The Age of Gullibility

That this is the age of gullibility is proved by the fact that three of the most absurd frauds in history have become totally accepted and unquestioned in our age. The results of this universal credulity is a social disaster, the affects of which are apparent in every aspect of our culture. If you think something is terribly wrong with the society you live in, but have not been able to identify exactly what it is, this may help you.

No rational individual either doubts or questions the power of science to discover the truth. Much that goes by the name science, however, is not science at all. It is because everyone has seen what the application of scientific truth can do to improve their lives that the word "science" is invoked by those who wish to put something over.

True scientists often have knowledge that is unavailable to the average individual. Not many people understand quantum mechanics or understand what light "being in phase" means. We do not have to take the scientists' word on these things, however, because every day we use the results of the application of these scientific principles in every electronic device we take for granted from cell phones to computers. If the principles of science these things are based on were just "made up," they would not work—there would be no such thing as lasers, for example.

The true sciences have a set of standards, not as rules imposed by some authority, but principles derived from the nature of that which the sciences study, that determined what is truly science, and what is not.

The purpose of science is to discover the principles by which physical reality can be understood. Everything from Ohm's law to the periodic table is knowledge by which the behavior of things can be predicted with absolute certainty. It is that certainty that makes things like solid state electronics, which have completely changed the world, possible. Every electronic device in the world exists and works solely because the chemical and electrical characteristics of its components are scientifically predictable.

The principles of science are not "decided," they are discovered, based on objective reesearch. All science begins with the observation of things and how they behave. An observation, in science, is not a valid one if what is observed cannot be observed by more than one individual, or, in fact, by any individual with normal powers of observation. This insures that what science investigates is objective. In science, observation is not enough, it must also be accurate observation. Before Newton could discover his laws of motion, Galileo first had to demonstrate that things did not move quite as was supposed. It would have been impossible to discover laws of motion before that motion had been accurately observed and described.

Observation usually leads to a hypothesis, which is a plausible explanation of the observed phenomena. A hypothesis is a conjecture which might or might not be correct, but it is only a starting point for scientific investigation. No hypothesis is science.

To become science, if it does, a hypothesis must be "proved." It is the nature of science itself that determines what constitutes proof.

To prove something does not mean to convince someone something is true. Scientific proof establishes the certainty of a scientific principle by means of four criteria.

The first criterion is what constitutes an acceptable or valid hypothesis. A valid hypothesis must be provable. A hypothesis that cannot be proved is invalid. Invalid hypotheses of this type are almost never presented as unprovable, but as not being disprovable. To say that a hypothesis cannot be disproved, however, means that it cannot be proved. If there is no test for a hypothesis that can prove it is false, if it is, there is no test the can prove it is true, if it is. Without this criteria, just anything could be put forth as a scientific hypothesis.

The second criterion of scientific proof is repeatability. A test or experiment to verify a hypothesis that only worked once but could not be repeated would prove nothing. In fact, if a test or experiment only works sometimes it also cannot be used as proof. Only a test or experiment that always produces the same results is proof a valid principle has been discovered.

The third criterion of scientific proof is consistency. No scientific principle can contradict any previously discovered and proved scientific principle. New discoveries can bring refinements to scientific principles, but where conflicts seem to exist, there is some mistake or misinterpretation somewhere. Obviously, so long as more than one hypothesis exists for the same phenomena, neither can be a valid scientific theory. Any supposed scientific hypothesis that contradicted ohms law or the laws motion would be scientifically invalid. (Refinements of measurement or description, such as relativism's refinements of Newton are not contradictions).

The fourth criterion is predictability. It is ultimately the point of all science. Things may be studied for any number of reasons, including the normal human desire for knowledge, even if only to give one a better understanding of the world, or simply the enjoyment of knowledge for its own sake. There are many kinds of knowledge such as history, art, and technology, but, strictly speaking, only knowledge that helps us understand the fundamental nature of entities, substances, and events of the world in a way that makes us able to successfully deal with them and use them for our own benefit is scientific knowledge.

