Is social science ATHEISTIC?

[charles brough]

t seems to me that all science is atheistic except the way social sciences are interpreted. In other words, social theory is, I claim to show, unscientific.

But just what is social theory and is it important? I say it is at least as important as all the other sciences because it encompasses all our secular beliefs. It interprets what our history says, deals with our evolution, and interprets what religion is. It is what is taught in school and shapes our whole world-view and way-of-thinking, “Secular Humanism,” which our parents teach their children and what shapes public opinion, shapes the media, and drives world affairs.

I say it is not scientific because subliminal public pressure causes social theorists to interpret social science data in ways that are the least offensive to the faithful. That is not easy to do and still make it seem scientific. For example, how do you define the function of religion without offending the faithful? You try to ignore it if you are a social theorist. When you have to refer to religions, you say they are all equal because that is the safe thing to do, but it is not accurate nor progressing scientific understanding.

In my book, “Destiny and Civilization, the Evolutionary Explanation of Religion and History,” I list twenty-one word-use stratagems social theorists subconsciously use in order to avoid conflict with religious beliefs. Real (atheistic) science begins by being aware of them enough to avoid using them in interpreting social science data. I also found it is necessary to build a glossary of key words in the social sciences and give each only one single, clear, usually functional, definition for each. That also helps avoid rationalizing. That way, I managed to figure out how social evolution occurs and why civilizations rise and fall. That is what atheistic science can do.

[Dancing David]

I don't think you demonstrated your premise in the least. You may have shown that people follwo some social convention in publication.

But gosh, it sure never bothered my father, or the people who I did research with , or any of the research i did when i was a mental health clinician.

Hmmm, my father is even an athropologist, he never endorsed or condemned any religion. He studied it as an aspect of human culture, although he cared a lot more about trade routes for kaolin and obsidian.
Hmmmm, when i was doing research on thermoregulation and operant conditioning, I don't recall the subject of rat's religious beliefs coming up.
Hmmmm. when we did the study on social pressure and mores related to group size present, I don't recall religion coming up at all.
Hmmmm, in doing homeless surveys over 13 years, I do not recall the question of the existance of god ever being mentioned or part of the survey.
Hmmmm, in doing self esteem, substance abuse, social skills trains in populations living with persistent and severe mental illness , pre test, post test and concurrent survey, the subject of religion never came up.
Hmmmm, in reading every issue of community mental health journal, I don't recall the subject of religion, except as an avenue of social support.


Most of them looked like this:
http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/1/37

What was the point you were making?

The fact that you use the word 'subconscious' is specious, it is a fiction as great as god and a remnant of philosophical theories.


BTW Welcome to the forum.

[charles brough]

. . . my father is even an athropologist, he never endorsed or condemned any religion. He studied it as an aspect of human culture, although he cared a lot more about trade routes for kaolin and obsidian.
Hmmmm, when i was doing research on thermoregulation and operant conditioning, I don't recall the subject of rat's religious beliefs coming up.
Hmmmm. when we did the study on social pressure and mores related to group size present, I don't recall religion coming up at all.
Hmmmm, in doing homeless surveys over 13 years, I do not recall the question of the existance of god ever being mentioned or part of the survey.
Hmmmm, in doing self esteem, substance abuse, social skills trains in populations living with persistent and severe mental illness , pre test, post test and concurrent survey, the subject of religion never came up.
Hmmmm, in reading every issue of community mental health journal, I don't recall the subject of religion, except as an avenue of social support.


Most of them looked like this:
http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/1/37

What was the point you were making?

The fact that you use the word 'subconscious' is specious, it is a fiction as great as god and a remnant of philosophical theories.


BTW Welcome to the forum.

("Subconscious" is evidently used by you in your field and interest in the Freudian way. It is too good a word to waste on his nonsense. I use it only to represent brain stem impulses so to speak, in other words, our selfish individual wants which we seldom put into words because words are a social construct that is always shaped by social convention and social communicative needs.)

I am at a loss to know why you mentioned all those times without the subject of religion coming up. Why should it? I am unable to understand why you would think I think it should.

