4 ms·

Why is that scary? If we assume it is indeed a matter of belief the 50/50 chance is not that bad. Now, I suppose both you and me think about it more as a matter

by cema 13y ago

Why is that scary? If we assume it is indeed a matter of belief the 50/50 chance is not that bad. Now, I suppose both you and me think about it more as a matter of science, but how many people understand what science is (and why), how the scientific method is applied and so on? Well fewer than 50%, I'd guess. US, Europe or Africa, any place.

piyush_soni 13y ago
Well, for that question Europe fared much better. 70% believed in evolution. Only Russia was worse than US.
ballard 13y ago
People that operate outside of coherent, explainable, rational principles tempered by compassion are bigger liabilities. It's common sense. Departing from this is what allows folks to believe violent terrorism to be a viable strategy to "win."
- carsongross 13y ago
  Do you have any evidence for this? In my experience people with largely religious principles tempered by compassion are just as reliable as self-identified rationalists. There has been plenty of atheistic terrorism in the last hundred years...
  - wonderzombie 13y ago
    What worries me more is people who believe the world is going to end in their lifetimes. How can we plan for the long-term future, as a species, with that kind of worldview?
    - carsongross 13y ago
      Sure, those people worry me too. Even the ones that think a "Singularity" is going to zap them up to techno-heaven. The people who don't believe in objective right and wrong also worry me. It's a long list.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      I think the world will end in our lifetimes. We are only a generation away from strong AI at most.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Do you have any evidence for this? The history of religion? The Inquisition, as just one example among many? Being absolutely sure that God is on your side is a powerful drug. > There has been plenty of atheistic terrorism in the last hundred years ... Yes, but it can't compare to the well-established historical connection between religion and war. One example -- try to imagine recent Indian history without the effect of religion, without Muslims and Hindus killing each other at every opportunity, true to the present day. Another example -- 9/11 wasn't an attack by have-nots against haves, it was a largely successful effort by religious fanatics to snuff out some infidels.
    - carsongross 13y ago
      Sure, the Inquisition was bad. But so was the gulag. Seems like the 'tempered by compassion' thing is more important than the left hand side, doesn't it? There is absolutely no historical connection between religion and war. From http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/god_and_the_ivory_tower http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/god_and_the... "Moreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious. A BBC-sponsored "God and War" audit, which evaluated major conflicts over 3,500 years and rated them on a 0-to-5 scale for religious motivation (Punic Wars = 0, Crusades = 5), found that more than 60 percent had no religious motivation. Less than 7 percent earned a rating greater than 3. There was little religious motivation for the internecine Russian and Chinese conflicts or the world wars responsible for history's most lethal century of international bloodshed."
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > There is absolutely no historical connection between religion and war. Absolutely false -- you have grossly overstated your claim and even contradicted your own sources. You have posted statistics that say either 7% or 40% (depending on source) of wars are caused by religion, and then blithely made a claim that contradicts your own evidence. If your claim were true, having religious beliefs would produce a reduction in warlike tendencies and violence in religious believers, a claim that is obviously false. If you want to argue that religion doesn't lead to violence in and of itself, you have to ignore India, 9/11, every bombed abortion clinic, and dozens of other examples from the recent past, to say nothing of history. You would have to live in perpetual denial of reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence I can't meaningfully quote from the above article -- every line contradicts your claim.

by cema 13y ago

piyush_soni 13y ago

Well, for that question Europe fared much better. 70% believed in evolution. Only Russia was worse than US.

ballard 13y ago

People that operate outside of coherent, explainable, rational principles tempered by compassion are bigger liabilities. It's common sense. Departing from this is what allows folks to believe violent terrorism to be a viable strategy to "win."

carsongross 13y ago
Do you have any evidence for this? In my experience people with largely religious principles tempered by compassion are just as reliable as self-identified rationalists. There has been plenty of atheistic terrorism in the last hundred years...
- wonderzombie 13y ago
  What worries me more is people who believe the world is going to end in their lifetimes. How can we plan for the long-term future, as a species, with that kind of worldview?
  - carsongross 13y ago
    Sure, those people worry me too. Even the ones that think a "Singularity" is going to zap them up to techno-heaven. The people who don't believe in objective right and wrong also worry me. It's a long list.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    I think the world will end in our lifetimes. We are only a generation away from strong AI at most.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Do you have any evidence for this? The history of religion? The Inquisition, as just one example among many? Being absolutely sure that God is on your side is a powerful drug. > There has been plenty of atheistic terrorism in the last hundred years ... Yes, but it can't compare to the well-established historical connection between religion and war. One example -- try to imagine recent Indian history without the effect of religion, without Muslims and Hindus killing each other at every opportunity, true to the present day. Another example -- 9/11 wasn't an attack by have-nots against haves, it was a largely successful effort by religious fanatics to snuff out some infidels.
  - carsongross 13y ago
    Sure, the Inquisition was bad. But so was the gulag. Seems like the 'tempered by compassion' thing is more important than the left hand side, doesn't it? There is absolutely no historical connection between religion and war. From http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/god_and_the_ivory_tower http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/god_and_the... "Moreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious. A BBC-sponsored "God and War" audit, which evaluated major conflicts over 3,500 years and rated them on a 0-to-5 scale for religious motivation (Punic Wars = 0, Crusades = 5), found that more than 60 percent had no religious motivation. Less than 7 percent earned a rating greater than 3. There was little religious motivation for the internecine Russian and Chinese conflicts or the world wars responsible for history's most lethal century of international bloodshed."
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > There is absolutely no historical connection between religion and war. Absolutely false -- you have grossly overstated your claim and even contradicted your own sources. You have posted statistics that say either 7% or 40% (depending on source) of wars are caused by religion, and then blithely made a claim that contradicts your own evidence. If your claim were true, having religious beliefs would produce a reduction in warlike tendencies and violence in religious believers, a claim that is obviously false. If you want to argue that religion doesn't lead to violence in and of itself, you have to ignore India, 9/11, every bombed abortion clinic, and dozens of other examples from the recent past, to say nothing of history. You would have to live in perpetual denial of reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence I can't meaningfully quote from the above article -- every line contradicts your claim.