The problem with those that bring up "the problem with evil"

[antunesaa]

Actually, on a social level, the exact reverse is true. A study published in Evolutionary Psychology, July 2009 (vol.7(3), 399-434) called “The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychological Conditions” tested whether religion is necessary to the health and prosperity of a society, and whether higher degrees of nonreligiosity are more likely to be associated with better social and economic conditions. Seventeen first world nations (per capita income of at least $23,000) were tested.

Criteria for religiosity included belief in God, biblical literalism,evolution, heaven, and hell; frequency of prayer and church attendance, and the number of unbelievers.
Criteria for dysfunction included per capita number of homicides, incarcerations, suicides, abortions, infant mortality, life expectancy, infant mortality, life expectancy, marriage duration, divorce rate, alcohol use, corruption, income and income disparity, poverty and unemployment levels.

The USA came in first in both lists. Overall, there was a marked correlation between how religious a society was, and how dysfunctional it is, with the lowest rates found among the least religious of countries. You can find a summary of this study where I did, in Bugliosi’s book Divinity of Doubt (which, by the way, I cannot endorse wholeheartedly, since its quality and knowledge level are very uneven. This study, however, was endorsed by an impressive list of health organizations).

I know my share of microeconometrics and using the data from the PEW forum 2008 survey the results I mentioned are quite robust (and the result is quite robust in the economics literature). These are publicly available data for a large cross-section of US inhabitants (26k subjects in the sample, which is representative of US residents in 2008, except Hawai) and if you want I can email you Stata scripts and logs of ordinal probit models atesting just that. Studies using cross-country regressions to find individual-level relationships are usually wrong, and it is not surprising that you have found them in a journal of evolutionary psychology; I doubt the editors know enough microeconometrics to identify this problem, which in the economics literature has been identified long ago. What you have to do is to use individual-level covariates to explain individual-level measures of well-being; these covariates account for differences of race, sex, marital status, income, etc. Finally, you add state- or country-level fixed effects to account for unknown common factors within the geographic unit.

If you do this, the results are overwhelming. Relative to Catholics (which is the largest single-name religious group in the sample, with roughly 22% of the total), people declaring themselves “atheist” or “agnostic” (1.5% and 2.6% of the sample) have significantly lower scores in a measure of personal happiness (check questions q1 and q1a in the methodological notes of the survey). People declaring “nothing in particular” (10%) also have a lower propensity to happiness.

In marginal terms, relative to catholics, atheists have more 22 percentage points of probability of being in the worst category (very dissatisfied with life), while for agnostics the figure is 16 pp and for the other group it is 9 pp. A typical catholic is 3.2 times more likely to be in the better category (very satisfied with life) than an otherwise identical fellow atheist. For agnostics the factor is 2.3 and for the other group it is 1.6.

All these numbers are statistically significant. (Of course, all this is after controlling for income, number of children, sex, ethnic background, marital status, etc. I used US states fixed effects.)

Again, I can provide you a Stata script with sources and the execution log but I think this particular point (for whatever reasons) is pretty much settled in the microeconometric literature, and is found in other countries as well. The reason why the cross-country regression is wrong (or at least your interpretation is) is that it compares, say, Denmark with the US, but it might be the case that there is something (mood?) not captured by the country-level covariates used in the regressions that makes everyone happier in Denmark, for instance. But, within Denmark, religious people are still happier, because the finding at the individual level is robust.

 

[tdgesq]

Actually, on a social level, the exact reverse is true. A study published in Evolutionary Psychology, July 2009 (vol.7(3), 399-434) called “The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychological Conditions” tested whether religion is necessary to the health and prosperity of a society, and whether higher degrees of nonreligiosity are more likely to be associated with better social and economic conditions. Seventeen first world nations (per capita income of at least $23,000) were tested.

Yes, very much akin to his first article in the Journal of Religion and Society in 2005. Unfortunately for Paul, a thorough refutation to that article was published a year later in the same journal: moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html . He ignored those warnings and committed the exact same errors in his subsequent “study.”

