Great Men of History All Woos?

[robersl]

Let me start out by saying that I am a full-blown "woo" in matters occult.

I joined this forum because I find it boring to always converse with people who agree with me. So I figured, where better to get interesting dialogue with intelligent people than here?

I like to read this forum in the same way that I like to watch FOX news sometimes - in an effort to understand the people with whom I most disagree (not that it necessarily works).

I would like to throw out this question to see what comes back. How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?

Has James Randi come upon some special information that was overlooked by Plato, Newton, Bach, Beethoven and Einstein?

What is the story?

[Darat]

Let me start out by saying that I am a full-blown "woo" in matters occult.

I joined this forum because I find it boring to always converse with people who agree with me. So I figured, where better to get interesting dialogue with intelligent people than here?

I like to read this forum in the same way that I like to watch FOX news sometimes - in an effort to understand the people with whom I most disagree (not that it necessarily works).

I would like to throw out this question to see what comes back. How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?

Has James Randi come upon some special information that was overlooked by Plato, Newton, Bach, Beethoven and Einstein?

What is the story?
Welcome to the Forum.

Which "God" is this that Plato believed in and that Newton, Bach, Beethoven and Einstein also believed in?

[-Fran-]

Let me start out by saying that I am a full-blown "woo" in matters occult.

I joined this forum because I find it boring to always converse with people who agree with me. So I figured, where better to get interesting dialogue with intelligent people than here?

I like to read this forum in the same way that I like to watch FOX news sometimes - in an effort to understand the people with whom I most disagree (not that it necessarily works).

I would like to throw out this question to see what comes back. How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?

Has James Randi come upon some special information that was overlooked by Plato, Newton, Bach, Beethoven and Einstein?

What is the story?

What's your point? That there would have been no great men in history if mankind had never invented gods??

[Humphreys]

How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?

First, you need to define "great".

Second, from what date are we starting? If we go back to before Darwin, then we can say Randi had some special knowledge those guys did not.

In what field do these men have to be great? You seem to accept artists. What about sportsman?

In what way is Beethoven a better judge of the existence of God than Pele? In what way are they a better judge of God's existence than me? Why should I care what either of them think?

What God are we talking about? Einsteins views of God are far closer to atheism than Christianity.

Your post is an incredibly poor attempt at arguing for God's existence.

A better question is, why do the majority of scientific experts with today's knowledge reject the existence of God? Why does belief in God go down as IQ goes up?

[Fronzel]

Brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.

And weren't some of those not quite god as most people think? Like Einstein's god being more an expression of wonderment at the universe?

Newton also believed in alchemy.

[Piscivore]

I'm not going to be so disingenous to propose a ratio, but the vast majority of "great men of history" have also been racist to some group or another, to some degree. Did that make them correct in their prejudgements?

[Darat]

I'm not going to be so disingenous to propose a ratio, but the vast majority of "great men of history" have also been racist to some group or another, to some degree. Did that make them correct in their prejudgements?

And it is also a fact the vast majority of "great men of history" have also been men so should we conclude that men are superior to women?

[robersl]

I guess I would say The Source.

[Humphreys]

Where is your evidence that 99% of history's great men believed in The Source?

[robersl]

Fran, my point is, maybe something is being overlooked here.

Humphreys, across human history, or at least the history that has been passed down to us, IQ clearly goes up with belief in God.

[Humphreys]

Fran, my point is, maybe something is being overlooked here.

Humphreys, across human history, or at least the history that has been passed down to us, IQ clearly goes up with belief in God.

Well, it does the opposite today, and we know more.

That destroys your whole argument.

[IXP]

Fran, my point is, maybe something is being overlooked here.

Humphreys, across human history, or at least the history that has been passed down to us, IQ clearly goes up with belief in God.
That is quite a claim. Please supply some evidence.

IXP

[Niobe]

across human history, or at least the history that has been passed down to us, IQ clearly goes up with belief in God.

Or perhaps they were closet atheists that knew they had to appear to adhere to a religion or dominant culture to get somewhere in life?

And can the great chicas get some representation too? Cleopatra didn't believe in God, she was God.

[Steven Howard]

How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?

Is that really a fact? Please show the math you used to arrive at this 99% figure.

Also, why only western history? That's stacking the deck, isn't it? "All the great men of Christendom were Christians." One might as well ask why there's never been a Chinese pope, or why all the great Muslim scholars spoke Arabic.

Has James Randi come upon some special information that was overlooked by Plato, Newton, Bach, Beethoven and Einstein?

Plato was Greek, so he didn't believe in God, if by "God" you mean YHWH, the God of the Abrahamic religions. He had a plethora of gods to believe in, or not.

I know Newton and Bach were devout Christians. Beethoven's religious beliefs are a matter of some controversy. He was raised Catholic, and did write a number of religious works. On the other hand, he was a great admirer of the Enlightenment, and Joseph Haydn said he was an atheist. I think most people would probably consider him a Deist.

As for Einstein, he consistently denied belief in a personal god:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

“As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came — though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment-an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections."

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

More information on Einstein's beliefs or lack thereof can be found on the Internet (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html).

So, by this sample, somewhere between 40% and 60% of "great men of Western history" believed in God.

[robersl]

That is quite a claim. Please supply some evidence.

IXP

This started out for me when I tried Googling "famous athiests". Not a very impressive list. Nietzsche is the only one who is "man-on-the-street" famous.

So tell me, who are the great athiest contributors to our civilization?

[-Fran-]

Fran, my point is, maybe something is being overlooked here.

Yes, you seem to have overlooked that belief in a god is totally irrelevant to any supposed greatness in any historical persons. Even if you defined greatness rather poorly here, you have already by the examples you have given, shown that great men can be theists, alchemists, atheists and polytheists... they were probably a thousand other things as well. I am sorry, I still don't see your point very clearly


Humphreys, across human history, or at least the history that has been passed down to us, IQ clearly goes up with belief in God.

WHAT? :confused: You get smarter when you believe in god?

[ponderingturtle]

Fran, my point is, maybe something is being overlooked here.

Humphreys, across human history, or at least the history that has been passed down to us, IQ clearly goes up with belief in God.

What evidence do you have for this? Was Leonardo DaVinci more religious than the average Italian farmer of the time, and how do you know that?

[Freethinker]

This started out for me when I tried Googling "famous athiests". Not a very impressive list. Nietzsche is the only one who is "man-on-the-street" famous.

So tell me, who are the great athiest contributors to our civilization?

So the only source you have is a Google search? Before anything else, try reading the writings of some of those people you mentioned and see what they thought about god. Einstein was no believer in a man-like god who wants to be worshipped, and he would certainly be labelled an atheist by most theists. Newton was an alchemist. His knowledge of science would be at the level of a college freshman if he were to appear today, in spite of his great insight. He lived in a world where much was unknown, and the unknown is the realm of gods.

You will find that unsourced claims are poorly received here. Level of education and intelligence today, when we know more about the universe than ever before, are directly proportional to belief in god.

[Freethinker]

This started out for me when I tried Googling "famous athiests". Not a very impressive list. Nietzsche is the only one who is "man-on-the-street" famous.

So tell me, who are the great athiest contributors to our civilization?

You tell me: Any of these not "man in the street" famous? Atheists all.

Abraham Lincoln
Ernest Hemmingway
Albert Einstein
Andrew Carnegie
Charles Darwin
Isaac Asimov
Arthur C. Clarke
Benjamin Franklin
Carl Sagan
Alfred Hitchcock
MArk Twain
Charles Schultz
Thomas Edison

[IXP]

This started out for me when I tried Googling "famous athiests". Not a very impressive list. Nietzsche is the only one who is "man-on-the-street" famous.

So tell me, who are the great athiest contributors to our civilization?
I am not the one making a claim. I asked you to give me evidence of your claim that "IQ clearly goes up with belief in God."

I am still waiting.

The fact that Niezsche is the only name you recognized on a list of famous atheists has nothing to do with your claim.

IXP

[Dunstan]

This started out for me when I tried Googling "famous athiests". Not a very impressive list. Nietzsche is the only one who is "man-on-the-street" famous.

Wow. In three short sentences you've managed to combine argument from authority with argument ad populum and argument from Google.

Impressive.

[Freethinker]

The fact that Niezsche is the only name you recognized on a list of famous atheists has nothing to do with your claim.



But maybe it supports ours.

[Piscivore]

And it is also a fact the vast majority of "great men of history" have also been men so should we conclude that men are superior to women?

Heh, his category, not mine.

