The psychology of atheism

[Underseer]

Warning: painfully lunatic drivel. You have been warned.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL40B38F4FCF415237

If you just want the reader's digest version with commentary by a non-moron:

 

[Underseer]

What I find especially pernicious about this is that Christians might watch these videos and take the content of the videos seriously.

A lot of Christians are deconverting to atheism around the world. If you are a Christian father and your son deconverts, these arguments will encourage you to blame yourself in a way that is almost certain to damage your relationship with your son.

 

[skepticalbip]

I can't believe that I watched that whole video and it never got to showing the study that she was criticizing. She actually had some very good criticisms of study design but it is impossible to tell if they applied to the study she was slamming since it wasn't shown. Unfortunately, I have seen "sociological studies" that did exactly what she claimed was the problems with this one; employing selection bias, not defining terms, etc. Essentially "studies" that were nothing but an exercise in bias confirmation.

 

[Underseer]

I can't believe that I watched that whole video and it never got to showing the study that she was criticizing. She actually had some very good criticisms of study design but it is impossible to tell if they applied to the study she was slamming since it wasn't shown. Unfortunately, I have seen "sociological studies" that did exactly what she claimed was the problems with this one; employing selection bias, not defining terms, etc. Essentially "studies" that were nothing but an exercise in bias confirmation.

I provided a link to videos of what she was criticizing, which I got from the description of her video.

 

[skepticalbip]

My error, sorry. I misread and thought the link was a link to the video you included so I didn't check it. I thought you were criticizing the her criticism which I didn't see any problem with (other than I didn't see the "study" she was criticizing). Also she was obviously emotionally involved and would occasionally veer off into a rant before catching herself and getting back to the topic.

 

[Underseer]

My error, sorry. I misread and thought the link was a link to the video you included so I didn't check it. I thought you were criticizing the her criticism which I didn't see any problem with (other than I didn't see the "study" she was criticizing). Also she was obviously emotionally involved and would occasionally veer off into a rant before catching herself and getting back to the topic.

Considering the glaring flaws in the "research" she is criticizing, I can't say I blame her from getting at least a little steamed.

Any random non-scientist could fashion a better methodology for examining the topic of the original research.

 

[fromderinside]

Why wold anyone discuss research worthy in such an non-research worthy discipline as social psychology or sociology? I've always marveled at those who went to Africa to study those who lived in round houses for the origins of geometry.

 

[Underseer]

Why wold anyone discuss research worthy in such an non-research worthy discipline as social psychology or sociology? I've always marveled at those who went to Africa to study those who lived in round houses for the origins of geometry.

Well, for starters, "soft sciences" like this are part of the reason we know that having higher lead levels in the environment contributes to higher crime rates. Just because humans are incredibly complex and isolating variables in this kind of research is incredibly difficult does not mean there is no value to be gained from pursuing research in the field.

 

[fta]

Ah, it's Paul Vitz expounding on his book The Faith of the Fatherless. Here is the Secular Web's review.

Basically, Vitz cherry-picks prominent unbelievers whose fathers died young, or otherwise had poor relationships with their fathers. He even includes Voltaire, who was a deist rather than an atheist. He then lists prominent Christians who were close to their fathers. Vitz's conclusion: if you are not close to your earthly father you will likely reject your Heavenly Father, and vice versa.

Ever heard of Biased Sample or Hasty Generalization?

 

[Kharakov]

Well, for starters, "soft sciences" like this are part of the reason we know that having higher lead levels in the environment contributes to higher crime rates.

How droll....
Have you exposed a control population to lead in order to eliminate other variables?

Do you simply accept the claims that you've been led to? Science media sheeple... it's not like anyone can lead the unleadable.

So... the lead crime hypothesis, swallowed without a peep by a certain portion of the populace. Sure this isn't a ploy to fish for intellectual double standards among a certain portion of the populace? Can you avoid the lead?

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, for starters, "soft sciences" like this are part of the reason we know that having higher lead levels in the environment contributes to higher crime rates.

How droll....
Have you exposed a control population to lead in order to eliminate other variables?

Do you simply accept the claims that you've been led to? Science media sheeple... it's not like anyone can lead the unleadable.

So... the lead crime hypothesis, swallowed without a peep by a certain portion of the populace. Sure this isn't a ploy to fish for intellectual double standards among a certain portion of the populace? Can you avoid the lead?

Objection. Counsel is leading the witness.

 

[Underseer]

Well, for starters, "soft sciences" like this are part of the reason we know that having higher lead levels in the environment contributes to higher crime rates.

How droll....
Have you exposed a control population to lead in order to eliminate other variables?

Do you simply accept the claims that you've been led to? Science media sheeple... it's not like anyone can lead the unleadable.