Have you ever looked at Paul’s CV? Here it is from his own website: gspauldino.com/curriculum.html

He’s a dinosaur illustrator. His academic experience consists of the following:

Informal studies under R. Bakker at Dept. Earth and Planetary Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University, 1977-84
Northern Virginia Community College, 1973-78

Apparently he didn’t learn much about statistics during his N.V. community college stint. Those of us who actually studied statistics in college at least learned one thing: correlation does not imply causation.

 

[jochoa]

I don’t think love can be so precisely quantified. Until I know what kinds of actions qualify as “amazing love” and which are only “good love,” I cannot answer. However, one’s upbringing is only one factor in personality development. Genetics also influences behavior.

Regarding “love”/good love, Love/“great love”, and True Love/Perfect Love/God’s Nature
“love” can be defined as the subjective feeling of deep affection. “love” has subjectively good intentions. Therefore, any action/thought which arises out of “love” can be said to be some subjective form of “good love.”
The Holy Bible defines Love as Patience and Kindness. Therefore any action/thought which arises out of Both Patience and Kindness can be said to be “great love.”
Personal Interpretation from the Holy Bible, Jesus defines and demonstrates True Love as Patience and Kindness and Motivation with All the Body, Spirit, Mind, and Will towards others and the self.
Given that God want us to share individually and as a society in His Blessings of Eternal Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom, we can recognize some simple co-relations with the Greatest Commandments.
Absolute Patience grants Unbreakable Peace.
Absolute Kindness grants All Levels of Happiness slightly above Peace to Incomprehensible Joy.
Absolute Motivation grants Unstoppable Energy.
Jesus sharing this Absolute Philosophy of Peace, Happiness, and Energy is the Foundation for All Wisdom.
Therefore, I propose Love can be quantified based on Qualities of Peace, Happiness and Energy throughout all the relationships of a person and the person’s self (Body, Spirit, Mind, and Will).

Psychopathology is a precise medical condition, and is determined by genetic defects. It has nothing to do with how loved a person has been, except to the extent that the psychopath’s lack of empathy and resultant cruelty result in people around them finding them difficult to love. But it has nothing to do with the normal selfish stage we all experience as infants. Psychopaths cannot “grow out of” their condition no matter how you love them, because they lack the necessary brain function in the area associated with empathy and compassion (which fMRI technology has precisely determined).
Of course, this has interesting implications for “free will.” How freely can someone incapable of empathy, compassion, or remorse, choose to love others? They can imitate actions which have been approved by their society as loving, but they only do so to be accepted or gain an advantage or trust they can later exploit.
There is also this: if God is responsible for our genetic makeup, then he has created psychopaths knowing all about the havoc and misery they will create as a result of a defect he put there, and could easily have prevented without interfering with their free will in the least. In fact, their will would be* more* free if they were not psychopaths. So why isn’t God held responsible? The only way to absolve God would be to deny that he determines our genetics, leaving evolution functionally outside his control.

Regarding your proposed Impossibility of Teaching, based on genetic defects.
Unfortunately, I must agree to disagree with you. The Following are my Reasons:

1. If a person can freely choose to imitate actions for “loving” reasons, they can be guided to Truely Love.
2. If the people loving the “psychopath” only do so conditionally, are they in turn imitating actions which have been approved by their society as loving, but they only do so to be accepted or gain an advantage or trust they can later exploit?
3. Though I agree that genetic makeup influences behavior, image, and thought, I recognize it as only an influence which can be controlled (just as in the example of Compliance based on Motive).

Thoughts?

By the Way…I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion! I greatly appreciate you sharing your perspective! I thank you for helping me grow in understanding, consideration, and faith.

 

[antunesaa]

Yes, very much akin to his first article in the Journal of Religion and Society in 2005. Unfortunately for Paul, a thorough refutation to that article was published a year later in the same journal: moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html . He ignored those warnings and committed the exact same errors in his subsequent “study.”

Have you ever looked at Paul’s CV? Here it is from his own website: gspauldino.com/curriculum.html

He’s a dinosaur illustrator. His academic experience consists of the following:

Informal studies under R. Bakker at Dept. Earth and Planetary Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University, 1977-84
Northern Virginia Community College, 1973-78

Apparently he didn’t learn much about statistics during his N.V. community college stint. Those of us who actually studied statistics in college at least learned one thing: correlation does not imply causation.

