Dumbness and god belief [Archive]

Radrook

4th July 2004, 09:57 AM

My personal observation and experience perhaps doesn't quite jive with what the popular opinion is. First, one has to define what intelligence is. That in itself probably depends on many factors. There are musical geniuses, literary geniuses, mathematical geniuses, philosophical geniuses, chess geniuses,
and a host of other geniuses which differ from one another and in which religion plays absolutely no factor whatsoever. Most Geniuses that have existed in fact were religious since atheism was rare during the times that they lived. so numerically speaking there is no comparison.

In terms of my observation at a certain institution of higher learning I attended, I saw absolutely no evidence of either moral or intellectual superiority among the mostly atheists crowd. In fact, the two psychologists I studied under were the most emotionally unbalanced persons I have ever met. Ironic since emotional stability should be a given in that profession. But the anomalies were rife across all the professions I observed.

So I would have to say based on that observation of approximately six years that no, not necessarily.

But if it comforts you to think so. Be my guest.

BTW
This is the first forum in puilosophy I have participated in in which people have the constant need to place insulting threads against the religious.

Weird!

But so is evolution.

;)

DangerousBeliefs

4th July 2004, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
So I would have to say based on that observation of approximately six years that no, not necessarily.

Well, the author did backup the claim with data. That's the difference between believing something is true and it actually possibly being true.

Originally posted by Radrook
BTW
This is the first forum in puilosophy I have participated in in which people have the constant need to place insulting threads against the religious.

Is it insulting if it is indeed true?

For instance, if I say - "Isn't it interesting that family-oriented Baptists have an higher divorce rate than atheists?"

So, am I insulting Baptists if I back up my claim?

Statistics to back up claim on divorce rates:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Baptists say they are family oriented:
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp

But anyway, I still believe that upbringing is a greater factor than intelligence/education. I wonder if there are any studies that show the main factors and their importance.

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
First, one has to define what intelligence is. That in itself probably depends on many factors.

The intelligence I'm talking about refers to results of an IQ test. Also level of education attained, and income.

Originally posted by Radrook
In terms of my observation at a certain institution of higher learning I attended, I saw absolutely no evidence of either moral or intellectual superiority among the mostly atheists crowd. In fact, the two psychologists I studied under were the most emotionally unbalanced persons I have ever met. Ironic since emotional stability should be a given in that profession. But the anomalies were rife across all the professions I observed.

So I would have to say based on that observation of approximately six years that no, not necessarily.

That's all subjective though, these statistics aren't.

Originally posted by Radrook
BTW
This is the first forum in puilosophy I have participated in in which people have the constant need to place insulting threads against the religious.

Weird!

But so is evolution.

;)

It goes both ways, as we see with Roddick's posts.

I don't really mean to offend actually, the post is serious, but my comments are mostly tongue-in-cheek ;)

Radrook

4th July 2004, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Humphreys

The intelligence I'm talking about refers to results of an IQ test. Also level of education attained, and income.

That's all subjective though, these statistics aren't.

Many genuine geniuses would fail those IQ tests.
The design of the tests themselves makes the results subjective and biased.

Excerpt:

IQ Tests: Do They Measure Intelligence?
by Dr. Jan Strydom and Susan du Plessis.

IQ stands for intelligence quotient. Supposedly, it is a score that tells one how “bright” a person is compared to other people. And — also supposedly — the score is an indication of the person’s potential. The average IQ is by definition 100; scores above 100 indicate a higher than average IQ and scores below 100 indicate a lower than average IQ. Half of the population has IQs of between 90 and 110. If an IQ test is supposed to measure a person's intelligence, the question is: What is intelligence? Is it the ability to do well in school? Is it the ability to read well and spell correctly? Or are the following people intelligent?

The physician who smokes three packets of cigarettes a day?

The Nobel Prize winner whose marriage and personal life are in ruins?

The corporate executive who has ingeniously worked his way to the top and also earned a heart attack for his efforts?

The brilliant and successful music composer who handled his money so poorly that he was always running from his creditors (incidentally, his name was Mozart)?

The problem is that the term intelligence has never been defined adequately and therefore nobody knows what an IQ test is supposed to measure. Already in the early 1920s the journalist Walter Lippmann maintained that IQ tests were nothing but a series of stunts. “We cannot measure intelligence when we have not defined it,” he said.

Jean Piaget, the father of cognitive development, was opposed to defining intelligence in terms of the number of items answered correctly on a so-called intelligence test. Intelligence is a complex term in Piaget’s theory, but in general he said that intelligence is always related to an organism’s adaptation to its environment. Piaget emphasized the dynamic nature of intelligence and how it qualitatively changes.

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq02.htm

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
Many genuine geniuses would fail those IQ tests.

The emotional and 'artsy' types maybe. Being 'artsy' and emotional doesn't really help to determine truth though, does it. Logic does.

Let's say I think there would be a correlation between being a good scientist and being logical, and being a good scientist and scoring high on IQ tests. It is a fact that scientists score above average on these tests.

Would you agree that a scientist would be better qualified to work out the probability of god existing, than say, a 'really good guitar player', or someone who makes 'quite nice poems'?

If we were looking for a team of experts to help solve the question 'Is it likely we were created by a god, or could chance alone be responsible?', do you think 'the ability to draw nice pictures' would be an important quality in our team?

Originally posted by Radrook
The design of the tests themselves makes the results subjective and biased.

Biased, possibly. Subjective, hardly. Biased towards logical reasoning, as opposed to emotional and artistic 'talent'.