The application of scientific principles to the real world is technology. That this is exactly what the real sciences have made possible is obvious. All machines, from engines of production to machines of transportation, are the result of the application of physics. Every new material, from fertilizers to plastics, is the result of the application of the principles of chemistry. All of modern medicine is the result of the application of the principles of biology and physiology. The fact that we can now feed a world population several times larger than historic populations that constantly suffered famine is the result of the application of botany and genetics.

The word science is used in two ways. One is very general and includes anything that uses the methods or principles of science. It is in this general sense that some industries classify some employees as scientists. They are scientists in the sense that they apply the principles of the sciences of physics or chemistry, for example, to specific technological problems. There are a great many fields of research that use scientific methods and principles, such as geology and astronomy, that are classified as sciences in this general way.

I am using the word science in a very narrow way to distinguish it from the more general use. The distinction is very important, and the importance is the way the idea of science is used in areas not directly related to science or technology, particularly as related to education, society, and politics. The significance is this: no choice or policy that violates an established scientific principle can be good or successful, because it would be contrary to the nature of reality itself. Unfortunately, a great many things are described as scientific principle which are mere conjecture, unproven hypotheses or even total fictions. Every day countless statements are made by "experts" claiming something is an established scientific fact, which are neither "established" or remotely scientific. To base any choices, decisions, or policies on such pseudoscience can only result in disaster.

The history of "phlogiston" is typical of this kind of pseudoscientific authoritarianism. The "theory" of phlogiston resulted from the casual observation that some materials, like wood, were lighter after they burned. "Obviously" they had given up something, and though no one knew what it was, it was given the name, phlogiston. When it is was observed that some things, like metals, were heavier after burning, rather than question the "scientific" hypothesis, it was simply revised with the explanation that "metallic phlogiston" had negative mass (by which "scientists" of that day meant weight). On further observation that some things neither gained or lost weight when they burned, another variety of phlogiston was invented which supposedly had zero mass.

Once the plausible view that combustion was a process in which something is "given up" by the burning material became the accepted scientific view, contradictory evidence never led to the questioning of that view. This very unscientific refusal to question the accepted view is what is wrong with all that goes by the name of science, but has no more scientific validity than the very plausible phlogiston theory. The pseudo-scientific hypothesis of phlogiston was exposed by the real scientist, and father of modern chemistry, Antoine Lavoisier.

Lavoisier proved his hypothesis by careful experiments that could be repeated by scientists anywhere, always with the same results. It was those repeatable experiments and the discovery of oxygen as a component of air that turned Lavoisier's hypothesis into the modern correct theory of combustion.

The primary characteristic of religion that makes it religion, rather than philosophy or science, for example, is that it's fundamental teachings cannot be proved. Though a great many religious people throughout history have gone to great lengths to "prove" the truth of their religion, the fact is, if they could be proved, another very important aspect of religion would not be necessary.

Religions are sustained and spread by means of persuasion which has included everything from threats of force (and actual force) to argument and evangelism. If the tenets of a religion could be proved, the way Lavoisier proved his theory of combustion, there would be no need to persuade anyone to embrace them. They would simply be facts that no one in their right mind could reject except to their own detriment. The point here is not about whether any tenets of any religion are true (although if any religion is true, all the rest cannot be), but the fact that they cannot be proven to be true.

That there are so many different religions is another characteristic of religion. Even for religions that go by the same name, such as Christianity, there are many varieties all in disagreement with each other and all certain that theirs is the true religion.

There is another characteristic of religion, that is not universal, but very common. Those who embrace some religion or another usually regard those who do not share their faith as wicked or sinful or, at best, deluded. The extreme variety of this is found in those religions in which some practitioners believe it is perfectly justifiable to kill or blow up unbelievers. The less extreme versions think it is perfectly justifiable to use the power of government to force everyone, especially non-believers, to conform to certain aspects of their religious convictions.