I hope you understand I had no intention of insulting your father. Something like 70% of the American public still believes in a divine Christ, so it is natural that social science theory found way to sort of merge Christian faith with social science, to "reconcile" them. Without being aware of it, social theorists interpreted the data in ways that enabled them to appear to have complied. Your father might not be a social theorist but he, you and most Americans are influenced by the way the social sciences are interpreted. It is in the way everyone in our secularized society thinks.

In my work, I un-reconcile the old religions from social science theory. That is the point you asked for. Then, I use the atheisticized science to come up with a new and "spiritless" type of world-view and way of thinking. This has to be done someday. I do it now.

[slingblade]

I'm not buying your book. I figure that's all you really wanted to know.

[Dancing David]

You made a statement about social science and you failed to back it up, I offered some contrary, albeit anecdotal evidence.

You are still just making stuff up from what I can tell. Where does the faith of Xians creep into the social sciences. Your evidence is lacking so far. If you show your social science theory that you are thinking of and how it is influenced by religion I might agree.

I see a lot of assertion so far and very little evidence of your thesis. Now does religion influence K-12 text books, yes, does religion influence the popular media, yes.

But I still see no evidence for your premise in what you have posted.

So far you have made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, what parts of social science do you feel show this alleged religious influence? Name the science, name it's theory and then we shall talk, but in my aquaintance with anthropology, psychology and sociology I have not seen this influence to the level which you are suggesting. (BS in Psych, minor in anthro, passing knowledge of sociology.)

The most pervasive element that I see is a form of monotheism is that US people feel that there is 'one right way'. Often reductionism is oversimplified as opposed to multivariate.

BTW the subconscious is a load of bunk, there are better terms for the processes.

"I use it only to represent brain stem impulses so to speak, in other words, our selfish individual wants which we seldom put into words because words are a social construct that is always shaped by social convention and social communicative needs.)"

In a bunch of abstracted representation with little preference for modern usage. It is not something I ever used when I was an outreach, domestic violence of crisis counselor.

Brain stem impulses, like what? (It is mostly the first step in the body to the brain and contains a lot of the system cycle and arousal sort of functions.)
Selfish individual wants can also occur at a higher cognitive levels that is not in the brain stem in the least.

So again, a vague term prone to abuse and with little meaning. Most people are shaped by the society and culture they are raised in yes, but the repression of the lower brain stem, no.

[Earthborn]

t seems to me that all science is atheistic except the way social sciences are interpreted.You could say that both the exact sciences and the social sciences are atheistic, because neither deals with the existence of God. You could also say that both are not atheistic because neither favours an atheistic world view above a theistic one. But I don't see how you can claim that one is atheistic and the other is not.

In other words, social theory is, I claim to show, unscientific.There has been a very long tradition of philosophers of science claiming the only real science is exact science and therefore the social sciences are not real science. Social scientists are used to that line of thinking now. Nobody cares.

I say it is not scientific because subliminal public pressure causes social theorists to interpret social science data in ways that are the least offensive to the faithful.Yeah, social scientists have such a tendency of not being controversial. :oldroll:

For example, how do you define the function of religion without offending the faithful?Cultural anthropologists don't seem to have much trouble studying the function of religion in many different cultures. It is certainly not the job of a scientist to insult his/her subject of study, but those who study religions usually do so without taking a religions truth claims for granted.

When you have to refer to religions, you say they are all equal because that is the safe thing to do, but it is not accurate nor progressing scientific understanding.If one is studying the function of a religion in a society it is a good working hypothesis that many religions have equal or equivalent functions in one society that another religion might have in another. I fail to see how such a working hypothesis hinders scientific understanding.

In my book, “Destiny and Civilization, the Evolutionary Explanation of Religion and History,” I list twenty-one word-use stratagems social theorists subconsciously use in order to avoid conflict with religious beliefs.If you want to debate here, don't refer to what is written in your book. Present your argument right here.

I also found it is necessary to build a glossary of key words in the social sciences and give each only one single, clear, usually functional, definition for each. That also helps avoid rationalizing.It helps if you give a few examples so we know what the heck you are talking about.

That way, I managed to figure out how social evolution occurs and why civilizations rise and fall.Really? That is quite unbelievable.