Radrook

4th July 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Humphreys

The emotional and 'artsy' types maybe. Being 'artsy' and emotional doesn't really help to determine truth though, does it. Logic does.

Let's say I think there would be a correlation between being a good scientist and being logical, and being a good scientist and scoring high on IQ tests. It is a fact that scientists score above average on these tests.

Would you agree that a scientist would be better qualified to work out the probability of god existing, than say, a 'really good guitar player', or someone who makes 'quite nice poems'?

It is not within the official realm of science to prove or disprove God. In fact, God is never even mentioned when scientists are going about their scientific business. Neither are all scientists atheists as you seem to be proposing. The first Astronauts on their way to the moon cited the Genesis account of creation. Other scientists are regular church goers. Still others have written specifically on the subject of God and explained their reasons why they are NOT atheists.

If we were looking for a team of experts to help solve the question 'Is it likely we were created by a god, or could chance alone be responsible?', do you think 'the ability to draw nice pictures' would be an important quality in our team?

I don't think that the scientific method has proved absolutely anything in reference to God except that God is a very strong likelihood.

Biased, possibly. Subjective, hardly. Biased towards logical reasoning, as opposed to emotional and artistic 'talent'.

The reason I brought up artistic talent was because you seemed to limit intelligence to those tests. Such is not the way it works. There are many different types of intelligences.

Social, mathematical, artistic and so on. That you hold the mathematical in highest esteem is completely irrelevant to the issue.

And yes those who designed the tests were being subjective. Many children have been wrongfully classified as morons due to the cultural bias inherent in such tests because the designers subjectively assumed that EVERYONE is familiar with their cultural idiosyncrasies.

Here are some scientists who believe in God:

Keith H. Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics
He has a B.A. in Physics from California State University, Fullerton, a M.A. in Physics, and a Ph.D. in Condensed Matter Physics both from the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Wanser is currently professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton. He has received seven patents and over 1 million dollars in grant and contract awards. Before beginning his teaching career, Dr. Wanser worked for McDonnell Douglas Astronautics as a senior scientist and the Optical Sciences Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. He received the School of NSM 1996 oustanding research award.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmond W. Holroyd, III Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
He has a B.S. in Astrophysics with a minor in Physics from the University of Rochester and a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from the University of New York at Albany. Dr. Holroyd has been a meteorologist and research physical scientist since 1974 for the Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office, Colorado, and field offices. He has also been Adjunct Professor since 1999 at the University College, University of Denver, GIS department. He is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the Weather Modification Association.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald E. Chittick, Ph.D. Chemistry
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from Willamette University and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Oregon State University. His research interests include programmed instruction for which he was granted a U.S. patent and also alternate fuels in which he holds both U.S. and foreign patents. He was awarded recognition in Outstanding Educators in America, is listed in Who's Who in the West and in American Men and Women of Science. He is a member of the American Chemical Society. Dr. and Mrs. Chittick received the Bent Twig Award in 1986 from Citizens for Public Education.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raul E. Lopez, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
He has a B.S. in Physics and Math from the University of Puerto Rico and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University. His areas of experience are in Meteorology, Lightning, Convective Cloud Systems and much more. Dr. Lopez has published over forty-five papers in scientific and professional journals. He has also published over ninety conference papers and technical reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arlo Moehlenpah, D.Sc. Chemical Engineering
He has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Washington University, a M.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Minnesota, and a D.Sc. in Chemical Engineering from Washington University. He has served on the faculties of Macalester College, Wisconsin State University, and San Joaquin Delta College and has industrial experience with Shell Oil, Rohm & Haas, Monsanto and Hydro-Air Engineering. Dr. Moehlenpah has been a registered professional engineer since 1972.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Hermann, Ph.D. Mathematics
He has a B.A.(with honors) in Mathematics with a minor in Physics from John Hopkins University, a M.A. and a Ph.D. in Mathematics from American University. He is current professor of Mathematics at the U.S. Naval Academy and has taught Mathematics for almost 40 years now. Dr. Hermann has published 62 articles in 28 different refereed journals from 13 countries and has written 5 books. He has presented 31 papers at meetings of scholarly societies and published 45 abstracts. He has presented over 2,000 scientific disclosures. His efforts have been directed towards popularizing nonstandard analysis.

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html

BTW

If indeed true scientists are logical, I can accept.
However, wannabe scientists or scientist admirers are far from being logical and do not follow the strict logic that the scientists that they so much admire would feel professionally bound to follow.

Suggestologist

4th July 2004, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Humphreys

I can't for the life of me understand why you would think that.

What is your justification for claiming this?

Intelligent means a person will look for information outside of what they were taught by family.

Dumb means a person will cling to what they learned by the time they were 5 or something.

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
It is not within the official realm of science to prove or disprove God.

I didn't say it was, but they are more qualified to comment on the likelihood of there being a god.

Originally posted by Radrook
In fact, God is never even mentioned when scientists are going about their scientific business.

I didn't say he/it was mentioned.

Originally posted by Radrook
Neither are all scientists atheists as you seem to be proposing.

Heh. How on Earth did you get the impression this 'seemed to be what I was proposing'?

That's rubbish. I wasn't proposing that at all.

Originally posted by Radrook
The first Astronauts on their way to the moon cited the Genesis account of creation.

So...?

Originally posted by Radrook
Other scientists are regular church goers. Still others have written specifically on the subject of God and explained their reasons why they are NOT atheists.

Again, so what?

We are talking statistics and majorities, not individual cases - that'd be pointless.

Originally posted by Radrook
I don't think that the scientific method has proved absolutely anything in reference to God except that God is a very strong likelihood.

