In other breaking news, people who think its a grave Sin to eat chocolate bars, and who huddle together fearfully each week to admonish each other about the dangers of Sin, tend to eat fewer chocolate bars. It’s weird..
Jordan, pardon my saying so but what you just wrote was weird. If having a strong loving marriage relationship and a sound family are equivalent in your mind to avoiding chocolate, I mean…
Tom, the point of my initial post was that that study’s results are trivial and unsurprising, and they don’t really tell us anything about whether Christianity is good or true.
Christian doctrine predicts that relationships will be better for those who follow Jesus Christ than for those who do not. The prediction is supported by these studies. That’s evidence in favor of Christianity’s truth.
And then, if Christians have more successful and satisfying relationships and families, how does that not “really tell us anything about whether Christianity is good”? Does a person’s life outcomes not tell us a thing about the quality of their beliefs? Come on, Jordan, you know better than that.
Christian doctrine predicts that relationships will be better for those who follow Jesus Christ than for those who do not. The prediction is supported by these studies. That’s evidence in favor of Christianity’s truth.
And then, if Christians have more successful and satisfying relationships and families, how does that not “really tell us anything about whether Christianity is good”? Does a person’s life outcomes not tell us a thing about the quality of their beliefs? Come on, Jordan, you know better than that.
1. Referring back to my chocolate bar analogy, Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism predicts that those who follow its tenets will be slimmer and healthier on average. Does this support the notion that it is a sin to eat chocolate bars? Does it lend credence to the other doctrines of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism (for example, that the universe was created by a Cosmic Low-fat Granola Bar)?
2. Where does Christianity “make predictions” about sexual/marital relationships?
3. Do those studies actually support the notion that Christians have more successful and satisfying relationships, or just that they are more likely to “tough it out”? I know lots of miserably-married Christians. Maybe we differ in our views of success and satisfaction…
4. Finally, a fallback: Even if I were to grant that, in this instance, Christianity has a positive outcome, how does that make Christianity good? Every worldview has at least some positive outcomes, but not every worldview is good (as a fundamentalist, you of all people should know that).
1. Your chocolate bar analogy is so far from being parallel to this that it goes beyond funny, and into being silly.
2. Christianity makes predictions about relationships all through its doctrine and the Bible. The words peace, joy, love, gladness, encouragement, “one another,” care, kindness, contentment, and more, can be found all throughout the New Testament. Is this phrased in terms of a scientific hypothesis? I hope you’re smarter than to think that makes a difference.
3. You’re grasping at straws.
4. I didn’t say that this was what made Christianity good. I said it was supporting evidence for the belief that Christianity is good. I think you can understand the difference.
1. Your chocolate bar analogy is so far from being parallel to this that it goes beyond funny, and into being silly.
Not an argument.
2. Christianity makes predictions about relationships all through its doctrine and the Bible. The words peace, joy, love, gladness, encouragement, “one another,” care, kindness, contentment, and more, can be found all throughout the New Testament. Is this phrased in terms of a scientific hypothesis? I hope you’re smarter than to think that makes a difference.
Merely mentioning some words is not a prediction. Where in the Bible do these words apply to specifically romantic relationships or marriage?
3. You’re grasping at straws.
Not an argument.
4. I didn’t say that this was what made Christianity good. I said it was supporting evidence for the belief that Christianity is good. I think you can understand the difference.
Do you mean that they are not sufficient, but still true? If not, then please explain.
1. Your chocolate bar analogy is so far from being parallel to this that it goes beyond funny, and into being silly.
It is meant to illustrate (in a tongue-in-cheek fashion) the serious point that a worldview can make some correct predictions without being true and can have some positive outcomes without being good. I am surprised that you are having so much difficulty here grasping the relevance of the analogy…
2. Christianity makes predictions about relationships all through its doctrine and the Bible. The words peace, joy, love, gladness, encouragement, “one another,” care, kindness, contentment, and more, can be found all throughout the New Testament. Is this phrased in terms of a scientific hypothesis? I hope you’re smarter than to think that makes a difference.
Where does it make predictions specifically to do with marriage/divorce? Also, on a related note, I’d like to know where it makes any nontrivial predictions about relationships in general (ones that anyone with half a brain couldn’t have made on their own).
3. You’re grasping at straws.
No I’m not.
4. I didn’t say that this was what made Christianity good. I said it was supporting evidence for the belief that Christianity is good. I think you can understand the difference.
Again, I refer you to the chocolate bar analogy that you seem to find so irritating: Do the positive outcomes of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism count as supporting evidence for the goodness of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism?
