Greetings to all those new to this debate that Daniel and I have been having.
Daniel refers here to my accusations of hyperbole in his arguments. I stand by this. His main point in an earlier thread was: RELIGION HAS THE ABILITY TO END CIVILIZATION. I believe that this is a pretty clear example of hyperbole. My entire thread of argument in that thread was to get Daniel to understand this. Apparently he didn't even understand that this was my point. He made this same assertion several times in several guises, but it always boiled down to that BOLD statement. He NEVER justified this.
I didn't give a single argument that religious people are either more or less logical than the general public. This wasn't what I was debating. I was also not debating whether or not there are negative consequences of extreme religious views. The push to teach creationism in public school science classes is a great example of such a negative consequence. I agree entirely with Daniel on this point. I am indeed dismayed that such a small percentage of Americans understands (or is even willing to entertain the possibility of) the theory of evolution. Needless to say I think that creationism and related nonsense does not belong in science classes anywhere.
When religious groups fight to get creationism (or intelligent design or ...) taught in science classes, they need to be fought. When they succeed in these efforts, they are causing harm. I agree with all of this.
Daniel you refer to "my truth". I maintain that your assertion that RELIGION HAS THE ABILITY TO END CIVILIZATION is hyperbole. That remains "my truth." I wasn't arguing about anything else in those other threads (other than to point out that the cartoon "Christian" was an example of a straw man attack).
I was trying to help you make more logical arguments .. to not make outrageous claims without justification .. and to limit your arguments to what is demonstrable and justifiable.
I note that in this current post you are not claiming that RELIGION HAS THE ABILITY TO END CIVILIZATION so I suspect that I may actually have been successful.
PS If it matters to anyone, I am agnostic.
PPS Daniel, reread the previous threads. The point of my handgun references was to show you that one could use PRECISELY the logic that you were using in your anti-religion tirade in an anti-handgun tirade. If the logic doesn't work for handguns, then it doesn't work for religion. I realize that you think that the cases aren't as parallel as I was claiming, but this is because you were using as a premise that RELIGION HAS THE ABILITY TO END CIVILIZATION. Until I could break you of this (way over the top) premise, there was no hope of your seeing the analogy.
Daniel Miessler
· 8 months ago
Ok, I was specifically adressing what I believed to be your overall opinion that religion as a whole is moderate and therefore harmless. If that's not an argument you're making then that's my mistake.
So it seems your main disagreement is with my "Religion has the ability to end civilization." statement. Ok, let's work there.
--
When I say "religion has the ability to end civilization" you're claiming this needs to be differentiated from PEOPLE ending civilization because of religion. This is the same thing as saying, "people don't kill people, THE LAWS of PHYSICS kill people." In other words, there's always a way to get more direct than a given cause, but doing so only obfuscates the true cause.
The point here is that taking the lives of both yourself and the millions of men, women, and children in a city REQUIRES a certain state of mind, and that state of mind is most likely to be found in a religious person.
Most importantly, this requisite state of mind almost necessitates the belief that there will be something better in a next life, or that the creator of the universe actually WANTS this to happen, in order to go through with it.
In short, the fantasy-based alternate realities (the afterlife, heaven, virgins, etc.) all provide fertile ground for the acceptability of ending life in THIS world. And this cannot be anywhere near as readily without religion.
Example: if that guy in Alabama who killed his family had the ABILITY to kill 100,000,000 people instead of five, what are the odds he would do it? What are the chances he would end the lives of everyone in a mosque at any given moment? Probably not that high. Why? Because of morality.
But let's imagine such a weapon in the hands of the 9/11 hijackers--people who believed they were going to heaven to get virgins. Would THEY use a weapon that would kill everyone in the United States in one shot? Yes, they probably would.
You have to realize that the ability to do this is peripheral; it's the WILLINGNESS to do it that matters. Due to the Internet and the advances of science and technology, the ABILITY for someone to do this is nearly inevitable. The only thing that will stop humanity from doing this to themselves will be the ability to prevent the multiplication of people who would actually do it given the chance.
That's where religion comes in. It provides a view of the world in which normal humans (i.e. not Pol Pot or Stalin) could actually take millions of lives and feel good about it. It is this perversion of morality and reality that I am speaking of when I say, "Religion has the ability to end civilization."
I look forward to your response.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
"Example: if that guy in Alabama who killed his family had the ABILITY to kill 100,000,000 people instead of five, what are the odds he would do it? What are the chances he would end the lives of everyone in a mosque at any given moment? Probably not that high. Why? Because of morality."
You can't possibly be serious. You're arguing that a guy who killed his family is moral?
I'll respond to more when my brain ceases to be boggled.
Daniel Miessler
· 8 months ago
Come on. Stay with me here...
Do you really think that once someone is willing to kill, they're willing to kill on any scale? No. That's absurd. Being able to kill people you know after seeing your wife with another man is COMPLETELY different from being able to kill an entire city full of people, or a race of people, etc.
The former is quite common and doesn't require much other than human nature. The easiest way to get the latter, however, is to have religious beliefs. Very few "worldly" justifications exist for exterminating people on that scale.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
"Very few "worldly" justifications exist for exterminating people on that scale." Very few "religious" justifications exist for exterminating people on that scale.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
"This is the same thing as saying, "people don't kill people, THE LAWS of PHYSICS kill people." In other words, there's always a way to get more direct than a given cause, but doing so only obfuscates the true cause."
I agree. So I assume that you'd be OK if I said "Guns don't kill people, people with ACCESS to guns kill people." (The guy who killed his family didn't strangle them. At least in the US you hardly ever hear of a mass murder / suicide where it isn't a gun or guns being used.) You're argument seems to reply on the assumption that without religion there is no motive for huge mass murder. I don't accept this premise.
"The point here is that taking the lives of both yourself and the millions of men, women, and children in a city REQUIRES a certain state of mind, and that state of mind is most likely to be found in a religious person." Daniel, most people in the world are religious. So let's say that 1 in 6,000,000 people have this insanely murderous frame of mind .. and could actually be capable of carrying something like this out. Then there are approximately 1000 such people in the world. If they are scattered randomly throughout the world (suppose it is a mental defect that is due to a random mutation) then most of the 1000 would be religious simply because most people in the world are religious. This doesn't prove cause and effect.
I know what you're thinking. "Carl, that's not what I meant. I meant that this mindset is DISPROPORTIONALLY likely to be found in a religious person." I'm just not convinced. The Holocaust (a pretty BIG example of mass murder) was NOT inspired by the sort of religious insanity that you're talking about here.
