Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar
Don't you think it's more likely that Danny Thomas was a good person who did good things, and Christianity happened to be the language through which he expressed his motivations for those things?
Turn it around for the case of bad people who have done hateful things in the name of Christianity and I believe you will have no trouble seeing what I mean.
I think religions and ideologies are arbitrary and hence they are not "true" in themselves, but their utility can be judged by whether people who subscribe to them do good things. I think the latter clause is your very point, so I believe you're tracking on this. So, for example, white supremacy does not seem to have resulted in an abundance of positive action.
Religions, particularly monotheistic religions which like invasive species take over entire areas and push out all competitors, are hard to evaluate because of their dominance in a population. You can't evaluate the effect of x on a population when 90% of the population has x as its attribute. There's no control group.
I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with the argument you're trying to make but I don't think you are going to find useful experimental conditions from which you can extract good data. There are too may confounding effects, not the least of which is social variables are almost never independent. You can read all about this in my new book, Sociology: Why It's All F-cked Up.
However there are exact specifics that are the core of what Jesus taught - i.e., aiding the poor, the less fortunate and those in need. To illustrate, specific faith events leading to Danny Thomas single handedly creating one of the top hospitals in the world for children in need. The Word... leading to faith...leading to outcomes that are directly tied back to both faith and the Word.
Don't you think it's more likely that Danny Thomas was a good person who did good things, and Christianity happened to be the language through which he expressed his motivations for those things?
Turn it around for the case of bad people who have done hateful things in the name of Christianity and I believe you will have no trouble seeing what I mean.
I think religions and ideologies are arbitrary and hence they are not "true" in themselves, but their utility can be judged by whether people who subscribe to them do good things. I think the latter clause is your very point, so I believe you're tracking on this. So, for example, white supremacy does not seem to have resulted in an abundance of positive action.
Religions, particularly monotheistic religions which like invasive species take over entire areas and push out all competitors, are hard to evaluate because of their dominance in a population. You can't evaluate the effect of x on a population when 90% of the population has x as its attribute. There's no control group.
I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with the argument you're trying to make but I don't think you are going to find useful experimental conditions from which you can extract good data. There are too may confounding effects, not the least of which is social variables are almost never independent. You can read all about this in my new book, Sociology: Why It's All F-cked Up.