It also means that you have been doing a bit of social science yourself, which raises the obvious question: how have you been able to avoid the "subliminal public pressure that causes social theorists to interpret social science data in ways that are the least offensive to the faithful" ? How did you do what (according to you) no social scientist has been able to.

[RandFan]

It also means that you have been doing a bit of social science yourself, which raises the obvious question: how have you been able to avoid the "subliminal public pressure that causes social theorists to interpret social science data in ways that are the least offensive to the faithful" ? How did you do what (according to you) no social scientist has been able to. (emphasis mine)

:)

[bpesta22]

Not all SS's are worried about whether their research offends the faithful. In fact, some even publish on the negative outcomes associated with faith.

[charles brough]

I'm not buying your book. I figure that's all you really wanted to know.

No, Slingblade, I am never concerned about whether or not anyone of you buys the book. I do like to feel, however, that people are beginning to understand a few points I make, such as that . . .

we are over-crowding the Earth and that our divided world loaded with atomic bombs is heading us into ominous times unless we un-divide the world. I like to think I have a way that can be done. . .

[charles brough]

You made a statement about social science and you failed to back it up, I offered some contrary, albeit anecdotal evidence.

You are still just making stuff up from what I can tell. Where does the faith of Xians creep into the social sciences. Your evidence is lacking so far. If you show your social science theory that you are thinking of and how it is influenced by religion I might agree.

It is hard for me to find out what you want. My posts are social theory that is based upon some 320 works I have studied including a lot of history, anthropology, psychology, linguistics, etc. etc. . . (some twelve different fields). I could list and describe the twenty-one word-use strategems I have found in consensus social theorists' work and used to rationalize their reconciling with religion and the secular, but that takes ten to fifteen pages.
And as far as "subconscious" is concerned, I understand your dislike of attempts to change the meaning of words, but the meaning of words is very much part of the consensus rationalizing. I have one clear and functional definition of "subconscious" and it is the only way I use it. In general social theory, the same concept is expressed in an assortment of different ways---all of which leads to impreciseness and hence facilitates rationalizing.

What I find is that we are not consistently regarded as animals and primates in social science literature. It avoids finding social instincts in us that account for our moral behavior and contradict the Christian contention that we have been "cursed" and motivated to be "sinful." (Just because social instincts need to be "conditioned" to be expressed, and are normally conditioned by the mother, does not avoid the fact that they are there and basic to human nature). Also, the simple fact that we evolved as small group primates through millions of years so that living in massive conglomerates of millions of people is not natural to us is conveniently avoided by the social theory consensus because it would give religion a physical-scientific-real-world function and leave in doubt its having any other function and even needing the concept of "spirits" at all in order to serve that large-group-bonding role.

I could give more examples, but that might be enough.

I see a lot of assertion so far and very little evidence of your thesis. Now does religion influence K-12 text books, yes, does religion influence the popular media, yes.[/QOUTE]

Social theory is the field that interprets the data from the various social and natural sciences to enable us to interpret world affairs and how we have and are living. It is this field that has shaped our secular belief system from the beginning. It is what shaped the Age of Enlightenment. It still shapes our world view because it is what is taught in school.

So, by compromising with Christianity in ways shown above, the social theory consensus has managed to compromise the old faith as well so that most Americans are "liberal Christians" who accept the principle of "separation of church and state." By compromising both the old faith and social science itself, we have a reconciliation that is "subconscious" and never publically recognized. No one wants to even know about it!

BTW the subconscious is a load of bunk, there are better terms for the processes. Brain stem impulses, like what? (It is mostly the first step in the body to the brain and contains a lot of the system cycle and arousal sort of functions.) Selfish individual wants can also occur at a higher cognitive levels that is not in the brain stem in the least.

I don't really need to get into neurology in order to point out that we humans have selfish motivation needed to protect our own interests as well as social behavior that works for the benefit of other. How effective a religion is in dealing with this is a measure of the systems worth and success.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[RandFan]

No, Slingblade, I am never concerned about whether or not anyone of you buys the book. I do like to feel, however, that people are beginning to understand a few points I make, such as that . . .

we are over-crowding the Earth and that our divided world loaded with atomic bombs is heading us into ominous times unless we un-divide the world. I like to think I have a way that can be done. . .Overcrowding has been a concern since Malthus. The world is not overcrowded and playing chicken little isn't going to change anything.

