I found Thomas Roberts RNS piece, "Psychedelic drugs can deepen religious experiences", to be as revealing as it is entertaining. Go ahead and try re-reading the title without smirking just a little. Religion really is fucked up crap. The very notion that screwing with your perception to make it more meaningful is pretty telling. As Robert's notes:
"Researchers at Johns Hopkins reported that 33 percent of the volunteers in their 2006 psilocybin study said their experiences were one of the five most important spiritual experiences in their lives. And 38 percent said they were the single most spiritual significant experience."
This seems to support the position that spirituality is a fabrication of the mind that has little to no real merit.
Roberts piece further comments that:
"But entheogens can provide experiences that help people understand what had previously been only abstract religious ideas. Concepts such as awe, sacredness, eternity and grace can become profound with meaning with entheogens."
It doesn't seem to occur to him or the researchers that intentionally warping your perceptions doesn't make the abstract anymore substantial. What exactly do they mean by "understand"? Can these individuals clearly or adequately explain or quantify their experiences for others? If they can't why should anyone give a shit what these individuals think they've experience through the use of a chemical crutch?
Showing posts with label Studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Studies. Show all posts
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Meta-study on "charitable" giving
I'm very pleased to find that someone has finally done a systematic review of the studies that purport to show that religious people are more generous than non-religious individuals. I have commented* on how pathetic the methodologies and incredibly biased the interpretation of such studies have been not to mention how bogus the notion is to start with. If anyone is interested in a more rigorous and scientifically based review of the major studies in this area I highly recommend Roy Sablosky's "Does religion foster generosity." It was published in The Social Science Journal. It can be accessed online for free at researchgate.net (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/261918362_Does_religion_foster_generosity). I would advise downloading it sooner rather than later. I don't believe it will be free indefinitely.
*
Generosity: A Perennial and Misleading Question (8/25/12)
Humbug! (12/22/13)
*
Generosity: A Perennial and Misleading Question (8/25/12)
Humbug! (12/22/13)
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Generosity: A Perennial and Misleading Question
"Religion And Giving: More Religious States Give More To Charity" Do they really? I have three problems with studies like this: who's giving, who are they giving to, and why are they giving? If there is no attempt at answering all three the study is of little meaning or use. All three are equally important if you want to equate it with generosity. One of the few references to methodology behind the study involve the IRS. Basically, some of the most important information in determining level and nature of giving would automatically be missing.
I am an excellent example of how this actually plays out. Some of my volunteering and donations would not show up on tax records to begin with. As an individual I have donated time, resources, and money to a variety of causes through various groups. If you track charitable groups by their affiliations you would learn very little about me or why I have chosen to donate or volunteer. For example, I have acted as a chaperon for Catholic affiliated events. That probably sounds odd coming from someone who loathes the church and outright hates the Pope, which I do. Whether others agree with my motivation or not I find them perfectly sound. My wife is a lifelong Catholic and has been involved with youth ministry. It is import to her so I support her in her efforts. I also see no reason not to separate the individuals from the institution. If one less chaperon meant a particular event not happening why should I fill in. Kids were looking forward to it and I thought it would be shitty not to let them have it because the hierarchy of the church (no doubt was chosen for them) are a bunch of assholes. The same is true for a variety of project. If a group in my area is looking to aid the homeless/jobless with a food drive I don't give a shit if they have a religious affiliation.
Basically, I do not necessarily pay attention to who I am giving to if it is for a worthy purpose. That is not always accounted for in these studies. It can be rather misleading. I do not consider it charitable if the individual or group is looking to get something out their volunteering or donations. On a larger scale, Bill Gates is NOT a philanthropist. Everything he does that gets labeled as such seems to have major ulterior motives. Many religious individuals and groups I do not accept as being "generous" since they often have very personal self-serving interests. Many, though certainly not all, see volunteerism and donations as part of "good works" which is in their minds essentially an admission ticket to heaven. Sounds more like bargain shopping to me. Serve a few hours here and there or donate a bit at a time and in compenation you get eternal life.