Another aspect of religion arising from its unprovable nature is that the basis for belief in its tenets is some authority. That authority may be in some document or documents, or its religious leaders, whose authority might be ad hoc, as in Islam, or extremely hierarchical, as in Roman Catholicism, or any combination of these.

The most important characteristic of religion is why people believe and practice them. Religion gives its practitioners a sense of purpose, of knowing what they are living for, and the conviction that the way they are living is important and good. All religions provide those who practice them a sense of being right and right with the universe—it's called righteousness. Certainly they would argue they believe and practice their religion because they believe it is true, but I do not think they would practice them if they made them feel guilty and worthless.

Except where religion directly contradicts science there is no inherent antagonism between them. For many people, religion and science address different questions and many scientists have also been religious. Einstein, Newton, and Pascal come immediately to mind.

Most scientists today are not religious themselves but are not particularly anti-religion either. Most just do not find anything convincing in any religion. There are those, however, who call themselves scientists who are truly, almost violently, anti-religious.

The very strange thing is, while they claim to despise the "superstition" of religion, they are themselves adherents of today's super religion, a triumvirate of mysticism comprised of the pseudosciences, psychology, evolution, and ecology.

This religion of so-called sciences, like all successful religions, has elements of truth and a degree of plausibility, but like many religions, the truth is mixed with baseless assertions, fantasies, and irrationality.

These so-called sciences have none of the characteristics of science and all the characteristics of religion—which is exactly what they are, PEEism (Psychology-Evolution-Ecologyism).

While the three faces of this religion are different, they share a common purpose which is the opposite of the purpose of the true sciences. The purpose of the true sciences is to discover principles by which the nature of the world can be understood and used for mans benefit and enjoyment. The purpose of PEEism is to invent excuses for controlling men, without regard to the harm it does to them.

Unlike the true sciences, no hypotheses of any facet of PEEism is even demonstrable, much less, provable.

Neurology is a true science that studies the brain and nervous system, a branch of physiology. Psychologists try to give their profession legitimacy by lumping it together with neurology, but the attempted amalgamation is a ruse by which the totally fictional ideas of psychology are mixed with the legitimate medical facts of neurology.

I've already exposed the origins of psychology and how the pseudoscience was begun and put over in the first of my uncompleted series on the subject, "Psychology's Anticivilizing Influence on the West." Here I'll concentrate on the unscientific nature of Psychology.

There is not one so-called psychological principle based on scientific evidence of any kind. In science, remember, all inquiry begins with observation of some existent, substance, or phenomena, the nature of which it is science's business to discover. None of the things that psychology presumes to investigate have ever been or ever will be observed. Though the list changes over time, included in the list of things psychology has presumed to study are consciousness, the sub-conscious, emotions, desires, personality, "repressed" desires, instincts, hallucinations, and dreams. None of these have ever or can ever be observed, because they are all subjective experiences.

Whether these exist or not (and some, like the so-called subconscious, invented by the cocaine addled Freud, do not), psychology must depend on the testimony of individuals about their own internal private experiences. Since their experience cannot be observed objectively, there is no way to investigate these things by means of objective science, much less test them.

If there truly were such a thing as mental disease, and there is great doubt about that, there is no way to scientifically establish or describe it. There is no way to objectively distinguish between the genuinely insane, if there be such, and those who are simply lying.

Psychology fails to meet any of the criteria of a science. None of what it studies can be observed or demonstrated, there is no way to test any of its hypotheses, it cannot predict anything, and it is totally inconsistent. There are, for example, as many different "theories" (really hypotheses) of personality as there are psychologists, for example.