So... the lead crime hypothesis, swallowed without a peep by a certain portion of the populace. Sure this isn't a ploy to fish for intellectual double standards among a certain portion of the populace? Can you avoid the lead?

You have to be kidding.

Lead levels correlates with crime more closely than any other factor, including income disparity, which most people assume is the primary contributor.

Further, we know from drastically different sorts of studies that exposure to lead reduces intellect and reduces impulse control. If the correlation with lead were the only piece of evidence here, you might have a point, but that simply is not the case.

 

[skepticalbip]

How droll....
Have you exposed a control population to lead in order to eliminate other variables?

Do you simply accept the claims that you've been led to? Science media sheeple... it's not like anyone can lead the unleadable.

So... the lead crime hypothesis, swallowed without a peep by a certain portion of the populace. Sure this isn't a ploy to fish for intellectual double standards among a certain portion of the populace? Can you avoid the lead?

You have to be kidding.

Lead levels correlates with crime more closely than any other factor, including income disparity, which most people assume is the primary contributor.

Further, we know from drastically different sorts of studies that exposure to lead reduces intellect and reduces impulse control. If the correlation with lead were the only piece of evidence here, you might have a point, but that simply is not the case.

A basic understanding of any scientific study is that correlation does not imply causation. Lead levels may correlate with crime better than any other "factor" they looked at in their study but that still does not imply causation. There is also the tacit assumption in this "conclusion" that there is a single cause or even a most important cause of crime - also unestablished by the study. There is also the possibility of sample bias. The best that can come from such studies is hypotheses that can be argued.

Honest social scientists understand this so don't present their studies as "proof" but as reason to consider. Politicians and activists present such studies as "proof" to support their cause because they know that most people do not understand science or the scientific method.

ETA:
You may be interested in a Wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

[Bomb#20]

ETA:
You may be interested in a Wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

For any two correlated events, A and B, the following relationships are possible:

A causes B; (direct causation)
B causes A; (reverse causation)
A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other;
A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional or cyclic causation);
A causes C which causes B (indirect causation);
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.

So, if lead doesn't cause crime, what are the other options?

Crime causes lead?
A factor they forgot to look at causes both lead and crime. Hmm. Cars cause crime?
If crime and lead cause each other in a vicious circle, that still counts as lead causing crime.
If for some C, lead causes C which causes crime, that still counts as lead causing crime.
It's all a coincidence?

But, in all fairness, Wikipedia is not to be trusted -- they left out one of the most common and important possible relationships between two correlated observables:

Quantum entanglement.

 

[fromderinside]

Why wold anyone discuss research worthy in such an non-research worthy discipline as social psychology or sociology? I've always marveled at those who went to Africa to study those who lived in round houses for the origins of geometry.

Well, for starters, "soft sciences" like this are part of the reason we know that having higher lead levels in the environment contributes to higher crime rates. Just because humans are incredibly complex and isolating variables in this kind of research is incredibly difficult does not mean there is no value to be gained from pursuing research in the field.

Of course. Scientists find value in every discipline. My point is that those disciplines may be populated by scientists but they are not therefore sciences. When the science gets to be a discussion of observations rather than an analysis of factors by experiments - I know many disciplines are not experiment ready or configured - then one must be very suspect of conclusions drawn lest they become political weighed as scientific fact. I also know that while correlations don't mean causality they are useful in finding patterns that can be scientifically determined. My problem is wit hleaving the correlations as the facts on the subject.

 

[fromderinside]

How droll....
Have you exposed a control population to lead in order to eliminate other variables?

Do you simply accept the claims that you've been led to? Science media sheeple... it's not like anyone can lead the unleadable.

So... the lead crime hypothesis, swallowed without a peep by a certain portion of the populace. Sure this isn't a ploy to fish for intellectual double standards among a certain portion of the populace? Can you avoid the lead?

You have to be kidding.

Lead levels correlates with crime more closely than any other factor, including income disparity, which most people assume is the primary contributor.

Further, we know from drastically different sorts of studies that exposure to lead reduces intellect and reduces impulse control. If the correlation with lead were the only piece of evidence here, you might have a point, but that simply is not the case.

Underseer it would have been simpler if you had just noted the rates of lost impulse control decreased after lead was removed from the enviornment (an experiment). Other than that your point is well made.

 

[skepticalbip]

For any two correlated events, A and B, the following relationships are possible:

A causes B; (direct causation)
B causes A; (reverse causation)
A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other;
A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional or cyclic causation);
A causes C which causes B (indirect causation);
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.

So, if lead doesn't cause crime, what are the other options?