I didn’t look at the refutation you mention, but my interpretation from SGWessells’ description (see above) was that he didn’t know what he was doing. Drawing the kind of conclusions that the author of that study draws based on the kind of data he has is a basic and unfortunately common mistake.

 

[SGWessells]

Thank you, Antunesaa and tdgesq, for the corrections. The backside of my mind is smarting (and it needs all the smarts it can get, yuk yuk)

Granted that religion makes people happier on average, however, doesn’t make it true; it makes it more attractive, which may, in fact, be a reason why some people cling to it in the face of contrary evidence. That certainly happened to me for many years. But judging ideas by alleged motivations is a bad idea no matter what position one is defending.
I will, however, be more careful about spouting statistics outside my field, and whose studies I trust.

 

[tonyrey]

Granted that religion makes people happier on average, however, doesn’t make it true; it makes it more attractive, which may, in fact, be a reason why some people cling to it in the face of contrary evidence.

The absence of religion is extremely attractive because you become your own boss and can do precisely what you like - thereby justifying the belief that the lust for power is deeply rooted in human nature and explaining the bloodstained history of our species…

 

[tdgesq]

Thank you, Antunesaa and tdgesq, for the corrections. The backside of my mind is smarting (and it needs all the smarts it can get, yuk yuk)

Granted that religion makes people happier on average, however, doesn’t make it true; it makes it more attractive, which may, in fact, be a reason why some people cling to it in the face of contrary evidence. That certainly happened to me for many years. But judging ideas by alleged motivations is a bad idea no matter what position one is defending.
I will, however, be more careful about spouting statistics outside my field, and whose studies I trust.

Hi SG,

I didn’t necessarily think you subscribed to the conclusions in the study. My dismay at what can actually get published in social sciences journals today apparently found its way in my response. It also brought up bad memories of my econometrics class.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Psychopathology is a precise medical condition, and is determined by genetic defects. It has nothing to do with how loved a person has been, except to the extent that the psychopath’s lack of empathy and resultant cruelty result in people around them finding them difficult to love.

Do you have links which back up your assertion? I’ve never heard of research that determines that psychopathology is determined by genetic defects solely (which seems to go back to that old “nature vs. nurture” argument) and I wonder if there exists other research which either does not substantiate what you are saying or has obtained results which lead to more questions instead of answers. There are so many factors in any research, including level of probability, operational definitions, correct or incorrect interpretation of results, etc. In fact, no research that is properly conducted can claim actual causation because there is always a chance, no matter how small, that the obtained results are due to chance.

I’d like to read what you have read (research psychology is a field which fascinates me). I’d appreciate your help with this. If you have already posted the links I missed them and apologize in advance and request the post number in which they were listed. Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The absence of religion is extremely attractive because you become your own boss and can do precisely what you like - thereby justifying the belief that the lust for power is deeply rooted in human nature and explaining the bloodstained history of our species…

I can only speak from my own experience (of course, duh) but when I was agnostic I wanted nothing more than to believe in God - and that is because I was afraid of dying and blipping out of existence. I know I wouldn’t be around to be aware that I no longer existed but still the thought horrified me.

It never occurred to me that, with the absence of God, I could go out and do whatever I wanted, never caring about hurting other people. I still wanted to be a good person, to be kind and charitable and loving - and I believe that many atheists who try to be good can put some people who believe in God to shame. Why would an atheist be altruistic? What difference would it make in the scheme of things? Nothing (or so an atheist would think). But I believe that many atheists are indeed altruistic and I think very highly of them because I think they are good people because they want to be good people.

Your point about the our bloodstained history makes me think that perhaps I have been wrong about something, although I’m not quite sure what it is. But I think that a lot of blood has been shed by those who, at the very least, believe they believe in God - a very dangerous position to be in.

Right now I’m rather

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, very much akin to his first article in the Journal of Religion and Society in 2005. Unfortunately for Paul, a thorough refutation to that article was published a year later in the same journal: moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html . He ignored those warnings and committed the exact same errors in his subsequent “study.”