Okay now you have piqued my interest.

How do you figure that?

How has science implied that god is a strong likelihood?

Originally posted by Radrook
The reason I brought up artistic talent was because you seemed to limit intelligence to those tests. Such is not the way it works. There are many different types of intelligences.

Social, mathematical, artistic and so on.

Yes, some which are quite useless in determining truth. Like being good at drawing things, or making nice tunes on an instrument, or being able to write lovely poems.

Originally posted by Radrook
That you hold the mathematical in highest esteem is completely irrelevant to the issue.

The reason I hold it in higher esteem than 'being good at drawing' should be blatantly obvious. At least I'd hope so.

Originally posted by Radrook
And yes those who designed the tests were being subjective.

You said the results were subjective, not the content! The results themselves are not subjective!

There is no matter of opinion used when checking the answers of an intelligence test.

Cheers.

Radrook

4th July 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Intelligent means a person will look for information outside of what they were taught by family.

Dumb means a person will cling to what they learned by the time they were 5 or something.

Most kids are taught from an early age in school that evolution is true. They continue to believe that all their lives. Does that make them dumb?

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Intelligent means a person will look for information outside of what they were taught by family.

Dumb means a person will cling to what they learned by the time they were 5 or something.

Valid information, yes.

Being intelligent doesn't mean always deciding to go against the grain regardless of evidence.

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 11:38 AM

Suggestologist, are you implying that belief in god is the position intelligent people will tend to take if they look for information outside of what they are taught?

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
Most kids are taught from an early age in school that evolution is true. They continue to believe that all their lives. Does that make them dumb?

Only if they don't verify it, and have good reasons to accept what has been taught to them is fact.

Suggestologist

4th July 2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Humphreys

Valid information, yes.

Being intelligent doesn't mean always deciding to go against the grain regardless of evidence.

I'm not making a generalization. Just pointing out the probability of a trendency.

And, it's not the evidence. It's the interpretation of the evidence. The intelligent have more options when it comes to interpretation than the dumb.

The intelligent are not Vulcans. They have emotions which drive their drives toward knowledge; and these determine criteria for what makes something of interest to them.

I recall reading something about Shermer(?) showing a correlation between Openness (one of the four factor model of personality: FFM) and atheism. But you have to remember that most of those people started from a base of being in a religious family. If they had started in an atheistic family, those with high Openness, I speculate, should be more likely to end up in some form of religion.

Openness also seems to be correlated to being Liberal (politically). While Closedness (low Openness), seems correlated with conservatism.

Radrook

4th July 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Humphreys

[quote]I didn't say it was, but they are more qualified to comment on the likelihood of there being a god.

I do not see what qualifies scientists to talk about the likelihood of God's existence since scientists can only detect a minuscule part of our universe anyway and the vast majority of it will admittedly remain always beyond their detection. You are asking more from science than science was designed to do.

In fact, scientists cannot even conclusively prove that what they are detecting really exists outside the mind. All that scientists can do is record sense impression data. Anything beyond that is beyond their jurisdiction.

How has science implied that god is a strong likelihood?

By revealing the blatantly obvious organization of matter which shouts out designed and planning toward a purpose.

By revealing to us the inductive patterns which show that life comes only from life.

By revealing the laws of cause and effect.

Yes, some which are quite useless in determining truth.

Not at all.
OR perhaps only when limited definition of truth.
The search for truth is very varied and extensive and is not as limited as you seem to think,

There is ethical truth, artistic truth, metaphysical truth, logical truth, truth related to knowledge, sociological truth.

There is even truth related to the game of chess.

You seem to be stuck on scientific data as truth

Like being good at drawing things, or making nice tunes on an instrument, or being able to write lovely poems.
The reason I hold it in higher esteem than 'being good at drawing' should be blatantly obvious.

It is blatantly obvious that you hold it in higher esteem.
But that does not mean everyone does or even should.

There is no matter of opinion used when checking the answers of an intelligence test.

Of course not.
The opinions are already manifest in the way that the test is made.

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Suggestologist
I recall reading something about Shermer(?) showing a correlation between Openness (one of the four factor model of personality: FFM) and atheism. But you have to remember that most of those people started from a base of being in a religious family. If they had started in an atheistic family, those with high Openness, I speculate, should be more likely to end up in some form of religion.

You are still stating that intelligence means going against the grain. This is nonsense I think.

Sure evidence is up for interpretation, but being intelligent means being more likely to interpret it in the "correct" way.

Suggestologist

4th July 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Most kids are taught from an early age in school that evolution is true. They continue to believe that all their lives. Does that make them dumb?

I know people who were taught by their family first, that evolution is stupid, before school taught them anything about it -- and continue to believe that.

If you believe something just because someone told you, and have no curiousity about investigating the evidence in depth; that's consistent with "dumb".

When I first discovered that there was an atheist community online, I thought "Wow, all these guys must be super smart." Well, I've since encountered atheists I consider dumb.

Dumb has less to do with content of beliefs (evolution); more to do with how a person got there and stayed there (told vs. investigated to satisfy intellectual curiousity).

Radrook

4th July 2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys

Only if they don't verify it, and have good reasons to accept what has been taught to them is fact.

Most kids are fed evolution as fact, assume it is fact, and feel absolutely no need to verify it. So they proceed to become scientists on that assumption. In short, they proceed to try to substantiate what they already consider fact. Any other possibility is rejected unceremoniously as untenable and people holding divergent views as being imbeciles.

That is the mindset that is usually created by our educational system.