Let me spell it out for you: What I’m suggesting is that Christianity’s positive outcomes result as a happy side-effect of its otherwise silly & repugnant doctrine, and its “predictions” are utterly trivial. But, uh, aside from that, it sounds great.
I knew that. Actually it was an argument in a way, but without supporting points. I just didn’t want to waste my time on it. Same for point 3, where I think it’s really more than obvious that he was grasping at straws.
Where in the Bible do those words specifically apply to romantic relationships or marriage? Have you read the New Testament, Paul? It’s all through there. Except for this: it does not specifically apply those words to romantic relationships in many places (there are some, in Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Peter). Why should it only apply to romance? The point is that the Bible predicts relationships in general will benefit. Marriage is one exemplar.
Do you mean that they are not sufficient, but still true? If not, then please explain.
Supporting evidence, Paul, is evidence that supports, that increases our confidence that something is true. Evidence is not what makes something true. If his fingerprint is on a gun, that may be supporting evidence that the Butler killed the Maid. It’s not what makes it true that the Butler killed the Maid; what makes it true is that he did it. Christianity is not made good by the fact that studies show it is associated with better relationships. It is good first of all on the basis of its being true and founded in God’s goodness. It is good in its effects if it promotes good relationships (among other things). But studies do not “make” it good.
Jordan,
Your chocolate bar analogy was not about a worldview, in my opinion. It was about a simple cause-effect punishment/reward theory on a very narrow topic. That’s why I didn’t see it as parallel to Christianity. And when you extended it to Low-Fat-Granola-Bar-ism it just turned silly. Christianity has a coherence to it that this putative analogy of yours cannot meet.
Now that you have said plainly what you wanted to say with it, though, I can respond to that. Yes, a worldview can make correct predictions without being true. In social research we know that. When correlational research produces results that correspond to what the hypothesis predicted, we say the hypothesis was supported. That’s standard language, and that’s what I said. When a whole lot of studies support a hypothesis, it begins to take form as a supported, believable theory. I did not say that this one set of findings did that for Christianity, but I will say that they contribute to the overall body of findings about Christianity and life outcomes: https://www.thinkingchristian.net/spirituality-and-life-outcomes/
I’d like to know where it makes any nontrivial predictions about relationships in general (ones that anyone with half a brain couldn’t have made on their own).
Are you saying that anyone with half a brain should be able to predict that following Christ would result in improved relationships? Thank you.
As to (3) grasping at straws, I’d like for you to pose your original item (3) in a form that’s believable, and then I’ll accept that you’re not grasping at straws. What you’re saying is that the bell curve for quality of relationships among Christian is highly distorted by people staying in relationships they hate. I don’t have any reason to believe that’s the case. Do you?
Do the positive outcomes of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism count as supporting evidence for the goodness of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism?
This really ought to be more obvious to you than it is. Evidence is evidence. Evidence is interpreted in context of theory and other evidence. If Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism has one specific positive outcome, then yes, of course that counts as evidence in favor of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism. That doesn’t mean that other information doesn’t overwhelmingly point the other direction.
Let me spell it out for you: What I’m suggesting is that Christianity’s positive outcomes result as a happy side-effect of its otherwise silly & repugnant doctrine, and its “predictions” are utterly trivial. But, uh, aside from that, it sounds great.
2. Christianity makes predictions about relationships all through its doctrine and the Bible. The words peace, joy, love, gladness, encouragement, “one another,” care, kindness, contentment, and more, can be found all throughout the New Testament.
The same holds true for Mormonism, which has more of these termsit given the addition of translated ancient and also modern scriptures. Even beyond that, Mormonism holds that the marriage is for eternity, not just ’till death do us part’, providing further proscriptions on the desired (and covenanted) perpetuation of the married relationship.
I could also bring up the pervasive use of all of those terms in spades within Buddhist scripture. In fact, there is some evidence that mindfulness meditation has pronounced positive effects on relationship satisfaction and problem-solving capacities (see here and here and, for a more global demonstration of two kinds of meditation’s effects, here). So there is also evidence, using your same arguments, that Buddhism is good for marriage and predictibly so.
Tom, just for the record, I’d edit that last post of mine to be a little less snarky if I were to write it again. I think it came off in not such a good way. Sorry.
So then with respect to this particular subject matter, this evidence does not discriminate between the life outcome advantages of Christianity, Mormonism, and Buddhism. Yes, that does count as evidence for Buddhism’s being good for marriage, and predictably so. I’m fine with that. Should I not be?