"Most importantly, this requisite state of mind almost necessitates the belief that there will be something better in a next life, or that the creator of the universe actually WANTS this to happen, in order to go through with it." Once again, the Holocaust is a counterexample. (I know you said "almost" to cover your butt, but this is a pretty big counterexample.)
"Would THEY use a weapon that would kill everyone in the United States in one shot? Yes, they probably would." Daniel, I love science fiction, but keep it out of these arguments. Would they use such a weapon? Maybe. (But I'd point out that such a weapon doesn't exist. They can't destroy civilization if the means to do so doesn't even exist.)
Daniel, I am not a believer that morality belongs ONLY to religious people, but I am a believer that there are MANY very moral religious people .. some of whom maintain their morality BECAUSE of their religious beliefs. You may find them delusional, but they are MORAL.
"That's where religion comes in. It provides a view of the world in which normal humans (i.e. not Pol Pot or Stalin) could actually take millions of lives and feel good about it." I'm honestly confused here. Stalin is not a normal human .. because he was an atheist who killed? .. because he was a leader and had "extra" power because of this? You mean "ordinary citizen" ?
I guess part of the reason that I'm so concerned that you are barking up the wrong tree because I think that a focus on religion will not make the world a safer place. I think it's entirely the wrong focus.
You will NOT "cure" humanity of this "affliction," but it is possible to lessen the desire of people to harm the US. You think this is about the US being a country of infidels? It's not. We have not done a good job of handling our international relationships. We have done things that have contributed to the hate that people have for us. Let's address the things that can be addressed.
Are there religious nutcases out there? Yes. Is it their religion that made them nutcases? You've not shown cause and effect, and I don't believe it's there. Did religion make it easier for others to brainwash them so as to USE them for their own (entirely non-religious) political goals? Yeah, maybe. But a distinction is often made in the US between a cult and a religion. Perhaps this distinction is an important one in the current discussion.
I know that when you read the description on that page you will assert that ALL religions fall under the definition of cult on that page. But you are wrong. This is what I've been trying to tell you. You do not fully understand the nature of religion.
... I'm getting tired and this is long enough for now.
Daniel Miessler
· 8 months ago
I've not shown cause and effect?
The cause is the pre-existing environment of fantasy-acceptance. Once that hurdle has been crossed it's much easier to accept further nonsense (and to embrace more extreme versions of the same concepts).
That's the cause and effect.
Acceptance and tolerance of moderate religion gives instant legitimacy and protection to more extreme versions of commonly held beliefs. This is simply because even the moderates believe some highly outlandish things, and it's not much of a stretch to go further.
It's our inability to criticize that which doesn't have merit in reality that is dangerous, as it provides a fertile breeding ground for the far more dangerous strains of religion.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
I didn't say that you didn't PROPOSE cause and effect. This isn't the same thing as SHOWING cause and effect.
"Once that hurdle has been crossed it's much easier to accept further nonsense (and to embrace more extreme versions of the same concepts)." This is EXACTLY the "gateway drug" argument. So, I must assume that you accept that argument too (though I think that you probably don't).
If the LOGIC of your argument doesn't work in all situations, then the LOGIC is faulty.
The fact that heroin users started smoking when they were 10 doesn't mean that kids who smoke when they are 10 will become heroin users. Similarly, the fact that there are people who are BOTH religious AND nutcases does not imply that they are nutcases BECAUSE of their religion. There are plenty of nutcases among atheists.
"It's our inability to criticize that which doesn't have merit in reality that is dangerous, as it provides a fertile breeding ground for the far more dangerous strains of religion."
Criticize all you wish. But if you want to make a logical argument for cause and effect, you must work harder. Restrict your premises to things that are demonstrably true. Use careful logic as you proceed, and don't be fooled into believing that your arguments are stronger than they are simply because you already believe the conclusion at which you are heading.
Daniel Miessler
· 8 months ago
> If the LOGIC of your argument doesn't work in all situations, then the LOGIC is faulty.
Really, Carl? Really? Are you really taking that line? Here are a few for you that also fall into that category:
* It's hard to be a heroin user and become a CEO. * It's not good to punch your boss in the face if you want a promotion. * Tall people are better at Basketball * People with higher IQs make more money
All of these things are true, and all of them have MANY exceptions. We're not talking about scientific theories here, where a single disagreeing datapoint shows that the theory is incorrect.
Or, even better, we CAN show that relativity is wrong in some cases, yet it's still in an invaluable tool for understanding our universe. I propose that it's the same for my claims about religion and the accompanying willingness to forego this life in exchange for another one based in fantasy.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
Daniel, you have entirely missed my point. Here it is in a nutshell: Correlation does not imply Causation.
Of course I wasn't demanding 100% correlation from your examples. That was not my point at all. I thought you would know what I meant when I used the gateway drug example since it wasn't that long ago that you implied that you thought it didn't make sense that cigarettes and alcohol were legal but pot wasn't. So here is the argument phrased in the words and style YOU used to PROVE cause an effect in your religion example.
We shouldn't legalize pot because once kids try pot ... once that hurdle has been crossed ... it's much easier to accept further nonsense and to embrace more extreme drugs.
The LOGIC there is that kids who try pot are that much more likely to try harder and more harmful drugs. Therefore, pot shouldn't be legalized.
But though this makes sense, it's not clear that it is actually TRUE. It may be that even if pot was eliminated from the planet, roughly the same numbers of people would still turn to hard drugs. Perhaps pot has nothing at all to do with it. The point is that even if an argument for causation makes some sense, it does not SHOW causation.
So, yes. You are using faulty logic and I am pointing this out to you. You're right that we're not talking about scientific theory, but you are trying to claim that religion is a CAUSE of certain attitudes and that these attitudes WILL lead to certain behavior. I am holding you to a certain logical standard in making that argument.
FUN FACT: In grade school children (grades K-5) it is a well known fact that children with larger feet are better readers. (This correlation disappears in later years.) This fact is absolutely true. There is NO dispute about that. But there is NO causation in either direction. Large feet don't improve reading ability and learning to read doesn't cause your feet to grow. There is a lurking variable: AGE. Older children read better than younger children and older children have larger feet. So there is a (pretty strong) correlation between shoe size and reading ability in those years. Before you jump in and tell me that there are exceptions, I'll tell you that this isn't the point. Save your breath.