Radrook

4th July 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Dumb has less to do with content of beliefs (evolution); more to do with how a person got there and stayed there (told vs. investigated to satisfy intellectual curiousity).

I agree.
I had similar experiences with believers in God.
The dumb can be found in both groups and the criteria you use is OK.

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Radrook
I do not see what qualifies scientists to talk about the likelihood of God's existence since scientists can only detect a minuscule part of our universe anyway and the vast majority of it will admittedly remain always beyond their detection.

Scientists aren't qualified to talk about the probability that the Universe they see was created, because they can't detect the whole of it?

What kind of twisted thinking is this?

You don't need to know the whole picture to take an informed, intelligent position on something. That's like saying we can't take a position on the Bible because we think somewhere along the way a page of text may have gone missing.

Nonsense.

You make do with what information you have, and scientists are the most qualified to use that "information" in the right way - to come to a conclusion, or educated guess.

Originally posted by Radrook
In fact, scientists cannot even conclusively prove that what they are detecting really exists outside the mind. All that scientists can do is record sense impression data. Anything beyond that is beyond their jurisdiction.

So what? Since when was the need for anything "conclusive" ever mentioned in this discussion?

Originally posted by Radrook
By revealing the blatantly obvious organization of matter which shouts out designed and planning toward a purpose.

By revealing to us the inductive patterns which show that life comes only from life.

By revealing the laws of cause and effect.

I'll deal with this can of worms later, I don't have time now.

Originally posted by Radrook
Not at all.
OR perhaps only when limited definition of truth.
The search for truth is very varied and extensive and is not as limited as you seem to think,

There is ethical truth, artistic truth, metaphysical truth, logical truth, truth related to knowledge, sociological truth.

There is even truth related to the game of chess.

You seem to be stuck on scientific data as truth

I don't know what you're on about to be honest.

Don't over-complicate matters. Either god exists or he doesn't, one of those is "The Truth".

Originally posted by Radrook
The opinions are already manifest in the way that the test is made.

That's not what you said though, is it?

Cheers.

MacGuffin

4th July 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Radrook

IQ Tests: Do They Measure Intelligence?

For more information on this consult Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" a great read about how IQ tests over the years have consistently been used to support the argument that those groups in power have a rightful claim to it based on the "fact" that they are more intelligent.

Or in addition to the aforementioned Piaget look at work by Howard Gardner, "Frames of Mind" and his related books, where he expands on the notion of intelligence beyond a simple number based on very limited criteria and discusses multiple intelligences.

I will say though as a rule, I believe students who learn how to do their own critical thinking will gravitate away from religion on their own in time despite the culture around them.

Share and Enjoy - Aaron

MacGuffin

4th July 2004, 12:19 PM

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 02:57 PM

Radrook, now that I'm back, perhaps you can expand on these statements.

Originally posted by Radrook
I don't think that the scientific method has proved absolutely anything in reference to God except that God is a very strong likelihood.

By revealing the blatantly obvious organization of matter which shouts out designed and planning toward a purpose.

By revealing to us the inductive patterns which show that life comes only from life.

By revealing the laws of cause and effect.

A few questions for you.

What organization of matter shouts out "design"?

Does the structure of god himself not shout out the fact he had a designer?

If not, why not?

What do you define as 'life', and why is god himself not considered to be 'life'?

If he is considered as life, then who created god?

What do the laws of cause and effect say about a creator?

Cheers.

Bottle or the Gun

4th July 2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys
[B]

The intelligence I'm talking about refers to results of an IQ test. Also level of education attained, and income.

/B]

Paris Hilton is a perfect example of someone with the best education and a high income. Intelligent? A childhood friend of mine worked with Sagan, but he couldn't wipe his own rear without detailed instructions. Knowing 2 and 2 is 4 different than putting 2 and 2 together and figuring out the sum is 4. (Nice golf club, you always swing it indoors?)

Anyway, combine the IQ and EQ (Emotional Quotient) and there you have the real measure of a person's intelligence.

And to answer the question: Gods and religions were created by smart people to have control over stupid people.

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
(Nice golf club, you always swing it indoors?)

Only when I'm photographing my swing to check positions etc.

4th July 2004, 04:59 PM

Don't try to pin Radrook on the whole 'intelligent design' thing... after I got fed up and made an in-depth rebuttal of the whole mess, he clammed up (on the whole Gullible People thread) and instead is making his outrageous and illogical claim on other threads.

As to 'dumbness' and god belief, I've never noticed the religious to be incapable of speech...

:)

Actually, it is more likely to say that, as society as a whole becomes better educated and less gullible, more responsible for themselves and less dependant on significant authority figures, that their need for organized religion declines. Probably the rising popularity of Pagan faiths lies in part not with the increasing intelligence of people but more with the concept of taking personal responsibility for morals and faith. People are slowly realizing that they are responsible for their own morals, that there was no 'original sin' to be guilty of, and that no one can bless or curse them, nor lead them to heaven or hell. Pagan faiths largely lead one to take personal control of their own spirituality and morals, rather than relying on the sham-artist scam of priesthoods and popes that has failed for centuries and continues to do so - in fact, with recent media exposure of the humble humanity of the Catholic priesthood, more people than ever are realizing that they've been trusting their most precious possession - their immortal soul - to foolish, gullible, and fallible priests. So now, more than ever, people are drifting from this structure to one of taking care of themselves instead.

Frankly, the world would be a lot better off if priesthoods were disassembled and this whole idea of 'guilt from birth' were erased. What utter nonsense, that even a newborn child is guilty of sins committed by a distant and probably mythological ancestor!