I don’t know, maybe it’s because I have training in the social sciences, but I’m surprised at the objections being raised here. I think there’s a general misunderstanding about what evidence in social research is all about. It’s expected to be ambiguous, it’s expected to reflect a bell curve where not every outcome is the same, and it’s never expected that one kind of study would clinch a theory, at least wide-ranging theories. Every piece of evidence is evaluated in light of every other, and in light of theory.
Maybe I was naive in thinking everybody knew that.
One limited kind of study does not prove Christianity, Mormonism, or Buddhism. It can support each of them, but no one should make a decision about the truth of any of these without looking at the bigger picture. In the big picture, Christianity is much stronger than these others, in my view.
While what you say is true, the link you posted to focused solely on Christianity. What Jordon and myself (though perhaps coming from different backgrounds, with different views of Christianity, and with at least slightly different intents in writing what we did) are pointing out is exactly what you said: the results are ambiguous in relation to Christianity and perhaps could best be extended to all (or perhaps most) religious people who attend church tweekly or more. As most religions espouse the same qualities as Christianity in relation to marriage, charity, service, etc., there is no indication that Christianity serves better in keeping marriages together (perhaps by a hypothesized interaction of God in the life of the marriage). Yes, due to ambiguity this may be a trivial conclusion, but it is a distinction that still would be well to be made explicit for those who are not so trained in sociology or quantitative analysis.
Your chocolate bar analogy was not about a worldview, in my opinion. It was about a simple cause-effect punishment/reward theory on a very narrow topic. That’s why I didn’t see it as parallel to Christianity.
I only mentioned the one aspect of my theory that was relevant to our discussion. This is not the time or place for me to be proselytizing Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism in all of its complexity. Beside, I don’t think you’re ready to take it seriously.
And when you extended it to Low-Fat-Granola-Bar-ism it just turned silly.
Right, whereas Christianity’s Cosmic Dumbledore warrants deep philosophical, scholarly discussion.
Are you saying that anyone with half a brain should be able to predict that following Christ would result in improved relationships? Thank you.
I’m saying that anyone with half a brain could have made the same trivial predictions Christ made regarding relationships. Maybe one day I’ll meet a Christian who doesn’t purposely twist my views…
What you’re saying is that the bell curve for quality of relationships among Christian is highly distorted by people staying in relationships they hate. I don’t have any reason to believe that’s the case. Do you?
A couple who frequently attends church has greater incentive (i.e., fear of sin, and slavish, groveling devotion to God) to stay together when their relationship is not ideal (I’m not sure why you went straight to “hate”), whereas others are willing to “shop around”, so to speak, until they find a more suitable match.
If Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism has one specific positive outcome, then yes, of course that counts as evidence in favor of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism. That doesn’t mean that other information doesn’t overwhelmingly point the other direction.
Oh, riiiight, and that’s all you were saying… That the study you linked to adds to the likelihood that Christianity is good, but in and of itself doesn’t really tell us anything about the overall likelihood that Christianity is good (not to mention true). Oh, hang on, that’s what I was saying…
Right, whereas Christianity’s Cosmic Dumbledore warrants deep philosophical, scholarly discussion.
Was that as intentionally offensive as it appears? Was it as intentionally ignorant as it appears?
I’m saying that anyone with half a brain could have made the same trivial predictions Christ made regarding relationships. Maybe one day I’ll meet a Christian who doesn’t purposely twist my views..
Jordan, I didn’t twist your views. What did Christ predict regarding relationships? That if you follow him things well be better for you. That’s what I read back to you, and asked if that was what you meant.
slavish, groveling devotion to God…
Inaccurate and offensive. Wrong. Not the way I follow Christ, not the way anybody I knows follows Christ. A false caricature, a stereotype, not grounded in reality, and really quite demeaning. Thank you very much.
Oh, riiiight, and that’s all you were saying… That the study you linked to adds to the likelihood that Christianity is good, but in and of itself doesn’t really tell us anything about the overall likelihood that Christianity is good (not to mention true). Oh, hang on, that’s what I was saying…
Then why didn’t you just say it?
I think you had better re-read the Discussion Policies before you post here again.
Hi Jordan,
I don’t have the stats regarding card-carrying secular humanists.