"I propose that it's the same for my claims about religion and the accompanying willingness to forego this life in exchange for another one based in fantasy." Daniel, I wasn't accusing you of not realizing that there are exceptions to your claims. I was accusing you of something else. Here it is: You have what you believe to be a plausible link between religion and the end of civilization. It seems to go like this: Religion causes nutcases who are willing to kill millions. Religious nutcases can cause the end of civilization. You believe that because this link is plausible that it is therefore true. THIS is faulty logic.
Consider:
(1) It is entirely possible that these nutcases would be willing to kill millions of people even without religion as a motivating factor. There may be some OTHER motivating factor. Perhaps one as simple as "These people aren't the same as us, (therefore) they are inferior." (HOLOCAUST)
=== There is correlation (nutcases who are also religious), but this doesn't SHOW causation (religion caused them to be nutcases or caused them to become more extreme nutcases).
(2) It is entirely possible that it isn't religion, but a cult-like bastardization of religion that is being used to mold the minds of these nutcases. (And it may be that those doing the molding don't believe their own religious arguments but instead are pursuing an entirely political agenda under the guise of religion.)
(3) This is seeming a minor point now, but I believe that using a phrase like "the end of civilization" doesn't strengthen your argument. I understand your desire for dramatic effect, but when you use such drama it weakens your argument. Stick to things that are demonstrably true rather than things that are hypothetically true in some version of the future. (It is not irrelevant that the people you are speaking of do not have the means to destroy civilization. By the way, they could have 10 nukes and they wouldn't have that power. Civilization isn't so easy to destroy.)
Daniel Miessler
· 8 months ago
> The LOGIC there is that kids who try pot are that much more likely to try harder and more harmful drugs. Therefore, pot shouldn't be legalized. But though this makes sense, it's not clear that it is actually TRUE.
Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. You're referring to actual DATA, right? Well, that's what I'm using too. The numbers of people who want to teach creationism and do not believe in evolution are SIGNIFICANTLY higher among common church goers.
So yes, it IS a matter of religion turning people against reality and toward fantasy. There is STRONG correlation between the amount of belief one has and their willingness to ignore logic.
No, Daniel. I'm referring to the fact that you are confusing correlation with causation.
When A and B are correlated, it is POSSIBLE that A causes B. On the other hand, it is POSSIBLE that B causes A. But it is ALSO possible that some OTHER thing (C) causes both A and B. Or it is possible that C causes D which causes A and C causes E which causes F which causes B, and so on.
I'm very familiar with the concept, and I accept it fully. I will not, however, allow it to prevent me from using common sense.
Go find someone who doesn't want evolution taught. Ask them why. When they tell you it's because it's against God, what's your answer?
Now multiply that times all the people I've ever met that didn't want evolution taught. What were their reasons? God. The Bible.
I see a pattern here. Yes, that's just correlation, but it's correlation to the point of obviousness.
I'm showing you concrete data about the link between strong religious beliefs and one's willingness to abandon logic, and you're ranting on about correlation.
If everyone were to be so cautious as you'd like them to be about forming conclusions then there'd be pretty much no reason to do research.
So, yes, religion is correlated to education, so the lack of logic is also correlated to education--I get that. But at some point it's time to start forming conclusions and actual plans to fix the problem, and we have plenty to go on to start doing that.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
I will reply at the top level. Writing in 2 inches of width is silly.
cooperati
· 8 months ago
Not only is religion at least neutral to society, I have long believed it's been a requirement.
Atheists that do not understand have not spent the time observing the ranks of religion in this light. The various forms of theology maintain a base level of organization, and in fact for too many this is the first and sometimes the only form of society they primarily participate in. Yet it stand as a structure that would otherwise abandon the uninitiated to their own barbaric forms which, believe it or not, are much worse than any church.
Imagine if it was some form of Science Fiction convention, where people are asked to draw some morality that they wouldn't otherwise develope independently. There is a product being made in this interaction.
Like all things, there is room for abuse in this. Go to a european soccer match, and you'll find much worse, yet it's endorsed by the government and local markets. People do take things TOO literally, and sometimes are slow to accept new data/science/ideas/philosophy what have you. But this is still humanity. You won't find a place where this isn't the case, religion, or no religion.
It's possible to dump on religion, God, the Pope, Allah, Vishnu, the Dali Lama, whoever, ad nauseum, because they too are either human or human constructs. It doesn't change the fact that people need these things like they need legends such as the George Washington and the Cherry Tree parable, or the one about Abraham Lincoln and the Library Book (things so underscored you probably haven't heard of them).
Daniel, as a purist, I know your beef with religion is that God is infallible, and therefor everything that is flawed was made by a flawed God, and such is impossible from a purist's perspective. However, it's possible to say the Bible is wrong, and still be a believer. At least believing in something better makes you a follower of some faith. If Atheism is the way, be as evangelistic as you want, but in that case, it IS like making a hobby out of not collecting stamps.
peace,
-=T=-
ps, going back even further, look at early examples such as Martin Luther (who we've already talked about), being the first successful example of an individual challenging the infallibility of the once Almighty Church, and began the advance of civilization out of the Dark Ages by questioning the one structure that supported civilization at it's most barbaric hour. He succeeded and the era of the Rennaisance was allowed to proceed because of his success, and other challengers to the right of the Church such as Copernicus. These people changed the church because their societies had outlived the simplicity of it's hive mentality, and had begun to serve the progression of science in little sparks upon the tinder, until we have what we have today. There are more than little pockets of primitive Church going people today. Our excessive level of resources have brought us over the brink of de-evolution, and we are subject to the masses who are not calibrated to think for themselves.
Simply put, give those who seek guidance the guidance they seek, and those who do not need it the door to proceed.
(Somehow, I think this perspective stems from reading the Foundation and Empire Series, by Asimov, early in my adolescence.)
cooperati
· 8 months ago
This much being said, I suppose it's okay to mention that I am a Catholic from inside Catholicism, and that I agree with Carl that Creationism is an extreme that doesn't due credit to society, or engage in it's progress (beyond the academic argument of ruling it out).
That much also being said, I admit that I have in the trunk of my car the first book on evolution given to me, at my catholic school, by my sixth grade teacher, a nun. I actually have two copies of it, one for each of my kids.
(We also covered paleo-archaeology that year.)
-=T=-
CarlM
· 8 months ago
"(Somehow, I think this perspective stems from reading the Foundation and Empire Series, by Asimov, early in my adolescence.)" Great books.
cooperati
· 8 months ago
Awesome books! I eventually read all the Asimov books that looped the Robot Series back onto the Foundation Series.