[Piscivore]

Charles Schultz


Given the "strong Christian overtones" of "Peanuts" and the collection I own of cartoons he did for a teen religious magazine I have to say... whah? :boggled:

[skeptical]

You tell me: Any of these not "man in the street" famous? Atheists all.

Abraham Lincoln
Ernest Hemmingway
Albert Einstein
Andrew Carnegie
Charles Darwin
Isaac Asimov
Arthur C. Clarke
Benjamin Franklin
Carl Sagan
Alfred Hitchcock
MArk Twain
Charles Schultz
Thomas Edison

You left off Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, Baruch Spinoza and David Hume just to name a few "great men" who were non-believers. :)

Of course, it also depends very much on the definition of "atheist". For a Christian, even other non-Christian believers are technically atheists since they don't believe in the Christian's particular conception of god. (setting aside the fact that even Christians cannot agree on such a conception)

Using this criteria, Ghandi, Buddha, Confucius, and Laozi were atheists. In fact, nearly every non-Western "great man" or "great woman" would be.

This discussion is pretty silly unless there is some agree upon definition of god, not to mention a definition for "great".

[Freethinker]

Given the "strong Christian overtones" of "Peanuts" and the collection I own of cartoons he did for a teen religious magazine I have to say... whah? :boggled:

Schultz described himself as a secular humanist.

[Freethinker]

You left off Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, Baruch Spinoza and David Hume just to name a few "great men" who were non-believers. :)


I left off a lot more than that, but I just wanted a quick list of household names. Charles Schultz is one of my favorites because most people don't believe it, but calling youself a secular humanist is not subject to interpretation.

[Piscivore]

Schultz described himself as a secular humanist.

So I saw on Wiki. I am flabbergasted. It does seem to be a position he came to very late in life, however.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

This started out for me when I tried Googling "famous athiests". Not a very impressive list.


You may get a better result if you try Googling "famous atheists" instead of "famous athiests".

[robersl]

You left off Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, Baruch Spinoza and David Hume just to name a few "great men" who were non-believers. :)

Of course, it also depends very much on the definition of "atheist". For a Christian, even other non-Christian believers are technically atheists since they don't believe in the Christian's particular conception of god. (setting aside the fact that even Christians cannot agree on such a conception)

Using this criteria, Ghandi, Buddha, Confucius, and Laozi were atheists. In fact, nearly every non-Western "great man" or "great woman" would be.

This discussion is pretty silly unless there is some agree upon definition of god, not to mention a definition for "great".


Yes, there is a lot of confusion here between atheist and non-fundamentalist Christian.

Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, etc., were in no-way atheists - they were Deists.

And of course, how can Buddha be called an atheist? An a-theist believes there is no god.

So, a definition of God? Now I'm in trouble. Let's stick with "creative Intelligence" that transcends the physical realm.

Definition of great? A contributor to civilization sufficiently famous that the average 21st century person-on-the-street has heard their name.

[robersl]

You may get a better result if you try Googling "famous atheists" instead of "famous athiests".

Good point.

[Piscivore]

And of course, how can Buddha be called an atheist? An a-theist believes there is no god.
As you will no doubt hear sooner or later, Buddhism is not of necessity theistic, and the Buddha is not a god.

So, a definition of God? Now I'm in trouble.
Indeed. Your attempt at a definition was meaningless.

Definition of great? A contributor to civilization sufficiently famous that the average 21st century person-on-the-street has heard their name.
I'm afraid in America that leaves us little to choose from beyond Micheal Jackson, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Anna Nicole Smith and thier ilk.

[robersl]

So the only source you have is a Google search? Before anything else, try reading the writings of some of those people you mentioned and see what they though about god. Einstein was no believer in a man-like god who wants to be worshipped, and he would certainly be labelled an atheist by most theists. Newton was an alchemist. His knowledge of science would be at the level of a college freshman if he were to appear today, in spite of his great insight. He lived in a world where much was unknown, and the unknown is the realm of gods.

You will find that unsourced claims are poorly received here. Level of education and intelligence today, when we know more about the universe than ever before, are directly proportional to belief in god.

You seem to have an "I'm too upset to read clearly" problem going on. I didn't say that my only source was Google search, I said that is where this started.

Why do people keep saying "Newton was an alchemist" as if that is an argument against his belief in a deity? Yes, he was an alchemist and an astrologer too, and only became a "scientist" posthumously.

Is there some misunderstanding that alchemists don't believe in God?

[skeptical]

Let me start out by saying that I am a full-blown "woo" in matters occult.

I would like to throw out this question to see what comes back. How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?

What is your criteria for "great"? Is it "famous", or "great thinker" or "powerful" or "well known" or what? In what sphere of influence are we talking about? What time periods are we considering? Your statement is far too vague to seriously discuss.

For example, in the field of philosophy over the past 300 years, almost all the great thinkers have been non-believers, or at the very least not traditionally "religious". Over the past 100 years, most of the greatest scientists have been non-religious.

Unless you have some more specific criteria, your statement is clearly wrong, or at a minimum is far too general.

Has James Randi come upon some special information that was overlooked by Plato, Newton, Bach, Beethoven and Einstein?

What is the story?

I don't think Randi has come up with anything necessarily special, but the scientific approach to the world has really only been around since roughly the time of Newton (1643-1727). Trying to see the world through the lens of critical thinking, skepticism and evidence based reality has only existed as a formalized discipline for less than 300 years, so previous thinkers did not have the benefits of the modern systematic approaches.

Also, you have to consider that prior to modern evolutionary theories and cosmology theories, it was truly difficult to see how the order of the biological and the physical world could arise through bottom-up, natural processes. So even those thinkers who rejected traditional religion were likely to be Deists, like Thomas Jefferson. However, modern theories explain quite well, and back up with evidence, how complexity CAN arise from simple components and natural processes without a top-down designer.

If previous generations of freethinkers had access to the evidence and theories we have today, it is likely that many more of them would have been non-believers.

Finally, I would point out that it is always difficult to know from history who was a true believer and who was merely trying to keep from being thrown into a bonfire. It is far easier to be express your non-belief when you don't need to worry about the inquisition.

So to try to answer your question, what Randi and all who follow the scientific/skeptical approach know, is:

1) Authorities are not necessarily wrong because they are authorities, but they are certainly not right because of it either
2) If one wishes to know the truth of a claim, one needs data and evidence and not speculation and dogma
3) Wishing something to be true, and feeling it is true, are poor substitutes for evidence

The scientific/skeptical approach may not always yield an answer, but we can have high levels of confidence in the answers it does yield. Its approach is a way to "keep from fooling ourselves", and it is the best approach ever developed if we will only have a little courage to question "received" wisdom and the ability to accept the Universe as it is, and not as we wish it to be.

[Katana]

Thank you, skeptical, for saying what I wished to say but much more eloquently than I could have.

[-Fran-]

Why do people keep saying "Newton was an alchemist" as if that is an argument against his belief in a deity? Yes, he was an alchemist and an astrologer too, and only became a "scientist" posthumously.

Is there some misunderstanding that alchemists don't believe in God?

No, there isn't, it's just an example of that most people are many different things, some contradictory, some not, and that this is irrelevant to your original claim. We have also said many other things here, and are anxious to hear what you have to say about all these other things we have said.

Such as, what do you mean about that your IQ goes up with a belief in god? What's the proof for this, and how would it work? If I, as an atheist takes an IQ test, and then next week, I am saved and born again and all that, and I go and take that test again the next day. Will there be a significantly better result?

[robersl]

Yes, you seem to have overlooked that belief in a god is totally irrelevant to any supposed greatness in any historical persons. Even if you defined greatness rather poorly here, you have already by the examples you have given, shown that great men can be theists, alchemists, atheists and polytheists... they were probably a thousand other things as well. I am sorry, I still don't see your point very clearly



WHAT? :confused: You get smarter when you believe in god?

Yes. It is called "inspiration".

Most thinking is done via rational, left-brain processes, which work out all the possibilities of what is known.

But there is a second kind of thinking, in which something new enters the body of human knowledge, something that comes from "beyond" the known facts.

Even if this isn't "God's voice" speaking in the ear of a creative thinker, it at least shows that the human mind has the ability to "go beyond".

And yes, I believe that a healthy understanding of the human condition in relationship to the Deity facilitates the mind's ability to do this.

[Freethinker]

You seem to have an "I'm too upset to read clearly" problem going on. I didn't say that my only source was Google search, I said that is where this started.

Why do people keep saying "Newton was an alchemist" as if that is an argument against his belief in a deity? Yes, he was an alchemist and an astrologer too, and only became a "scientist" posthumously.

