Study: Science and Religion Really are Enemies...

[LuisDantas]

Religion and religious mentality is almost the complete opposite of science and scientific thinking, so I'm surprised theses two being enemies has not blown in bigger proportions.

You are painting with too broad a stroke, IMO. The anti-science crowd that is so popular in the USA is not very representative of religion as a whole. It is just very succesfull when it comes to political influence.

 

[Maldini]

You are painting with too broad a stroke, IMO. The anti-science crowd that is so popular in the USA is not very representative of religion as a whole. It is just very succesfull when it comes to political influence.

I'm talking about the concepts. Of course people are not gonna be 100% influenced with only one of these two.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm talking about the concepts. Of course people are not gonna be 100% influenced with only one of these two.

I am talking about the concepts as well. While it is a common misconception that religion should oppose science or else attempt to appropriate it (and even many priests and supposedly religious people hold it), I feel that it is very much a misconception and should be fought.

 

[Riverwolf]

How is what that article was talking about any indication of "enemy-hood" between religion and the sciences? Not all the sciences deal in technological innovation, after all, and much of the groundwork for the modern scientific method was laid by Catholic Monks.

 

[Skwim]

Study: Science and Religion Really are Enemies...

Actually, Science has no argument with religion other than to fight those who try to get religious ideas into public school science classrooms. On the other hand, some religious folk vehemently fight the ideas of science.

As for the linked issue, it's conclusions seem old hat. There has always seemed to be an inverse relationship between religious/scientific population demographics.

 

[LuisDantas]

How is what that article was talking about any indication of "enemy-hood" between religion and the sciences? Not all the sciences deal in technological innovation, after all,

Most do, even the human sciences. But granted, the method they used is indeed a bit less suitable to deal with human sciences, since it is based on accounting patent requests.

and much of the groundwork for the modern scientific method was laid by Catholic Monks.

The article attempts to map out the current situation, though, not that of centuries ago.

 

[Thana]

Interesting study.

What do you make of it? Why?

Correlations. They're curious and may have something to them, But again, They're just correlations.

And I don't see what scientific innovation has to do with religion or vice versa. And I don't see why any religion would feel the need to oppose scientific innovation, The thing that can cure diseases and create renewable resources.

The article seems a little too agenda driven to me

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Interesting study.

What do you make of it? Why?

Some mentioned statistical understanding. My second M.S. is in statistics. I see nothing wrong with the methods here. However the interpretation may be a little sensational.

First there is nothing to support a causal relationship, they are talking about a correlation. The correlation is rather strong, however the variables are both rather broad.

Does # of patents = 'science?' Religiosity = individuals view of their own religiosity? I could imagine a person that prays daily in one part of the world may see themselves as not all that religious, while someone who goes to church on christmas and easter in another part of the world may have said very religious. I just don't know.

That said, there certainly seems to be a strong correlation between whatever these variable really represent. But drawing any conclusions other than 'further research indicated' may be a bit overboard.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Interesting study.

What do you make of it? Why?

I've written something about this, which will be relevant to things I say below: Galileo and the Origin of Science

1) The article in question is almost entirely a summary of parts of a paper presented at a department seminar, which I would say (given some familiarity with such papers) is part of an ongoing project by Benabou and coauthors that will probably end up in a peer-reviewed study in some form, but is in a far more "rough" form currently: "Forbidden Fruits: The Political Economy of Science, Religion, and Growth"

2) The paper's models offer support for three models for the religiosity/scientific nexus: tendency towards theocracy and stifling the sciences, tendency towards secular worldviews and scientific development, and both. That is, they don't conclude that "science and religion are really enemies" at all.

3) Both the seminar and study approached the issue not from a philosophy of science, history of science, or any similar approach typical for understanding/modelling the sciences, their nature, & their development.

4) The study didn't make use of typical economic research methods, although the approach taken is the only one that can be suitable for virtually all economic modelling. The problem is that while some in the social sciences have, for years, not only utilized a complex/dynamical systems approach but have contributed to our techniques for dealing with such systems, this study combines an incredibly simplistic dynamical systems approach with the usual reliance on unsound statistical procedures and statistical design (i.e., hypothesis testing or null hypothesis significance testing).