It should honestly be required reading for sociologists. Alas, it's becoming a lost treasure, (much like access to Hari Seldon's archive. ;)
-=T=-
CarlM
· 8 months ago
I also read them all .. and I still remember where I was when I saw the display for the 4th Foundation book .. that I had NO CLUE was coming out. I picked it up and walked to the cashier without even paging through the book.
Daniel Miessler
· 8 months ago
If you believe the Bible is wrong, and you're still a believer in the Christian God, then you've built your own religion. And at that point I cannot possibly argue with you because you have all the rules in your head.
That's fine, but don't call it Christianity.
cooperati
· 8 months ago
"If you believe the Bible is wrong, and you're still a believer in the Christian God, then you've built your own religion."
Everyone confronts this religion with their own perspective, separate, independent, and alone.
As far as how it's been handed down to me, from a Catholic upbringing, we are meant to take the Bible as a tool for guidance, and NOT LITERAL. Again, this comes from a lay brother at the local catholic high school.
Christianity being a polyglot religion from the start, you will find people who call Catholicism not Christianity, (though you will rarely find Catholics who say the same, as Roman Catholics are the first Christians).
-=T=-
Daniel Miessler
· 8 months ago
My point is that if you don't accept what's in the books, then you're doing your own thing. Period. Fundamentalists are the real believers. Everyone else has either built their own thing based on being uncomfortable with the real teachings or being too lazy to learn them.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
Ahh .. it is becoming clearer. You don't accept that some religious people are religious. You're defining "religious" differently than the rest of us (or than dictionaries).
This makes it difficult to communicate effectively.
(Yes, I know I'm putting words in your mouth. I'm tired and am going to sleep now.)
cooperati
· 8 months ago
Exactly the purist's point of view!
Although, you've conveniently rationalized a loophole in the Bible that exists as a construct of this very limiting perspective.
Can the Bible be no more than what you describe, or MUST it ONLY be 100% right?
It's like putting a celebrity on a pedestal so high he can only let you down by not living up to the legend he's made out to be. The Bible is simple. It descends through time from the edge of prehistory, from a barbaric people through many cultures ...
... until now.
lol!
-=T=-
brooksgarrett
· 8 months ago
Big disagreement here Daniel.
It is still Christianity. It is not Baptist, Pentecostal, etc... Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the chosen prophet of the One true God. All the rest of the details of how, when, and in what way worship is performed is left to the many denominations.
I believe you'll find many people (myself included) who have adjusted their religious beliefs and rules to fit their world view. I started Baptist and wound up somewhere over here.
To your previous argument I would ask you to judge me. Am I irrational, illogical, or prone to flights of fantasy due to my belief in a God? Be honest, I can take criticism.
To sum it all up: Cooperati, CarlM, and yourself have had a stellar debate that I have thouroughly enjoyed reading. Yet what I am taking from this is not that Religion is inherently bad (though one could argue I'm a bit biased).
Rather the problem is fundamentalist, non-critical thinking. People who accept inputs without sanitizing the data are just as dangerous as a Database that does the same thing. The data gets all corrupted in other parts of the system. The question is not "How do we stop religion?"; the question is "How do we build a generation of critical thinkers who take the best parts of inputs and apply them while disregarding the garbage?"
To me, a person who fundamentally believes everything they hear is much more dangerous listening to Bill O'Reilly than their local preacher. YMMV.
cooperati
· 8 months ago
I tip my hat to you, sir.
(It can be a fun debate.)
-=T=-
Maxolasersquad
· 8 months ago
I think people in general are not very logical. Most of us have absolutely no understanding or appreciation for critical thinking or logical analysis. This goes for the religious, agnostics and atheists. I've met many people who are atheist on the grounds that science has eliminated the need for God to explain anything. Yet, these same people will try to talk to me about the benefits of all sorts of "herbal cures" that have absolutely no basis in science. Many of these people are more caught up in junk science than the religious people I know.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
In response to my admonition that Correlation does not imply Causation, you replied:
"I'm very familiar with the concept, and I accept it fully. I will not, however, allow it to prevent me from using common sense."
Then you neither understand it nor accept it fully.
"Go find someone who doesn't want evolution taught. Ask them why. When they tell you it's because it's against God, what's your answer?"
In this situation, you're probing causation. You ask them why and they give you a reason.
"I see a pattern here. Yes, that's just correlation, but it's correlation to the point of obviousness."
No. You're starting to get at somewhat more than correlation. If you ask them what causes them to want Evolution not to be taught and they tell you it is their religious beliefs that do so. Then you are beginning to probe causation.
"I'm showing you concrete data about the link between strong religious beliefs and one's willingness to abandon logic, and you're ranting on about correlation."
You're showing me correlations. You're asserting that IF you asked the question you mention then you would get the answer you claim.
Of course you neglect to mention the people who are NOT religious and deny evolution. Could it be that this sort of person is more likely to become religious? (I don't know the answer to that.)
You've also not shown that these people who deny evolution are illogical in other respects.
"If everyone were to be so cautious as you'd like them to be about forming conclusions then there'd be pretty much no reason to do research."
This is absurd. It's the REASON to do research rather than thought experiments and correlation gathering. READ the link I included to the wikipedia page on Correlation/Causation.
"But at some point it's time to start forming conclusions and actual plans to fix the problem, and we have plenty to go on to start doing that."
(1) READ the wikipedia page.
(2) How do you propose "fixing" the problem?
---
This is incomplete, but is all I have time for now.
Daniel Miessler
· 8 months ago
Look, I understand the correlation trap, really. I follow a large number of sites that do nothing but study data, and they give nothing but correlation statistics, and it's very clear that they're not making CAUSATION claims.
It's a whole separate type of statement.
What I'm saying is that we've already crossed that line into causation with respect to religion and revolution and creationism. That's all.
I understand the difference, but the threshold has been reached.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
"I follow a large number of sites that do nothing but study data, and they give nothing but correlation statistics, and it's very clear that they're not making CAUSATION claims."
But YOU have been claiming cause and effect. So YOU have been making causation claims. If all you are claiming is correlation then I have no argument with you. (From your next statement, I deduce that this isn't all you are claiming.)
"What I'm saying is that we've already crossed that line into causation with respect to religion and revolution and creationism. I understand the difference, but the threshold has been reached."
Daniel, It's not a threshold. As you said: "It's a whole separate type of statement." PLEASE read the Wikipedia page. I really don't think you fully understand that correlation (even at VERY high levels) DOES NOT imply causation.