Is there some misunderstanding that alchemists don't believe in God?

You provide no other indication that you've done other research. There is nothing there to indicate you've done ANY research. The very first google hit for "famous atheists" should have answered your question and provided you with a list of household names, but Niesche was the only one you can come up with. I think that is clearly evidence that you've done no research. I have no problem with my reading.

I never said alchemists don't believe in god. I pointed it out because it is evidence that Newton held other ridiculous, unsupportable beliefs, yet was still able to make amazing use of his brain to further our understanding of mathematics and the universe.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I would like to throw out this question to see what comes back. How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?

Tell you what, for the sake of argument I'll assume your statement it correct . So what? I'm sure 99% of these people didn't believe in germ theory either. Maybe you should stop washing your hands. Additionally 99% of these people likely did not own automobiles, so if you have one sell it off quick!

LLH

[-Fran-]

Yes. It is called "inspiration".

Most thinking is done via rational, left-brain processes, which work out all the possibilities of what is known.

But there is a second kind of thinking, in which something new enters the body of human knowledge, something that comes from "beyond" the known facts.

Even if this isn't "God's voice" speaking in the ear of a creative thinker, it at least shows that the human mind has the ability to "go beyond".

And yes, I believe that a healthy understanding of the human condition in relationship to the Deity facilitates the mind's ability to do this.

First you talked of IQ, which is a measurable thing, and discussions of how valid IQ tests really are aside, that is not what you are talking about here now! Now it's suddenly 'inspiration' and something that is not measurable at all. :confused: That second kind of thinking you talk about sounds more like when I'm drunk to me :p Seriously, this doesn't make much sense, and you would have to give some proof for all of this too, to make me accept this.

What enters your knowledge? What is this voice? Goes beoynd what? Are atheists not able to be creative? How exactly do you define 'Inspiration'? Do you really mean that most of human thinking is done only with the left half of the brain?

This just created more questions than it answered, I would say :confused:

[Freethinker]

Thank you, skeptical, for saying what I wished to say but much more eloquently than I could have.

Skeptical, same kudos from me. I've always felt deism was the fallback position for the time when our ignorance of the world didn't let us see how evolution worked, and that deists had seen the folly of religion and God, but couldn't quite give up on the concept of a god found in nature because they couldn't understand the apparent order they saw.

[skeptical]

Yes, there is a lot of confusion here between atheist and non-fundamentalist Christian.

Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, etc., were in no-way atheists - they were Deists.

I have heard from non-fundamentalists that anyone who doesn't believe in a personal god is an atheist. Deists would fall into that category. Again, it depends on how you define atheist. Your definition is not how I have heard most theists define it. Jefferson and Paine were both called atheists in their own day.

One of the definitions of theism is " Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." (taken from dictionary.com)

That seems to be what most people are referring to when they refer to god and theism, so atheism would include anyone who doesn't believe in this personal god, including deists, pantheists, polytheists, agnostics and "true" atheists.


And of course, how can Buddha be called an atheist? An a-theist believes there is no god.

Actually, it means someone who doesn't believe in PARTICULAR conceptions of god or at least someone who rejects all the PARTICULAR conceptions of god with which they are familiar. If you define god as "the universe", then clearly the universe exists. This is an obvious but often misunderstood or misused point. (by theists) And no, I'm not making up definitions, pantheists equate god with "all that exists" or "the universe", so it is not a unheard of position.

I am not an expert in Buddhism, but my understanding from the few books I have read on it is that it does not believe in a personal god. Therefore, Buddha and all followers of Buddhism would be atheists BY THAT CRITERIA. Again, it very much depends on your definitions obviously.

The only consistent criteria I have heard from theists is that theism requires belief in a personal god of some sort that intervenes in the world. If you don't believe that, then (according to them), you are an atheist, no matter what labels you attach to your beliefs.


So, a definition of God? Now I'm in trouble. Let's stick with "creative Intelligence" that transcends the physical realm.

Sorry, that's still a little vague for me, since both "creative" and "intelligence" can have multiple meanings. Does the god your talking about interfere directly into the physical world? Does it communicate with humans and interfere directly into their lives? In other words, is it a "personal" god in the traditional Christian sense? Or is your "creative intelligence" some sort of "transcendent" being "outside of space and time"?

The primary question is, how, if at all, does it interact with the physical/natural world and the humans in it?


Definition of great? A contributor to civilization sufficiently famous that the average 21st century person-on-the-street has heard their name.

Given the paucity of education in the US, I'm not sure that your requirement that the person the on street has heard of them makes any sense at all. Most people on the street probably have never heard the name Oppenheimer, but I would say the primary inventor of the atomic bomb would qualify as great.

Your definition seems to equate to "famous", which would mean that all well known actors and actresses are "great", since entertaining people would fall into the category of "contributing to civilization", albeit a minor contribution.

Also, if your going to use the man on the street approach, that pretty well eliminates most people who lived prior to the 20th century and also eliminates anyone who was not actively involved in politics or entertainment. This would clearly eliminate many scientists with the exception of Issac Newton, Einstein and Darwin, even though the entire backbone of modern society is built on scientific discovery, so I am not sure this is a good definition.

It might be easier if you would just list a dozen or so of the sorts of people you are talking about, similar to what has been done for non-believers. It would also help if you would list a brief sentence as to why they are great.

Also, it would help if you would state explicitly what your point is. Since there are clearly both "great" (however that is defined) believers and non-believers, I'm not sure what the point of this thread is other than just a fallacious argument ad populum.

[Wowbagger]

Since when is "belief in God" relevant in determining if someone is "Great" or not?

Can't someone do great things, whether or not they believe in God?
Can't someone do horrible things, whether or not they believe in God?

Perhaps most of the "great people" (however you define them) have historically believed in God, because they did not think there was a viable alternative.
Sometimes, it takes secular morality a little while to re-establish its following.

[skeptical]

Yes. It is called "inspiration".

Most thinking is done via rational, left-brain processes, which work out all the possibilities of what is known.

But there is a second kind of thinking, in which something new enters the body of human knowledge, something that comes from "beyond" the known facts.

Even if this isn't "God's voice" speaking in the ear of a creative thinker, it at least shows that the human mind has the ability to "go beyond".

And yes, I believe that a healthy understanding of the human condition in relationship to the Deity facilitates the mind's ability to do this.

Intuition is great, I am all in favor of it. In fact, many of the greatest scientists who have ever lived have moments of inspiration.

But they don't stop there. They check, they verify, they follow up on their inspiration to find out if their inspiration is true or not. They are willing to put their inspiration to the test to see if it accords with reality or not.

They understand and appreciate that the most comforting thoughts, the most convincing views, must all in the end agree with the data, or be tossed into the dustbin. Above all, they seek truth, and not comfort. That is what the scientific/skeptical approach is, and it is why it works far better than other methods of "knowing" the truth.

Intuition can be a guide on the journey to reality, but never the destination. It is the willingness to put our cherished intuitions to the test that makes confidence in the answers possible.

[clerihew80]

Let us now praise famous men...

[Katana]

Damn, skeptical, why have you waited so long to start posting?

:popcorn1

[skeptical]

Skeptical, same kudos from me. I've always felt deism was the fallback position for the time when our ignorance of the world didn't let us see how evolution worked, and that deists had seen the folly of religion and God, but couldn't quite give up on the concept of a god found in nature because they couldn't understand the apparent order they saw.

Thanks for your and Katana's compliments, I appreciate it.

I agree 100% with your assessment, If Jefferson and Paine were alive today, they would be the Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens of the US. But, one thing Jefferson wouldn't be is a US President, but that's for another thread. :-)

[Freethinker]

Thanks for your and Katana's compliments, I appreciate it.

I agree 100% with your assessment, If Jefferson and Paine were alive today, they would be the Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens of the US. But, one thing Jefferson wouldn't be is a US President, but that's for another thread. :-)

Jefferson would probably be on the terrorist watch list.

[FramerDave]

Why do people keep saying "Newton was an alchemist" as if that is an argument against his belief in a deity? Yes, he was an alchemist and an astrologer too, and only became a "scientist" posthumously.

Is there some misunderstanding that alchemists don't believe in God?

Let's see if we can put this simply.

There is a good reason Newton's interest in alchemy is brought up. You seem to be asserting that the belief of "great men" in God lends some credence to a belief in God. Others point out the alchemy as a way to show that even intelligent people sometimes believe in silly things, so it's not a good idea to accept everything they support simply because of their authority.