5) With the exception of a few studies, such as those (generally equally poor) by Stark, the authors don't deal with the literature on what the sciences are, how they developed, when & why the didn't, how they didn't develop in cultures in which concepts & technologies generally associated with the sciences did, etc.

6) The paper focuses the bulk of its historical summary on "the Church", but falls victim to common misconceptions such as Galileo and the RCC (for a volume with a paper in large agreement with this paper's conclusion yet with a devastating critique on the relevancy of the Galileo affair, see Numbers, R. L. (Ed.). (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard University Press.). This has important consequences for the authors' later findings.

For example, in their analysis of scientific progress in history (which informs their current models), they fail to note what so confused Bertrand Russell: why a nation like China which had no religious obstacles to the development of the sciences and which, prior to the early modern period, was unsurpassed when it came to engineering and made huge strides in mathematics, still failed to develop natural philosophy- the precursor to the sciences that began in ancient Greece and remained unsurpassed until development of the Western university system by the Roman Catholic Church as well as late Scholasticism.

The modern analogue would be the number of patents that is mentioned in both the article and the study as a measure of scientific progress/development. It confuses technological developments, which do not require the foundations needed for even the precursor of the sciences with the sciences. "Science" requires a worldview in which it makes sense to investigate natural phenomena, understand these investigations in terms of order. Without a belief that the replication of a finding supports a general "law" there is no basis for empirical inquiry and no capacity for any empirical findings to connect with any explanatory theory/model).

7) For over a millennia, Christians and later Muslim scholars who drew extensively upon Aristotle failed to test his theory of mechanics (motion) which Aristotle could have disproved by one of many fairly simple experiments. It wasn't until Galileo that this was challenged and among the first empirical (scientific) studies conducted. And it was his challenge of this pre-Christian Greek pagan which was central to his trial and house arrest:
"It is true of course that in the seventeenth century the arch-Copernican Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) met opposition from Catholic authorities in Rome. However, their dispute focused on matters related to biblical interpretation, educational jurisdiction, and the threat Galileo represented to the entrenched 'scientific' authority of Aristotle, not on any supposed Copernican depreciation of the cosmic specialness or privilege of humankind. If anything, Galileo and his fellow Copernicans were raising the status of earth and its inhabitants within the universe."
Danielson, D.R. (2009). "That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science" in R. L. Numbers (Ed.). (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard University Press.

8) In addition to a dynamical systems approach, the authors utilize game theory, a tool far more ubiquitous within economics. However, it is at best limited to the "game" specified in the mathematical models used in this or any other study as well as the mathematical "agents" in such models. The rather complete irrelevancy of agents which are necessarily defined by an economy that didn't exist long after natural philosophy had become "Science" render the model self-defeating. It attempts to demonstrate how the sciences do or don't progress given a socio-cultural context which didn't result in, or contribute to, the vast majority of developments required for the emergence of the sciences from natural philosophy as well, as the continued development of the sciences after the emergence of the scientific endeavor.


Basically, a failure to actually deal with what "science" is in order to build model(s) which demonstrate the factors contributing to its development, the use of overly-simplistic dynamical systems modelling and game theory, the reliance on an ubiquitous but unsound & empirically unsupported statistical designed, and the thoroughly economically-grounded approach to a field of inquiry that developed without the possibility of the assumptions made in the approach render pretty questionable the entirety of the study.

That said, the question is a broad one and the study wasn't your typical scientific paper. Further work distributed among several studies might prove very helpful, such as
1) those that deal with one of the three classes of models in-depth
2) one or more which deal with what "scientific progress" means
3) one or more which deal with what the sciences are and how socio-cultural norms, worldviews, etc., do or do not interact with the foundations of the sciences
&
4) those which don't rely on unsound statistics and incredibly simplistic nonlinear modelling but cutting-edge use of sound mathematical tools.

