PDA

View Full Version : As Christians Rise or Fall, So Do 100 Country Credit Ratings



Aristotle
09-25-2013, 05:54 PM
Should a country's Christians-to-debt ratio be added to the list of economic indicators worth watching? Or more specifically, its evangelicals-to-debt ratio?

According to a study of more than 100 nations, changes in the percentage of Christians—especially evangelicals—in a given country have a direct correlation to economic well-being.

Dutch researcher D. Slikker wanted to assess the Marxist theory that increases in prosperity lead to decreases in religious practice. So he examined the past decade's worth of data from countries including the United States, Belgium, China, Germany, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. His research used Operation World and the World Religion Database for its data on changes in the percentage of Christians in each country, while studies from Moody's Analytics and Fitch Ratings provided data on changes in the economic status of each country, particularly its sovereign credit rating.

His conclusion: "Changes in the percentage of Christians within a society exert a measurable correlated influence of the economic well-being of that society."

"When using total Christian populations per country, statistically significant positive linear correlations were obtained in seven out of eight combinations of data source, rating agency and either five- or ten-year interval." Slikker notes in his abstract.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/september/christians-credit-rating-slikker-protestant-work-ethic.html

The Left Sock
09-25-2013, 07:15 PM
Well, if you can't trust a guy with a name like D.i.c.k. Slikker, who can you trust?

Did you read the whole article?

An excerpt:

"Slikker told CT, "Four out of the four (100 percent) models for evangelicals are significant, and six out of the eight (75 percent) models for Protestants are significant." By contrast, only 50 percent of the models for Catholics proved significant. The study also noted the correlation in a nation's Muslim population, finding it to have no effect on the economy in all but one case, which was a negative effect.

Slikker's study joins others that have found mixed results on whether the "Protestant work ethic" exists or not. A 2009 Harvard study found no empirical evidence of economic benefit. However, another recent study found that the effects of unemployment hurt Protestant societies more than societies that are less Protestant."

What happened with the Catholics? And why is this guy more credible than Harvard? Hmm?

Aristotle
09-26-2013, 06:02 PM
What happened with the Catholics? And why is this guy more credible than Harvard? Hmm?

Nothing.

Who said he is more credible than Harvard?

creating strawmen and attacking the messenger: a sure sign this article has troubled you greatly, and has shaken the blinders from your face.

And, you made fun of his first name. That is mean. First names should not be laughed at. While you are getting your giggles,millions of people named "D i c k" live in a hell we can scarcely imagine.

Your cold, calculating ways leave me forlorn.

The Left Sock
09-26-2013, 08:59 PM
Correction, I made fun of his two names, when put together. Sounds more like a porn star, than a Danish intellect. Or would that be Dutch?

And Christianity Today gave him more gravitas than the esteemed institution that is Harvard. Selective belief? Wishful thinking? Titillating goofiness? The options are many.

Aristotle
09-27-2013, 07:44 AM
Correction, I made fun of his two names, when put together. Sounds more like a porn star, than a Danish intellect. Or would that be Dutch?

And Christianity Today gave him more gravitas than the esteemed institution that is Harvard. Selective belief? Wishful thinking? Titillating goofiness? The options are many.

Failing to address the issue,and instead going after the messenger.

We'll take that as your admission this one has you flummoxed.

The Left Sock
09-27-2013, 09:05 AM
You posted Slikker's conclusions only, in your OP.

The article also contained evidence that Slikker's conclusions were refuted by Harvard. You failed to post that in your OP.

Therefore, you were presenting only the information that supports your fantasy.

How's that for 'addressing' the information? The information you included, and that which you omitted, draws a very clear picture, doesn't it?

Why should I be 'flummoxed' at someone else's delusion?

Aristotle
09-29-2013, 02:47 PM
You posted Slikker's conclusions only, in your OP.

The article also contained evidence that Slikker's conclusions were refuted by Harvard. You failed to post that in your OP.

Therefore, you were presenting only the information that supports your fantasy.

How's that for 'addressing' the information? The information you included, and that which you omitted, draws a very clear picture, doesn't it?

Why should I be 'flummoxed' at someone else's delusion?

You have yet to address the issue at hand. One can only assume this is because the OP has you angry and flummoxed.

The Left Sock
09-29-2013, 08:14 PM
The issue at hand? Like maybe the validity, or lack thereof, to the original article from Christianity Today? Sure, no problem!

A nebulous intellect, who no one has ever heard of, conducted a study in which he concluded that there is a direct correlation between the number of Christians in a country, and that country's credit rating. It's a ridiculous thing to even attempt to correlate two variables like this, because there are many types of Christians, many different countries with different economic situations and government styles, but the guy took a shot at it anyway.

As it turns out, the only strong evidence he had was for evangelical Christians, so the whole premise of his hypothesis was flawed from the beginning. Harvard did their own research, and found there was no real correlation, of any kind.