Let's suppose you consider Ronald Reagan to be one of the most brilliant statesmen of the 20th century. He revived the American economy, he brought new hope to our land and he crushed the Evil Empire. He also dabbled in astrology, along with his wife Nancy. Does that fact lend credibility to astrology? Does it make it any more valid? No. It's still dead wrong, no matter who believes in it.

History is full of such examples of brilliant people being wrong. Carl Sagan was very wrong when he predicted worldwide climactic devastation resulting from the burning oil fields during the first Gulf War. Noam Chomsky, a brilliant and famous linguist, has some pretty moonbat crazy ideas in the political realm.

So do these weird beliefs negate all their other work? No. But does their brilliance in other fields render their weird beliefs true? No.

It's a common logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.

[skeptical]

Thanks for your and Katana's compliments, I appreciate it.

I agree 100% with your assessment, If Jefferson and Paine were alive today, they would be the Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens of the US. But, one thing Jefferson wouldn't be is a US President, but that's for another thread. :-)

Sorry for all the double posts, the system kept freezing on me.

Do I get some slack for being a nube? :-)

[JoeTheJuggler]

This started out for me when I tried Googling "famous athiests". Not a very impressive list. Nietzsche is the only one who is "man-on-the-street" famous.

So tell me, who are the great athiest contributors to our civilization?

This is probably because people are "great" based on their accomplishments or contributions and not based on their beliefs (or lack thereof).

Did you realize that MANY great people lived and died before Jesus was ever born? Or is belief in Zeus, Baal, Ganesha and Astarte the same thing to you as "belief in God"?

Many of the people in question were Deists or Christians primarily because of the culture and times in which they lived. (How do you categorize Galileo, for example?)

In the various fields of science, religion has historically played an obstructive or even restrictive role.

Algebra and modern optics come to us from Arabian culture (which is largely Muslim).

So, to echo what others have said here, what is your point?

[robersl]

I have heard from non-fundamentalists that anyone who doesn't believe in a personal god is an atheist. Deists would fall into that category. Again, it depends on how you define atheist. Your definition is not how I have heard most theists define it. Jefferson and Paine were both called atheists in their own day.

One of the definitions of theism is " Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." (taken from dictionary.com)

That seems to be what most people are referring to when they refer to god and theism, so atheism would include anyone who doesn't believe in this personal god, including deists, pantheists, polytheists, agnostics and "true" atheists.



Actually, it means someone who doesn't believe in PARTICULAR conceptions of god or at least someone who rejects all the PARTICULAR conceptions of god with which they are familiar. If you define god as "the universe", then clearly the universe exists. This is an obvious but often misunderstood or misused point. (by theists) And no, I'm not making up definitions, pantheists equate god with "all that exists" or "the universe", so it is not a unheard of position.

I am not an expert in Buddhism, but my understanding from the few books I have read on it is that it does not believe in a personal god. Therefore, Buddha and all followers of Buddhism would be atheists BY THAT CRITERIA. Again, it very much depends on your definitions obviously.

The only consistent criteria I have heard from theists is that theism requires belief in a personal god of some sort that intervenes in the world. If you don't believe that, then (according to them), you are an atheist, no matter what labels you attach to your beliefs.



Sorry, that's still a little vague for me, since both "creative" and "intelligence" can have multiple meanings. Does the god your talking about interfere directly into the physical world? Does it communicate with humans and interfere directly into their lives? In other words, is it a "personal" god in the traditional Christian sense? Or is your "creative intelligence" some sort of "transcendent" being "outside of space and time"?

The primary question is, how, if at all, does it interact with the physical/natural world and the humans in it?



Given the paucity of education in the US, I'm not sure that your requirement that the person the on street has heard of them makes any sense at all. Most people on the street probably have never heard the name Oppenheimer, but I would say the primary inventor of the atomic bomb would qualify as great.

Your definition seems to equate to "famous", which would mean that all well known actors and actresses are "great", since entertaining people would fall into the category of "contributing to civilization", albeit a minor contribution.

Also, if your going to use the man on the street approach, that pretty well eliminates most people who lived prior to the 20th century and also eliminates anyone who was not actively involved in politics or entertainment. This would clearly eliminate many scientists with the exception of Issac Newton, Einstein and Darwin, even though the entire backbone of modern society is built on scientific discovery, so I am not sure this is a good definition.

It might be easier if you would just list a dozen or so of the sorts of people you are talking about, similar to what has been done for non-believers. It would also help if you would list a brief sentence as to why they are great.

Also, it would help if you would state explicitly what your point is. Since there are clearly both "great" (however that is defined) believers and non-believers, I'm not sure what the point of this thread is other than just a fallacious argument ad populum.

I will go AA here, and define what I mean by God as a "higher power". Despite the hairsplitting going on here regarding the definitions of theist, atheist, God, etc., the fact remains that most creative thinkers throughout history have believed in a higher power.

My point is this - that without an understanding of the fact that there is an intelligence in the universe greater than the human mind, people have a strong tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Being rational and critical is fine, but only up to a point. Being rational and critical will not make you creative.

I would suggest that the 20th and now the 21st centuries have been extremely rational and critical time periods. They have brought us to the verge of the extinction of life on this planet.

I also have rejected religious rigidity. In fact, I was, for a time, an atheist myself. But I came to see that there is another perspective besides the extremes of atheism and religious ignorance. I believe I take a stance similar to many of the people cited above, say Jefferson and Lincoln.

The rational mind is a tool that needs to be used in its proper place - programming a computer, for instance. Yet you would not expect to succeed in love by asking your computer for advise in your personal life (I hope).

I am arguing for the legitimacy of inspiration, intuition, etc. These are just as valuable as logic - in some instances, they are infinitely more valuable.

Irrational is not a dirty word - it doesn't mean foolish, or crazy, or anything negative. It simply means "not rational".

I imagine this will sound "drunk" to most of you, as a previous commentor stated, and I can't say I didn't ask for some scathing commentary, starting this thread as I did.

I am getting a good idea of how you all view this topic.

[clerihew80]

Noam Chomsky, a brilliant and famous linguist, has some pretty moonbat crazy ideas in the political realm.
And what would these be, pray tell?

[Freethinker]

Sorry for all the double posts, the system kept freezing on me.

Do I get some slack for being a nube? :-)

Only if I do too. I've had two today. The system gives me a "Page not Found" error or just hangs, so I resubmit. You'll probably get a PM saying it's been fixed eventually.

[Niobe]

How about another rockin' dame for the Atheist team: Marie Curie.

Here's your list of other atheists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

Rimsky-Korsakov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov) too, that is awesome.

Your question could be changed to ask why there aren't a lot of noteworthy women in history (compared to the volumes of men), while being a woman and / or atheist would impede your opportunities to reach your successes. (But women publishing under male pseudonyms had success regardless). At least it's easier to stay in the atheist closet than the gender closet.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This started out for me when I tried Googling "famous athiests". Not a very impressive list. Nietzsche is the only one who is "man-on-the-street" famous.


This is probably because people are "great" based on their accomplishments or contributions and not based on their beliefs (or lack thereof).

Many of the people in question were Deists or Christians primarily because of the culture and times in which they lived. For many, it would be suicide to be "out" as an atheist, so we can only speculate on their actual beliefs. (How do you categorize Galileo, for example?)

In the various fields of science, religion has historically played an obstructive or even restrictive role. I realize you're not talking about organized religion, but the whole belief-in-god thing is largely perpetuated by religious instruction.

So, to echo what others have said here, what is your point? It sounds like an argument from ignorance--something like, we can't name many overtly atheistic great figures in history, therefore God exists?

We could do that in the reverse, for every atheistic ignominious figure you can name (Stalin?), I can name several theistic historical bad men (Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Jim Jones, etc.). Does that prove that theism correlates to evil deeds? Or course not. Again, beliefs are irrelevant in assessing greatness or badness.

[Katana]

Sorry for all the double posts, the system kept freezing on me.

Do I get some slack for being a nube? :-)


:D

No worries. It happened all over the place (to a bunch of us in other threads).

Evidently, there was a glitch in the matrix.

[-Fran-]

I imagine this will sound "drunk" to most of you, as a previous commentor stated, and I can't say I didn't ask for some scathing commentary, starting this thread as I did.


Didn't mean to be scathing robersl, though I can see it sort of came off as that. Didn't mean you talk as a drunk, but that the processes you describe reminds me of being drunk, "But there is a second kind of thinking, in which something new enters the body of human knowledge, something that comes from "beyond" the known facts." I sure thought I knew a lot of new things the few times I've been really pissed in my life, and my thoughts seemed to be beyond known facts too.