 

[George-ananda]

I've written something about this, which will be relevant to things I say below: Galileo and the Origin of Science

1) The article in question is almost entirely a summary of parts of a paper presented at a department seminar, which I would say (given some familiarity with such papers) is part of an ongoing project by Benabou and coauthors that will probably end up in a peer-reviewed study in some form, but is in a far more "rough" form currently: "Forbidden Fruits: The Political Economy of Science, Religion, and Growth"

2) The paper's models offer support for three models for the religiosity/scientific nexus: tendency towards theocracy and stifling the sciences, tendency towards secular worldviews and scientific development, and both. That is, they don't conclude that "science and religion are really enemies" at all.

3) Both the seminar and study approached the issue not from a philosophy of science, history of science, or any similar approach typical for understanding/modelling the sciences, their nature, & their development.

4) The study didn't make use of typical economic research methods, although the approach taken is the only one that can be suitable for virtually all economic modelling. The problem is that while some in the social sciences have, for years, not only utilized a complex/dynamical systems approach but have contributed to our techniques for dealing with such systems, this study combines an incredibly simplistic dynamical systems approach with the usual reliance on unsound statistical procedures and statistical design (i.e., hypothesis testing or null hypothesis significance testing).

5) With the exception of a few studies, such as those (generally equally poor) by Stark, the authors don't deal with the literature on what the sciences are, how they developed, when & why the didn't, how they didn't develop in cultures in which concepts & technologies generally associated with the sciences did, etc.

6) The paper focuses the bulk of its historical summary on "the Church", but falls victim to common misconceptions such as Galileo and the RCC (for a volume with a paper in large agreement with this paper's conclusion yet with a devastating critique on the relevancy of the Galileo affair, see Numbers, R. L. (Ed.). (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard University Press.). This has important consequences for the authors' later findings.

For example, in their analysis of scientific progress in history (which informs their current models), they fail to note what so confused Bertrand Russell: why a nation like China which had no religious obstacles to the development of the sciences and which, prior to the early modern period, was unsurpassed when it came to engineering and made huge strides in mathematics, still failed to develop natural philosophy- the precursor to the sciences that began in ancient Greece and remained unsurpassed until development of the Western university system by the Roman Catholic Church as well as late Scholasticism.

The modern analogue would be the number of patents that is mentioned in both the article and the study as a measure of scientific progress/development. It confuses technological developments, which do not require the foundations needed for even the precursor of the sciences with the sciences. "Science" requires a worldview in which it makes sense to investigate natural phenomena, understand these investigations in terms of order. Without a belief that the replication of a finding supports a general "law" there is no basis for empirical inquiry and no capacity for any empirical findings to connect with any explanatory theory/model).

7) For over a millennia, Christians and later Muslim scholars who drew extensively upon Aristotle failed to test his theory of mechanics (motion) which Aristotle could have disproved by one of many fairly simple experiments. It wasn't until Galileo that this was challenged and among the first empirical (scientific) studies conducted. And it was his challenge of this pre-Christian Greek pagan which was central to his trial and house arrest:
"It is true of course that in the seventeenth century the arch-Copernican Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) met opposition from Catholic authorities in Rome. However, their dispute focused on matters related to biblical interpretation, educational jurisdiction, and the threat Galileo represented to the entrenched 'scientific' authority of Aristotle, not on any supposed Copernican depreciation of the cosmic specialness or privilege of humankind. If anything, Galileo and his fellow Copernicans were raising the status of earth and its inhabitants within the universe."
Danielson, D.R. (2009). "That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science" in R. L. Numbers (Ed.). (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard University Press.

8) In addition to a dynamical systems approach, the authors utilize game theory, a tool far more ubiquitous within economics. However, it is at best limited to the "game" specified in the mathematical models used in this or any other study as well as the mathematical "agents" in such models. The rather complete irrelevancy of agents which are necessarily defined by an economy that didn't exist long after natural philosophy had become "Science" render the model self-defeating. It attempts to demonstrate how the sciences do or don't progress given a socio-cultural context which didn't result in, or contribute to, the vast majority of developments required for the emergence of the sciences from natural philosophy as well, as the continued development of the sciences after the emergence of the scientific endeavor.


Basically, a failure to actually deal with what "science" is in order to build model(s) which demonstrate the factors contributing to its development, the use of overly-simplistic dynamical systems modelling and game theory, the reliance on an ubiquitous but unsound & empirically unsupported statistical designed, and the thoroughly economically-grounded approach to a field of inquiry that developed without the possibility of the assumptions made in the approach render pretty questionable the entirety of the study.