.... anyway, I'm letting this drop for now (though I'll continue to point out logical errors when you make them). Let's get to your solution to the problem of nutcases who desire to destroy civilization.
Daniel Miessler
· 8 months ago
Ah, the solution... :)
Here we agree. It's education.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
Bingo. (And an improved world economy.)
Earl Grey
· 8 months ago
If you believe in a literal translation of the bible, you are crazy. Having an imaginary friend is not crazy, but listening to and doing what they say is crazy. Belief in miracle resurrection: Crazy. But if you don't follow the bible literally, just using it as a moral guide, you are not really religious. The bible can't be used as moral guide if you're just picking the morals you want to follow from its contents. That disregard for specific content means you still have the ability to think for yourself, something religion does not allow for, hence the guide. Crazy is calling yourself a Nazi, but then saying you don't believe in all the bad parts of Naziism, just that as a general guide, it's what you follow and people shouldn't take it so literally. And then try and convert others.
icepyro
· 8 months ago
I have spent all day carefully considering how to respond to this debate. It has made me think some and justify my beliefs. I was raised Independent Baptist and the very first belief is that the Bible is *the* authority in religious belief. Having studied the Bible fairly well, and to take every passage in absolute literal truth, even at its furthest stretch and a little hyperbole on top, then by my calculations, Armageddon has already happened and we are a couple years into a millennium of peace. Ironically, one can look at the Bible again for an explanation of why that is not entirely the case. My point is that I believe we are at another crossroads of belief. Just as the same Bible has accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, I believe it can still remain true and accept at least most of the theory of evolution. I say most to be safe because I have not independently researched it thoroughly. What I have read makes sense to me and can be and has been incorporated into my beliefs -- all while still maintaining that the Bibles account of creation can exist. As a result of this crossroads, there is much bias and therefore hyperbole on both sides of the issue. To act on pure reaction quickly leads to breakdowns in relations and eventually a breakdown in society if left unchecked. However, the very fact that you debate this, the very fact that there are many people out there who know about this, proves that it will not go that far easily. Did the Inquisition or Holocaust or Crusades end civilization? No. And those are worst case scenarios. Even with the means, they will not return to that proportion. As I said on twitter once, "My conspiracy theory is that anyone involved in conspiracy theories is therefore set upon to not fulfill the theoretical future." History is doomed to repeat itself only if the story is never heard. I have much longer I could write about this, (I almost did) but much of the rest has been covered by someone here I think or goes off on a tangent of these premises.
Josh
· 8 months ago
The from of religion in the USA - that is seen most publicly - is not moderate. Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not moderate. In New Zealand - where I write from - religion is not on the agenda in political discussions and nor should it be.
All Comments
Daniel refers here to my accusations of hyperbole in his arguments. I stand by this. His main point in an earlier thread was: RELIGION HAS THE ABILITY TO END CIVILIZATION. I believe that this is a pretty clear example of hyperbole. My entire thread of argument in that thread was to get Daniel to understand this. Apparently he didn't even understand that this was my point. He made this same assertion several times in several guises, but it always boiled down to that BOLD statement. He NEVER justified this.
I didn't give a single argument that religious people are either more or less logical than the general public. This wasn't what I was debating. I was also not debating whether or not there are negative consequences of extreme religious views. The push to teach creationism in public school science classes is a great example of such a negative consequence. I agree entirely with Daniel on this point. I am indeed dismayed that such a small percentage of Americans understands (or is even willing to entertain the possibility of) the theory of evolution. Needless to say I think that creationism and related nonsense does not belong in science classes anywhere.
When religious groups fight to get creationism (or intelligent design or ...) taught in science classes, they need to be fought. When they succeed in these efforts, they are causing harm. I agree with all of this.
Daniel you refer to "my truth". I maintain that your assertion that RELIGION HAS THE ABILITY TO END CIVILIZATION is hyperbole. That remains "my truth." I wasn't arguing about anything else in those other threads (other than to point out that the cartoon "Christian" was an example of a straw man attack).
I was trying to help you make more logical arguments .. to not make outrageous claims without justification .. and to limit your arguments to what is demonstrable and justifiable.
I note that in this current post you are not claiming that RELIGION HAS THE ABILITY TO END CIVILIZATION so I suspect that I may actually have been successful.
PS If it matters to anyone, I am agnostic.
PPS Daniel, reread the previous threads. The point of my handgun references was to show you that one could use PRECISELY the logic that you were using in your anti-religion tirade in an anti-handgun tirade. If the logic doesn't work for handguns, then it doesn't work for religion. I realize that you think that the cases aren't as parallel as I was claiming, but this is because you were using as a premise that RELIGION HAS THE ABILITY TO END CIVILIZATION. Until I could break you of this (way over the top) premise, there was no hope of your seeing the analogy.
So it seems your main disagreement is with my "Religion has the ability to end civilization." statement. Ok, let's work there.
--
When I say "religion has the ability to end civilization" you're claiming this needs to be differentiated from PEOPLE ending civilization because of religion. This is the same thing as saying, "people don't kill people, THE LAWS of PHYSICS kill people." In other words, there's always a way to get more direct than a given cause, but doing so only obfuscates the true cause.
The point here is that taking the lives of both yourself and the millions of men, women, and children in a city REQUIRES a certain state of mind, and that state of mind is most likely to be found in a religious person.
Most importantly, this requisite state of mind almost necessitates the belief that there will be something better in a next life, or that the creator of the universe actually WANTS this to happen, in order to go through with it.
In short, the fantasy-based alternate realities (the afterlife, heaven, virgins, etc.) all provide fertile ground for the acceptability of ending life in THIS world. And this cannot be anywhere near as readily without religion.
Example: if that guy in Alabama who killed his family had the ABILITY to kill 100,000,000 people instead of five, what are the odds he would do it? What are the chances he would end the lives of everyone in a mosque at any given moment? Probably not that high. Why? Because of morality.
But let's imagine such a weapon in the hands of the 9/11 hijackers--people who believed they were going to heaven to get virgins. Would THEY use a weapon that would kill everyone in the United States in one shot? Yes, they probably would.
You have to realize that the ability to do this is peripheral; it's the WILLINGNESS to do it that matters. Due to the Internet and the advances of science and technology, the ABILITY for someone to do this is nearly inevitable. The only thing that will stop humanity from doing this to themselves will be the ability to prevent the multiplication of people who would actually do it given the chance.