The last thing that is not always accounted for is the idea of shear numbers versus percentage. Regardless of motivation, if religious people did not give more in terms of numbers it would be a rather pathetic statement about them. Depending on how you define "non-religious" we only make up between 1% and 9% according to most studies. Flip that around and think about it for a minute. Believers account for somewhere between 91% and 99% of the population. If they did not give more with those numbers in mind they would have to be truly stingy bastards. The studies that have looked at believers versus non-believers as a percent of the population have varied in their results. This current study uses percentages but not in this manner. There does not seem to have been any attempt at accounting for non-believers as a percent withing the states they talk about. Instead they are making blanket assumptions about the demographics of each state then comparing the states to each other. In other words, this study is useless in regard to the underlying question it claims to tackle. True, it directly seeks to compare States but it uses that to imply deeper significance, which it cannot support.
Overall, I don't buy into the common perception that religious people are more generous. After all, by the standards of such a bias we have far less reason to give and yet we still do. We cannot count on an eternal reward and even many of us who see it as having a potentially positive affect on the here-and-now have no guarantees that it will. Many of us give simply because we believe it is the right thing to do. I'd be curious to know how many religious people can honesty claim to do the same (references to Jesus and God are disqualifiers since that is an external motivation).
I am an excellent example of how this actually plays out. Some of my volunteering and donations would not show up on tax records to begin with. As an individual I have donated time, resources, and money to a variety of causes through various groups. If you track charitable groups by their affiliations you would learn very little about me or why I have chosen to donate or volunteer. For example, I have acted as a chaperon for Catholic affiliated events. That probably sounds odd coming from someone who loathes the church and outright hates the Pope, which I do. Whether others agree with my motivation or not I find them perfectly sound. My wife is a lifelong Catholic and has been involved with youth ministry. It is import to her so I support her in her efforts. I also see no reason not to separate the individuals from the institution. If one less chaperon meant a particular event not happening why should I fill in. Kids were looking forward to it and I thought it would be shitty not to let them have it because the hierarchy of the church (no doubt was chosen for them) are a bunch of assholes. The same is true for a variety of project. If a group in my area is looking to aid the homeless/jobless with a food drive I don't give a shit if they have a religious affiliation.
Basically, I do not necessarily pay attention to who I am giving to if it is for a worthy purpose. That is not always accounted for in these studies. It can be rather misleading. I do not consider it charitable if the individual or group is looking to get something out their volunteering or donations. On a larger scale, Bill Gates is NOT a philanthropist. Everything he does that gets labeled as such seems to have major ulterior motives. Many religious individuals and groups I do not accept as being "generous" since they often have very personal self-serving interests. Many, though certainly not all, see volunteerism and donations as part of "good works" which is in their minds essentially an admission ticket to heaven. Sounds more like bargain shopping to me. Serve a few hours here and there or donate a bit at a time and in compenation you get eternal life.
The last thing that is not always accounted for is the idea of shear numbers versus percentage. Regardless of motivation, if religious people did not give more in terms of numbers it would be a rather pathetic statement about them. Depending on how you define "non-religious" we only make up between 1% and 9% according to most studies. Flip that around and think about it for a minute. Believers account for somewhere between 91% and 99% of the population. If they did not give more with those numbers in mind they would have to be truly stingy bastards. The studies that have looked at believers versus non-believers as a percent of the population have varied in their results. This current study uses percentages but not in this manner. There does not seem to have been any attempt at accounting for non-believers as a percent withing the states they talk about. Instead they are making blanket assumptions about the demographics of each state then comparing the states to each other. In other words, this study is useless in regard to the underlying question it claims to tackle. True, it directly seeks to compare States but it uses that to imply deeper significance, which it cannot support.
Overall, I don't buy into the common perception that religious people are more generous. After all, by the standards of such a bias we have far less reason to give and yet we still do. We cannot count on an eternal reward and even many of us who see it as having a potentially positive affect on the here-and-now have no guarantees that it will. Many of us give simply because we believe it is the right thing to do. I'd be curious to know how many religious people can honesty claim to do the same (references to Jesus and God are disqualifiers since that is an external motivation).