Here’s my response one of the many times that somebody tried to argue against Christianity and morality or Christianity and life-outcomes by stating that Christians suffer a higher divorce rate than atheists and agnostics. https://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/01/atheism-and-violence/#comment-1219
That information on divorce rates is misleading. The rates offered for agnostics and atheists never takes into account the fact that they do not marry at the same rate as believers. The appropriate statistic is divorces/marriage, not divorces/person. When you look at how many atheists and agnostics actually get married and then divorce their rate is far higher than that of believers.
Regarding the happiness of the church-goer’s marriage, as opposed to just ‘sticking it out’:
*70 percent of husbands “who attend church regularly report they are ‘very happy’ in their marriages,” compared to “59 percent of husbands who rarely or never attend church.”
*Men and women who attended religious services several times a month or more “were approximately 35 percent less likely to divorce between 1988 and 1993, compared to their married peers who rarely or never attended religious services.” http://www.crosswalk.com/marriage/11579251/
So then with respect to this particular subject matter, this evidence does not discriminate between the life outcome advantages of Christianity, Mormonism, and Buddhism. Yes, that does count as evidence for Buddhism’s being good for marriage, and predictably so. I’m fine with that. Should I not be?
It seems to me that Jordan, et al., think the Christian claim is that there is only one way to have a good marriage – believe in Christ. That is a distorted view of Christianity and a distorted view of what Tom is saying here.
I think it goes without saying that certain beliefs result in better relationships when compared to certain other beliefs, because we tend to act in accordance with our beliefs. The relativist will most likely disagree because they deny any standard from which to determine what a better relationship actually is.
Loading...
"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel
"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell
By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.
Copyright, Permissions, Marketing
Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.
The Thinking Christian blog is back, using a temporary design following an extended maintenance break. Some design features are missing, included images on posts. We're working on it as time allows. Further improvements to come!
Subscribe
Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!
"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel
"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell
By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.
Copyright, Permissions, Marketing
Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful. More informatiion here.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
In other breaking news, people who think its a grave Sin to eat chocolate bars, and who huddle together fearfully each week to admonish each other about the dangers of Sin, tend to eat fewer chocolate bars. It’s weird..
*munch, munch*
Jordan, pardon my saying so but what you just wrote was weird. If having a strong loving marriage relationship and a sound family are equivalent in your mind to avoiding chocolate, I mean…
P.S. Where does it anything about having a good marriage?
Tom, the point of my initial post was that that study’s results are trivial and unsurprising, and they don’t really tell us anything about whether Christianity is good or true.
Really?
Christian doctrine predicts that relationships will be better for those who follow Jesus Christ than for those who do not. The prediction is supported by these studies. That’s evidence in favor of Christianity’s truth.
And then, if Christians have more successful and satisfying relationships and families, how does that not “really tell us anything about whether Christianity is good”? Does a person’s life outcomes not tell us a thing about the quality of their beliefs? Come on, Jordan, you know better than that.
1. Referring back to my chocolate bar analogy, Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism predicts that those who follow its tenets will be slimmer and healthier on average. Does this support the notion that it is a sin to eat chocolate bars? Does it lend credence to the other doctrines of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism (for example, that the universe was created by a Cosmic Low-fat Granola Bar)?
2. Where does Christianity “make predictions” about sexual/marital relationships?
3. Do those studies actually support the notion that Christians have more successful and satisfying relationships, or just that they are more likely to “tough it out”? I know lots of miserably-married Christians. Maybe we differ in our views of success and satisfaction…
4. Finally, a fallback: Even if I were to grant that, in this instance, Christianity has a positive outcome, how does that make Christianity good? Every worldview has at least some positive outcomes, but not every worldview is good (as a fundamentalist, you of all people should know that).
Jordan,
1. Your chocolate bar analogy is so far from being parallel to this that it goes beyond funny, and into being silly.
2. Christianity makes predictions about relationships all through its doctrine and the Bible. The words peace, joy, love, gladness, encouragement, “one another,” care, kindness, contentment, and more, can be found all throughout the New Testament. Is this phrased in terms of a scientific hypothesis? I hope you’re smarter than to think that makes a difference.
3. You’re grasping at straws.
4. I didn’t say that this was what made Christianity good. I said it was supporting evidence for the belief that Christianity is good. I think you can understand the difference.
Jordan, if you will allow me?
Not an argument.
Merely mentioning some words is not a prediction. Where in the Bible do these words apply to specifically romantic relationships or marriage?
Not an argument.
Do you mean that they are not sufficient, but still true? If not, then please explain.