It's true that as a society we have real problems but as of yet I've not seen anything in this thread to be impressed with. I don't think you have made compelling arguments regarding social science. I understand why you would like to think you've made an important contribution to human society, and perhaps you have, I just don't see it.

Best of luck anyway.

[RandFan]

It is hard for me to find out what you want.Compelling arguments and evidence.

My posts are social theory that is based upon some 320 works I have studied including a lot of history, anthropology, psychology, linguistics, etc. etc. . . (some twelve different fields). I could list and describe the twenty-one word-use strategems I have found in consensus social theorists' work and used to rationalize their reconciling with religion and the secular, but that takes ten to fifteen pages. We need to analyze your arguments based on your arguments and not based on claims of how hard you have worked or how much you have read or studied. That's proof of nothing. I'm sorry if you think it's hard to support your hypothesis but that is the nature of the beast.

[charles brough]

[QUOTE=RandFan;4285634]
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
It also means that you have been doing a bit of social science yourself, which raises the obvious question: how have you been able to avoid the "subliminal public pressure that causes social theorists to interpret social science data in ways that are the least offensive to the faithful" ? How did you do what (according to you) no social scientist has been able to.
(emphasis mine)

I hate to start answering that! I have been through what no one else can claim! I first got interested in "civilization" and why they rise and fall some 53 years ago! I read to find out and found out only unscientific "answers" provided by university doctorates. So, I took perifferal courses and did the the social science study and learning myself in libraries. My father was both negative and cynical. My mother was a teacher. My brother a Cal Tech graduate. My grandmother was intent in world affairs. And I grew up a loaner. Add to all that the fact that I have been able to travel in 35 nations and live in 6 different ones seems to have given me an edge . . .

charles

[Professor Yaffle]

How did you choose your 320 works in 12 different disciplines? Was it a random sample? Did you include all research papers and books in your population to be sampled from?

[RandFan]

I hate to start answering that! I have been through what no one else can claim! I first got interested in "civilization" and why they rise and fall some 53 years ago! I read to find out and found out only unscientific "answers" provided by university doctorates. So, I took perifferal courses and did the the social science study and learning myself in libraries. My father was both negative and cynical. My mother was a teacher. My brother a Cal Tech graduate. My grandmother was intent in world affairs. And I grew up a loaner. Add to all that the fact that I have been able to travel in 35 nations and live in 6 different ones seems to have given me an edge . . . It's "peripheral". I make an awful lot of grammatical errors so I concede that I live in a glass house but you are the one claiming to be an academic.

As for your post, that's all well and good but irrelevant. Again, your arguments must stand on their own. Hard knocks can be very beneficial for gaining insight and the temperament to help one forge a new paradigm but they are of no importance to us when it comes to considering your ideas.

[Professor Yaffle]

And I grew up a loaner.

I hope people paid you back.

[charles brough]

Not all SS's are worried about whether their research offends the faithful. In fact, some even publish on the negative outcomes associated with faith.

Yes, I have read it. Some show that praying does not help one to heal better. But all that is irrelevant I think. It does not contradict the consensus view. It is not even getting down to the function of religion.

Social theorists do not themselves believe they have done any rationalizing in that direction. One way that helps them with that view is by generally avoiding religion in every way they can, and when they need to mention it, you would be surprised at the ways then can avoid the word. Some of the "religion" substitute-words they have used are "ideological system," "theo-linguistic sociology," "system of meaning," "tacit theory of the world," "mythological and magical tradition," "integrated symbolic system," "prime symbols," "form-worlds of great myth," "over-simplified diagrammatic formulas," "socio-cultural phenomenon," and "mythical configurations"---to name just a few I have collected in my research!

[charles brough]

It's "peripheral". I make an awful lot of grammatical errors so I concede that I live in a glass house but you are the one claiming to be an academic.

As for your post, that's all well and good but irrelevant. Again, your arguments must stand on their own. Hard knocks can be very beneficial for gaining insight and the temperament to help one forge a new paradigm but they are of no importance to us when it comes to considering your ideas.