That said, the question is a broad one and the study wasn't your typical scientific paper. Further work distributed among several studies might prove very helpful, such as
1) those that deal with one of the three classes of models in-depth
2) one or more which deal with what "scientific progress" means
3) one or more which deal with what the sciences are and how socio-cultural norms, worldviews, etc., do or do not interact with the foundations of the sciences
&
4) those which don't rely on unsound statistics and incredibly simplistic nonlinear modelling but cutting-edge use of sound mathematical tools.

Dude, I don't think you are ever guilty of lack of effort in your replies.

 

[fantome profane]

“I find the defendant not guilty. As for Science versus Religion, I'm issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay 500 yards from Science at all times.”

—Judge Roy Snyder​

 

[Riverwolf]

Most do, even the human sciences. But granted, the method they used is indeed a bit less suitable to deal with human sciences, since it is based on accounting patent requests.

Many can, but the goal of the concept of science isn't technological innovation; it's elimination of ignorance. Technological innovation just so happens to be a side-effect of that in many situations.

The article attempts to map out the current situation, though, not that of centuries ago.

Fair enough.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Dude, I don't think you are ever guilty of lack of effort in your replies.

Just lack of clarity, readability, and utility.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Religion must stay 500 yards from Science at all times

But who will do the research on intelligent design, creationism, and...oh, wait. We only need scientists (and those who aid them) for actual scientific research. Now, if only we could actually institute such a restraining order.

 

[TashaN]

I've written something about this, which will be relevant to things I say below: Galileo and the Origin of Science

1) The article in question is almost entirely a summary of parts of a paper presented at a department seminar, which I would say (given some familiarity with such papers) is part of an ongoing project by Benabou and coauthors that will probably end up in a peer-reviewed study in some form, but is in a far more "rough" form currently: "Forbidden Fruits: The Political Economy of Science, Religion, and Growth"

2) The paper's models offer support for three models for the religiosity/scientific nexus: tendency towards theocracy and stifling the sciences, tendency towards secular worldviews and scientific development, and both. That is, they don't conclude that "science and religion are really enemies" at all.

3) Both the seminar and study approached the issue not from a philosophy of science, history of science, or any similar approach typical for understanding/modelling the sciences, their nature, & their development.

4) The study didn't make use of typical economic research methods, although the approach taken is the only one that can be suitable for virtually all economic modelling. The problem is that while some in the social sciences have, for years, not only utilized a complex/dynamical systems approach but have contributed to our techniques for dealing with such systems, this study combines an incredibly simplistic dynamical systems approach with the usual reliance on unsound statistical procedures and statistical design (i.e., hypothesis testing or null hypothesis significance testing).

5) With the exception of a few studies, such as those (generally equally poor) by Stark, the authors don't deal with the literature on what the sciences are, how they developed, when & why the didn't, how they didn't develop in cultures in which concepts & technologies generally associated with the sciences did, etc.

6) The paper focuses the bulk of its historical summary on "the Church", but falls victim to common misconceptions such as Galileo and the RCC (for a volume with a paper in large agreement with this paper's conclusion yet with a devastating critique on the relevancy of the Galileo affair, see Numbers, R. L. (Ed.). (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard University Press.). This has important consequences for the authors' later findings.

For example, in their analysis of scientific progress in history (which informs their current models), they fail to note what so confused Bertrand Russell: why a nation like China which had no religious obstacles to the development of the sciences and which, prior to the early modern period, was unsurpassed when it came to engineering and made huge strides in mathematics, still failed to develop natural philosophy- the precursor to the sciences that began in ancient Greece and remained unsurpassed until development of the Western university system by the Roman Catholic Church as well as late Scholasticism.

The modern analogue would be the number of patents that is mentioned in both the article and the study as a measure of scientific progress/development. It confuses technological developments, which do not require the foundations needed for even the precursor of the sciences with the sciences. "Science" requires a worldview in which it makes sense to investigate natural phenomena, understand these investigations in terms of order. Without a belief that the replication of a finding supports a general "law" there is no basis for empirical inquiry and no capacity for any empirical findings to connect with any explanatory theory/model).

