"sAnToLiNa" <mystery@babylon.com> wrote in message

Andrew Lias <anrwlias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d60aaf8.0404170748.7f7723b2@posting.google.com...

On the contrary. The number of adherents is a measure of the
popularity of a belief. The measure of the effectiveness of a
philosophy has nother to do with its popularity. Effectiveness is
gauged by how well the philosophy achieves its aims.

Since the goal of christianity is to win adherents it is therefore quite
massively effective.

This is one of the goals of Christianity, just as it is a typical goal
of any ideology (at least any ideology that hopes to live beyond a
generation or two). I hardly think that this is the only goal of
Christianity. I believe that it is quite plain that the philosophy
Christianity preaches has the *intention* of, among other things,
improving moral behavior.

It is this *specific* aspect of the religion that I've been addressing
throughout this thread. It is precisely this question that I
addressed when I responded to this statement of yours:

"Implicit in the Jesus story
is a radically pacifist approach to violence. The more logical
conclusion
is that humans in general, or humans in a particular cultural milieu,
are
incapable of internalizing the plain message of christianity."

That christians are violent, when in fact humans are violent, is not
an
especially profound observation."

If Christianity does, in fact, offer a moral philosophy that humans
are incapable of internalizing,

then the "plain message" of
Christianity, as you put it, is an *ineffective* one.

That is the beginning, middle, and end of my point. If you want to
talk about the numerical success of Christianity or the ontological
value of the religion, you are more than welcome to do so, however, I
am interested in doing neither.

If you prefer a less controversial example, let us consider astrology.
Every objective measure of astrology has demonstrated that there is
no correlation between the claims of astrologers and the accuracy of
those claims. Astrology, to put it frankly, is not only bunk but it's
demonstrably bunk.

Completely agree up to this point.

And, yet, hundreds of millions of people, world
wide, report that they believe the claims that astrology makes.

One must be careful to differentiate here between practicing astrologers

the hundreds of millions who maintain a newspaper-column-level interest

it.

I am including those who say that they accept that the claims that
astrologers make have value. Certainly that includes all professional
astrologers as well as many of those who have a newspaper level
interest.

I don't think that the set of committed believers in christianity and
committed believers in astrology are at all comparable in numbers.

I don't consider that relevant. Would the effectiveness of
astrological claims be improved if even more people believed in
astrology?

What is widely believed is not astrology as practiced by its true

but rather a mundane acceptance that skilled cold-readers have some idea

what they are talking about.

Cold reading and astrology are two different forms of bunk.

The claim
of astrology is that the position of the planets and stars and the
moment of a persons birth has some causative influence over the life
of a person and that one can use that information to determine truths
about a persons life which, typically, includes the ability to offer
advice and to make predictions regarding that persons life.

A distressing number of people accept that this is true. If we are
allowed to include historical beliefs, I would argue that the number
of people who have believed in astrology, throughout history, easily
rivals the quantity of believers in Christiantiy particularly since
astrology predates Christianity and has had, historically, a wider
geographical distribution of believers.

Never the less, astrology's effective ability to live up to any of its
claims has always been infintesimal and yet belief has always been
pervasive. As such, the correlation between the amount of support a
belief has and its ability to deliver on its promises has no necessary
correlation.

Having said that, you have a good point, that an ideology can have

tenets, as astrology and christianity do, yet still be believed at some
level. We have not yet, however, resolved our disagreement over the

"effective".

When a belief makes claim X, the degree to which it succeeds at living
up to the standards of claim X is a measure of its effectiveness with
respect to claim X.

I can only guess that you are thinking that I'm making a general
argument to the *general* effectiveness of Christianity. I have,
however, taken pains to indicate that I am *only* addressing the
*specific* question of its *moral* effectiveness.

I will say this, once again, as plainly as possible. Christians tend
to make claims about the moral worth of Christianity. In as much as
these claims are made, it is reasonable to ask whether Christianity
actually results in any discernable moral improvement to its
adherants. This can be gauged by examining the actual moral behavior
of its adherants.

This does not have any bearing on its popularity, it's effectiveness
in *other* realms (e.g., how effective it is at gaining adherants),
nor does it have any bearing on its ontological claims (that there is
a God, etc).

Clearly, a belief may fail to live up to its claims while, never the
less, remaining perfectly popular.

The most important claims of christianity are not testable, so in this
ironic sense it has an advantage over astrology.

I am concerned about one particular claim which is open to testing. I
apologize if you are under the impression that I am trying to examine
the entire religion and all of its claims. As you note, many of those
claims can not be examined (that there is a Heaven, for instance).
The very fact that they are beyond examination puts them outside of my
interest.

Many Christians insist that Christianity is *morally* thereputic.
That provides a gauge of the effectiveness of the belief that is
utterly independent of the popularity of its message. If it can be
demonstated that Christianity does not result in an overall
improvement of moral behavior, it is appropriate to challange the
moral effectiveness of the belief.

Quite agree.

Then we have nothing further to discuss because you are in agreement
with the only point that I've raised.

You're bringing in a tangential topic. I made no claims regarding the
ontological worth of the Christian belief. I am *explicitly*
addressing how well it achieves one of its specific objectives.