What's the difference between a physical disease and a mental disease? In 1948 neurology and psychiatry were distinct: 'neurology,' a branch of physiology dealt with physical diseases, like dementia and Parkinson's; 'psychiatry' dealt with those conditions that had no apparent physical cause and were presumed to be mental, emotional, or behavioral. The legitimacy of this arrangement itself is questionable, but there was, at least, a clear distinction between physical diseases which could be attributed to some physical cause, and mental diseases, which were regarded mental precisely because no physical cause could be identified.

"Between 1952 and 1994, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) grew from 112 'disorders'/'diseases' in 1952, to 163 in 1968, 224 in 1980, 253 in 1987, and 374 in the 1994.

"The ADHD, 'epidemic' (by whatever name) has grown from 150,000 in 1970, to a half million in 1985, a million in 1990, and to 6 million today [2000]."

"In the 60's, psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry launched a psychopharmacology marketing strategy. They would call all emotional/behavioral problems "brain diseases." Thus, the public came to believe in "chemical balancers" -- pills--for 'chemical imbalances' (of the brain)."

To this day, no such chemical imbalances have ever been found or identified. These drugs correct nothing and cure nothing. That they harm a great many people, especially children, including killing them, is a well established fact. Can you imagine any branch of medicine that continuously failed to cure anyone and regularly prescribed drugs that killed its patients being called a science?

Whether the evolutionary hypothesis is true or not, it certainly cannot be proved, and for it's most important claims, there is no evidence at all. Evolutionists become very agitated if someone casually mentions their whole case is bunk. They shrilly point out something like the Galapagos Islands where the animals have all obviously evolved. The phrase it all started with, however, they studiously avoid—"origin of the species,"—not changes within them—so show us an example of a new species.

Of course they cannot. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it does mean that evolution is not a science, not a theory, but a hypothesis, one with some extremely important unanswered questions, and it is wholly untestable. There is no way to test it at all, and certainly no way to repeat non-existent tests.

Evolution is an accepted plausible hypothesis, exactly like phlogiston. And just like the phlogiston hypothesis, for every piece of new evidence that doesn't fit the currently accepted explanation, a new explanation is invented.

In the course of any science's development there will frequently be more than one hypothesis proposed to explain certain phenomena, but they remain hypotheses until they are tested and one is proved to be correct, if any of them are. Evolution is not a science, because, as yet, there are no proven hypotheses, and in fact there are several evolutionary hypotheses which are sources of strong debate within the evolutionary community, such as the big debate between Phyletic Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium or any of the lesser debates like Great White Shark Evolution Debate. So which one is it that is meant when the evolutionists insist evolution is a proven fact?

And what, exactly, can evolution be used to predict? For that matter what can evolution be used for at all? There is not a single technology or useful product that requires a single "principle" of evolution. It does have a use, however, besides providing employment for a lot academic types. Evolution is used by both psychologists and environmentalists as support for their own pseudosciences.

All of ecology, and its most virulent form, environmentalism, is steeped in pseudoscience, which is too bad, because ecology started out as legitimate science, as did climatology. The current day manifestation of these are the absurd rantings of the greens and the bunk of global warming. I'm not the one who calls it bunk, however (I call it something worse), it is real scientists like TIM Ball, Fred Singer, and Reid A. Bryson who literally and correctly call it bunk.

It is true that the global-weather-change alarmists are certainly claiming the ability to make predictions by their "science." The fact that none of their past predictions have ever been correct is conveniently forgotten. Though it is only test of their hypothesis, and though it has always failed that test, just like those religious nuts who predict the end of world every few years—they are sure they are right this time.

While no aspect of PEEism, psychology, evolution, or ecology, have any of the characteristics of a true science, they do have all the characteristics of a religion.

An exact analogy between the other religions and this new one is not possible, but in a general way, evolutionists, together with some psychologist, are the theologians of PEEism, defining origins, values, and basic doctrines about the nature of man. The psychologists are the religion's counselors and teachers, but also dabble in doctrine as well, especially as applied to people. The ecologist, especially the environmentalist are the evangelists and crusaders of the religion.

