Peace Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, hakutaku said: That wasn't ever my point though? My point was never that religion makes people susceptible to conspiracy theories. For someone leveling the charge of "not actually reading," this is an awfully hypocritical mistake to make. I think you are attempting to backtrack now. I thought that is what you were insinuating when you wrote "So when conspiracy theories involving global malevolent actors comes along, where is the fertile ground for these seeds? The fertile ground is basically all inside of religious communities." I made it clear that is what I thought you were insinuating in my first response to you. I wrote "You will also find that the vast majority of modern science from say the 15th century was conducted by religious people. Is religion also the cause of modern science and rational thinking because the vast majority of scientific development in the history of the world was conducted by religious? To prove your theory . . ." Then when I challenged you to prove that theory, you basically responded by saying "Oh there is plenty of data to show that . . ." You didn't respond at that time by clarifying "Oh that is not what I was trying to assert." Now, only after I criticized your use of the articles, you want to go back and say "Oh that isn't really what I was trying to say at all." I don't buy it pal. Quote I stated my point quite clearly: Lord, to whom shall they go? They shall go disproportionately to religion. Now this does not mean that religion is exclusively made up of these people, just that most of these people will end up religious, and there will be very few of these people outside of religious communities. Now I don't think you have demonstrated either of these. But even if you can, who cares? Quacks are also more likely to drink milk, watch Star Wars Episode 3, and do a million other things. Essentially this is kind of an attempt to make an Ad Hominem sort of attack on religion, is it not? Many people who hold religious beliefs are quacks, therefore there must be something intrinsically wrong with religion. Now, I'm sure you won't admit that this is what you are attempting to insinuate, but you aren't fooling anybody. Quote Now I have submitted some data which directly supports my thesis: most strongly the first article which directly relates teleological thinking (as I put it "a natural tendency to find organization, plans, in the world, and to ascribe bad outcomes to malevolent actors") to conspiracy theories and certain religious beliefs. Friend, you did not submit any data at all. What you submitted were the conclusions that the authors of that article drew from the data that they collected. Neither you nor they have produced any hard data whatsoever. And if you look at the methodology from the first study mentioned in the article, I am surprised how you can even take it seriously. The authors conducted a survey of 157 college freshmen on a single college campus. That is not serious data science. That is fluff science. Certainly not anything approaching what you need to prove up your claims. Quote You seem to have missed some critical pieces of the final paper (slightly condensed): Now you are correct: It may be the case that there exist religions which do not attract these people, but I will not write more defensively and explicitly say that religious beliefs which do not involve teleological reasoning may not attract these people. The papers I posted are in fact evidence for my thesis even if you judge it to fall short of proof. Yeah I saw those portions, but they are meaningless conclusions. They are nothing more than conclusory statements based on the author's review of studies that other people made. The author cites one study for one sentence, a completely different study for the next sentence, a third study for the next sentence, and so forth. This is his opinion and the conclusions that he drew from the works of others. We don't have the data or even the methodology or definitions used from any of those underlying studies, so we have nothing to go on other than the author's opinion. And if you look at the abstracts of the underlying articles (the only thing that we have) - the articles themselves do not appear to have anything to do with religion, or even to attempt to address the question raised by your assertion. Like I said, show me the hard data that proves your assertions. Citing the conclusions of someone who may have similar opinions as you is really nothing more than a sort of an veiled attempt to make an appeal to authority. In my original post I said you had no hard data. You have still not produced any. Quote I deny, however, that you have made a substantive complaint against the literature on fundamentalists. Fundamentalist Catholics are still Catholics; indeed my theory would say that these people are the most likely to be attracted to fundamentalism insofar as fundamentalism is basically the assertion "we have forgotten the fundamental truths of our religion." If any so-called fundamentalists (however you want to define them) want to jump in an take issue with whatever you think about them that is up to them. It's really no concern of mine because I am not a fundamentalist. Edited February 1, 2021 by Peace Aloysius 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now