X-Message-Number: 30203 From: Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:57:37 EST Subject: more on religion 1. I had written that the low birth rate in Italy illustrates the divergence between nominal Catholicism and actual behavior, and that it is unlikely the low birth rate can be attrubuted to the rhythm method. DSS responded, >If used correctly, the rhythm method is as effective as many >contraceptives. Do a web search, "contraception in Italy," and you will find strong support for my conclusion. 2. I had written: > As far as I am aware, the single area where > religion has had much influence on actual actions is the very > limited one of stem cell research. DSS replied: >This is the one most likely to benefit those currently reaching the >end of their "natural" lives. This seems to be an implicit admission that in most areas of life religion has little practical impact. 3. I had written: > Probably only a small percentage of those who call themselves believers actually > practice those beliefs (the ones unique to their religions) to any significant extent. DSS replied: >I was just at a lecture on Science and the Modern World and the >figure given for Americans believing in an immortal soul was over >90%. I presume that cuts into membership in cryonics organizations >pretty sharply. This presumption is not justified. Once more, for example, many will report that they "believe" in a church, yet not only don't follow its precepts but don't even know much about those precepts. It is 100% obvious, judging from actions, that even those who (say they) fervently believe in a blissful afterlife are in no hurry to get there, aside from a few fanatics, and even those have other motivations. 4. I had written that the practical influence of religion in Europe and America has declined in recent centuries and decades, and that the churches have fairly steadily retreated from positions at odds with science. DSS replied: >There has been a resurgence in religious belief in the USA. A vast >majority of people in the USA (84%) don't believe in the evolution of >humans from lower species without the intervention of a supreme >being, according to a recent Gallup Poll. First, religious belief, based on self-reported church attendance, has not been increasing according to my web searches. For example see _http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm_ (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm) Secondly, it is deceptive or unperceptive to write that statement above about belief in evolution. It is a naive use of poll results. If some people, or even many people, say they believe God had a hand in evolution, that is not the same as saying they don't believe in evolution. It is just an attempt to straddle. A more relevant poll might ask how many believe the world is only about 6,000 years old. DSS also wrote: >At the above mentioned lecture, it was pointed out that there has >been very little effect on religious belief as a result of scientific >advance, even among scientists. This is highly misleading. Search the web for "scientists and religious belief" and you will find such as the following: >And the percent of "leading" scientists who hold religious beliefs has been declining from around 30% in >1914 to less than 10% in 1998. Wayne Spencer, editor of _The Skeptical Intelligencer_ (http://linus.mcc.ac.uk/~moleary/ASKE/askemag.html) (a publication of the _>Association for Skeptical Inquiry_ (http://linus.mcc.ac.uk/~moleary/ASKE/) ) has provided me with this summary of an article in the journal Nature >which documents this fact. Note also, once more, that "holding religious beliefs" is so broad and so vague as to be almost meaningless in practical terms. R.E. **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30203