It is meant to illustrate (in a tongue-in-cheek fashion) the serious point that a worldview can make some correct predictions without being true and can have some positive outcomes without being good. I am surprised that you are having so much difficulty here grasping the relevance of the analogy…
Where does it make predictions specifically to do with marriage/divorce? Also, on a related note, I’d like to know where it makes any nontrivial predictions about relationships in general (ones that anyone with half a brain couldn’t have made on their own).
No I’m not.
Again, I refer you to the chocolate bar analogy that you seem to find so irritating: Do the positive outcomes of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism count as supporting evidence for the goodness of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism?
Let me spell it out for you: What I’m suggesting is that Christianity’s positive outcomes result as a happy side-effect of its otherwise silly & repugnant doctrine, and its “predictions” are utterly trivial. But, uh, aside from that, it sounds great.
Please do!
I’m glad to see the truth is getting out about the divorce stats. Last month even William Lane Craig cited the bogus Barna conclusion on his podcast.
Paul,
I knew that. Actually it was an argument in a way, but without supporting points. I just didn’t want to waste my time on it. Same for point 3, where I think it’s really more than obvious that he was grasping at straws.
Where in the Bible do those words specifically apply to romantic relationships or marriage? Have you read the New Testament, Paul? It’s all through there. Except for this: it does not specifically apply those words to romantic relationships in many places (there are some, in Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Peter). Why should it only apply to romance? The point is that the Bible predicts relationships in general will benefit. Marriage is one exemplar.
Supporting evidence, Paul, is evidence that supports, that increases our confidence that something is true. Evidence is not what makes something true. If his fingerprint is on a gun, that may be supporting evidence that the Butler killed the Maid. It’s not what makes it true that the Butler killed the Maid; what makes it true is that he did it. Christianity is not made good by the fact that studies show it is associated with better relationships. It is good first of all on the basis of its being true and founded in God’s goodness. It is good in its effects if it promotes good relationships (among other things). But studies do not “make” it good.
Jordan,
Your chocolate bar analogy was not about a worldview, in my opinion. It was about a simple cause-effect punishment/reward theory on a very narrow topic. That’s why I didn’t see it as parallel to Christianity. And when you extended it to Low-Fat-Granola-Bar-ism it just turned silly. Christianity has a coherence to it that this putative analogy of yours cannot meet.
Now that you have said plainly what you wanted to say with it, though, I can respond to that. Yes, a worldview can make correct predictions without being true. In social research we know that. When correlational research produces results that correspond to what the hypothesis predicted, we say the hypothesis was supported. That’s standard language, and that’s what I said. When a whole lot of studies support a hypothesis, it begins to take form as a supported, believable theory. I did not say that this one set of findings did that for Christianity, but I will say that they contribute to the overall body of findings about Christianity and life outcomes: https://www.thinkingchristian.net/spirituality-and-life-outcomes/
Are you saying that anyone with half a brain should be able to predict that following Christ would result in improved relationships? Thank you.
As to (3) grasping at straws, I’d like for you to pose your original item (3) in a form that’s believable, and then I’ll accept that you’re not grasping at straws. What you’re saying is that the bell curve for quality of relationships among Christian is highly distorted by people staying in relationships they hate. I don’t have any reason to believe that’s the case. Do you?
This really ought to be more obvious to you than it is. Evidence is evidence. Evidence is interpreted in context of theory and other evidence. If Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism has one specific positive outcome, then yes, of course that counts as evidence in favor of Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism. That doesn’t mean that other information doesn’t overwhelmingly point the other direction.
Not an argument.
Tom,
You said:
The same holds true for Mormonism, which has more of these termsit given the addition of translated ancient and also modern scriptures. Even beyond that, Mormonism holds that the marriage is for eternity, not just ’till death do us part’, providing further proscriptions on the desired (and covenanted) perpetuation of the married relationship.
I could also bring up the pervasive use of all of those terms in spades within Buddhist scripture. In fact, there is some evidence that mindfulness meditation has pronounced positive effects on relationship satisfaction and problem-solving capacities (see here and here and, for a more global demonstration of two kinds of meditation’s effects, here). So there is also evidence, using your same arguments, that Buddhism is good for marriage and predictibly so.
Tom, just for the record, I’d edit that last post of mine to be a little less snarky if I were to write it again. I think it came off in not such a good way. Sorry.
@ Kevin Winters:
So then with respect to this particular subject matter, this evidence does not discriminate between the life outcome advantages of Christianity, Mormonism, and Buddhism. Yes, that does count as evidence for Buddhism’s being good for marriage, and predictably so. I’m fine with that. Should I not be?
