This thread moved on during the night as I slept soundly, but the perspective from which I viewed SM's assertions, it did not (as in the other thread in which he made assertions) move on.
How can any analysis be made of a generalised comment, without, at least some data to indicate the basis for the conclusions. Attempting to respond to a generalised comment by means of a generalised comment is not a good way to conduct a discussion. If SM had stated the precise data on which he based his conclusions, the discussion would've been more profitable
Emile Durkheim was an interesting thinker. I wanted to add - "for his times" - but in a way that's unfair, for his viewpoint on the need for social cohesion and the underlying factors that produce that cohesion is still very useful. (As is his analysis of suicide from the - then new- framework of sociology). His thoughts on social cohesion, parallels my own observations when viewing many of the world's trouble spots, that often, the cause of the contemporary political disorder was often the destruction of the previously developed social order by 19th C imperial powers. But that's a generalisation. If I wish to assert that as a fact, I need to be able to flesh out my claim with examples and statistics and analysis. And since in some cases it may not be true, I would have to examine the failure of my hypothesis in such cases.
Surely, this young man would be expected to do the same in the institution where he studies.
If he was merely generalising a conclusion that was attractive to him, at this juncture in his life, it was open to him to suggest that, and to ask for comments.
A thread like this is not a Ph.d. thesis. But we can learn from that process. I sometimes attend what amounts to a public interrogation of a Ph.d candidates thesis. The Ph.d candidate discusses his work, and the audience is invited to dispute (if they think they have a valid case). One evening the candidate was almost reduced to tears, as it became evident that his thesis may not withstand examination. I wish I could've done that as a young man encountering the Bible and the JWs.
One of my lecturers (a very knowledgeable guy who specialises in some aspects of Buddhism and also Manicheanism), likes to play with the JWs when they come to his door. He let's them talk, and then asks one or two questions on the Bible, which they can't answer. So he asks them to go away and find the answer and come back and explain. He says they seldom do, and if they do return they do not come back a third time. Clearly, in those cases, "faith" triumphs over accurate knowledge (grin)
For those who are alarmed that he may return to the witnesses. Why so? It's his life, and it may well be that he will feel happier there, coccooned in an authoritian web.
I no longer believe in the witnesses or the bible, but at the same time I do not usually feel compelled to shout them down with abusive language, (Well! I have to confess that I did one day - some months ago when a jw manning a lit. trolley maintained that he was a witness in 1975, and that they (the org.) did not claim 1975 as the end. Yow!!!!)
_______________________________
KateWild asks:
Personally from what I can gather I don't think you are really interested in the stats, am I wrong?
I was interested in the data he was using to make his claim. Was it impersonal statistics, co-relating stats on supposed levels of atheism and stats on suicide? Or was it more detailed? Did someone carry out, a limited survey interviewing relatives (difficult to interrogate the dead) to attempt to form an opinion that favoured the argument he posited? Did whatever survey he used attempt to delve into the imagined (or stated if there was more information available) reason for the suicide.
A five minute search ( I used the Wikipedia entry on suicide stats) before I started asking for data quickly indicated at least a superficial connection. I gave the figures for China and Australia some closer thought.
The Chinese stats. are 22 per 100,000 per year. On the surface it may be said that China is an atheistic nation. But its open to argue that the Chinese social system is cohesive (this is a system that has endured for more than 3000 years, so strong that conquerors and enemies embrace it. Alternately, Buddhism is still popular. But since buddhism does not have a a god, is Buddhism a religion in the sense that SM was claiming? In any case Buddhists sometimes commit suicide - there was a famous example in Athens 2000+ years ago.
Is atheistical communism a religion. It often (in the past) required similar 'faith' to religion.
The Australian figures are 10 100,000 per year. On the surface Australia is likely counted as religious. But only about 5% of the population are at church on any given sunday. On SM's hypothesis, one would think that the Australian figures should be higher.
Finally, I thought of the first waves of persecution of the early church. It is recorded that some early Christians would 'volunteer' to be martyrs, effectively using the state as their means of death. Here (to me) was an example of religion causing suicide.
The proposition that there is a relationship between suicide and lack of belief in a god-figure is much more complex than the raw figures that SM seems to have been quoting
I repeat, without knowing the basis for his argument, there is no real discussion.