But maybe there isn't a clear line between what I said, and what I meant, really. I might have been mean and scathing, in that case I am sorry. But what you said makes no sense to me anyway. Was I too mean for you to answer my questions?

[JoeTheJuggler]

How about another rockin' dame for the Atheist team: Marie Curie.

Here's your list of other atheists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

Rimsky-Korsakov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov) too, that is awesome.

Your question could be changed to ask why there aren't a lot of noteworthy women in history (compared to the volumes of men), while being a woman and / or atheist would impede your opportunities to reach your successes. (But women publishing under male pseudonyms had success regardless). At least it's easier to stay in the atheist closet than the gender closet.

Ooh! Good point!

That makes me wonder how many homosexuals were "great" figures in history, and how one would go about finding out who was homosexual when it wasn't considered socially acceptable. I know there are a great many examples, but there are no doubt many geniuses who were able to stay in the closet.

Sadly, this makes me think how many tremendous accomplishments failed to happen because the person of great abilities was denied opportunity (how many MORE women could have been great scientists, authors, etc. if they weren't kept uneducated, how many black people in 17th and 18th Century America could have done great things, etc.)

[Mashuna]

Welcome to the forum, nice to have you here.:)

I will go AA here, and define what I mean by God as a "higher power". Despite the hairsplitting going on here regarding the definitions of theist, atheist, God, etc., the fact remains that most creative thinkers throughout history have believed in a higher power.

My point is this - that without an understanding of the fact that there is an intelligence in the universe greater than the human mind, people have a strong tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Being rational and critical is fine, but only up to a point. Being rational and critical will not make you creative.

Well, you're certainly setting yourself up as a target with that whole 'fact of greater intelligence out there' idea :) .

You seem to be drawing an unwarranted parallel between belief in God and creativity. You've asserted this a few times, but you haven't demonstrated it. Others have drawn up lists of famous, and creative atheists, so there doesn't seem to be this link between belief and ideas that you suggest.


I would suggest that the 20th and now the 21st centuries have been extremely rational and critical time periods. They have brought us to the verge of the extinction of life on this planet.


I thought we were doing quite well in numbers, I hadn't noticed the impending extinction. Although there do seem to be a number of fears about religious wars breaking out. ;)


I also have rejected religious rigidity. In fact, I was, for a time, an atheist myself. But I came to see that there is another perspective besides the extremes of atheism and religious ignorance. I believe I take a stance similar to many of the people cited above, say Jefferson and Lincoln.

Not very religious at all then?


The rational mind is a tool that needs to be used in its proper place - programming a computer, for instance. Yet you would not expect to succeed in love by asking your computer for advise in your personal life (I hope).

I am arguing for the legitimacy of inspiration, intuition, etc. These are just as valuable as logic - in some instances, they are infinitely more valuable.

Ah, back to your split between rationality and creativity, and the unsupported link between creativity and belief in God. Personally, I don't feel the need to denigrate the genius of great thinkers by claiming their ideas came from somewhere else, I'm happy with the creativity that's emerged from our evolution.



Irrational is not a dirty word - it doesn't mean foolish, or crazy, or anything negative. It simply means "not rational".

I imagine this will sound "drunk" to most of you, as a previous commentor stated, and I can't say I didn't ask for some scathing commentary, starting this thread as I did.

I am getting a good idea of how you all view this topic.

I don't think it sounds drunk, I just don't think your claims bear up to scrutiny.

[skeptical]

I will go AA here, and define what I mean by God as a "higher power". Despite the hairsplitting going on here regarding the definitions of theist, atheist, God, etc., the fact remains that most creative thinkers throughout history have believed in a higher power.

Ok, so now its clear. By "great", you mean "creative". You could have just said that. And if I'm hairsplitting, its because inevitably when these subjects are discussed the definitions are purposely left fuzzy so that the "believer" or theist has wiggle room, and can ignore any points made by just saying "well that's not what I was talking about". Not to paint with a broad brush, but this has happened to me too many times to count.

My point is this - that without an understanding of the fact that there is an intelligence in the universe greater than the human mind, people have a strong tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Being rational and critical is fine, but only up to a point. Being rational and critical will not make you creative.

I agree with your 2nd point, b/c being rational and a critical thinker is not intended to make you creative. Creativity is fine, as is intuition. I would say its even necessary in some endeavors. But creativity without analysis is like a ship without a rudder. You go places, but you never get anywhere.

The first statement doesn't follow at all. Why does creativity require an intelligence greater than the human mind? Or conversely, why does the existence of creativity support such as idea? I don't see the connection your trying to make.


I would suggest that the 20th and now the 21st centuries have been extremely rational and critical time periods. They have brought us to the verge of the extinction of life on this planet.

Yes and no. It has been a time of great intellectual progress by the few, the fruits of which are gratefully accepted by the many, but whose implications are rejected by the most. (at least in the US) Woo woo is far more rampant than skepticism and rational thought. That piece of trash "the secret" is a bestseller, and Uri Geller is still doing his asinine spoon bending trick. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of rational thought for our age.

I agree 100% on your concerns about the future of us and the our existence here, as well as many other species. But I don't see how woo woo will help us solve our problems. Pretending we can wish them away or talk to dead people for our answers doesn't seem likely to yield positive results.


I also have rejected religious rigidity. In fact, I was, for a time, an atheist myself. But I came to see that there is another perspective besides the extremes of atheism and religious ignorance. I believe I take a stance similar to many of the people cited above, say Jefferson and Lincoln.

The rational mind is a tool that needs to be used in its proper place - programming a computer, for instance. Yet you would not expect to succeed in love by asking your computer for advise in your personal life (I hope).

I think you have a misunderstanding of the scientific/skeptical approach. The claim is not that it will answer all things, only that it can tell us the truth of empirical matters. That's it. If you tell me there's a teacup orbiting Jupiter, we can send a probe to tell us if its there. If you tell me someone is talking to a dead person, we can run double blind tests to see if they are. If you tell me that someone loves you, we can observe how they behave and see if that behavior comports with affection or not.

A skeptical/scientific approach is not an all encompassing worldview, it is a way to investigate claims about the natural world. Secular humanism IS a worldview and encompasses much more, but these two principles are not identical.

I think you have a beef with methods that don't provide answers to things they aren't intended to answer.


I am arguing for the legitimacy of inspiration, intuition, etc. These are just as valuable as logic - in some instances, they are infinitely more valuable.

It depends on the question your trying to answer. If you want to know about the natural world and whether something is real or not, the best approach is science. If you asking about something else, like ethics for example, its probably the wrong tool for the job. But that is not the fault of science, it purposely limits itself to investigating observable phenomena, that is its strength.


Irrational is not a dirty word - it doesn't mean foolish, or crazy, or anything negative. It simply means "not rational".

I imagine this will sound "drunk" to most of you, as a previous commentor stated, and I can't say I didn't ask for some scathing commentary, starting this thread as I did.

I am getting a good idea of how you all view this topic.

You don't sound drunk or crazy to me, you just sound like you don't have a good understanding of what science and skepticism are all about. I just joined this forum, but I am enjoying the conversation. I hope you stick around.

[skeptical]

Damn, skeptical, why have you waited so long to start posting?

:popcorn1

Two words: Law School :)

I have been wanting to get involved in this forum for a while, it's just now that I have a little free time.

[Freethinker]

And of course, how can Buddha be called an atheist? An a-theist believes there is no god.




To which buddha are you referring, and in which god did he not believe?

[Humphreys]

Apart from all the other obvious objections to your opening post, you're clearly stacking the deck.

You wonder why there are more believers than unbelievers, yet include just one option for atheism (rejection of all Gods), and an infinite number of possible beliefs for the believers. Anyone who isn't an atheist falls into the other camp, even though all these people believe in completely different types of Gods.

It's almost like saying "Why is the favourite colour of most great men of the past "not-green, as opposed to green? This must mean green is an inferior colour".

As I say, this is just one reason as opposed to dozens more stronger objections.

[Mojo]

I know Newton and Bach were devout Christians.


Although Newton would probably have been regarded as a heretic if his beliefs had been more public.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

I have to say that this list is quite interesting.
Name after name of people that have massive influence in the world.

http://celebatheists.com/?title=Main_Page

[Steven Howard]

I will go AA here, and define what I mean by God as a "higher power". Despite the hairsplitting going on here regarding the definitions of theist, atheist, God, etc., the fact remains that most creative thinkers throughout history have believed in a higher power.

