Meic to White, 4-10-98:
-----------------------
FR:
-It indicates the fact that theism doesn't work; that atheism is
-superior to theism in that it imparts a superior ethic -- or a
HW:
-The latter possiblity is certainly interesting. Another
-possiblity:  Atheism is associated with higher SES, and education,
-hence the low numbers in prison. I'm intrigued by this superior
-ethic "imparted" {by atheism}. 1)Do you presume there is one such
-ethic? 2) Care to name a few of its basic principles about how
-humans should treat each other? Hal White.
>Mr.  Rice's data is by no means conclusive, there are way too many
>unanswered questions.  View my last reply to him.
Especially, as Rice's definition of "atheism" is by no means
standard.
Rice holds that Atheists merely lack a belief in the existence of
gods.  But statisticians of prison populations are liable to use a
much narrower definition, closer to those normally found in
dictionaries (e.g.  Atheists reject or deny the existence of
gods).
It would therefore be no wonder that very few atheists are found
in prisons.  For the same reason, any statistician is also going
to find almost no atheists in the general population.
Atheism, as standardly defined in dictionaries, is in fact rare.
As defined by Rice, however, atheism is very common.
Rice's argument about the morality of atheists thus trades on an
equivocation between two definitions of 'atheist'.
The prison statistician finds almost no atheists in prison
(because he is using the narrow dictionary definition); Rice
therefore thinks THAT evidence applies to HIS notion of 'atheist'
(which is in fact much broader than the one which statisticians
probably use).
The whole argument on the morality of atheists here therefore
is invalid, as the crucial conceptual link in the argument is in
fact an equivocation on the meaning of 'atheist'.
Bob
---------------