Topic: TedTalk by Hans Rosling - Religions and Babies

[daemonowner]

Hans Rosling: Religions and babies

[teethering]

Andrew Clunn should watch this.

[amysrevenge]

That was a really good graphic there.  I was almost clapping along with the audience when he started time running forward.

[teethering]

enjoy

http://www.gapminder.org

[EhJayArr]

Really interesting, thanks for posting!

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

Woo, Hans Rosling!

[Ajzzz]

Hans Rosling's talks are getting worse over time. The United Kingdom and Scandinavia are 50% Christian? I don't think so. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to him to include Catholic and Protestant together, or Quiverfull and Anglican. Religious values don't involve having children, gender roles (e.g. women staying at home, not being educated), access to contraceptives and sex education? Rosling didn't need to do any research, because there can't be any other conclusion regardless of the results, he's defined "religion" in such a way that it's meaningless to say that it's not about "religion" or that the birth rate can decrease while retaining religious values. Is Hans Rosling suggesting that secularisation and reduction of the political and social power of religious organisations have no effect on birth rate? Yes, because under his reasoning the Roman Catholic Church's stance on condom use is 98% in favour of use for women 15-44 in the US 2006-2008, they have successfully retained their religious values.

[teethering]

Hans Rosling's talks are getting worse over time. The United Kingdom and Scandinavia are 50% Christian? I don't think so. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to him to include Catholic and Protestant together, or Quiverfull and Anglican. Religious values don't involve having children, gender roles (e.g. women staying at home, not being educated), access to contraceptives and sex education? Rosling didn't need to do any research, because there can't be any other conclusion regardless of the results, he's defined "religion" in such a way that it's meaningless to say that it's not about "religion" or that the birth rate can decrease while retaining religious values. Is Hans Rosling suggesting that secularisation and reduction of the political and social power of religious organisations have no effect on birth rate? Yes, because under his reasoning the Roman Catholic Church's stance on condom use is 98% in favour of use for women 15-44 in the US 2006-2008, they have successfully retained their religious values.

Wow.  Way to spectacularly miss the point.

[Ajzzz]

(click to show/hide)

Hans Rosling's talks are getting worse over time. The United Kingdom and Scandinavia are 50% Christian? I don't think so. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to him to include Catholic and Protestant together, or Quiverfull and Anglican. Religious values don't involve having children, gender roles (e.g. women staying at home, not being educated), access to contraceptives and sex education? Rosling didn't need to do any research, because there can't be any other conclusion regardless of the results, he's defined "religion" in such a way that it's meaningless to say that it's not about "religion" or that the birth rate can decrease while retaining religious values. Is Hans Rosling suggesting that secularisation and reduction of the political and social power of religious organisations have no effect on birth rate? Yes, because under his reasoning the Roman Catholic Church's stance on condom use is 98% in favour of use for women 15-44 in the US 2006-2008, they have successfully retained their religious values.

Wow.  Way to spectacularly miss the point.

That was spectacularly helpful.

[EhJayArr]

(click to show/hide)

Hans Rosling's talks are getting worse over time. The United Kingdom and Scandinavia are 50% Christian? I don't think so. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to him to include Catholic and Protestant together, or Quiverfull and Anglican. Religious values don't involve having children, gender roles (e.g. women staying at home, not being educated), access to contraceptives and sex education? Rosling didn't need to do any research, because there can't be any other conclusion regardless of the results, he's defined "religion" in such a way that it's meaningless to say that it's not about "religion" or that the birth rate can decrease while retaining religious values. Is Hans Rosling suggesting that secularisation and reduction of the political and social power of religious organisations have no effect on birth rate? Yes, because under his reasoning the Roman Catholic Church's stance on condom use is 98% in favour of use for women 15-44 in the US 2006-2008, they have successfully retained their religious values.

Wow.  Way to spectacularly miss the point.

That was spectacularly helpful.

Eh, he's right. You didn't really comment on the video, just WHARGARBL'd at it.

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

Hans Rosling's talks are getting worse over time. The United Kingdom and Scandinavia are 50% Christian? I don't think so. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to him to include Catholic and Protestant together, or Quiverfull and Anglican. Religious values don't involve having children, gender roles (e.g. women staying at home, not being educated), access to contraceptives and sex education? Rosling didn't need to do any research, because there can't be any other conclusion regardless of the results, he's defined "religion" in such a way that it's meaningless to say that it's not about "religion" or that the birth rate can decrease while retaining religious values. Is Hans Rosling suggesting that secularisation and reduction of the political and social power of religious organisations have no effect on birth rate? Yes, because under his reasoning the Roman Catholic Church's stance on condom use is 98% in favour of use for women 15-44 in the US 2006-2008, they have successfully retained their religious values.