I knew I had spelled it wrong but did not bother to look it up. I am a terrible speller---and don't like to be called an "academic."

Oh, yes, I paid it back but owe now more than I can ever pay back!

[RandFan]

Yes, I have read it. Some show that praying does not help one to heal better. But all that is irrelevant I think. It does not contradict the consensus view. It is not even getting down to the function of religion.

Social theorists do not themselves believe they have done any rationalizing in that direction. One way that helps them with that view is by generally avoiding religion in every way they can, and when they need to mention it, you would be surprised at the ways then can avoid the word. Some of the "religion" substitute-words they have used are "ideological system," "theo-linguistic sociology," "system of meaning," "tacit theory of the world," "mythological and magical tradition," "integrated symbolic system," "prime symbols," "form-worlds of great myth," "over-simplified diagrammatic formulas," "socio-cultural phenomenon," and "mythical configurations"---to name just a few I have collected in my research! So you claim. Forgive me but I'm a bit skeptical. Can you show how Marx or Durkheim have rationalized "in that direction"?

[RandFan]

I knew I had spelled it wrong but did not bother to look it up. I am a terrible speller---and don't like to be called an "academic." Forget the word, focus on what I meant. What you "like" to be called is irrelevant. You are educated, right? If you want to be taken seriously then "bother" to look it up. BTW: There is a spell check at the top right of the edit dialog box. Look for "ABC" above a check mark.

Oh, yes, I paid it back but owe now more than I can ever pay back!
I've not a clue.

[Professor Yaffle]

Yes, I have read it. Some show that praying does not help one to heal better. But all that is irrelevant I think. It does not contradict the consensus view. It is not even getting down to the function of religion.

Social theorists do not themselves believe they have done any rationalizing in that direction. One way that helps them with that view is by generally avoiding religion in every way they can, and when they need to mention it, you would be surprised at the ways then can avoid the word. Some of the "religion" substitute-words they have used are "ideological system," "theo-linguistic sociology," "system of meaning," "tacit theory of the world," "mythological and magical tradition," "integrated symbolic system," "prime symbols," "form-worlds of great myth," "over-simplified diagrammatic formulas," "socio-cultural phenomenon," and "mythical configurations"---to name just a few I have collected in my research!

So you have made the amazing discovery that social scientists like to use jargon?

[jj]

Science is indifferent to issues that are not testable.

Indifferent and opposed are NOT the same thing.

Cheerio!

[slingblade]

Yes, I have read it. Some show that praying does not help one to heal better. But all that is irrelevant I think. It does not contradict the consensus view. It is not even getting down to the function of religion.

Social theorists do not themselves believe they have done any rationalizing in that direction. One way that helps them with that view is by generally avoiding religion in every way they can, and when they need to mention it, you would be surprised at the ways then can avoid the word. Some of the "religion" substitute-words they have used are "ideological system," "theo-linguistic sociology," "system of meaning," "tacit theory of the world," "mythological and magical tradition," "integrated symbolic system," "prime symbols," "form-worlds of great myth," "over-simplified diagrammatic formulas," "socio-cultural phenomenon," and "mythical configurations"---to name just a few I have collected in my research!


Are you saying sociology doesn't study religion and religious influences on societies? Really?


http://www.abacon.com/sociology/soclinks/religion.html

[RandFan]

Are you saying sociology doesn't study religion and religious influences on societies? Really?


http://www.abacon.com/sociology/soclinks/religion.html

I think his thesis is that social scientists are biased in favor of religion or that their fear of offending the religious is so great that it colors their objectivity.

From the OP:


t seems to me that all science is atheistic except the way social sciences are interpreted. In other words, social theory is, I claim to show, unscientific.Never mind that science doesn't take a position as to whether or not god exists so it is neither atheistic or theistic.

In any event, the claim is, IMHO, largely unfounded. I would be more inclined to listen if he had claimed that specific social theorists or specific social theories were colored by a bias in favor of religion.

When I studied sociology at the University of Utah I had just returned from a mission for the Mormon Church and my impression was that many social theorists took a dim view of religion and didn't mind saying so.

