Responses 02

8. Regarding the spread of Darwinism, religion, and successful societies, your correlation is merely that, not causation. A more logical explanation, which shows historical roots and causation of the progress of science and human rights can be made with the spread of Christianity. See:

• Religion, innovation and economic progress - Part I http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/06/religion-innova.html
  
• Religion, innovation and economic progress - Part II http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/06/religion-inno-1.html
  
• Part I: How Christianity changed the world by Alvin Schmidt - Introduction http://www.twoorthree.net/2009/07/how-christianity-changed-the-world-and-why-it-might-be-awful-without-it.html
  
• Part II: How Christianity changed the world - Life, Sex, Marriage & Status of Women http://www.twoorthree.net/2009/07/part-ii-how-christianity-changed-the-world-life-sex-marriage-status-of-women.html
  
• The biblical origins of science http://www.twoorthree.net/2005/10/the_biblical_or.html

Rather, I would say that atheism and it's scientific pal Darwinism are behind the great atheist atrocities of our century, not just part of the justification for Nazism and eugenics.
See again Atheist Atrocities http://www.twoorthree.net/2006/11/atheist_atrocit.html

9. Women in the home: perhaps the bias exists, not just because of societal stereotypes, but due to the understood requirements for healthy childhood development? Men don't have teats, and perhaps the early years of a child's devleopment is naturally supported by mothering. This may be a bias for what is good, not for what is societal or bad.

BTW, your definition of what is 'authoritarian' or 'fundamentalist' and association with racism is not clearly supported by the facts. What IS clearly supported is that these people (the more conservative, which liberals would call 'fundamentalist' or 'authoritarian') are MORE GENEROUS than non-fundies. See Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide - Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters http://www.twoorthree.net/2006/12/new_conservativ.html

10. Racism and Obama - this accusation is largely baseless. True, we all have a baseline xenophobia, but this is not what Jimmy Carter is talking about. See

• The boy who cried 'racism!' and other self-fulfilling prophecies http://www.twoorthree.net/2009/09/the-boy-who-cried-race-and-other-selffulfilling-prophecies.html
  
• If not racism, what ARE the motives of the anti-Obama masses? http://www.twoorthree.net/2009/09/if-not-racism-what-are-the-motives-of-the-antiobama-masses.html

"Regarding the spread of Darwinism, religion, and successful societies, your correlation is merely that, not causation. A more logical explanation, which shows historical roots and causation of the progress of science and human rights can be made with the spread of Christianity".

Well the correlation between non-religious societies and morality is about as correlational as claiming that religious people are more generous because they are religious. Except that we know that religious people become substantially less generious and helpful to the extent that the cause or charity is less related to religious contexts. Arthur Brooks indeed claims to have found that religious individuals give more to charity in this country, however many opportunities to do charitable work are connected with institutions such as churches. In spontaneous helping situations, religious people are not more generous and if the target is one who violates their values, they help less than non religious individuals. I suggest you check out Greg Paul's work on societal health where the markers of a healthy society are inversely related to religiosity in the society. At the very least, they provide evidence that religion is not necessary for a healthy society.

There is indeed a correlation between fundamentalism, authoritarianism, predjudice and religiosity. I suggest you check out Robert Altemeyers "the authoritarians" online. Controlling for the statistical variance due to authoritarianism does not eliminate the positive relationship between religiosity and prejudice. that is, religious people are still more racially and sexually prejudiced, even taking into account that they are more authoritarian.

There are many Christians who claim that homosexuality is a learned behavior rather than a biologically and genetically influenced trait (e.g., focus on the family). The evidence of its genetic origins does not imply an "ought" but it does refute any claim that it is not natural. And that combined with simply no evidence whatsoever that it is associated with pathology or harm is enough to then conclude that there is no reason it should be associated with deviance in a pejorative way.

Further, one might ask, on the basis of this evidence, "why did god create a tendency for same sex attraction, only to condemn people for acting upon it". We await the reply.


"Women in the home: perhaps the bias exists, not just because of societal stereotypes, but due to the understood requirements for healthy childhood development? Men don't have teats, and perhaps the early years of a child's devleopment is naturally supported by mothering."

As for women having some sort of special status in raising families or the idea from the religious right that "a child needs a mother and a father" there is no evidence whatsoever that children with two opposite sex parents are at an advantage over two same sex parents. These theories that males and females contribute something unique are based upon outdated and disproved Freudian theories like the Oedipal complex. Again the naturalistic fallacy; the fact that women have "teats" says nothing about the necessity of having women doing the childcare for healthy psychological development of children.

"A more logical explanation, which shows historical roots and causation of the progress of science and human rights can be made with the spread of Christianity"

So when christianity spread in the west, wasn't that the "Dark Ages"? and wasn't the rise of science and erosion of traditional religion "the enlightenment" So in which era, the rise of the medieval church or the rise of secular humanism was the most progress made in science and human rights?

Luke wrote: So when christianity spread in the west, wasn't that the "Dark Ages"? and wasn't the rise of science and erosion of traditional religion "the enlightenment" So in which era, the rise of the medieval church or the rise of secular humanism was the most progress made in science and human rights?

Exactly. As much as I dislike generalizing huge periods of time, "The Dark Ages" and "The Enlightenment" are fairly accurate titles. The advances in science are at best tangentially linked to the spread of Christianity. At best, and that's only in certain circumstances. The minds that existed during the more Christian periods, and the discoveries they made, were not contingent upon Christianity spreading. In many cases I think it's accurate to say that science was fighting an incredible up-hill battle during these times, and in fact any progress made was not because of the Christianization of Europe, but in spite of it. The Church did its damnedest to stifle outright any science that conflicted with Church doctrine (hardly could be called progress), and trying to give props to Christianity for any discoveries made during that time is ludicrous.