More than 50% of the UK and Scandinavia identify as Christian which means they met the criteria he used to label countries.

He clearly identified the four most important factors in the reduction in the birthrate, he said nothing about secularisation. Clearly, if religion got in the way of those four factors it would hinder the reduction in the birthrate, that was implicit in his talk. But equally, there is nothing unique about Christian heritage that allowed Western cultures to reduce their birthrate, and they did it whilst still professing to be religious.

[Ajzzz]

(click to show/hide)

Hans Rosling's talks are getting worse over time. The United Kingdom and Scandinavia are 50% Christian? I don't think so. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to him to include Catholic and Protestant together, or Quiverfull and Anglican. Religious values don't involve having children, gender roles (e.g. women staying at home, not being educated), access to contraceptives and sex education? Rosling didn't need to do any research, because there can't be any other conclusion regardless of the results, he's defined "religion" in such a way that it's meaningless to say that it's not about "religion" or that the birth rate can decrease while retaining religious values. Is Hans Rosling suggesting that secularisation and reduction of the political and social power of religious organisations have no effect on birth rate? Yes, because under his reasoning the Roman Catholic Church's stance on condom use is 98% in favour of use for women 15-44 in the US 2006-2008, they have successfully retained their religious values.

Wow.  Way to spectacularly miss the point.

That was spectacularly helpful.

Eh, he's right. You didn't really comment on the video, just WHARGARBL'd at it.

We know quite well what is needed in these countries: You need to have children to survive, you need to get out of the deepest poverty so children are not of importance for work in the family, you need to have access to some family planning, and you need the fourth factor...

...increased age at first marriage, and more women integrated into the labor force.

All the religions in the world are fully capable to maintain their values and adapt to this new world.

I made three coherent points against this talk, it's not my problem that others take issue with what I found to be worth commenting on or that you are incapable of understanding simple points.

[EhJayArr]

The three quotes you posted right there ^ are very clear, and I think Rosling supported them well in his talk.

I've read your paragraph half a dozen times now, and I'm still not what your point is. You ask lots of sarcastic question, and make a number of assertive opinions... but you didn't directly respond to anything that Rosling said.

Can you make your point more directly?

[Ajzzz]

(click to show/hide)

Hans Rosling's talks are getting worse over time. The United Kingdom and Scandinavia are 50% Christian? I don't think so. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to him to include Catholic and Protestant together, or Quiverfull and Anglican. Religious values don't involve having children, gender roles (e.g. women staying at home, not being educated), access to contraceptives and sex education? Rosling didn't need to do any research, because there can't be any other conclusion regardless of the results, he's defined "religion" in such a way that it's meaningless to say that it's not about "religion" or that the birth rate can decrease while retaining religious values. Is Hans Rosling suggesting that secularisation and reduction of the political and social power of religious organisations have no effect on birth rate? Yes, because under his reasoning the Roman Catholic Church's stance on condom use is 98% in favour of use for women 15-44 in the US 2006-2008, they have successfully retained their religious values.

More than 50% of the UK and Scandinavia identify as Christian which means they met the criteria he used to label countries.

He clearly identified the four most important factors in the reduction in the birthrate, he said nothing about secularisation. Clearly, if religion got in the way of those four factors it would hinder the reduction in the birthrate, that was implicit in his talk. But equally, there is nothing unique about Christian heritage that allowed Western cultures to reduce their birthrate, and they did it whilst still professing to be religious.

I'm aware that's what he used to label the countries, and that's fine if he treats it as that while also not deliberately giving the audience the wrong impression.

He said that religions could and by implication do retain their values while those four factors change, that's an implicit reference to secularisation, or rather the denial of it. The graphs in his talk wouldn't have been able to show a correlation between religion and a reduction in the birthrate because his graphs didn't include doctrinal difference or adherence to religious authority. You can profess to be religious while being celebrate, you can even belong to an organised religion that requires it. Europe became vastly more secular, adherence to doctrine and attendance to organised religious services fell dramatically. There's a difference between being culturally Christian, labelling yourself as such, and being a religious Christian.

[EhJayArr]

Rosling is saying that "contrary to what you might expect, these four things seem to be much more important than religion in instigating a declining birthrate."

He supported that statement by comparing birthrate trends among countries with disparate incomes and religious beliefs. The four factors Rosling pointed out seem to have more correlation with declining birthrates than either income levels or religion--although income levels might be related to such things as fewer children necessary for labor at home, women entering the workplace, etc.. The conclusion that religion is less important than those factors seems solid. 

Ajzzz, your response so far seems to be "nuh uh."