Iacchus

4th July 2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm

These statistics show that there is a correlation between being dumb, and being religious. It seems that as dumbness increases, belief in gods etc increases also.

Are dumb people attracted to religion?
Does religion make people become more dumb perhaps?
Maybe most people are religious at a young age and the intelligent ones see that religion is dumb more quickly?

How is God supposed to make a success of heaven with all those dumb people worshipping and working for him?

If it comes down to an ultimate battle between heaven and hell, we surely know who will win the battle of wits.

God will have to have better weapons I suppose.

But who will build them? Will God hire intelligent scientists etc from hell to help build lasers and such?

Good luck if he gives the job to the numbnuts in heaven.

Discuss. But is this to imply that intelligent people don't believe in God either? Actually, if I'm not mistaken, even Darwin believed in God. As well as did Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. In fact any number of your greatest philosophers as well.

Humphreys

4th July 2004, 05:35 PM

Zaayrdragon, good post. Thanks.

Originally posted by Iacchus
But is this to imply that intelligent people don't believe in God either?

No. It's partly tongue-in-cheek, but the original statistics and discussion is serious.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, even Darwin believed in God. As well as did Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. In fact any number of your greatest philosophers as well.

Einstein didn't believe in "God", he believed in a force. This 'force' was nature itself. He thought the idea of a personal God was a "child-like one", to quote him.

Anyway, this isn't relevant.

Iacchus

4th July 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys

Einstein didn't believe in "God", he believed in a force. This 'force' was nature itself. He thought the idea of a personal God was a "child-like one", to quote him.

Anyway, this isn't relevant. Have heard it was more like Espinoza's God. And yes it is relevant. Because what it seems to imply is that only dumb people believe in God. But then again, I suppose if the king of the lemmings attested to a belief in God (whether a God existed or not) then all the rest would follow suit. ;)

4th July 2004, 05:56 PM

Probably the biggest argument against the monotheistic God and the method of worship practiced by Christians, et. al., is that this monotheistic God didn't exist throughout most of Mankind's past. Of course, that's assuming Man to be much older than Bible-thumpers claim he is...

I've seen some claim evidence of Man for millions of years, but even going off of conservative observations in things like statues and artifacts, you're still talking tens of thousands of years. Meanwhile, the best Bible history can come up with appears to be 6000 years or so - so for a majority of Man's past, the monotheistic God simply did not exist. What of all of those millions of souls that existed before then? Or was Man just another soullless animal?

The simplest way out for our Deist friends is to just assume archaeology to be WAAAAY wrong and ignore such evidence. Even so, though, it's pretty clear that within written history, monotheism is fairly recent.

Let's call for the truth: the biggest reason Abrahamist faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) has gotten to be where it is lies with the fact that early Abrahamists managed to get metalworking down earlier than their neighbors did. Pretty easy to compel people to believe in your myths when you have steel and they don't.

Iacchus

4th July 2004, 06:02 PM

Or, we could just assume God is responsible for everything, no matter what form it appears to take. In fact there's nothing to say that the notion of God and evolution can't coexist. It just may entail a little more research, that's all.

4th July 2004, 06:06 PM

Iacchus, that's probably the most intelligent argument I've ever heard pro-God... in fact, it's closest to my own belief: that God exists and is responsible for everything, exactly as we see it - but that this isn't the God of Abraham or Mohammad or anyone else, but a completely unique and largely unknowable being.

At any rate, such a statement would require that instead of debating old and largely misedited books, we should just embrace science and research, and accept what we find. As for our souls, I just don't think we need to worry so much about the afterlife. Just let's make this life as pleasant as possible, and move right along.

There's a good chance that we're the least of God's concerns anyway.

Iacchus

4th July 2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Iacchus, that's probably the most intelligent argument I've ever heard pro-God... in fact, it's closest to my own belief: that God exists and is responsible for everything, exactly as we see it - but that this isn't the God of Abraham or Mohammad or anyone else, but a completely unique and largely unknowable being. The thing is, with the diversity of the Universe as it stands, God can pretty much assume any form (or mask) he so chooses, including the God of Abraham and Mohammad.

Recommended reading, The Masks of God (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/014019441X/qid=1088988130/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-4985522-0812050?v=glance&s=books), by Joseph Campbell. This is a four volume set by the way.

SezMe

4th July 2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys
Biased, possibly. Subjective, hardly. Biased towards logical reasoning, as opposed to emotional and artistic 'talent'.
Read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould for an extensive background of IQ testing in America, the theory and practice of IQ testing, and an in-depth analysis of the data. You will never again use "IQ" in an intelligent discussion again.

dmarker

4th July 2004, 07:19 PM

Radrook

4th July 2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, we could just assume God is responsible for everything, no matter what form it appears to take. In fact there's nothing to say that the notion of God and evolution can't coexist. It just may entail a little more research, that's all.

Not all evolutionists are atheists.
Some evolutionists beleive that God used evolution to make man.
It's just that the atheist nonscientists are much more vociferous and make it seem as if evolution requires abiogenesis.

Iacchus

4th July 2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by dmarker

Why should we assume that? For the same reason we assume God doesn't exist? Because we don't know perhaps, and are trying to understand why things do exist?

Radrook

4th July 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys

A few questions for you.

What organization of matter shouts out "design"?

IF you don't see organization and design in the human brain, eye, heart, digestive system and so on but yet readily and without difficulty see intelligent design in a simple arrowhead then any further discussion is really useless.

For the argument from design and cause and effect read Thomas Aquinas.

He expresses it much more eloquently than I ever could.

Does the structure of god himself not shout out the fact he had a designer? If not, why not?