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Religion as a Source of Cohesion
For a blog that is supposed to be about science, Science on Religion consistently has issues with details, nuance, and complexity. On more than one occasion they have posted on one specific study or experiment without paying attention to details or measuring it against any other work on the same topic. The July 19th post, "The evolution of Atheism", is a prime example of this lack of thought.
The first paragraph, as you would expect, sets the tone and nature of the piece quite nicely,
"Typically, when researchers study religion, they find that it brings various benefits to society: cohesion, cooperation, trust, etc. Religion evolved and persisted because of the gains religious cultures reaped. However, these findings implicitly seem to uplift religious people and make a puzzle out of atheists. If atheism (by implication) hurts the fabric of society, why did it evolve? What’s the evolutionary purpose of atheists? Political scientist Dominic Johnson (University of Edinburgh), rather than offering a definitive answer, instead suggests no less than ten possible hypotheses."
Right from the start, and throughout the piece, DiDonato simply accepts that not only is religion benificial but that it is innately and universally beneficial. If he bothered to look into the details of the various studies that have been done he would know that this is not the case. Cohesion and cooperation within a given religious group does occur. However, it occurs within a specif sets of circumstances. Once even a single one of those circumstances changes religion is just as likely to become divisive. In point of fact, many of these studies seem to indicate that once a religious group reaches a certain size and level of stability (from outside influences/threats) it tends to schism. He also overlooks a major reason that atheism is not that much of a "puzzle." 100% conformity or cohesion is never reached. There is no evidence that humans have ever completely agreed on anything. There is always at least a small faction that does not fit within the norm. These outliers would not necessarily agree with each other. There is also no evidence in these studies to reach the conclusion that atheism or any religious minority, for that matter, actually "hurts the fabric of society."
With his starting point being loaded with all manner of biases and logical fallacies it is not surprising that what follows is little more than a regurgitation of Dominic Johnson's views. Johnson does make some interesting points but none of them are that original or particularly well supported. DiDonato only briefly references Johnson's background. If you didn't notice it in the quotation above, he is a political scientist. This is an important field but not by itself of particular authority in regard to evolution. Remember, "evolution" is in the title of the piece. There is nothing to indicate that Johnson bothered looking into evolutionary biology or any other field more directly related to the study and research of evolution beyond lifting a term or two. So, where's the science? I could go on about some of the "ten possible hypotheses" but I'm not sure where to start and it is hardly worth bothering. I'll just give an idea of their nature by pointing out that one of them supposes "There are no atheists." An assertion that requires conflated a variety of unfounded beliefs together without any real reason. Yup, its that ridiculous.
I really wish those who post to this blog (it has more than one author) would either put a disclaimer at the beginning or change the name of the blog. They could forewarn that what they mean by "Science on Religion" is an interpretation of what they think passes as science.
The first paragraph, as you would expect, sets the tone and nature of the piece quite nicely,
"Typically, when researchers study religion, they find that it brings various benefits to society: cohesion, cooperation, trust, etc. Religion evolved and persisted because of the gains religious cultures reaped. However, these findings implicitly seem to uplift religious people and make a puzzle out of atheists. If atheism (by implication) hurts the fabric of society, why did it evolve? What’s the evolutionary purpose of atheists? Political scientist Dominic Johnson (University of Edinburgh), rather than offering a definitive answer, instead suggests no less than ten possible hypotheses."
Right from the start, and throughout the piece, DiDonato simply accepts that not only is religion benificial but that it is innately and universally beneficial. If he bothered to look into the details of the various studies that have been done he would know that this is not the case. Cohesion and cooperation within a given religious group does occur. However, it occurs within a specif sets of circumstances. Once even a single one of those circumstances changes religion is just as likely to become divisive. In point of fact, many of these studies seem to indicate that once a religious group reaches a certain size and level of stability (from outside influences/threats) it tends to schism. He also overlooks a major reason that atheism is not that much of a "puzzle." 100% conformity or cohesion is never reached. There is no evidence that humans have ever completely agreed on anything. There is always at least a small faction that does not fit within the norm. These outliers would not necessarily agree with each other. There is also no evidence in these studies to reach the conclusion that atheism or any religious minority, for that matter, actually "hurts the fabric of society."