Like all unprovable systems of belief, PEEism is spread by means of persuasion, not proof or evidence. Because it calls itself science to disguise the fact it is just another "faith," it is taught in schools and spread by government programs without concern for separation of church and state. Like other religions, there are many varieties of PEEism, some sharing the same evolutionary view, but having different psychological beliefs, or interpreting "environmental data" differently, for example.

Like all religions, the faithful PEEists despise those who do not share their faith, branding them as heretics, deniers, or worse. They do this in the name of science claiming those who do not agree with them are anti-science. Though other religions have attempted to claim a "scientific" basis (Christian Science and Scientology come to mind) PEEism is the first to get away with it.

The basis of PEEistic faith, like all other religions, is not evidence or proof, but authority. They have their great historic prophets and teachers, like Darwin, and Freud, and Rachel Carson, just like any other religion.

There is perhaps no religion so zealously and religiously pursued by its adherents as PEEism because of the sense of righteousness it gives them. They know they are the only ones right with "Nature," the true God of PEEism. They take their worship very seriously, faithfully sorting their trash, and if they sin, they win forgiveness by purchasing "indulgences" called carbon credits.

Perhaps you thought evolution was just another hypothesis about the origin of various forms of life. You might wonder what it has to do with psychology, or ecology.

Evolution is about everything. Like Islam, it is a religion that determines every aspect of life. The following is from, a "Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology," abstract and illustrates its relationship to psychology as well as being the basis in this religion of "moral" principles:

"Illustrates how evolutionary theory can help explain moral behaviors. ... evolutionary theory is equipped to integrate psychological approaches to morality, resolve many of their differences, and steer the study of morality in new, more productive [read collectivist] directions. Specific topics addressed include: evolution of respect for authority; evolution of justice; evolution of care; evolution of altruism; can moral behaviors evolve through group selection; interaction among mechanisms of selection; evolution of cheating; and the psychological models of morality revisited."

Not convinced? It is the intention of evolutionists to influence and ultimately control all of science and society. This is from Dr. Thomas R. Meagher, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, the executive summary of an intended white paper, "Evolution, Science, and Society," representing 13 Universities, 9 scientific societies, The A. P. Sloan Foundation and The National Science Foundation.

"The methods, concepts, and perspectives of evolutionary biology have made and will continue to make important contributions to other biological disciplines, such as molecular and developmental biology, physiology, and ecology, as well as to other basic sciences such as psychology, anthropology, and computer science.

"In order for evolutionary biology to realize its full potential, biologists must integrate the methods and results of evolutionary research with those of other disciplines both within and outside of biology. We must apply evolutionary research to societal problems, and we must include the implications of that research in the education [read evangelization] of a scientifically informed citizenry."

Is PEEism truly a religion? It does not claim to be a religion and even claims to abhor religion, though what it abhors about religion, it is the champion of, authoritarianism that demands unquestioned credulity. If it is not truly a religion, it is at least an ideology.

Religion, all by itself is never dangerous, but any religion, or ideology, that uses political force either to enforce its doctrines on others or to prevent others from practicing their own beliefs, whether religious or not, is very dangerous. Whether you regard PEEism as a religion, or only an ideology, it is the most dangerous in existence today.

No other ideology or religion is allowed to be taught in public schools, but both evolution and ecology are. No other religion is given government grants to study their doctrines or to promote them, but psychology, evolution, and ecology are.

On the word of a PEEistic priest (psychologist) thousands of children and adults are incarcerated in psychiatric institutions (prisons) restrained, and drugged, "kept against their will until their insurance benefits run out." This is done entirely outside any due process of law.

Thomas Szasz compares psychiatrists to snake oil salesman. Snake oil salesmen sold imaginary cures for real diseases; he suggests, but psychologists sell real cures for non-existent diseases. There is another difference Szasz does not point out. While both the snake oil salesmen and psychologist lighten people's wallets, and cure nothing, snake oil seldom, if ever, killed anyone; the psychologist's "snake oil" is deadly.