Not required by the evidence because the evidence is in reference to matter and the material. God is nonmaterial. Conclusons based on unrepresentative evidence are Fallascious reasoning.

What do you define as 'life', and why is god himself not considered to be 'life'?

Here we go again!
My definiton of earthlike material life is the standard biological one found in Biology textbooks.

I never said that God is not life.

What do the laws of cause and effect say about a creator?

In and by itself--nothing except that there has to be an ultimate cause of everything. Some choose to call that cause God based on the reasons explained aboer.

Riddick

4th July 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys
The intelligence I'm talking about refers to results of an IQ test. Also level of education attained, and income.

That's all subjective though, these statistics aren't.

It goes both ways, as we see with Roddick's posts.

I don't really mean to offend actually, the post is serious, but my comments are mostly tongue-in-cheek ;)
It should be mentioned I have a long ways to go before the score is even.

Pixel42

5th July 2004, 06:38 AM

People are always going to believe whatever they need to believe to get them through the day - or, perhaps more importantly, the night. No amount of rational discussion will ever shift such beliefs, because they are held for emotional reasons, not rational ones.

Even highly intelligent people can be, and sometimes are, emotionally immature. That's why it's not at all surprising to come across scientists who believe in God.

For instance Radrook is clearly intellectually capable of grasping the logical fallacy at the heart of his belief in intelligent design. Why then can he not do so, no matter how many times it is explained to him? Because he is emotionally incapable of grasping it. If he allowed himself to understand it, his entire belief system would come crashing to the ground. I myself posted Douglas Adams' puddle analogy to the Gullible People thread, an exceptionally clear illustration of this logical fallacy. Predictably, Radrook simply ignored it.

I participate in threads like this for amusement, and to keep my logical faculties sharp. I have no expectation of ever changing anyone's beliefs about anything.

Humphreys

5th July 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
IF you don't see organization and design in the human brain, eye, heart, digestive system and so on but yet readily and without difficulty see intelligent design in a simple arrowhead then any further discussion is really useless.

This is the watchmaker argument with an arrow-head substituted.

The main reason we see an arrow-head as designed, is because we've seen them designed before by humans. The design of the arrow-head is obvious due to it's simplicity and it's very clear it has a very specific purpose. We know nature doesn't always work that way, that's why we don't see a designer when we see an impressive, highly complex snow flake, as an example.

To you, is there no organization in god that implies he has a designer Radrook?

So who created god?

I'll leave you with some words from Richard Dawkins on the watchmaker argument.

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

Originally posted by Radrook
For the argument from design and cause and effect read Thomas Aquinas.

He expresses it much more eloquently than I ever could.

I won't go searching for anything, you or someone else can post it here if you like.

Originally posted by Radrook
Not required by the evidence because the evidence is in reference to matter and the material. God is nonmaterial. Conclusons based on unrepresentative evidence are Fallascious reasoning.

But the reasoning stays the same of course!

Non-material things don't need creators?
Non-material things can be incredibly complex, and this can happen by chance alone?

What a cop-out.

Why do you think it's the case that these arguments would only apply to material things?

Originally posted by Radrook
Here we go again!
My definiton of earthlike material life is the standard biological one found in Biology textbooks.

I never said that God is not life.

So...

1. God is life
2. Life only comes from life
3. Therefore God came from life

Right?

From what life did god arise?

Originally posted by Radrook
In and by itself--nothing except that there has to be an ultimate cause of everything. Some choose to call that cause God based on the reasons explained aboer.

Once the Universe was set in motion this law would have become relevant, not before.

At the very beginning, who is to say what can and cannot happen due to laws? What laws? Nothing existed!

Cheers.

Ladewig

5th July 2004, 08:08 AM

Radook
IF you don't see organization and design in the human brain, eye, heart, digestive system and so on but yet readily and without difficulty see intelligent design in a simple arrowhead then any further discussion is really useless.

At last, Radook and I agree on something.

Radrook

5th July 2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Humphreys

This is the watchmaker argument with an arrow-head substituted.

The main reason we see an arrow-head as designed, is because we've seen them designed before by humans. The design of the arrow-head is obvious due to it's simplicity and it's very clear it has a very specific purpose. We know nature doesn't always work that way, that's why we don't see a designer when we see an impressive, highly complex snow flake, as an example.

To you, is there no organization in god that implies he has a designer Radrook?

So who created god?

I'll leave you with some words from Richard Dawkins on the watchmaker argument.

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

I won't go searching for anything, you or someone else can post it here if you like.

But the reasoning stays the same of course!

Non-material things don't need creators?
Non-material things can be incredibly complex, and this can happen by chance alone?

What a cop-out.

Why do you think it's the case that these arguments would only apply to material things?

So...

1. God is life
2. Life only comes from life
3. Therefore God came from life

Right?

From what life did god arise?

Once the Universe was set in motion this law would have become relevant, not before.

At the very beginning, who is to say what can and cannot happen due to laws? What laws? Nothing existed!

Cheers.

If you feel comfy with not knowing where the Big Bang came from why do you feel uncomfy not knowing where God came from?

BTW
I am not a repetition machine.
People here ignore my explanations and proceed to ask the same questions again as if I am speaking to a wall. I already explained myself--Don't agree? OK. But requesting repetition comes accross as an effort to irritate or annoy.

Also, if you are functioning under the conviction that I am trying to convert you to my view I am not. I simply am stating my way of seeing things take it or leaveing it is entirely up to you. No skin off my nose.

Iacchus

5th July 2004, 10:40 AM

Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body? Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does. And do you know what? It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way. ;)

Please note that I started a new thread called, Universal Design (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42823).