Have you ever looked at Paul’s CV? Here it is from his own website: gspauldino.com/curriculum.html

He’s a dinosaur illustrator. His academic experience consists of the following:

Informal studies under R. Bakker at Dept. Earth and Planetary Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University, 1977-84
Northern Virginia Community College, 1973-78

Apparently he didn’t learn much about statistics during his N.V. community college stint. Those of us who actually studied statistics in college at least learned one thing: correlation does not imply causation.

I’d like to see those drawings of dinosaur valley girls.

 

[SGWessells]

Do you have links which back up your assertion? I’ve never heard of research that determines that psychopathology is determined by genetic defects solely (which seems to go back to that old “nature vs. nurture” argument) and I wonder if there exists other research which either does not substantiate what you are saying or has obtained results which lead to more questions instead of answers. There are so many factors in any research, including level of probability, operational definitions, correct or incorrect interpretation of results, etc. In fact, no research that is properly conducted can claim actual causation because there is always a chance, no matter how small, that the obtained results are due to chance.

I’d like to read what you have read (research psychology is a field which fascinates me). I’d appreciate your help with this. If you have already posted the links I missed them and apologize in advance and request the post number in which they were listed. Thank you.

Sorry, I do most of my research the old-fashioned way, by reading books. The relevant book in this case is Evil Genes, by Barbara Oakley, , Prometheus Books. She has copious notes.

I did not intend to imply that genes alone create psychopathology. Environment can have an influence. There is, for example, a gene-coded enzyme called MAO-A which can trigger violent responses, but it only seems to get activated when the carriers are abused or cruelly treated. If they are loved, it remains dormant. My point was that free will, in its full sense of morally aware and conscience-driven behavior, by itself is not always sufficient or sometimes even relevant in explaining wicked behavior. This creates a problem for those who claim that God is responsible for where, and to whom, we are born, and with what genetic makeup.

 

[tonyrey]

The absence of religion is extremely attractive because you become your own boss and can do precisely what you like - thereby justifying the belief that the lust for power is deeply rooted in human nature and explaining the bloodstained history of our species…

Most people are not evil because they are not abnormal! It takes a deliberate effort to rob, rape or murder because in our society these are rare events - and there is also a price to be paid if one is caught. Blood has been shed by men and women with every type of ideology because they were misguided. What religious people do has no bearing on whether religion is true or false. It merely shows that what they profess often has little effect on how they live.

The fact remains that the absence of religion is extremely attractive because you become your own boss and can in principle do precisely what you like - even if you don’t!

And if there are no forbidden fruit they are in **one **respect less attractive…

 

[SGWessells]

Tonyrey wrote"What religious people do has no bearing on whether religion is true or false. It merely shows that what they profess often has little effect on how they live.

The fact remains that the absence of religion is extremely attractive because you become your own boss and can in principle do precisely what you like - even if you don’t!"

On the other hand, the absence of religion deprives one of the consolation of an infinite God who loves you, guides you, promises to help you through all your problems, and offers an eternity of bliss. A lot of people who leave Christianity deeply miss these consolations, even if they don’t become atheists. I know; I’m one of them.

Has it occurred to you, and others who pronounce with such certainty on the motives of those they’ve never met, that in a sense you are bearing false witness against your neighbor?.

 

[SGWessells]

The absence of religion is extremely attractive because you become your own boss and can do precisely what you like - thereby justifying the belief that the lust for power is deeply rooted in human nature and explaining the bloodstained history of our species…

So how does that explain Torquemada? His lust of power was justified precisely by his religion. As was the case with many another persecutor in the name of all kinds of religion. If I were a Catholic, I would be really careful how I pointed the finger at atheists for their bloodthirsty ways. That beam in your eye might knock somebody over.

Fortunately, the Church has learned that persecution is counterproductive. Maybe one day you will learn that insulting your opponents has the same effect.

 

[tonyrey]

"What religious people do has no bearing on whether religion is true or false. It merely shows that what they profess often has little effect on how they live.

Do you miss the possibility of an eternity of isolation from God?

Has it occurred to you, and others who pronounce with such certainty on the motives of those they’ve never met, that in a sense you are bearing false witness against your neighbor?.