I think the OP fails entirely but I'm willing to give the chap a chance and entertain his thesis but it would be nice if he could give us something other than examples of esoteric language used by sociologists. Jargon is, IMO, sometimes overused in scientific fields but it isn't proof of anything.

[charles brough]

So you claim. Forgive me but I'm a bit skeptical. Can you show how Marx or Durkheim have rationalized "in that direction"?

One of my work's references is: Durkheim, Emile, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Allen & Unwin., London, 1968, pages 418-9 I don't know if it is some of his rationalizations now or not. I don't have it now to look through. I consider Durkheim's work to be useful, but Marx did more to mess up social science theory than help. His economic imperative was way off. DM is a joke.

But when I refer to the social theory consensus I am speaking of what is believed by the majority of social theory academics right now---not a half or more centuries ago. There was actually less rationalizing during the Age of Enlightenment when educated public opinion was dominated as it was then by men such as Voltaire.

I hope no one is sensitive about my observations. I willingly acknowledge that the rationalizing and compromising took place under public pressure and that it is fully responsible for the accord (separation of church and state) that it struck and which has enabled our social-theorist built secular belief system to unite the world enough to bring about the Global Economy. All I do is work to build a cause and effect explanation of things. It enables me to see the detailed way in which social evolution works.

[charles brough]

Are you saying sociology doesn't study religion and religious influences on societies? Really?url]http://www.abacon.com/sociology/soclinks/religion.html[/url]

It does not study mainstream religion-bonded societies such as Islam, Christendom, the Hindu and the East Asian Marxist worlds. Sociology studies GROUPS, not societies.

Social theory is not sociology. Social theory depends upon interpreting the data is some ten to twelve social and natural sciences.

charles

[RandFan]

One of my work's references is: Durkheim, Emile, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Allen & Unwin., London, 1968, pages 418-9 I don't know if it is some of his rationalizations now or not. I don't have it now to look through. I consider Durkheim's work to be useful, but Marx did more to mess up social science theory than help. His economic imperative was way off. DM is a joke.?

Charles, I'm sorry but this is woeful, if you don't know the subject (Durkheim's theses) well enough to conclude whether or not it is the rationalization that you are talking about then you don't know your subject and refering to the reference is a waste of our time and bandwidth. And simply asserting that Marx did more to mess up social science theory is rather poor form. Assuming that it is true you are only asserting and, IMO, demonstrating your gross ignorance of Marx. For the record I'm not a Marxist and I don't, in general, subscribe to his thories. However I would not in a million years say "he has messed up social science theory". That is just baseless nonsense.

But when I refer to the social theory consensus I am speaking of what is believed by the majority of social theory academics right now---not a half or more centuries ago. There was actually less rationalizing during the Age of Enlightenment when educated public opinion was dominated as it was then by men such as Voltaire. It's always convenient to move the goal posts.

If you want to do that fine but, however I'll concede that I've been out of the University for 20 years. How about Foucault or Miller?

I hope no one is sensitive about my observations."Sensitive"? No, we only want reasoned argument and evidence. Assertions are a waste of time.

I willingly acknowledge that the rationalizing and compromising took place...You are way ahead of yourself. Let's establish this "rationalizing and compromising" first before we worry about anyone's hurt feelings, ok?

I don't hold current paradigms sacrosanct but before I throw them in the waste bin I'd at least like some valid reason to do so.

Can you give us something other than speculation and an appeal to your own authority?

[charles brough]

I think his thesis is that social scientists are biased in favor of religion or that their fear of offending the religious is so great that it colors their objectivity.

From the OP:

Never mind that science doesn't take a position as to whether or not god exists so it is neither atheistic or theistic.

In any event, the claim is, IMHO, largely unfounded. I would be more inclined to listen if he had claimed that specific social theorists or specific social theories were colored by a bias in favor of religion.

When I studied sociology at the University of Utah I had just returned from a mission for the Mormon Church and my impression was that many social theorists took a dim view of religion and didn't mind saying so.

I think the OP fails entirely but I'm willing to give the chap a chance and entertain his thesis but it would be nice if he could give us something other than examples of esoteric language used by sociologists. Jargon is, IMO, sometimes overused in scientific fields but it isn't proof of anything.