7) For over a millennia, Christians and later Muslim scholars who drew extensively upon Aristotle failed to test his theory of mechanics (motion) which Aristotle could have disproved by one of many fairly simple experiments. It wasn't until Galileo that this was challenged and among the first empirical (scientific) studies conducted. And it was his challenge of this pre-Christian Greek pagan which was central to his trial and house arrest:
"It is true of course that in the seventeenth century the arch-Copernican Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) met opposition from Catholic authorities in Rome. However, their dispute focused on matters related to biblical interpretation, educational jurisdiction, and the threat Galileo represented to the entrenched 'scientific' authority of Aristotle, not on any supposed Copernican depreciation of the cosmic specialness or privilege of humankind. If anything, Galileo and his fellow Copernicans were raising the status of earth and its inhabitants within the universe."
Danielson, D.R. (2009). "That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science" in R. L. Numbers (Ed.). (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard University Press.

8) In addition to a dynamical systems approach, the authors utilize game theory, a tool far more ubiquitous within economics. However, it is at best limited to the "game" specified in the mathematical models used in this or any other study as well as the mathematical "agents" in such models. The rather complete irrelevancy of agents which are necessarily defined by an economy that didn't exist long after natural philosophy had become "Science" render the model self-defeating. It attempts to demonstrate how the sciences do or don't progress given a socio-cultural context which didn't result in, or contribute to, the vast majority of developments required for the emergence of the sciences from natural philosophy as well, as the continued development of the sciences after the emergence of the scientific endeavor.


Basically, a failure to actually deal with what "science" is in order to build model(s) which demonstrate the factors contributing to its development, the use of overly-simplistic dynamical systems modelling and game theory, the reliance on an ubiquitous but unsound & empirically unsupported statistical designed, and the thoroughly economically-grounded approach to a field of inquiry that developed without the possibility of the assumptions made in the approach render pretty questionable the entirety of the study.

That said, the question is a broad one and the study wasn't your typical scientific paper. Further work distributed among several studies might prove very helpful, such as
1) those that deal with one of the three classes of models in-depth
2) one or more which deal with what "scientific progress" means
3) one or more which deal with what the sciences are and how socio-cultural norms, worldviews, etc., do or do not interact with the foundations of the sciences
&
4) those which don't rely on unsound statistics and incredibly simplistic nonlinear modelling but cutting-edge use of sound mathematical tools.

:clap :bow: :yes:

I really appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I have a question, do you believe scientific studies should adopt more and more PPP rather than just the typical GDP?

EDIT: developing countries tend to have a higher PPP than GDP. right?

 

[George-ananda]

Just lack of clarity, readability, and utility.

It just seems like huge amounts of analysis only point to the need for further analysis. As we humans don't live all that long we have to live before we understand perfectly.

 

[outhouse]

I've written something about this, which will be relevant to things I say below: Galileo and the Origin of Science

1) The article in question is almost entirely a summary of parts of a paper presented at a department seminar, which I would say (given some familiarity with such papers) is part of an ongoing project by Benabou and coauthors that will probably end up in a peer-reviewed study in some form, but is in a far more "rough" form currently: "Forbidden Fruits: The Political Economy of Science, Religion, and Growth"

2) The paper's models offer support for three models for the religiosity/scientific nexus: tendency towards theocracy and stifling the sciences, tendency towards secular worldviews and scientific development, and both. That is, they don't conclude that "science and religion are really enemies" at all.

3) Both the seminar and study approached the issue not from a philosophy of science, history of science, or any similar approach typical for understanding/modelling the sciences, their nature, & their development.

4) The study didn't make use of typical economic research methods, although the approach taken is the only one that can be suitable for virtually all economic modelling. The problem is that while some in the social sciences have, for years, not only utilized a complex/dynamical systems approach but have contributed to our techniques for dealing with such systems, this study combines an incredibly simplistic dynamical systems approach with the usual reliance on unsound statistical procedures and statistical design (i.e., hypothesis testing or null hypothesis significance testing).

5) With the exception of a few studies, such as those (generally equally poor) by Stark, the authors don't deal with the literature on what the sciences are, how they developed, when & why the didn't, how they didn't develop in cultures in which concepts & technologies generally associated with the sciences did, etc.