That's where religion comes in. It provides a view of the world in which normal humans (i.e. not Pol Pot or Stalin) could actually take millions of lives and feel good about it. It is this perversion of morality and reality that I am speaking of when I say, "Religion has the ability to end civilization."
I look forward to your response.
You can't possibly be serious. You're arguing that a guy who killed his family is moral?
I'll respond to more when my brain ceases to be boggled.
Do you really think that once someone is willing to kill, they're willing to kill on any scale? No. That's absurd. Being able to kill people you know after seeing your wife with another man is COMPLETELY different from being able to kill an entire city full of people, or a race of people, etc.
The former is quite common and doesn't require much other than human nature. The easiest way to get the latter, however, is to have religious beliefs. Very few "worldly" justifications exist for exterminating people on that scale.
I agree. So I assume that you'd be OK if I said "Guns don't kill people, people with ACCESS to guns kill people." (The guy who killed his family didn't strangle them. At least in the US you hardly ever hear of a mass murder / suicide where it isn't a gun or guns being used.) You're argument seems to reply on the assumption that without religion there is no motive for huge mass murder. I don't accept this premise.
"The point here is that taking the lives of both yourself and the millions of men, women, and children in a city REQUIRES a certain state of mind, and that state of mind is most likely to be found in a religious person." Daniel, most people in the world are religious. So let's say that 1 in 6,000,000 people have this insanely murderous frame of mind .. and could actually be capable of carrying something like this out. Then there are approximately 1000 such people in the world. If they are scattered randomly throughout the world (suppose it is a mental defect that is due to a random mutation) then most of the 1000 would be religious simply because most people in the world are religious. This doesn't prove cause and effect.
I know what you're thinking. "Carl, that's not what I meant. I meant that this mindset is DISPROPORTIONALLY likely to be found in a religious person." I'm just not convinced. The Holocaust (a pretty BIG example of mass murder) was NOT inspired by the sort of religious insanity that you're talking about here.
"Most importantly, this requisite state of mind almost necessitates the belief that there will be something better in a next life, or that the creator of the universe actually WANTS this to happen, in order to go through with it." Once again, the Holocaust is a counterexample. (I know you said "almost" to cover your butt, but this is a pretty big counterexample.)
"Would THEY use a weapon that would kill everyone in the United States in one shot? Yes, they probably would." Daniel, I love science fiction, but keep it out of these arguments. Would they use such a weapon? Maybe. (But I'd point out that such a weapon doesn't exist. They can't destroy civilization if the means to do so doesn't even exist.)
Daniel, I am not a believer that morality belongs ONLY to religious people, but I am a believer that there are MANY very moral religious people .. some of whom maintain their morality BECAUSE of their religious beliefs. You may find them delusional, but they are MORAL.
"That's where religion comes in. It provides a view of the world in which normal humans (i.e. not Pol Pot or Stalin) could actually take millions of lives and feel good about it." I'm honestly confused here. Stalin is not a normal human .. because he was an atheist who killed? .. because he was a leader and had "extra" power because of this? You mean "ordinary citizen" ?
I guess part of the reason that I'm so concerned that you are barking up the wrong tree because I think that a focus on religion will not make the world a safer place. I think it's entirely the wrong focus.
You will NOT "cure" humanity of this "affliction," but it is possible to lessen the desire of people to harm the US. You think this is about the US being a country of infidels? It's not. We have not done a good job of handling our international relationships. We have done things that have contributed to the hate that people have for us. Let's address the things that can be addressed.
Are there religious nutcases out there? Yes. Is it their religion that made them nutcases? You've not shown cause and effect, and I don't believe it's there. Did religion make it easier for others to brainwash them so as to USE them for their own (entirely non-religious) political goals? Yeah, maybe. But a distinction is often made in the US between a cult and a religion. Perhaps this distinction is an important one in the current discussion.
http://www.faithresource.com/SpiritualAbuse/Art...
I know that when you read the description on that page you will assert that ALL religions fall under the definition of cult on that page. But you are wrong. This is what I've been trying to tell you. You do not fully understand the nature of religion.
... I'm getting tired and this is long enough for now.
The cause is the pre-existing environment of fantasy-acceptance. Once that hurdle has been crossed it's much easier to accept further nonsense (and to embrace more extreme versions of the same concepts).
That's the cause and effect.
Acceptance and tolerance of moderate religion gives instant legitimacy and protection to more extreme versions of commonly held beliefs. This is simply because even the moderates believe some highly outlandish things, and it's not much of a stretch to go further.
It's our inability to criticize that which doesn't have merit in reality that is dangerous, as it provides a fertile breeding ground for the far more dangerous strains of religion.
"Once that hurdle has been crossed it's much easier to accept further nonsense (and to embrace more extreme versions of the same concepts)." This is EXACTLY the "gateway drug" argument. So, I must assume that you accept that argument too (though I think that you probably don't).
If the LOGIC of your argument doesn't work in all situations, then the LOGIC is faulty.
The fact that heroin users started smoking when they were 10 doesn't mean that kids who smoke when they are 10 will become heroin users. Similarly, the fact that there are people who are BOTH religious AND nutcases does not imply that they are nutcases BECAUSE of their religion. There are plenty of nutcases among atheists.
"It's our inability to criticize that which doesn't have merit in reality that is dangerous, as it provides a fertile breeding ground for the far more dangerous strains of religion."
Criticize all you wish. But if you want to make a logical argument for cause and effect, you must work harder. Restrict your premises to things that are demonstrably true. Use careful logic as you proceed, and don't be fooled into believing that your arguments are stronger than they are simply because you already believe the conclusion at which you are heading.
Really, Carl? Really? Are you really taking that line? Here are a few for you that also fall into that category:
* It's hard to be a heroin user and become a CEO.
* It's not good to punch your boss in the face if you want a promotion.
* Tall people are better at Basketball
* People with higher IQs make more money
All of these things are true, and all of them have MANY exceptions. We're not talking about scientific theories here, where a single disagreeing datapoint shows that the theory is incorrect.
Or, even better, we CAN show that relativity is wrong in some cases, yet it's still in an invaluable tool for understanding our universe. I propose that it's the same for my claims about religion and the accompanying willingness to forego this life in exchange for another one based in fantasy.
Of course I wasn't demanding 100% correlation from your examples. That was not my point at all. I thought you would know what I meant when I used the gateway drug example since it wasn't that long ago that you implied that you thought it didn't make sense that cigarettes and alcohol were legal but pot wasn't. So here is the argument phrased in the words and style YOU used to PROVE cause an effect in your religion example.