I don't question that many social theorists are even atheists. I am referring carefully each time to the consensus, right? The consensus is what ends up all through the text books and is picked up by students all over the world, is passed on from generation to generation and shapes our Secular Humanist world view and way of thinking. It is not shaped by sociological study and statistical analysis of groups.

Have you heard of swam theory? Thinks happen despite people's best intentions and we are swept along without know it. Social science theory and religion had to reach a compromise in order for our social bond to survive. The Age of Enlightenment and Voltaire's battle with the old faith had to come to an eventual end and that is what happened. The breaking away of the States from the Empire and the bloody French Revolution indicated to concerned people that the dissension was tearing us apart.

If anyone wants to more fully explore all this, I can personally recommend my book, "Destiny and Civilization, the Evolutionary Explanation 0f Religion and History."

[RandFan]

I don't question that many social theorists are even atheists. I am referring carefully each time to the consensus, right? The consensus is what ends up all through the text books and is picked up by students all over the world, is passed on from generation to generation and shapes our Secular Humanist world view and way of thinking. It is not shaped by sociological study and statistical analysis of groups.

Have you heard of swam theory? Thinks happen despite people's best intentions and we are swept along without know it. Social science theory and religion had to reach a compromise in order for our social bond to survive. The Age of Enlightenment and Voltaire's battle with the old faith had to come to an eventual end and that is what happened. The breaking away of the States from the Empire and the bloody French Revolution indicated to concerned people that the dissension was tearing us apart.

If anyone wants to more fully explore all this, I can personally recommend my book, "Destiny and Civilization, the Evolutionary Explanation 0f Religion and History."I wish you all the best Charles. However, your responses tell me all I need to know at this time of your grasp of social science. If it's all the same I'm not interested.

And FTR: If your views were to create a new thinking in sociology and anthropology I'd happily embrace it. However I seriously doubt that is going to happen and I doubt if for good reason.

[charles brough]

I wish you all the best Charles. However, your responses tell me all I need to know at this time of your grasp of social science. If it's all the same I'm not interested.

And FTR: If your views were to create a new thinking in sociology and anthropology I'd happily embrace it. However I seriously doubt that is going to happen and I doubt if for good reason.

Your icon is hilarious!
I sort of envy you living in Southern California. I was born in Glendale and lived in L.A. are much of my life. But now I live in Florida. At least it is not so jammed here and costs are less.

[bpesta22]

At least in my area, a fair amount of new research is being published showing that religious belief is correlated with some overly negative real-world outcomes.

So, you can't paint every area of social science with the same brush (though many argue here that what i've done is not science;)

[jj]

At least in my area, a fair amount of new research is being published showing that religious belief is correlated with some overly negative real-world outcomes.

So, you can't paint every area of social science with the same brush (though many argue here that what i've done is not science;)

Hm, is it testable and verified? :)

[bpesta22]

Whether god exists is likely not a scientific question; whether god answers prayers though is at least observable, repeatable and testable, and so, imo, open for scientific study.

The stuff I was mentioning doesn't get at anything non material (and so I believe is open to scientific analysis). What are the co-variates of religious belief.

The point being, this stuff is anything but politically correct or flattering to the religious.

[Earthborn]

I hate to start answering that!Supporting your claims can sometimes seem a bit tedious, yes. That's no reason not to do it.

I have been through what no one else can claim!Everybody has been through stuff no one else has. Being unique doesn't make you special.

Add to all that the fact that I have been able to travel in 35 nations and live in 6 different ones seems to have given me an edge . . .I am sure there are cultural anthropologists, historians, archeologists sociologists or other social scientists who are at least as well traveled as you are, if not more. In many cases they have traveled specifically to do scientific work. It doesn't necessarily give them an edge over colleagues who stay at home, so neither does it for you.

[slingblade]

I said I'm not buying the bloody book.

[Professor Yaffle]

Everybody has been through stuff no one else has.

I haven't. I'm unique in that respect.

[RandFan]

Your icon is hilarious! Thanks.
I sort of envy you living in Southern California. I was born in Glendale and lived in L.A. are much of my life. But now I live in Florida. At least it is not so jammed here and costs are less.I used to live in Glendale. I now live in the high dessert and it's not jammed here and the costs are also less.