With his starting point being loaded with all manner of biases and logical fallacies it is not surprising that what follows is little more than a regurgitation of Dominic Johnson's views. Johnson does make some interesting points but none of them are that original or particularly well supported. DiDonato only briefly references Johnson's background. If you didn't notice it in the quotation above, he is a political scientist. This is an important field but not by itself of particular authority in regard to evolution. Remember, "evolution" is in the title of the piece. There is nothing to indicate that Johnson bothered looking into evolutionary biology or any other field more directly related to the study and research of evolution beyond lifting a term or two. So, where's the science? I could go on about some of the "ten possible hypotheses" but I'm not sure where to start and it is hardly worth bothering. I'll just give an idea of their nature by pointing out that one of them supposes "There are no atheists." An assertion that requires conflated a variety of unfounded beliefs together without any real reason. Yup, its that ridiculous.
I really wish those who post to this blog (it has more than one author) would either put a disclaimer at the beginning or change the name of the blog. They could forewarn that what they mean by "Science on Religion" is an interpretation of what they think passes as science.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Slow and Steady But not Guaranteed
I tend to read Huffington Post's Religion section for a variety of reasons. It is a fairly decent gathering of liberal views on religion. There is an odd notion that liberal forms of religion are more tolerant and reasonable. They are not. But if you want to be informed about a variety of religious views this is one of the sites that should be perused. It is rare that I find a piece that I mostly agree with but recently I found such a piece.
Nigel Barber's "When Will Atheism Prevail Over Religion?" is pretty good. It is not because of any new or original insights. He references a handful of individuals who have conduct research on religious belief. He does a good job reviewing their work and I appreciate his positive outlook. Unfortunately, I'm not as convinced as he is that non-belief will at some point in the near future be the majority view. There is one passage in particular that I would suggest holds the key to whether this future ever materializes or not. Barber states, "If we assume that prosperity is responsible for declining religiosity in the world, and that prosperity will continue to increase, it is possible to estimate the date at which the world will switch over from being a majority believing in God to majority atheist." I would not "assume" anything about "prosperity."
According to the studies, many noted by Barber, prosperity does diminish religious belief. That is the problem. Prosperity is not guaranteed. The wealthy seem determined to corner prosperity for themselves. Many of these greedy assholes are either themselves religious or have found that religion can be a useful tool. It is in their short term interest to continue to prevent the masses from becoming prosperous and to continue to encourage religious belief, or at least public displays of belief. I think it is in the best interest of atheists to fight for economic equality as much as it is to oppose religion with rational arguments.
Nigel Barber's "When Will Atheism Prevail Over Religion?" is pretty good. It is not because of any new or original insights. He references a handful of individuals who have conduct research on religious belief. He does a good job reviewing their work and I appreciate his positive outlook. Unfortunately, I'm not as convinced as he is that non-belief will at some point in the near future be the majority view. There is one passage in particular that I would suggest holds the key to whether this future ever materializes or not. Barber states, "If we assume that prosperity is responsible for declining religiosity in the world, and that prosperity will continue to increase, it is possible to estimate the date at which the world will switch over from being a majority believing in God to majority atheist." I would not "assume" anything about "prosperity."
According to the studies, many noted by Barber, prosperity does diminish religious belief. That is the problem. Prosperity is not guaranteed. The wealthy seem determined to corner prosperity for themselves. Many of these greedy assholes are either themselves religious or have found that religion can be a useful tool. It is in their short term interest to continue to prevent the masses from becoming prosperous and to continue to encourage religious belief, or at least public displays of belief. I think it is in the best interest of atheists to fight for economic equality as much as it is to oppose religion with rational arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)