We shouldn't legalize pot because once kids try pot ... once that hurdle has been crossed ... it's much easier to accept further nonsense and to embrace more extreme drugs.
The LOGIC there is that kids who try pot are that much more likely to try harder and more harmful drugs. Therefore, pot shouldn't be legalized.
But though this makes sense, it's not clear that it is actually TRUE. It may be that even if pot was eliminated from the planet, roughly the same numbers of people would still turn to hard drugs. Perhaps pot has nothing at all to do with it. The point is that even if an argument for causation makes some sense, it does not SHOW causation.
So, yes. You are using faulty logic and I am pointing this out to you. You're right that we're not talking about scientific theory, but you are trying to claim that religion is a CAUSE of certain attitudes and that these attitudes WILL lead to certain behavior. I am holding you to a certain logical standard in making that argument.
FUN FACT: In grade school children (grades K-5) it is a well known fact that children with larger feet are better readers. (This correlation disappears in later years.) This fact is absolutely true. There is NO dispute about that. But there is NO causation in either direction. Large feet don't improve reading ability and learning to read doesn't cause your feet to grow. There is a lurking variable: AGE. Older children read better than younger children and older children have larger feet. So there is a (pretty strong) correlation between shoe size and reading ability in those years. Before you jump in and tell me that there are exceptions, I'll tell you that this isn't the point. Save your breath.
"I propose that it's the same for my claims about religion and the accompanying willingness to forego this life in exchange for another one based in fantasy." Daniel, I wasn't accusing you of not realizing that there are exceptions to your claims. I was accusing you of something else. Here it is: You have what you believe to be a plausible link between religion and the end of civilization. It seems to go like this: Religion causes nutcases who are willing to kill millions. Religious nutcases can cause the end of civilization. You believe that because this link is plausible that it is therefore true. THIS is faulty logic.
Consider:
(1) It is entirely possible that these nutcases would be willing to kill millions of people even without religion as a motivating factor. There may be some OTHER motivating factor. Perhaps one as simple as "These people aren't the same as us, (therefore) they are inferior." (HOLOCAUST)
=== There is correlation (nutcases who are also religious), but this doesn't SHOW causation (religion caused them to be nutcases or caused them to become more extreme nutcases).
(2) It is entirely possible that it isn't religion, but a cult-like bastardization of religion that is being used to mold the minds of these nutcases. (And it may be that those doing the molding don't believe their own religious arguments but instead are pursuing an entirely political agenda under the guise of religion.)
(3) This is seeming a minor point now, but I believe that using a phrase like "the end of civilization" doesn't strengthen your argument. I understand your desire for dramatic effect, but when you use such drama it weakens your argument. Stick to things that are demonstrably true rather than things that are hypothetically true in some version of the future. (It is not irrelevant that the people you are speaking of do not have the means to destroy civilization. By the way, they could have 10 nukes and they wouldn't have that power. Civilization isn't so easy to destroy.)
Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. You're referring to actual DATA, right? Well, that's what I'm using too. The numbers of people who want to teach creationism and do not believe in evolution are SIGNIFICANTLY higher among common church goers.
So yes, it IS a matter of religion turning people against reality and toward fantasy. There is STRONG correlation between the amount of belief one has and their willingness to ignore logic.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gall...
Are you arguing that this isn't dangerous?
No, Daniel. I'm referring to the fact that you are confusing correlation with causation.
When A and B are correlated, it is POSSIBLE that A causes B. On the other hand, it is POSSIBLE that B causes A. But it is ALSO possible that some OTHER thing (C) causes both A and B. Or it is possible that C causes D which causes A and C causes E which causes F which causes B, and so on.
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_n...
Go find someone who doesn't want evolution taught. Ask them why. When they tell you it's because it's against God, what's your answer?
Now multiply that times all the people I've ever met that didn't want evolution taught. What were their reasons? God. The Bible.
I see a pattern here. Yes, that's just correlation, but it's correlation to the point of obviousness.
I'm showing you concrete data about the link between strong religious beliefs and one's willingness to abandon logic, and you're ranting on about correlation.
If everyone were to be so cautious as you'd like them to be about forming conclusions then there'd be pretty much no reason to do research.
So, yes, religion is correlated to education, so the lack of logic is also correlated to education--I get that. But at some point it's time to start forming conclusions and actual plans to fix the problem, and we have plenty to go on to start doing that.
Atheists that do not understand have not spent the time observing the ranks of religion in this light. The various forms of theology maintain a base level of organization, and in fact for too many this is the first and sometimes the only form of society they primarily participate in. Yet it stand as a structure that would otherwise abandon the uninitiated to their own barbaric forms which, believe it or not, are much worse than any church.
Imagine if it was some form of Science Fiction convention, where people are asked to draw some morality that they wouldn't otherwise develope independently. There is a product being made in this interaction.
Like all things, there is room for abuse in this. Go to a european soccer match, and you'll find much worse, yet it's endorsed by the government and local markets. People do take things TOO literally, and sometimes are slow to accept new data/science/ideas/philosophy what have you. But this is still humanity. You won't find a place where this isn't the case, religion, or no religion.
It's possible to dump on religion, God, the Pope, Allah, Vishnu, the Dali Lama, whoever, ad nauseum, because they too are either human or human constructs. It doesn't change the fact that people need these things like they need legends such as the George Washington and the Cherry Tree parable, or the one about Abraham Lincoln and the Library Book (things so underscored you probably haven't heard of them).
Daniel, as a purist, I know your beef with religion is that God is infallible, and therefor everything that is flawed was made by a flawed God, and such is impossible from a purist's perspective. However, it's possible to say the Bible is wrong, and still be a believer. At least believing in something better makes you a follower of some faith. If Atheism is the way, be as evangelistic as you want, but in that case, it IS like making a hobby out of not collecting stamps.
peace,
-=T=-
ps, going back even further, look at early examples such as Martin Luther (who we've already talked about), being the first successful example of an individual challenging the infallibility of the once Almighty Church, and began the advance of civilization out of the Dark Ages by questioning the one structure that supported civilization at it's most barbaric hour. He succeeded and the era of the Rennaisance was allowed to proceed because of his success, and other challengers to the right of the Church such as Copernicus. These people changed the church because their societies had outlived the simplicity of it's hive mentality, and had begun to serve the progression of science in little sparks upon the tinder, until we have what we have today. There are more than little pockets of primitive Church going people today. Our excessive level of resources have brought us over the brink of de-evolution, and we are subject to the masses who are not calibrated to think for themselves.