That is all well and good, but the discussion up to this point has been
about whether christianity causes, or is correlated with, violence. In
fact, I am in substantial agreement with most of the points you make.

You don't think that the question of whether or not Christianity lives
up to its claims of offering moral improvement

is germain to the
question of whether there is a correlation with Christianity and
violence?

I suppose that I might be irredemably stupid, but I would consider
those to be related topics.

If you are saying that christianity has failed to transform whole

into peaceful utopias, I agree.

No, I am saying that Christianity's failure to improve its adherants

stands against one of the claims that is made in support of
Christianity.

It is easy to say that people don't live up to Christian moral
standards. However, if those standards are such that actual humans
will inevitably

fail to live up to them, then it is reasonable to
wonder what value those standards actually have.

The statement of yours that I quoted above is a common defense of the
moral history of Christians. The implication is typically that it's
not Christianity's fault that people are violent, etc. My point is
that if Christianity's moral philosophy does not actually tend to lead
to moral improvement, it's worth as a *moral* philosophy is suspect.

Oh, I agree, such a statement is completely open to challenge. That
does not excuse the introduction of dubious social theories as a

countervailing force.

I do not believe that I have done so and object to the implication
that I have.

No, the thread was about this prior to your joining it. And again I say

the founder of the thread, there is no reason to introduce dubious

theories into the argument.

I apologize for thinking that you were referring to my contributions
to the thread.

Does Christianity do an effective job of improving the moral behavior
of its adherants? It is a perfectly apt question. Please let us not
be distracted into further detours.

This question is itself a detour, though not an unworthy one. My

vague answer is that human beings should be judged on their individual
merits.

I think that it is appropriate, when discussing the moral value of
Christianty, to ask whether Christianity does, in fact, have any moral
value outside the content of its message. As I've said, it is *easy*
to advocate high moral standards. If that is all a given philosophy
has to offer to the moral realm, its moral worth is dubious and
shifting the blame to the failure of humans to live up to the
standards is not really fair.

Since it does seem that you are I are talking past one another, I must
wonder if there is much point in continuing this conversation. What
do you think?

In a message sent 'round the world, sAnToLiNa poured fuel on the fire
with the following:

Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ae6450b35bf88389897ef@206.172.150.13...

In a message sent 'round the world, sAnToLiNa poured fuel on the fire
with the following:

Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ae5050588d932bf9897ec@206.172.150.13...

In a message sent 'round the world, sAnToLiNa poured fuel on the

with the following:

Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ae1c53b2349919d9897eb@206.172.150.13...

...

and attempting to force reality to conform to
this fallacy is the cause of the problems.

So you are suggesting that the cognitive disonance caused by the
irrationality of some christian doctrine is the cause of violence?

Sure.

And you have a shred of evidence to support this, ...

A fallacy, by definition, stands opposed to the natural order. Since
Christianity is a fallacy

it must then be contrary to the natural order.

Attempting to force reality to conform must inevitably lead to problems.
Attempting to force humans to conform to this unnatural ideology

will
also lead to problems, such as violence, psychological problems, etc.

... and I don't mean the link
to crime rates and your extremely bizarre interpretation of them?

What interpretation have I offered for those crime rates?

The more logical conclusion is that humans in general, or humans

a

particular cultural milieu, are
incapable of internalizing the plain message of christianity.

So, produce your logical argument to this effect.

Simply put, the doctrine of radical non-violence is made

plain

in the Gospels. It is made plain in the story of the passion and
crucifixion, where violence and injustice are met with complete

passivity.

Now, the history of professed followers of christianity is replete

countless examples of their resorting to violence, which is

contradictory to

the plain teachings of the religion.

We also know as a historical fact that humans of all philosophies,
religions, or lack thereof are capable of resorting to violence.

Nothing in this dissertation shows that humans, in general or in
particular, are "incapable of internalizing the plain message of
christianity".

Once again: "The more logical conclusion is that humans in general, or
humans in a particular cultural milieu, are incapable of internalizing

plain message of christianity." When attempting to summarize my

is helpful if you include all relevant context.

The relevant context is your claim that it is "more logical" [sic]. If
you will check the quoted text, you will see that it was included.

Since
you make this claim then you must have a logical argument in support.
Please produce it.

For instance, you can cite all the anecdotes you want of
christian believers in "original sin" beating their children, unless

can

control for the parenting behavior of parents of all other

religions, or non-religions these anecdotes are meaningless.

As you note, these are anecdotes. They don't make a conclusive case,

This is the understatement of the millenium.

but
they do illustrate.

They illustrate YOUR point of view, yes.

And they also illustrate that there could well be a connection between a
fallacious ideology and violence.

That christians are violent, when in fact humans are violent, is

an

especially profound observation.

There is a demonstrable correlation between Christianity and

crime.

http://www.laworderreferendum.org.nz/Data.htm

Er, you don't seriously draw that conclusion from this link, do you?

I'm

going to snip the rest before you further embarrass yourself.

Do honour us with your interpretation.

My interpretation is irrelevant, ...

This is rapidly becoming clear to me.

... it's simply basic social science that one
cannot infer simplistic causation from complex behavioral data.

I haven't claimed any "simplistic causation". Try reading more
carefully. I stated that there is a correlation.