Crime causes lead?
A factor they forgot to look at causes both lead and crime. Hmm. Cars cause crime?
If crime and lead cause each other in a vicious circle, that still counts as lead causing crime.
If for some C, lead causes C which causes crime, that still counts as lead causing crime.
It's all a coincidence?

But, in all fairness, Wikipedia is not to be trusted -- they left out one of the most common and important possible relationships between two correlated observables:

Quantum entanglement.

There are all sorts of ways to interpret correlations, depending on what the "researcher" wants to "prove".

For instance, someone who holds the belief that poverty causes crime can look at the correlation and point out that the poor are more likely to live in homes that still have lead paint on the walls. That it was the poverty that caused them to be criminals and the fact that they lived with lead paint was coincidental but not contributory. This would be the third factor (poverty) causing both the lead levels and criminal activity and so the correlation seen. Drawing conclusions from correlations is open for all sorts of hand waving "conclusions".

 

[Underseer]

You have to be kidding.

Lead levels correlates with crime more closely than any other factor, including income disparity, which most people assume is the primary contributor.

Further, we know from drastically different sorts of studies that exposure to lead reduces intellect and reduces impulse control. If the correlation with lead were the only piece of evidence here, you might have a point, but that simply is not the case.

A basic understanding of any scientific study is that correlation does not imply causation. Lead levels may correlate with crime better than any other "factor" they looked at in their study but that still does not imply causation. There is also the tacit assumption in this "conclusion" that there is a single cause or even a most important cause of crime - also unestablished by the study. There is also the possibility of sample bias. The best that can come from such studies is hypotheses that can be argued.

Honest social scientists understand this so don't present their studies as "proof" but as reason to consider. Politicians and activists present such studies as "proof" to support their cause because they know that most people do not understand science or the scientific method.

ETA:
You may be interested in a Wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

If the correlation is the only thing you have, then you are correct that we cannot draw a cause and effect relationship between the two, but you are ignoring a lot of other research that shows that increased lead levels makes people dumber and have poorer impulse control. You are acting like the correlation exists in a vacuum and is not backed up by other data.

We even understand the mechanism by which lead negatively impacts both intelligence and impulse control.

But sure. If you are somehow religiously wedded to the idea that lead does not affect crime levels, then by all means feel free to ignore all the other evidence and pretend that the correlation is the only reason we think that lead affects crime rates. Oooh, I know! You can say that the correlation between lead levels and crime rates is all part of a communist plot to force automobile manufacturers to build catalytic converters!

 

[skepticalbip]

A basic understanding of any scientific study is that correlation does not imply causation. Lead levels may correlate with crime better than any other "factor" they looked at in their study but that still does not imply causation. There is also the tacit assumption in this "conclusion" that there is a single cause or even a most important cause of crime - also unestablished by the study. There is also the possibility of sample bias. The best that can come from such studies is hypotheses that can be argued.

Honest social scientists understand this so don't present their studies as "proof" but as reason to consider. Politicians and activists present such studies as "proof" to support their cause because they know that most people do not understand science or the scientific method.

ETA:
You may be interested in a Wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

If the correlation is the only thing you have, then you are correct that we cannot draw a cause and effect relationship between the two, but you are ignoring a lot of other research that shows that increased lead levels makes people dumber and have poorer impulse control. You are acting like the correlation exists in a vacuum and is not backed up by other data.

We even understand the mechanism by which lead negatively impacts both intelligence and impulse control.

But sure. If you are somehow religiously wedded to the idea that lead does not affect crime levels, then by all means feel free to ignore all the other evidence and pretend that the correlation is the only reason we think that lead affects crime rates. Oooh, I know! You can say that the correlation between lead levels and crime rates is all part of a communist plot to force automobile manufacturers to build catalytic converters!

Yes heavy metal poisoning is known to be a health problem. Other than the symptoms you mention it also causes lethargy, fatigue, developmental delay, etc. There is, however, no research that shows that it causes anyone to be a criminal. Any causal relationship offered is hand waving just-so-stories. As I mentioned in the post just above yours, almost any just-so-story can be created to justify someone's belief that there is some specific "cause" depending on what that someone's starting belief is. Could heavy metal poisoning be a contributing factor in crime? Yes, it is possible but it has not been demonstrated.

Your appeal to a communist plot is simply an attempt at an ad hominem attack and has nothing to to with the subject of what science is.

 

[Togo]

Of course, all this is exactly why social sciences are useful. You don't need to get down to the precise effects of lead in petrol, or exactly how it negatively effects health and society. As soon as you know it's bad, you can do something about it.

Similarly, it's useful to know what causes cancer, what helps prevent various deficiency diseases, in what order parts of the brain develop and mature, and the effects of various brain lesions.