I don’t know, maybe it’s because I have training in the social sciences, but I’m surprised at the objections being raised here. I think there’s a general misunderstanding about what evidence in social research is all about. It’s expected to be ambiguous, it’s expected to reflect a bell curve where not every outcome is the same, and it’s never expected that one kind of study would clinch a theory, at least wide-ranging theories. Every piece of evidence is evaluated in light of every other, and in light of theory.
Maybe I was naive in thinking everybody knew that.
One limited kind of study does not prove Christianity, Mormonism, or Buddhism. It can support each of them, but no one should make a decision about the truth of any of these without looking at the bigger picture. In the big picture, Christianity is much stronger than these others, in my view.
Thanks, Paul. I guess I responded in kind, and I apologize too.
Tom,
While what you say is true, the link you posted to focused solely on Christianity. What Jordon and myself (though perhaps coming from different backgrounds, with different views of Christianity, and with at least slightly different intents in writing what we did) are pointing out is exactly what you said: the results are ambiguous in relation to Christianity and perhaps could best be extended to all (or perhaps most) religious people who attend church tweekly or more. As most religions espouse the same qualities as Christianity in relation to marriage, charity, service, etc., there is no indication that Christianity serves better in keeping marriages together (perhaps by a hypothesized interaction of God in the life of the marriage). Yes, due to ambiguity this may be a trivial conclusion, but it is a distinction that still would be well to be made explicit for those who are not so trained in sociology or quantitative analysis.
I only mentioned the one aspect of my theory that was relevant to our discussion. This is not the time or place for me to be proselytizing Anti-Chocolate-bar-ism in all of its complexity. Beside, I don’t think you’re ready to take it seriously.
Right, whereas Christianity’s Cosmic Dumbledore warrants deep philosophical, scholarly discussion.
I’m saying that anyone with half a brain could have made the same trivial predictions Christ made regarding relationships. Maybe one day I’ll meet a Christian who doesn’t purposely twist my views…
A couple who frequently attends church has greater incentive (i.e., fear of sin, and slavish, groveling devotion to God) to stay together when their relationship is not ideal (I’m not sure why you went straight to “hate”), whereas others are willing to “shop around”, so to speak, until they find a more suitable match.
Oh, riiiight, and that’s all you were saying… That the study you linked to adds to the likelihood that Christianity is good, but in and of itself doesn’t really tell us anything about the overall likelihood that Christianity is good (not to mention true). Oh, hang on, that’s what I was saying…
By the way, I’d be interested to know the divorce rate for, say, card carrying Secular Humanists.
Jordan,
Was that as intentionally offensive as it appears? Was it as intentionally ignorant as it appears?
Jordan, I didn’t twist your views. What did Christ predict regarding relationships? That if you follow him things well be better for you. That’s what I read back to you, and asked if that was what you meant.
Inaccurate and offensive. Wrong. Not the way I follow Christ, not the way anybody I knows follows Christ. A false caricature, a stereotype, not grounded in reality, and really quite demeaning. Thank you very much.
Then why didn’t you just say it?
I think you had better re-read the Discussion Policies before you post here again.
Hi Jordan,
I don’t have the stats regarding card-carrying secular humanists.
Here’s my response one of the many times that somebody tried to argue against Christianity and morality or Christianity and life-outcomes by stating that Christians suffer a higher divorce rate than atheists and agnostics.
https://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/01/atheism-and-violence/#comment-1219
Regarding church attendance, quality of marriage and shopping around.
https://www.thinkingchristian.net/2007/12/church-going-christians-less-likely-to-commit-adulterymagic-statistics-“i-accept-no-responsibility-for-statistics-which-are-a-form-of-magic-beyond-my-comprehension”/
Regarding the happiness of the church-goer’s marriage, as opposed to just ‘sticking it out’:
*70 percent of husbands “who attend church regularly report they are ‘very happy’ in their marriages,” compared to “59 percent of husbands who rarely or never attend church.”
*Men and women who attended religious services several times a month or more “were approximately 35 percent less likely to divorce between 1988 and 1993, compared to their married peers who rarely or never attended religious services.”
http://www.crosswalk.com/marriage/11579251/
It seems to me that Jordan, et al., think the Christian claim is that there is only one way to have a good marriage – believe in Christ. That is a distorted view of Christianity and a distorted view of what Tom is saying here.
I think it goes without saying that certain beliefs result in better relationships when compared to certain other beliefs, because we tend to act in accordance with our beliefs. The relativist will most likely disagree because they deny any standard from which to determine what a better relationship actually is.