Yeah, but so what? Most people throughout history have believed in a "higher power" (or "powers", for the polytheists, pantheists, et. al.). Therefore it's entirely unsurprising to find that most <x> throughout history have so believed, where <x> is any arbitrary subset of people. Most shopkeepers throughout history have believed in a higher power. Most homeless beggars throughout history have believed in a higher power. Most slave-owners throughout history have believed in a higher power.

My point is this - that without an understanding of the fact that there is an intelligence in the universe greater than the human mind, people have a strong tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Whether the existence of said intelligence is a fact or not turns out to be in some dispute. Also, it's not entirely clear what's baby and what's bathwater in your metaphor. As a self-described "full-blown woo", don't you think it's all baby?

Being rational and critical is fine, but only up to a point. Being rational and critical will not make you creative.

It may not make you creative, but in my experience rationality and critical thinking go hand-in-hand with creativity more often than not. Most of the successful creative people I know -- people who actually make a living as artists, writers, and game designers -- are very rational and very critical about their work and their field. Being able to judge a piece on its merits -- being able to say, "Yes, this is good," or "No, this isn't good enough, and here's what's wrong with it and here's how I can fix it" -- is (again, in my experience) a vital skill that most successful creative people possess.

I believe I take a stance similar to many of the people cited above, say Jefferson and Lincoln.

I believe you need to read more of what Jefferson and Lincoln actually had to say about their own opinions.

I am arguing for the legitimacy of inspiration, intuition, etc. These are just as valuable as logic - in some instances, they are infinitely more valuable.

If that's true, then all that stuff about God and gods and "higher powers" is completely irrelevant, isn't it? In any event, it's considerably weakened your argument in favor of inspiration and intuition. In fact, it seems that you were so keen on the God part that you forgot to even include the words "inspiration" and "intuition" until quite late in the game.

I am getting a good idea of how you all view this topic.

Wish I could say the same.

[JoeTheJuggler]

How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?
Robersl, your argument would be identical if you substitute "infamous violent murderers" instead of "great men". Can you explain that?

If you're implying that belief in God causes "greatness" (or that non-belief suppresses it) then you must admit as well that belief in God causes violence (or that atheism somehow suppresses it).

[treble_head]

I guess I would say The Source.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/44214679c51d3bb45.jpg

????

I didn't know that the world's greatest men were hip-hop fans!

[Hourglassmemory]

I guess this little film with Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about great thinkers and their belief in God will settle a few things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsyGspm_5U

It seems they evocate God and a sort of Intelligent Design at the limits of their knowledge.

[Graham Ross]

Arthur Conan Doyle was a great writer and he believed in fairies. Does that mean fairies exist?

[Brattus]

Let me start out by saying that I am a full-blown "woo" in matters occult.

I joined this forum because I find it boring to always converse with people who agree with me. So I figured, where better to get interesting dialogue with intelligent people than here?

Guess he went back to being bored?

[-Fran-]

Guess he went back to being bored?

My thought exactly! Guess he didn't find it as intersting as he thought it would be to talk to people who don't agree with him on everything. *shrug*

[prewitt81]

SylviaRox, is that you? (robersl=Robert S. Lancaster)


Maybe I'm too suspicious.

ETA: Heh, nevermind. I guess I didn't look very closely at robersl's join date.

[Slimething]

Is this guy serious? A google survey is his reason for accepting woo-ism? He's got a lot more homework to do. Here's my contribution to get him started:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html

Hell, if you define god as any power greater than oneself, anyone can be considered a believer. I think most cars are more powerful than I am so cars are god to me, right? Nope.

What rebersi forgets is that, once a human begins thinking deeply, the quality of humility surfaces. Humility is forced on those who realize that what they know is a speck compared to the vast field of what they don't know. No need to claim that an invisible, omnipotent (and sadistic) entity rules your life. Only the satisfaction that you have begun a great journey is any comfort.

[Tumblehome]

How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?


Up to last century, 99% of Western civilization believed in God, so it's no surprise that most of the brightest of them did also. They were products of their culture. Nowadays, the culture has changed, and I imagine more and more of our brightest will be atheists.

Also, this is only speculation, but I'd bet a greater percentage of "great" or "creative" people in those days were atheist than you'd find in the general population. Just a guess, though.


You may get a better result if you try Googling "famous atheists" instead of "famous athiests".


:D I googled "famous thiests" and only got pages where "theist" is misspelled.

By the way, robersl, I also googled "famous theists" correctly and got only famous non-theists on the first couple of pages. But it isn't really a fair search term, is it. People aren't generally described as being either theist or atheist, so I'm not surprised at the lack of results either way.


...the fact remains that most creative thinkers throughout history have believed in a higher power.


Others keep pointing out why that is a misleading statement, and yet you keep saying it.

[steve s]

Skeptical, same kudos from me. I've always felt deism was the fallback position for the time when our ignorance of the world didn't let us see how evolution worked, and that deists had seen the folly of religion and God, but couldn't quite give up on the concept of a god found in nature because they couldn't understand the apparent order they saw.

Well put. I've always felt that Jefferson and Franklin would be atheists if they were alive today.

Steve s.

[thomps1d]

I would like to throw out this question to see what comes back. How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?

I explain it to myself very easily. Historically, even brilliant thinkers (whether they are men or women, and regardless of where they come from) have held some very silly notions. Alchemy has already been mentioned several times, but other substitutions could still be made: slavery, divine appointment of a monarchy, diseases are caused by demonic possession, diseases are caused by imbalances of the humours, the earth is the center of the universe, the earth is flat, man will never be able to fly or land on the moon. You can substitute any of these ideas in your above statement for belief in God, and you'll start to see that the argument holds no merit whatsoever.

The fact that many people believe something doesn't make it true, no matter how much you want it to.

[Niobe]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/44214679c51d3bb45.jpg

????

I didn't know that the world's greatest men were hip-hop fans!
Brings a whole new meaning to the term rapture ;)
Still praying for the 2nd coming of tupac (rip homie).

[PopeTom]

This started out for me when I tried Googling "famous athiests". Not a very impressive list. Nietzsche is the only one who is "man-on-the-street" famous.

So tell me, who are the great athiest contributors to our civilization?

Here you go

http://famousatheists.org/index.html

[SezMe]

SylviaRox, is that you? (robersl=Robert S. Lancaster)

This is just too rich to pass up .....


Nope.

[Wolfman]

I would take an entirely different direction on this than most of you are. There seems to be this -- in my opinion -- rather ridiculous assumption among modern atheists that beliefs we consider 'woo' today are therefore 'woo' throughout history.

I would disagree.

These ideas are 'woo' because we have better, more credible explanations, and because we have the tools and the equipment to examine our world in far, far greater detail than they ever did.

Belief in a god of some kind, at most times in our history, would not (in my opinion) qualify as a "woo" belief. There may not have been much 'scientific' support for such a belief, but neither was there quantifiable, demonstrable proof for most of the things that we consider "true" today.

What causes earthquakes? What causes volcanos? What causes thunder/lightning? What causes disease? How was our world/universe created? How did life begin? These are all questions to which we have solid theories today, supported by solid science, and which require no supernatural being or entity. But that is not true of most of human history; there were many events, many phenomenon for which there was no apparent natural explanation; and thus, people tended to come to the conclusion that the explanation must be supernatural.

Forget the pointless haggling over definitions, semantics, and proper spelling. This in and of itself explains why so many "great men throughout history" believed in god, or other beliefs that we here would consider to be "woo" today. It is because, based on the tools, the equipment, and the knowledge that they had at that time, there were not natural explanations for at least some of the phenomenon they observed, and therefore belief in a supernatural alternative was not at all unreasonable...and would not, in my opinion, qualify as "woo".

Now, if you instead go and make a list of "great men (and women)" in modern history, those born let's say in the last 75 years, those who have had access to the revelations and information yielded by systematic scientific observation of our universe, using equipment and methods that were inaccessible to previous generations, I am very confident that you will find a significant majority of them are, in fact, atheists.

[prewitt81]

This is just too rich to pass up .....


Nope.

Well played, my friend. . . well played indeed. :)

[LostAngeles]

As far as Newton goes,as I understand it, he also stacked the deck when the Royal Society investigated the controversy over who invented the calculus. (Personal note: I hate his notations) We could also discuss the whole deal with Gauss, Boylai, and Lobachevsky if we want to continue talking about Great Men and their not-so-Greatness...