6) The paper focuses the bulk of its historical summary on "the Church", but falls victim to common misconceptions such as Galileo and the RCC (for a volume with a paper in large agreement with this paper's conclusion yet with a devastating critique on the relevancy of the Galileo affair, see Numbers, R. L. (Ed.). (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard University Press.). This has important consequences for the authors' later findings.

For example, in their analysis of scientific progress in history (which informs their current models), they fail to note what so confused Bertrand Russell: why a nation like China which had no religious obstacles to the development of the sciences and which, prior to the early modern period, was unsurpassed when it came to engineering and made huge strides in mathematics, still failed to develop natural philosophy- the precursor to the sciences that began in ancient Greece and remained unsurpassed until development of the Western university system by the Roman Catholic Church as well as late Scholasticism.

The modern analogue would be the number of patents that is mentioned in both the article and the study as a measure of scientific progress/development. It confuses technological developments, which do not require the foundations needed for even the precursor of the sciences with the sciences. "Science" requires a worldview in which it makes sense to investigate natural phenomena, understand these investigations in terms of order. Without a belief that the replication of a finding supports a general "law" there is no basis for empirical inquiry and no capacity for any empirical findings to connect with any explanatory theory/model).

7) For over a millennia, Christians and later Muslim scholars who drew extensively upon Aristotle failed to test his theory of mechanics (motion) which Aristotle could have disproved by one of many fairly simple experiments. It wasn't until Galileo that this was challenged and among the first empirical (scientific) studies conducted. And it was his challenge of this pre-Christian Greek pagan which was central to his trial and house arrest:
"It is true of course that in the seventeenth century the arch-Copernican Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) met opposition from Catholic authorities in Rome. However, their dispute focused on matters related to biblical interpretation, educational jurisdiction, and the threat Galileo represented to the entrenched 'scientific' authority of Aristotle, not on any supposed Copernican depreciation of the cosmic specialness or privilege of humankind. If anything, Galileo and his fellow Copernicans were raising the status of earth and its inhabitants within the universe."
Danielson, D.R. (2009). "That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science" in R. L. Numbers (Ed.). (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard University Press.

8) In addition to a dynamical systems approach, the authors utilize game theory, a tool far more ubiquitous within economics. However, it is at best limited to the "game" specified in the mathematical models used in this or any other study as well as the mathematical "agents" in such models. The rather complete irrelevancy of agents which are necessarily defined by an economy that didn't exist long after natural philosophy had become "Science" render the model self-defeating. It attempts to demonstrate how the sciences do or don't progress given a socio-cultural context which didn't result in, or contribute to, the vast majority of developments required for the emergence of the sciences from natural philosophy as well, as the continued development of the sciences after the emergence of the scientific endeavor.


Basically, a failure to actually deal with what "science" is in order to build model(s) which demonstrate the factors contributing to its development, the use of overly-simplistic dynamical systems modelling and game theory, the reliance on an ubiquitous but unsound & empirically unsupported statistical designed, and the thoroughly economically-grounded approach to a field of inquiry that developed without the possibility of the assumptions made in the approach render pretty questionable the entirety of the study.

That said, the question is a broad one and the study wasn't your typical scientific paper. Further work distributed among several studies might prove very helpful, such as
1) those that deal with one of the three classes of models in-depth
2) one or more which deal with what "scientific progress" means
3) one or more which deal with what the sciences are and how socio-cultural norms, worldviews, etc., do or do not interact with the foundations of the sciences
&
4) those which don't rely on unsound statistics and incredibly simplistic nonlinear modelling but cutting-edge use of sound mathematical tools.

I must add.


Religions retard academic freedom, and it should be a crime against humanity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For me, there is no difference between religious belief and science, not even and iota.

 

[Skwim]

For me, there is no difference between religious belief and science, not even and iota.

Are you sure you want to say this about yourself? Truly?

 

[StarryNightshade]

Interesting study.

What do you make of it? Why?

1.) Correlation does not equal causation.

2.) There is so much diversity within religious thought, that to paint such a broad stroke of religion is erroneous at best, and intellectually disingenuous at worst.