Humphreys

5th July 2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
If you feel comfy with not knowing where the Big Bang came from why do you feel uncomfy not knowing where God came from?

I don't believe god came from anywhere 'cause I don't believe he exists, but if I did, I wouldn't be bothered about arguing where he came from. However, I also wouldn't try to make arguments like the cause and effect argument, and intelligent design argument, and life only comes from life argument, because I'd understand that each and every one of these would be invalid and could be turned back on me! That's all I was doing - showing that your claim "science shows that god very likely exists" was nonsense.

Originally posted by Radrook
BTW
I am not a repetition machine.
People here ignore my explanations and proceed to ask the same questions again as if I am speaking to a wall. I already explained myself--Don't agree? OK. But requesting repetition comes accross as an effort to irritate or annoy.

Look, you made a ridiculous claim about science and god, and I tried to correct you by asking questions. I haven't read your other posts on this forum, so it's highly unfair of you to say I am making you repeat things as a way of annoying you.

If you didn't want to discuss this you should have said so right from the start - save us both this hassle!

Cheers.

Humphreys

5th July 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Pixel42
I participate in threads like this for amusement, and to keep my logical faculties sharp. I have no expectation of ever changing anyone's beliefs about anything.

Sometimes someone actually learns something though, even if they don't admit it at the time.

Iacchus

5th July 2004, 08:58 PM

Just bumping because thread counts got messed up earlier. In fact last three posts on this thread did not register.

Radrook

5th July 2004, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys

I don't believe god came from anywhere 'cause I don't believe he exists, but if I did, I wouldn't be bothered about arguing where he came from. However, I also wouldn't try to make arguments like the cause and effect argument, and intelligent design argument, and life only comes from life argument, because I'd understand that each and every one of these would be invalid and could be turned back on me! That's all I was doing - showing that your claim "science shows that god very likely exists" was nonsense.

Look, you made a ridiculous claim about science and god, and I tried to correct you by asking questions. I haven't read your other posts on this forum, so it's highly unfair of you to say I am making you repeat things as a way of annoying you.

If you didn't want to discuss this you should have said so right from the start - save us both this hassle!

Cheers.
Asking a person to become a repetitive machine because one doesn't care what the person has said before on the same subject is unfair.

I do not have the time to repeat the same explanation 10 or more times per day every single time someone decides to ask it because they haven't given my replies at least a swiift superficial glance.

As to my beliefs being ridiculous, that is your opinion which to me is of very little concern.

BTW
It is my opinion that your expectations concerning my responsibility to repeat the same thing interminably simply because I am unnecessarily, repeatedly asked to do so by those too lazy to read what I previously said on this thread is ridiculous.

Radrook

5th July 2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just bumping because thread counts got messed up earlier. In fact last three posts on this thread did not register.

I am experiencing the same difficulties.
Thought it was my computer.
Now at least I know that I am not alone.

dmarker

5th July 2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Radrook

If you feel comfy with not knowing where the Big Bang came from why do you feel uncomfy not knowing where God came from?

Because no one ever flew planes into skyscrapers in order to please the Big Bang.

Plus, the Big Bang is something that can be observed. We're pretty sure that it happened, but we don't know how it happened.

Radrook

5th July 2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by dmarker

Because no one ever flew planes into skyscrapers in order to please the Big Bang.

Plus, the Big Bang is something that can be observed. We're pretty sure that it happened, but we don't know how it happened.

Not EVERYONE agrees that it happened.
Some offer other explanations for the red shift.

Furthermore, you are not observing the actual Big Bang itself.
You are supposedly observing its aftermath or its effects and conclude Big Bang.

In the same manner I observe the effects of creation and conclude God.

BTW
Flying planes into skyscrapers has nothing to do with this issue.

dmarker

5th July 2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Radrook

Not EVERYONE agrees that it happened.
Some offer other explanations for the red shift.

Furthermore, you are not observing the actual Big Bang itself.
You are supposedly observing its aftermath or its effects and conclude Big Bang.

In the same manner I observe the effects of creation and conclude God.

BTW
Flying planes into skyscrapers has nothing to do with this issue.

You asked why I were comfortable with the Big Bang and uncomfortable with god, I gave you a honest answer.

That's why I said pretty sure that the Big Bang happened. The explanation behind the red shift could change tomorrow.

But how do you know that creation happened? You said yourself on the other thread that observations were limited, do you know how limited your observations are?

6th July 2004, 12:49 AM

OK, research project time, kiddos... let's compare how many people have been killed in recorded history (estimates, of course) in the name of Religion (any religion, including politics founded on or based on religion) versus how many have been killed in the name of Science (including experimentations, etc).

There's obviously a third category for those killed for neither religious nor scientific reasons - like random murders, the A-bomb, etc...

Anyone care to tackle this one? My hypothesis is that religion kills more people than science ever would (not counting death BY science, but death BECAUSE OF science - like Nazi scientists vivisecting Jews, this would be a scientific murder; while Moslems and Jews killing each other with chemicals would be a religious murder)

Radrook

6th July 2004, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by dmarker

You asked why I were comfortable with the Big Bang and uncomfortable with god, I gave you a honest answer.

That's why I said pretty sure that the Big Bang happened. The explanation behind the red shift could change tomorrow.

But how do you know that creation happened? You said yourself on the other thread that observations were limited, do you know how limited your observations are?

I appreciate the honest answer.
However, I still do not see the difference between your observing the results of the Big Bang and concluding that it happened and my observing the results of intelligent design and concluding that it happened.