It has nothing to do with the motives of individuals. It is a true statement about the advantages of not believing in God. I specified that “you can **in principle **do precisely what you like - even if you don’t!”

 

[tonyrey]

The absence of religion is extremely attractive because you become your own boss and can do precisely what you like - thereby justifying the belief that the lust for power is deeply rooted in human nature and explaining the bloodstained history of our species…

The lust for power is deeply rooted in human nature and explains the bloodstained history of our species regardless of what individuals profess to believe.…

As was the case with many another persecutor in the name of all kinds of religion. If I were a Catholic, I would be really careful how I pointed the finger at atheists for their bloodthirsty ways. That beam in your eye might knock somebody over.

You are attacking a straw man! If I were you I would be really careful before I make false allegations…

Fortunately, the Church has learned that persecution is counterproductive. Maybe one day you will learn that insulting your opponents has the same effect.

The insult exists only in your imagination…

 

[SGWessells]

Do you miss the possibility of an eternity of isolation from God?

It has nothing to do with the motives of individuals. It is a true statement about the advantages of not believing in God. I specified that “you can **in principle **do precisely what you like - even if you don’t!”

First of all, no unbeliever I have ever read concerning morality has thought that “in principle” they, or anyone, can do whatever they please. There are social and familial obligations just as keenly felt among atheists as among Christians, as you would know if you bothered to learn how they really think and act instead of how you imagine them to be.

On the increasingly rare occasions when I am plagued by fears of Hell leftover from the days of Christian liberty and freedom, I remind myself that if I am wrong, at least a merciful God who actually knows my thoughts and motives will be my judge, and not you.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you miss the possibility of an eternity of isolation from God?

It is irrelevant whether anyone has thought they can do whatever they please… In a Godless universe there are no categorical imperatives, i.e. no objective reasons for not doing what they like - unless you can provide one.

There are social and familial obligations just as keenly felt among atheists as among Christians, as you would know if you bothered to learn how they really think and act instead of how you imagine them to be.

“felt” is the key word. If we are freaks of nature there is no **rational basis for any obligations. In an amoral universe morality is an anomaly.
**

On the increasingly rare occasions when I am plagued by fears of Hell leftover from the days of Christian liberty and freedom, I remind myself that if I am wrong, at least a merciful God who actually knows my thoughts and motives will be my judge, and not you.

A straw man!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Sorry, I do most of my research the old-fashioned way, by reading books. The relevant book in this case is Evil Genes, by Barbara Oakley, , Prometheus Books. She has copious notes.

I did not intend to imply that genes alone create psychopathology. Environment can have an influence. There is, for example, a gene-coded enzyme called MAO-A which can trigger violent responses, but it only seems to get activated when the carriers are abused or cruelly treated. If they are loved, it remains dormant. My point was that free will, in its full sense of morally aware and conscience-driven behavior, by itself is not always sufficient or sometimes even relevant in explaining wicked behavior. This creates a problem for those who claim that God is responsible for where, and to whom, we are born, and with what genetic makeup.

Thank you both for the citation (I usually ask for a link or a citation but it slipped by me this time)and for the clarification. I’m familiar with MAO Inhibitors as used to treat clinical depression. I agree that environment probably has some influence. I also agree that free will is not fully sufficient for explaining what I term “evil,” although I believe it is relevant and may be the most important component of the causes of evil behavior.

However, I see no problem with God being responsible for our genetic makeup and other factors such as where we are born and to whom. God is divine; we aren’t, and divinity is difficult to understand by non-divine creatures.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Most people are not evil because they are not abnormal! It takes a deliberate effort to rob, rape or murder because in our society these are rare events - and there is also a price to be paid if one is caught. Blood has been shed by men and women with every type of ideology because they were misguided. What religious people do has no bearing on whether religion is true or false. It merely shows that what they profess often has little effect on how they live.

The fact remains that the absence of religion is extremely attractive because you become your own boss and can in principle do precisely what you like - even if you don’t!

And if there are no forbidden fruit they are in **one **respect less attractive…

Thank you for the explanation. Now I’m just instead of .

You’re right - in principle one can do exactly what one wants, even if one doesn’t do it - and that thought had not occurred to me.