[RandFan]

Charles, are you familiar with Society without God (http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797148): What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment.

"Most Americans are convinced that faith in God is the foundation of civil society. Society without God reveals this to be nothing more than a well-subscribed, and strangely American, delusion. Even atheists living in the United States will be astonished to discover how unencumbered by religion most Danes and Swedes currently are. This glimpse of an alternate, secular reality is at once humbling and profoundly inspiring - and it comes not a moment too soon." SAM HARRIS, founder of the Reason Project and author of the New York Times best sellers The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation" It's under my Christmas tree. :)

[charles brough]

At least in my area, a fair amount of new research is being published showing that religious belief is correlated with some overly negative real-world outcomes.

So, you can't paint every area of social science with the same brush (though many argue here that what i've done is not science;)

What the people of a society believe is their religion, and as civilizations rise and fall, the belief system creates new problems as it solves old ones. What is "negative" to us is so only because of our beliefs. Religious Reaction occurs, for example, because it helps hold the disintegrating belief bond together but, in the same process, it destroys the science that had once been built up. There is no escape. As I show in "Destiny and Civilization, The Evolutionary Explanation of Religion and History, "old civilizations eventually dies and a new religion forms the base of a new society and civilization. In the future, that new religion would be atheistic (and immensly superior to Marxism!)

You may wonder why I give religion a role when I am an atheist. I feel it is wise to know and understand your enemy and to be able to explain why the hell we have had religion for the last some 100,000 years and do to this day!
Lets be logical in our atheism!

[charles brough]

Supporting your claims can sometimes seem a bit tedious, yes. That's no reason not to do it.

Everybody has been through stuff no one else has. Being unique doesn't make you special.

I am sure there are cultural anthropologists, historians, archeologists sociologists or other social scientists who are at least as well traveled as you are, if not more. In many cases they have traveled specifically to do scientific work. It doesn't necessarily give them an edge over colleagues who stay at home, so neither does it for you.
Hey! No need to attack and try to tear me down! Someone asked about me and I told my story. I am not ashamed of it and am free with info about that. I don't hide. I even give my real name instead of making one up. . .

Why not tell me your story without bragging?

[charles brough]

Charles, are you familiar with Society without God (http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797148): What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment.

It's under my Christmas tree. :)

I am familiar with Europe having been there a number of times from Finland to Italy and have been married twice to German women. France is especially low in Christianism.

But it is a good point. You just need to understand that it does not mean that societies can function without "religion." It means that "religion" is defined in such a way as to make the claim confused. We all have to have a more or less common world-view and way of thinking for a society to function. The dictionaries call it "religion" and say it has to be one based on "spirits." That is not so! Much of Europe is held together not by Christian belief, as you rightly say, but it is held together by a strong Secular Humanism belief. Will it ever experience Religious Reaction like the States have been experiencing it? I don't know. But the future is mostly in the hands of the Religious Right military-industrial complex in the States and we will all experiencing the same civilizational decline. If Secular Humanism was more effective, it would unite Europe and take leadership away from the US.
It isn't though.

[charles brough]

I said I'm not buying the bloody book.

I'm devestated! The $1.80 I would have gotten from the publisher for your copy would have saved me from abject poverty and helped feed my many wives and 18 children. . .

Why is it that Randy's forum here is the only one of the 15 I post in that will not allow me to put my book webpage link in? Randy! Why do you do this to me? :eek::mad:

[slingblade]

Charles, you're wrong, and I prove it in my book.

[charles brough]

Charles, you're wrong, and I prove it in my book.

Thanks to your posts, I checked up and this forum now allows me to post my website link! I owe it all to your! From one atheist to another, God Bless you!:)

[slingblade]

Thanks to your posts, I checked up and this forum now allows me to post my website link! I owe it all to your! From one atheist to another, God Bless you!:)

Slingblade, realizing she has aided and abetted the enemy, surreptitiously ducks her chin to her collar and ingests the cyanide capsule cleverly hidden in her JREF lapel pin.







:p



I've some things I'd like to discuss with you, Charles, but it will have to wait. I need some sleep.