Simply put, give those who seek guidance the guidance they seek, and those who do not need it the door to proceed.
(Somehow, I think this perspective stems from reading the Foundation and Empire Series, by Asimov, early in my adolescence.)
That much also being said, I admit that I have in the trunk of my car the first book on evolution given to me, at my catholic school, by my sixth grade teacher, a nun. I actually have two copies of it, one for each of my kids.
(We also covered paleo-archaeology that year.)
-=T=-
It should honestly be required reading for sociologists. Alas, it's becoming a lost treasure, (much like access to Hari Seldon's archive. ;)
-=T=-
That's fine, but don't call it Christianity.
Everyone confronts this religion with their own perspective, separate, independent, and alone.
As far as how it's been handed down to me, from a Catholic upbringing, we are meant to take the Bible as a tool for guidance, and NOT LITERAL. Again, this comes from a lay brother at the local catholic high school.
Christianity being a polyglot religion from the start, you will find people who call Catholicism not Christianity, (though you will rarely find Catholics who say the same, as Roman Catholics are the first Christians).
-=T=-
This makes it difficult to communicate effectively.
(Yes, I know I'm putting words in your mouth. I'm tired and am going to sleep now.)
Although, you've conveniently rationalized a loophole in the Bible that exists as a construct of this very limiting perspective.
Can the Bible be no more than what you describe, or MUST it ONLY be 100% right?
It's like putting a celebrity on a pedestal so high he can only let you down by not living up to the legend he's made out to be. The Bible is simple. It descends through time from the edge of prehistory, from a barbaric people through many cultures ...
... until now.
lol!
-=T=-
It is still Christianity. It is not Baptist, Pentecostal, etc... Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the chosen prophet of the One true God. All the rest of the details of how, when, and in what way worship is performed is left to the many denominations.
I believe you'll find many people (myself included) who have adjusted their religious beliefs and rules to fit their world view. I started Baptist and wound up somewhere over here.
To your previous argument I would ask you to judge me. Am I irrational, illogical, or prone to flights of fantasy due to my belief in a God? Be honest, I can take criticism.
To sum it all up: Cooperati, CarlM, and yourself have had a stellar debate that I have thouroughly enjoyed reading. Yet what I am taking from this is not that Religion is inherently bad (though one could argue I'm a bit biased).
Rather the problem is fundamentalist, non-critical thinking. People who accept inputs without sanitizing the data are just as dangerous as a Database that does the same thing. The data gets all corrupted in other parts of the system. The question is not "How do we stop religion?"; the question is "How do we build a generation of critical thinkers who take the best parts of inputs and apply them while disregarding the garbage?"
To me, a person who fundamentally believes everything they hear is much more dangerous listening to Bill O'Reilly than their local preacher. YMMV.
(It can be a fun debate.)
-=T=-
I've met many people who are atheist on the grounds that science has eliminated the need for God to explain anything. Yet, these same people will try to talk to me about the benefits of all sorts of "herbal cures" that have absolutely no basis in science. Many of these people are more caught up in junk science than the religious people I know.
"I'm very familiar with the concept, and I accept it fully. I will not, however, allow it to prevent me from using common sense."
Then you neither understand it nor accept it fully.
"Go find someone who doesn't want evolution taught. Ask them why. When they tell you it's because it's against God, what's your answer?"
In this situation, you're probing causation. You ask them why and they give you a reason.
"I see a pattern here. Yes, that's just correlation, but it's correlation to the point of obviousness."
No. You're starting to get at somewhat more than correlation. If you ask them what causes them to want Evolution not to be taught and they tell you it is their religious beliefs that do so. Then you are beginning to probe causation.
"I'm showing you concrete data about the link between strong religious beliefs and one's willingness to abandon logic, and you're ranting on about correlation."
You're showing me correlations. You're asserting that IF you asked the question you mention then you would get the answer you claim.
Of course you neglect to mention the people who are NOT religious and deny evolution. Could it be that this sort of person is more likely to become religious? (I don't know the answer to that.)
You've also not shown that these people who deny evolution are illogical in other respects.
"If everyone were to be so cautious as you'd like them to be about forming conclusions then there'd be pretty much no reason to do research."
This is absurd. It's the REASON to do research rather than thought experiments and correlation gathering. READ the link I included to the wikipedia page on Correlation/Causation.
"But at some point it's time to start forming conclusions and actual plans to fix the problem, and we have plenty to go on to start doing that."
(1) READ the wikipedia page.
(2) How do you propose "fixing" the problem?
---
This is incomplete, but is all I have time for now.
It's a whole separate type of statement.
What I'm saying is that we've already crossed that line into causation with respect to religion and revolution and creationism. That's all.
I understand the difference, but the threshold has been reached.
But YOU have been claiming cause and effect. So YOU have been making causation claims. If all you are claiming is correlation then I have no argument with you. (From your next statement, I deduce that this isn't all you are claiming.)
"What I'm saying is that we've already crossed that line into causation with respect to religion and revolution and creationism. I understand the difference, but the threshold has been reached."
Daniel, It's not a threshold. As you said: "It's a whole separate type of statement." PLEASE read the Wikipedia page. I really don't think you fully understand that correlation (even at VERY high levels) DOES NOT imply causation.
.... anyway, I'm letting this drop for now (though I'll continue to point out logical errors when you make them). Let's get to your solution to the problem of nutcases who desire to destroy civilization.
Here we agree. It's education.
My point is that I believe we are at another crossroads of belief. Just as the same Bible has accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, I believe it can still remain true and accept at least most of the theory of evolution. I say most to be safe because I have not independently researched it thoroughly. What I have read makes sense to me and can be and has been incorporated into my beliefs -- all while still maintaining that the Bibles account of creation can exist.
As a result of this crossroads, there is much bias and therefore hyperbole on both sides of the issue. To act on pure reaction quickly leads to breakdowns in relations and eventually a breakdown in society if left unchecked. However, the very fact that you debate this, the very fact that there are many people out there who know about this, proves that it will not go that far easily. Did the Inquisition or Holocaust or Crusades end civilization? No. And those are worst case scenarios. Even with the means, they will not return to that proportion. As I said on twitter once, "My conspiracy theory is that anyone involved in conspiracy theories is therefore set upon to not fulfill the theoretical future." History is doomed to repeat itself only if the story is never heard.
I have much longer I could write about this, (I almost did) but much of the rest has been covered by someone here I think or goes off on a tangent of these premises.