avoiding dangerous foods?

Natural selection, alone, might be sufficient enough to keep humans from eating certain things.

[Piggy]

What prevents someone who was not religious from avoiding dangerous foods?

Yes, that's another big problem with the theory. Why would only the Hebrews figure it out? I guess you could argue that's why they thrived, but (1) it's more likely that they thrived b/c they were total bad-asses who practiced total war, and (2) they thrived for a time and faded, just like all the other tribes of the ancient near east.

On the other hand, when you look at ancient Hebrew injunctions as a whole, there is a clear pattern of mandating those traditions which mark them as a distinct people, and forbidding those which would represent an assimilation into other cultures.

Since the ancient Hebrews during the nomadic period (before the establishment of Israel and Judah) were not sea-dwellers and kept herded cattle, the injunction against eating shellfish and pigs is most likely an issue of cultural purity rather than dietary purity.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Depends on the superstition in my opinion. As Wowbagger wrote, certain beliefs do shorten your life, it is difficult to argue against his example.
I add another one: sCAM.

I was merely noting that he included deeply religious as a subset of superstitious and I didn't think it was fair to, in terms of health, to suggest that deeply religious people or for that matter supersticious people would be averse to proper medical care nor be unable to be considered "science-loving." I know that there is a myth amongst some of us that you either see a doctor or you consult a homeopath or preist to exercise the cancer demons, but that isn't the case. We're talking about a very small subset of the population that rejects medicine entirely for quackery and faith healing.

Any where you want to stick 'em! The dichotomy was only used for simplification. It does not really matter where, in the gray areas between, you throw anyone. On average, they are all the same on the scale, I think. And, that is part of the point.

Within members of any given society, yes. That is, in fact, supposed to be one of my points.

I'm sorry, but you seemed to be lumping people into two catagories - those who see doctors and those who rely on SCAM or faith healing in your OP. Most people rely on our current medically based health care system regardless of religiosity, lack thereof or superstition, some seek SCAM as a compliment to their treatment (how many stories have we heard stating "we prayed for a miracle and after 6 months of chemo and radiation I have been cancer free because I took shark cartillage, etc.") and only, as I noted above, do a small percentage of the population seek only SCAM or faith healing as their sole medical care for serious issues.

Unless you can produce some numbers for people who forgo medical treatment for diabetes, heart disease, skin cancer, etc., and rely only on homeopathy, theraputic touch, reike, faith healing, etc., I have to disagree with a part of the premise of the OP. I agree completely with the premise that people who rely only on SCAM and faith healing are shortening their lives significantly, but I disagree that people who turn to them are, in the majority, rejecting medicine or, as in the case of Coretta Scott King recently, dying and so desperate that they turn to anything.

[Wowbagger]

I'm sorry, but you seemed to be lumping people into two catagories - those who see doctors and those who rely on SCAM or faith healing in your OP. Most people rely on our current medically based health care system regardless of religiosity, lack thereof or superstition, some seek SCAM as a compliment to their treatment (how many stories have we heard stating "we prayed for a miracle and after 6 months of chemo and radiation I have been cancer free because I took shark cartillage, etc.") and only, as I noted above, do a small percentage of the population seek only SCAM or faith healing as their sole medical care for serious issues.

Unless you can produce some numbers for people who forgo medical treatment for diabetes, heart disease, skin cancer, etc., and rely only on homeopathy, theraputic touch, reike, faith healing, etc., I have to disagree with a part of the premise of the OP. I agree completely with the premise that people who rely only on SCAM and faith healing are shortening their lives significantly, but I disagree that people who turn to them are, in the majority, rejecting medicine or, as in the case of Coretta Scott King recently, dying and so desperate that they turn to anything.
You are talking about extremeist examples. Most people who use sCAMs, seem to use them as a supplement rather than a subsitute. Not that that's a good thing, either.

My "lumping" was merely meant to be a first-approximation summarization: The average person on both sides, wherever you place the middle, seem to follow most, (if not all?), of my original bullet points.

My thesis is that it is not individuals who have the most to gain from their own skepticism, it is society as a whole, over the long run.

[DanishDynamite]

Take the average science-loving skeptic; and the average superstitious (or deeply religious) person, at any given point in history, and I suspect you will find that they both:
*Live about as long as each other
*Make roughly the same amount of money
*Claim they are just as happy (or unhappy) with their lives
* And, that the crime rate among them is probably roughly equal.

Of course, the skeptic person will probably gain more knowledge about the world, and would be more prone to make sensible decisions, but that seems of little use to the individual, in the long run, given the above generalities.