Something to keep in mind when evaluating historical figures is that they do not exist in a vacuum. While they might have an excellent insight, imagination, or way of approaching a problem, their method of thinking and their opinions are also shaped by the times in which they lived. Thomas Jefferson wrote powerfully on the rights of the individual and kept slaves. Newton was a powerful figure of the Enlightenment and calculated the date of the Apocalypse. Pythagoras found irrational numbers, probably ripped off his Theorem from India or Babylonia, depending on the tale had the guy who was going to tell the world about irrational numbers killed, and was a cult a leader.

There was a segment in Cosmos where Sagan stands in a computer-generated replica of The Library of Alexandria and muses on how there were scrolls containing great insightful thoughts on matters of science and geometry but no one questioned the morality of slavery.

So Pythagoras had a cult. Newton believed in God. Jefferson was possibly a Deist. What's your point?

At the times they lived, participating in religion was a part of their world. Most everyone went along with it and the religions wielded great power. To go against them, could ruin or kill you. Galileo learned this when he was brought before The Inquistion for his work. He wasn't allowed to publish afterwards and anything he had written before could not be republished.

Publishing is also a very important point. Wallace had the same idea as Darwin. Wallace had published first, but his work was shorter and he was of lower social standing and therefore, less attention was paid to him. Lobachevsky published his work before Boylai. We associate natural selection with Darwin and hyperbolic geometry with Lobachevsky. There may be many more that we would term, "Great Thinkers," that we simply don't know about.

So the ones that we do know of may have had a belief in a higher power or in things that we know today are not true (check out John Snow and the miasma theory), what about any that we don't know? And while they may have professed publicly such beliefs, who knows what they thought privately? I certainly don't and won't dare make any such claim. You could infer from their writings and their letters and such inferrings can be valid.

Not to mention, as everyone else has, what about the great Chinese scholars? Or the Indian mathematicians?

One last thing, consider Mazlow's hierarchy of needs. People who are leaders or high ranking members of a religion are generally supported by the community. They don't have to worry about their next meal or that they're going to get injured by someone else. They have the time to consider such matters. Gregor Mendel isn't going to say, "Hey, I came up with this theory of inheritence. Oh and by the way, there is no God." He's a freaking monk. Darwin and Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) were trained in the priesthood (both, apparently lousy students of such).

Out of curiosity, Stephen Hawking is probably considered by the populace to be one of our great thinkers. Is he, "woo?"

[Broes]

"the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God?"

So you also claim that you can only be a great person if you're a man.... a white man at that even...
All the logic that you displayed holds as true for woman and black people, they are unable to be great persons...

Are you calling woman and black people dumb or uncreative?... Of course not... it is just a matter of culture. Most influential people in history were white... and male... Were they smarter? Were they more creative or inspired?

Now think of the fact that most western people till 1900-1950 considered themself religious in one aspect or another... Would that not also explain more religious in influential positions?


Bruce Jongejans

[Niobe]

So you also claim that you can only be a great person if you're a man.... a white man at that even...
All the logic that you displayed holds as true for woman and black people, they are unable to be great persons...

UPPERCLASS white males, thank you very much. What good is an education when you're off to the coal mines / birthin babies/ destined for servitude anyway?

Not to mention the church of the upperclass is a powerstructure and very much a networking tool, creating opportunities and outlets to further ones ideas and work.

[Flo]

My point is this - that without an understanding of the fact that there is an intelligence in the universe greater than the human mind, people have a strong tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Being rational and critical is fine, but only up to a point. Being rational and critical will not make you creative.

How creative do you think you are ? How creative do people recognise you to be ?

The first statement doesn't follow at all. Why does creativity require an intelligence greater than the human mind? Or conversely, why does the existence of creativity support such as idea? I don't see the connection your trying to make.

It may not make you creative, but in my experience rationality and critical thinking go hand-in-hand with creativity more often than not. Most of the successful creative people I know -- people who actually make a living as artists, writers, and game designers -- are very rational and very critical about their work and their field. Being able to judge a piece on its merits -- being able to say, "Yes, this is good," or "No, this isn't good enough, and here's what's wrong with it and here's how I can fix it" -- is (again, in my experience) a vital skill that most successful creative people possess.

I've heard this argument ("great creators are so through divine/supernatural inspiration") from a number of people, the vast majority of whom weren't creative in any sense of the word, i.e. weren't able to invent or think anything new, weren't good artists or musicians, etc., resented not being recognised as such, but refused the notion that the main thing they lacked to succeed was hard work.

ETA:

We live in a world that wants the fruits of scientific labor, but refuses the mental discipline of scientific rationality. Just like children, we want to have our cake and to eat it too. ( http://www.anti-naturals.org/theory/religion.html )

[treble_head]

Not to mention, as everyone else has, what about the great Chinese scholars? Or the Indian mathematicians?
Uh... didn't you hear? Taoism is a religion! It's crazy. They believe that humans can become gods! It wasn't changed over the years to incorprorate other religions and the whims of various ruling classes, btw. It's obviously true. I read it somewhere. The Tao Te Ching is like, propaganda for Religion or whatever. Things like:
Modern Paper
The Compass
Paper
Printing
The Crossbow
Fireworks
Matches
Ridable Horse Dressing
The Kite
Land Mines
The Seismograph
Mining
Cast Iron
The Cannon
Paper money
The Restaurant
Noodles
Easily edible stored meat
Silk
and of course, a ship that could sail against the wind,
were obviously invented by evil conspirators who accidentally believed in the wrong God. Shame on them, and shame on you.

Oh, and as far as The Indians... I mean, algebra, the number 0... How dare those godless heathens come up with such exact and proper ideas without believing in God at the time? Especially since they started to believe in the obviously WRONG gods later on. Sheesh. What is this world coming to?

Next you're going to tell me that the Christian world, with it's amazing IQ, derived from God, was defeated in the Crusades, partially because the steel of their swords was defeated by scientifically forged steel from Damascus, as opposed to clumsily forged steel derived almost entirely from antiquated steel forging techniques from the middle east and China? That's just crazy talk.

[Flo]

Uh... didn't you hear? Taoism is a religion! It's crazy. They believe that humans can become gods! It wasn't changed over the years to incorprorate other religions and the whims of various ruling classes, btw. It's obviously true. I read it somewhere. The Tao Te Ching is like, propaganda for Religion or whatever. Things like:
Modern Paper
The Compass
Paper
Printing
The Crossbow
Fireworks
Matches
Ridable Horse Dressing
The Kite
Land Mines
The Seismograph
Mining
Cast Iron
The Cannon
Paper money
The Restaurant
Noodles
Easily edible stored meat
Silk
and of course, a ship that could sail against the wind,
were obviously invented by evil conspirators who accidentally believed in the wrong God. Shame on them, and shame on you.

Oh, and as far as The Indians, I mean, algebra, the number 0... How dare those godless heathens come up with such exact and proper ideas without believing in God at the time? Especially since they started to believe in the obviously WRONG gods later on. Sheesh. What is this world coming to?

Next you're going to tell me that the Christian world, with it's amazing IQ, derived from God, was defeated in the Crusades, partially because the steel of their swords was defeated by scientifically forged steel from Damascus, as opposed to clumsily forged steel derived almost entirely from antiquated steel forging techniques from the middle east and China? That's just crazy talk.


If I read him correctly, robersl's point is that there would be "an intelligence in the universe greater than the human mind" inspiring creativity, and that the majority of "great" men were believers in some notion or another of the existence of such a supernatural entity, itself not necessarily the christian god. Therefore, the fact that the Chinese invented this or that doesn't refute his point, given the fact that they did indeed believe in all kind of (religious) woo.

Of course, I'm still awaiting evidence on which woo inspired what invention, and what religion/belief I should embrace in order to get proficient in music, graphic arts, science, or technology ;)

[treble_head]

If I read him correctly, robersl's point is that there would be "an intelligence in the universe greater than the human mind" inspiring creativity, and that the majority of "great" men were believers in some notion or another of the existence of such a supernatural entity, itself not necessarily the christian god. And I may have not done it correctly, but the origins of Chinese philosophy (Taoism) has nothing to do with God belief. Nor with the early Indian beliefs.

[Lonewulf]

Is this thread still going?

I'm pretty sure the OP has been fully and completely debunked.

[-Fran-]

Is this thread still going?

I'm pretty sure the OP has been fully and completely debunked.

He has! Personally I still nurtured a small hope though, that he would come back and admit it, or something like that... :)

[ponderingturtle]

The Compass
.

I don't know saying that the chinese invented the compass is a bit like claiming that the wheel was invented independantly in south america. Sure it is technicaly true, but is something is never more than a toy does it really count as a being invented?