So intellectually, this is a non-story, just flimsy pseudo-science, from a relative unknown, who didn't even prove what he set out to prove. But that didn't stop Christianity Today from publishing it, and it didn't stop a member here from selectively posting the 'positive' aspects of the article, while conveniently leaving out the bits where even Christianity Today admitted that there were conflicting studies, that put the whole shooting match in doubt.

So, what you have is wishful thinking by a Christian group who was willing to publish any kind of good-news story that painted their beliefs in a positive light, and an even more ambitious poster, who is probably a Catholic, but was willing to overlook the fact that Catholics didn't meet the criteria for either the Slikker study, or the Harvard research, just to get the 'good news' out.

The issue at hand, is a bogus study, clutching at straws to find any proof that being a Christian is a good thing, that was edited down to highlight only the 'feel-good' bits, by a poster here.

How's that?

Aristotle
09-30-2013, 08:31 AM
How's that?

Too long. How about the Cliff Notes version?

The Left Sock
09-30-2013, 08:36 AM
At some point in life, you really need to wean yourself off of that Cliff Note dependency.

You're missing a whole big chunk of the world, short-changing yourself like that.

Aristotle
09-30-2013, 09:02 AM
At some point in life, you really need to wean yourself off of that Cliff Note dependency.

You're missing a whole big chunk of the world, short-changing yourself like that.

I only utilize it to cut through long-winded speeches devoid of fact.

The Left Sock
10-01-2013, 07:49 AM
Okay, here you go:

Facts:

-Slikker is a nobody.
-His hypothesis didn't match his results.
-Harvard studies refute his research.
-You posted only the parts of Slikker's findings that suited your agenda.

Conclusion:

-Posting this in the way you did was a complete waste of time, for anyone actually interested in the truth.

Aristotle
10-01-2013, 05:10 PM
-Slikker is a nobody.

That is a personal opinion. The only place it would fit in a school would be the third grade recess. As such, that comment actually hurts your thesis, not help it.

-His hypothesis didn't match his results.

Incorrect. His hypothesis was a result of his results. That is a basic function of the scientific theory. That you did not know such an elemental fact does nothing to forward your own thesis on the article; in fact, it takes away from it. You, sir, are batting 0.00 so far.

-Harvard studies refute his research.

Multiple studies? Or just one?

His study refutes the Harvard study.

See how easy that was to turn on its head? You're digging an even deeper hole.

-You posted only the parts of Slikker's findings that suited your agenda.

I posted what was posted in the article.

Posting this in the way you did was a complete waste of time, for anyone actually interested in the truth.

Not at all. In fact, your obvious inability to refute anything I posted shows that what I posted most definitely has truth to it. The fact it created such anger in you proves as much as well.

The fact you have not only failed to prove a point you were trying to make, but have also back-tracked and lost a lot of ground, shows you cannot refute the study.

Thanks for your contributions. It's apparent this one is over.

The Left Sock
10-01-2013, 05:21 PM
"Incorrect. His hypothesis was a result of his results."

This is the only part of your post I found worthy of a response. It is obvious you have a flawed understanding of scientific theory.

To properly conduct a study, a scientist poses a question. In this case, Slikker posed the question: 'Is there a statistically significant positive relationship between the Christian population, and the corresponding country's credit rating?'

After gathering data, his findings were that there was a statistically significant relationship between evangelical Christians, and a corresponding country's credit rating.

Therefore, his results did not match his original hypothesis.

A hypothesis stands alone. The results stand alone. If the two match, it is considered a successful experiment. If they do not, the findings may form the basis for further experiments, but in no case I know of, is a hypothesis viewed 'as the result of the results'. Such circular reasoning it antithetical to the very nature of science.

Aristotle
10-01-2013, 05:25 PM
your anger proves my point. Thanks for playing

The Left Sock
10-01-2013, 05:33 PM
I'm afraid you're seeing things that have no basis in reality, and playing a game that doesn't exist.

The ability to reason with you is completely out of reach.

Bluesky
10-02-2013, 05:40 AM
A few observations. Although I did not read the entire paper, and I don't understand statistical studies, the Harvard study uses data from 1300-1900, in order to test Max Weber's theories re the Protestant work ethic.

Slikker's paper uses data from a much narrower window (from ca 2000 - 2010) and whereas the Harvard study looked at Europe and the effect of Calvinism vs Catholicism, Slikker looked at data from 100 countries.

Thirdly, I would have expected Winger to rejoice over the Harvard study, because it attempts to prove that there is no financial advantage to being a Protestant. In fact, why he even started this thread is a headscratcher, because Slikker seems to indicate that you're better off being an evangelical Protestant. Hello?

The Left Sock
10-02-2013, 07:54 AM
I think perhaps he was caught cherry-picking, and napping, at the same time.

Oh well, it's a great day to be a fiscally conservative evangelical Christian, and we have the wisdom of Aristotle to thank for it!

Bluesky
10-02-2013, 01:16 PM
Aristotle is now banned as well.

The Voice
10-02-2013, 07:50 PM
Aristotle is now banned as well.

Hmm??? I guess posting by proxy is alright.