I suspect that it is actually society as a whole, that benefits from science and skepticism. When you look back, historically, it seems that whenever religion has yielded to scientific discovery, it is the entire society that benefits, even if no specific individuals are better off than their neighbors, on average, at any given time.

Science has made everyone, on average, live longer and become wealthier, etc. Even those that do not believe in the power of science have benefited greatly from its progress.

What evidence can we compile to test this idea? What are some examples we can use to prove it, or disprove it?

Here are some examples I shall contribute, myself, (though admittedly, they are all pro-science):

* Lightning rods on churches - Many religious leaders scoffed at them, because they assumed God would never strike a church with lightning. They all relented only after decades of being proven wrong, a whole bunch of times.

* The model of the Earth going around the Sun, which helped us develop space programs, which generated untold wealth for the global economy (even if the space missions, themselves do not seem to have much practical value, the science behind the scenes has lead to many discoveries that are more useful)

* A few months ago, I had read Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her observations exemplify this hypothesis: Squalor and corruption in every fundamentalist country she lived in, order and cleanliness in democratic countries where science and reason are encouraged.

* Civil Rights is another possible idea. I do not have much gathered to demonstrate this, yet. But this is how it seems to me, thus far: Religions have claimed that religion was necessary for the civil rights movement to kick off, in the U.S. I say it might have been the opposite: Religion had, historically, encouraged slavery, and had always tried to claim that certain human-like beings were not really humans.
It was the science of anthropology, among others, that said: No, all these human-like beings really are human beings, after all, and therefore deserve equal rights!

* Medical research is too huge an area for me to start rattling off specifics of. But, any really good examples you know of, might be nice to read about.
Yes, the benefits of new scientific achievement is usually society as a whole. In what sense is this a bad thing?

[Georg]

I was merely noting that he included deeply religious as a subset of superstitious and I didn't think it was fair to, in terms of health, to suggest that deeply religious people or for that matter supersticious people would be averse to proper medical care nor be unable to be considered "science-loving." I know that there is a myth amongst some of us that you either see a doctor or you consult a homeopath or preist to exercise the cancer demons, but that isn't the case. We're talking about a very small subset of the population that rejects medicine entirely for quackery and faith healing.


We agree, then. Putting all superstitions in one group does not make sense for me either, because the effects of different superstitions are ....hm......... different.

[Wowbagger]

Yes, the benefits of new scientific achievement is usually society as a whole. In what sense is this a bad thing? Not in any way I can think of.

We agree, then. Putting all superstitions in one group does not make sense for me either, because the effects of different superstitions are ....hm......... different. That would be correct. But, for first-approximation generalizations, it makes for an adequate summary.

You folks are focusing on the wrong thing. How you divide or not divide groups of people is NOT the point. The point is that EVERYONE of them benefits from science, in the long run.

Let us please try to keep the conversation focused on the long term benefits (or detriments, if any?) of science

Where can we go to embelish the examples I gave?

What other examples can folks offer?

Is there any contrary evidence anyone could find?

[DanishDynamite]

Not in any way I can think of.

That would be correct. But, for first-approximation generalizations, it makes for an adequate summary.

You folks are focusing on the wrong thing. How you divide or not divide groups of people is NOT the point. The point is that EVERYONE of them benefits from science, in the long run.

Let us please try to keep the conversation focused on the long term benefits (or detriments, if any?) of science

Where can we go to embelish the examples I gave?

What other examples can folks offer?

Is there any contrary evidence anyone could find?
We have already agreed that new scientific knowledge benefits society as a whole and not necessarily the scientist discovering it.

So what are we discussing now?

Whether being a skeptic provides any advantages over not being one?

[Wowbagger]

We have already agreed that new scientific knowledge benefits society as a whole and not necessarily the scientist discovering it.

So what are we discussing now?

Whether being a skeptic provides any advantages over not being one? Okay, so I guess my original intention was less controversial than I thoguht it was going to be.

We could discuss the advantages of being a skeptic over not being one.

However, I think it would be more interesting if we mixed things up a bit, by spewing something y'all can get riled up about:

Religion might just function as a vector for scientific progress, as well! It keep scientists on their toes.
For example: Without challenges from Creationists, Biology might not be motivated to move as quickly as it has been, in evolutionary discoveries.

What do y'all say about that?!

[arthwollipot]

I agree with that. Without Behe and his flagellum soapbox, the discovery of the T3SS might have been delayed by decades.