Psychiatry has convinced a majority of the public that up to 20% of our children are "mentally ill" and need ... drugs to correct their "brain imbalances". So ... "prescription of drugs to treat ADHD increased by 274 percent between 1993 and 2003." There are "4 million children taking Ritalin in America today."

"Between 1990 and 2000 there were 186 deaths from methylphenidate (Ritalin) reported to the FDA MedWatch program, a voluntary reporting scheme, the numbers of which represent no more than 10 to 20% of the actual incidence." Which means there were probably more than a thousand deaths caused by the psychiatrists snake oil in that ten year period.

Ritalin is a poison that has no therapeutic benefit and cures nothing at all, but has terribly dangerous side-effects. These are just some of them:

If any other religion or ideology was able to lock people up or force them to take poison on the opinion of its priests or authorities it would be called religious oppression, which is exactly what it would be.

School teachers, CPS social workers, and psychologists have teamed up, and parents are threatened by them with the loss of their children if they do not give them the prescribed poison. "A local CPS office cannot demand that a child be medicated -- yet -- but it can ascertain whether a child is safe in his or her parents' home. Legally, CPS can alert parents that their child's uncontrollable behavior, which puts the child at significant risk of abuse at home, must change. If they feel this advice is not being taken, the agency can remove children from their homes.

What is worse is, that it is very likely to be the brightest children, and their parents, who are threatened with this oppression. As Thomas Soul points out:

"All it takes to have Ritalin prescribed is a label of "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" (ADHD). And there are lots of little tin gods in the schools who are ready to put this label on children who are bored and fretful at the uninteresting and unchallenging material presented to them. Very bright children are particularly likely to be frustrated and acting out."

Psychology, Evolution, and Ecology are not science, they are the tenets of a faith, a faith that appeals to the gullibility of a society made ignorant by an educational system designed to intentionally "dumb down" those in its clutches. I am not attempting to convince anyone who worships at this new alter of pseudoscience. It will no doubt anger those who do, but they have nothing to worry about from me.

This is to those who already know there is something wrong with a society in which Draconian economy-destroying laws are made based on pseudo-scientific fables, like global warming, not based on scientific evidence, but on Hollywood movies; where perfectly healthy children are drugged out of their minds; and where hedonistic subjectivism, collectivism, and cultural nihilism are promoted on the basis of evolutionary fairy tales. It is a warning to you to be very alert to what is happening in your society, because a society gullible enough to swallow PEEism is ripe for totalitarianism and will fall for any political lie that promises security and unearned wealth.

I disagree with a lot there. But I’ll just go with psychiatry since that affects me most directly.

There may be a lot of faddism and disease of the month in psychiatry. However, after struggling through years, in which I had repeatedly been fired or “laid off’ from various jobs in my 20s, never lasting more than two and a half years in any of them, I was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and started taking medicine for it.

Shortly after that, I started a new job, which I have now held for almost ten years. I found the patience to become a writer, as a hobby, if not for income. I found that I could be angry without a need to physically demonstrate it.

I am not saying this is the solution for everyone. If you want to say that ADD/ADHD is over-diagnosed, particularly in children, you won’t get any argument with me. But that just means there are bad psychiatrists, not that psychiatry is a fraud.

Because of psychiatry and medication, my life went from spiraling in towards what was, frankly, a suicidal course into one where I’m a productive member of society. By “productive,” I do not mean an emotionless, docile cog. I doubt that anyone who posts to sites like this can be considered docile.

Maybe it’s coincidence. Maybe it’s psychosomatic. Whatever the case, my life objectively improved after I started taking psychiatric medication. If that’ gullibility, then thank God I’m gullible.

I won’t argue with your experience, or at all actually.