Yes, I know observations are limited.
But if atheists can conclude based on limited observations why try to deny the same privilege to believers in God?

6th July 2004, 12:58 AM

Radrook, when science comes up with a theory like Big Bang or whatever, it's to try to explain some of what we observe. When the explanation falls short, the theory is either altered or abandoned. But we start with observations and make our theories based on those.

You, however, start with a fairy tale told you by the Ancestors, and try stretching your observations to fit that. We see the same failure among young Scientists who try desperately to wrap everything into outdated concepts of science they may have learned in school, instead of observing and theorizing in that order.

It's an easy trap that most thinkers grow out of.

You are observing data with the pre-biased notion that a Creator exists, in which case, you can detect evidence of a Creator everywhere. However, any refutation of your evidence causes you to retreat into a mental hole and ignore that refutation blindly.

Scientists, on the other hand, see phenomenae, and try determining what the Cause of the phenomenae was... They theorize and theorize until a theory fits known observations, then test the theory to see if it continues to fit in with reality.

When it no longer fits reality, it is either modified or discarded.

This is where Religion tends to fail - the pious refuse to modify or discard their Faith if observed evidence fails to support their beliefs.

TragicMonkey

6th July 2004, 10:43 AM

I think the best indication of intelligence is curiosity. People who tend to ask a lot of questions about things aren't really welcome in most religions. That would explain a higher proportion of the intelligent in non-belief than in belief.

Nobody likes a smartass. Didn't Dorothy Parker get kicked out of Catholic school as a child for comparing the Immaculate Conception to spontaneous combustion?

ceo_esq

6th July 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I think the best indication of intelligence is curiosity. People who tend to ask a lot of questions about things aren't really welcome in most religions.I think that is dependent on the particular religion in question. The eminent historian of science Edward Grant, for example, has persuasively argued that the modern Western tradition of rational inquiry finds its origins in the Scholastic movement of 13th- and 14th-century Catholicism.

Gestahl

6th July 2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm
Are dumb people attracted to religion?
Does religion make people become more dumb perhaps?
Maybe most people are religious at a young age and the intelligent ones see that religion is dumb more quickly?

Back to the original topic here...

Define dumb. Ignorant I will believe, and perhaps not intellectually honest nor prone to independent thought. Religion may make your mind less capable, but only in the sense that TV makes you weak by not exercising.

My take on it is that religion answers the tough questions for you, and gives you an authority structure to do the tough thinking for you. Plus, the concept of a loving, all-powerful super-Dad would certainly make me intellectually lazier... why should I worry about things when God will take care of them for me? This trains the mind to accept authoritative answers as gospel (pun completely intended). Ask religious people if they trust the government. Then ask the athiests. Compare.

Plus, many religions will teach that the way of the world is false, and Satan will try to decieve them at every turn. Translation: Don't trust your observations or your logic, or even your emotions, it could be Satan! Trust Jesus and your pastor to tell you everything is OK.

To quote Frank Zappa:

"So, when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, if you go for all these fairy tales, that "evil" woman convinced the man to eat the apple, but the apple came from the Tree of Knowledge. And the punishment that was then handed down, the woman gets to bleed and the guy's got to go to work, is the result of a man desiring, because his woman suggested that it would be a good idea, that he get all the knowledge that was supposedly the property and domain of God. So, that right away sets up Christianity as an anti-intellectual religion. You never want to be that smart. If you're a woman, it's going to be running down your leg, and if you're a guy, you're going to be in the salt mines for the rest of your life. So, just be a dumb f*ck and you'll all go to heaven. That's the subtext of Christianity. -- Frank Zappa

"The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your *********** mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions." -- Frank Zappa, interview, Playboy, May 2, 1993

While his words are a bit strong, he has a good point. Zappa has some insanely awesome quotes.

/former Southern Baptist

Gestahl

6th July 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I think that is dependent on the particular religion in question. The eminent historian of science Edward Grant, for example, has persuasively argued that the modern Western tradition of rational inquiry finds its origins in the Scholastic movement of 13th- and 14th-century Catholicism.

Be that as it may, that does nothing to address the question, which was asked across relgious boundaries (though still within the US). Plus, while the Catholic church may have supported research and scholastics, the emotions and effect it has on individuals is the question, not the fiscal, authoritative, or other help it gave to scientists.

Ossai

6th July 2004, 01:09 PM

Radrook
IF you don't see organization and design in the human brain, eye, heart, digestive system and so on but yet readily and without difficulty see intelligent design in a simple arrowhead then any further discussion is really useless.

For the argument from design and cause and effect read Thomas Aquinas.

He expresses it much more eloquently than I ever could. That is not an answer, that is avoidance.

Not required by the evidence because the evidence is in reference to matter and the material. God is nonmaterial. Conclusons based on unrepresentative evidence are Fallascious reasoning.
A few questions.

What do you mean by nonmaterial?
Can the nonmaterial and the material interact?
If they can interact then how can we (humanity) measure it?
If it can be measured it is material.

If the material and the nonmaterial do not interact then what purpose is the nonmaterial?
How can you claim any knowledge whatsoever about the nonmaterial?

Conclusons based on no evidence are Fallascious reasoning, which you continue to use.

And for myself, how old do you think the earth is?

BTW
I am not a repetition machine.
People here ignore my explanations and proceed to ask the same questions again as if I am speaking to a wall. I already explained myself--Don't agree? OK. But requesting repetition comes accross as an effort to irritate or annoy. You come across as mindless because you have yet to honestly answer multiple direct questions in this and other threads.

Ossai