Maybe you shouldn’t do this, but if you are interested, ask any psychologist/psychiatrist, your own possibly, if they can point you to a paper anywhere that documents any chemical imbalance in, or leision of, the brain associated with add or adhd that has ever been detected in anyone before they’ve been given psychotropic drugs. (The drugs do cause changes in the brain, so tests made after the drugs are taken are meaningless.)

I agree, by the way, it really doesn’t matter why you’ve been helped and it’s just great that you have. Some people with severe conditions seem to be helped by medical marijuana—they aren’t going to be given the same opportunity you’ve had.

Hank

I don't know if they have. But I'd make a small bet that the chemical imbalance would also be put to right by smoking.

I have gathered a fair amount of anecdotal evidence over the years that people who have had attention problems did not have it, when they were smoked; or that people within a family who smoked could keep and maintain jobs, while people in the same families who did not smoke had troubles maintain employment. The difference seemed to be, still anecdotally, that the people who smoked could concentrate on their jobs.

Interestingly, the medicine I take, bupropion, is also used to help people stop smoking. I doubt any studies have or will be done along this line -- finding a benefit in smoking cigarettes being rather taboo at the moment. However, the implication is that there is something in bupropion that either is or replaces something in tobacco, that helps people concentrate.

In any case, we know of some chemicals that clearly affect mental processing. Ethanol (i.e., alcohol) is the best known. Caffeine is another. I'd have to check this, but I think there are studies that indicate that caffeine can improve mental reaction time. It is not unreasonable that there are other, lesser known chemicals, such as bupropion, that do as well.

As such, it may turn out that there is no such chemical imbalance that causes ADD, but that bupropion has an ability to enhance concentration. It may be that I was not sufficiently trained to concentrate as a child and that, as such, bupropion works as a mental crutch.

But in that case, we could apply that logic to at least some other psychiatric medications. Perhaps they do not correct imbalance, but, properly used, improve the operation of the brain.

In any case, one does not need to know how a match works in order to light a fire with one. We need merely observe the striking of one. Similarly, one does not need to know the specific workings of a medication in order to determine or, at least, have good reason to believe, that it does work.

By the way, I agree with you on marijuana.

Well yes, but you won’t like them:

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Lots of sources there.

But it doesn’t really matter. No truth about anything (except the truth about what people say on a census) can be established on the basis of how many people believe something.

By the way, though I am an atheist, I find the statistics on the numbers of “anti-religious,” especially the “strongly anti-religious” very alarming. Totally disagreeing with something and being “anti-” something are totally different.

Hank

I am in agreement that there is nothing as perplexing as an “evangelical” atheist. Why destroy someones faith? Do they also kick puppies in their spare time?

You are part of the U.S.A.’s most despised religious minority; although Atheists are overrepresented in the U.S. armed forces, and underrepresented in U.S. prisons, and have not shown a tendency to fly planes into skyscrapers.

I prefer my own source, it clearly states its methods and subject group, and it accurately reflects my own experiences. I knew plenty of University level and Professional Scientists, and around 2/3rds (or more)are people of faith (as the study suggested); I have never met (AFAIK) a member of the National Academy of Sciences (the group polled that showed that very few of “elite” Scientists are believers).

“But in that case, we could apply that logic to at least some other psychiatric medications. Perhaps they do not correct imbalance, but, properly used, improve the operation of the brain.”

We know how some chemicals affect the brain, in the case of physiological problems with the brain, some drugs are moderately helpful. There are real chemical balances too, especially hormonal, and they cause severely bad feelings, but they are physiological also. As far as I know, all psychosomatic drugs, even mild sedatives are deleterious to the brain, and none are beneficial to any of its functions.

http://theautonomist.com/home/?/autonomist/article/psychiatric_drugs/

On the other hand, whatever substance an individual finds useful or helpful, nicotine, alcohol, or psychosomatic drugs, they ought to be free to use them. I am very much opposed to both forced administration of drugs as well as the forced prevention of their use.

Hank

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.