[-Fran-]

I don't know saying that the chinese invented the compass is a bit like claiming that the wheel was invented independantly in south america. Sure it is technicaly true, but is something is never more than a toy does it really count as a being invented?

You can't invent toys?? :confused:

[SirPhilip]

Let me start out by saying that I am a full-blown "woo" in matters occult. Welcome to the forum.

I joined this forum because I find it boring to always converse with people who agree with me. So I figured, where better to get interesting dialogue with intelligent people than here? People here are more along the lines of armchair 'crime fighters' (some a little more than that), than anything else, you'll find.

I like to read this forum in the same way that I like to watch FOX news sometimes See, why can't other occultists conjure insults like this. :shy:

I would like to throw out this question to see what comes back. How do you guys explain history to yourselves, specifically, the fact that 99% of all the great men in Western civilization's history believed in God? Largely because it was a cultural trend. Religion and politics in Europe weren't separated either. Of course, it involves sentiment, however those like Voltaire made an apt attempt to reconcile human sensibility with cultural institutions.

Has James Randi come upon some special information that was overlooked by Plato, Newton, Bach, Beethoven and Einstein? What is the story? Someone's aptitude at a learned skill has little to do with their underlying character. They were largely men of their times.

[Flo]

And I may have not done it correctly, but the origins of Chinese philosophy (Taoism) has nothing to do with God belief. Nor with the early Indian beliefs.

Not with "god(s)" as such, but certainly with a belief in supernatural forces.

[Baron Samedi]

As far as Newton goes,as I understand it, he also stacked the deck when the Royal Society investigated the controversy over who invented the calculus. (Personal note: I hate his notations) We could also discuss the whole deal with Gauss, Boylai, and Lobachevsky if we want to continue talking about Great Men and their not-so-Greatness...


Ah, Lobachevsky. I still love this song
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umhistmath/Lobachevsky.mp3

[boojum]

Ah, Lobachevsky. I still love this song
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umhistmath/Lobachevsky.mp3

"Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes!"

[my_wan]

Welcome skeptical, I am truly impressed. Please stick around. You are welcome to robersl. Your conduct here so far is admirable.

Yes. It is called "inspiration".

Most thinking is done via rational, left-brain processes, which work out all the possibilities of what is known.

But there is a second kind of thinking, in which something new enters the body of human knowledge, something that comes from "beyond" the known facts.

Even if this isn't "God's voice" speaking in the ear of a creative thinker, it at least shows that the human mind has the ability to "go beyond".

And yes, I believe that a healthy understanding of the human condition in relationship to the Deity facilitates the mind's ability to do this.

It appears that your wooness depends on this woo connection you make with "inspiration". If "inspiration" was facilitated through a "relationship to the Deity" why did the greatest inspirations in human history coincide with and accelerate in proportion to the decline religious power. We call this period of greatest change the renaissance. Not only did it lead to an exponential growth in science but revolutionized the conception of governance. I hold the opposite view that you presented. Conversing with the missing grandpa in the sky is restrictive to creative thinking. When Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species how many people thought "Duh, I should have thought of that". It took Darwin because of the blinders of religion.

In a sense I agree with you that creativity falls outside the domain of skepticism. Physical law alone is not even capable of saying which car hit which in an automobile accident. All our laws must make the presumption that we posses free will and choice to have any meaning. This assumption alone is enough to give all our important issues a character that goes beyond physical law alone. That being said our laws and their effects can still be studied critically in social and psychological sciences. In spite of the fact that we know some of our laws are detrimental to the desired effects we keep them. Why? Because we as a whole have forfeited our creativity with our preconceived notions of morality that we ascribe to a deity in hiding.

[LostAngeles]

Is this thread still going?

I'm pretty sure the OP has been fully and completely debunked.

I meant to write a paragraph

Ah, Lobachevsky. I still love this song
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umhistmath/Lobachevsky.mp3

"Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes!"

I half-think that he was channeling Janos Boylai when he wrote that, but dared not write it about Gauss...

According to my textbook, Boylai thought that Gauss's response to his work in his father, Farkos Bolyai's, book was Gauss trying to steal Janos's work.

This prompted, during the study session for the Geometry final, the introduction of many Chuck Norris-type facts about Carl Fredrich Gauss, followed by, "He just didn't write it down."

Turns out Gauss did write down some of his findings on hyperbolic geometry, he was just afraid to publish them.

[Jorghnassen]

Will you people stop making idols of dead men. There's no point in retrospectively claiming team membership (or lack thereof). All heroes aren't as great as they're believed to be. They all had their flaws, and would not agree with many of your opinions. Don't try to make them into your image (or an idealized version of you). Just because you like your interpretation of the history book version of some people doesn't mean they'd like you or be like you. Similarly, historical figure you dislike may actual share some of your beliefs or lack thereof...

[Brattus]

uh......wot?

[-Fran-]

Will you people stop making idols of dead men.


What I can see very few, if anyone, in this thread has actually done that :confused:

[Lonewulf]

He has! Personally I still nurtured a small hope though, that he would come back and admit it, or something like that... :)

Religious freaks tend to not have any balls. They come in, post a few things, and then run away with their tail between their legs and their fingers in their ears.

[Jorghnassen]

What I can see very few, if anyone, in this thread has actually done that :confused:

I know, I was intentionally overdramatic... But these lists of "historical figures/important people who share my belief" or debates as to whether some historical figure really was religious or not pop up from time to time. And usually they're more informative about the beliefs of the author of the thread than about the subjects of the debate.

[-Fran-]

Religious freaks tend to not have any balls. They come in, post a few things, and then run away with their tail between their legs and their fingers in their ears.

Yeah, I've seen it many times here, still I hoped *sigh*

I don't understand what they expect though? :confused:

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, I've seen it many times here, still I hoped *sigh*

I don't understand what they expect though? :confused:

They expect you to throw up your hands and go, "HALLELUJAH! Brother, I see clearly now! Yes, because of your unsubstantiated claim that 99% of all famous people were religious, I must admit that being religious is great! Show me the light, brothah, that we may bask in eternal ignorance!"

At least, that's what I imagine...

[Brattus]

HALLELUJAH! Brother, I see clearly now! Yes, because of your unsubstantiated claim that 99% of all famous people were religious, I must admit that being religious is great! Show me the light, brothah, that we may bask in eternal ignorance!

[Brattus]

Maybe now they'll come back and chat more with Fran.

[JoeTheJuggler]

BTW, I forgot to say this earlier: thank you Robersl for being honest and upfront identifying yourself as a believer. It's a refreshing change from the "I'm a skeptic, but" posts.

Yes, because of your unsubstantiated claim that 99% of all famous people were religious, I must admit that being religious is great!
I'd be willing to accept the claim that 99% of all great men were theists. But the flaw in the thinking, as you point out, is that it doesn't mean anything. I've been pointing out that 99% of famous criminals were also probably believers.

He never did quite say what this statement is meant to prove. I assume it's something like what you're saying, Lonewulf, that the number of people who believe something somehow affects its truth value.

It wouldn't matter if 100% of any group of people believed something. It's still not proof of that something.

[-Fran-]

They expect you to throw up your hands and go, "HALLELUJAH! Brother, I see clearly now! Yes, because of your unsubstantiated claim that 99% of all famous people were religious, I must admit that being religious is great! Show me the light, brothah, that we may bask in eternal ignorance!"

At least, that's what I imagine...

:D

If they really believe that, then their delusions runs deeper than I thought, and I already thought it was pretty bad :)

[-Fran-]

Maybe now they'll come back and chat more with Fran.

Why, thanks! :) I think... :boggled:

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's the only reason I come back (for a chance to chat with Fran, that is)!

[-Fran-]

It's the only reason I come back (for a chance to chat with Fran, that is)!

Now I'm positive you're all making fun of me :mad: ;)

[Silly Green Monkey]

Wallace didn't publish first, he and Darwin published together. Darwin sat on it for a few decades until Wallace came to the same conclusion and told him.

[Lonewulf]

:D

If they really believe that, then their delusions runs deeper than I thought, and I already thought it was pretty bad :)

Well, either that, or we're just being used for them to kill time while they're bored.

[Freethinker]

They expect you to throw up your hands and go, "HALLELUJAH! Brother, I see clearly now! Yes, because of your unsubstantiated claim that 99% of all famous people were religious, I must admit that being religious is great! Show me the light, brothah, that we may bask in eternal ignorance!"

At least, that's what I imagine...

I agree. They think that belief is the only choice and that just a few words from them would sway anyone to their side. They live in a world where everyone else supports their god delusion so it doesn't seem as ridiculous there as it does out in the real world. When they venture into the real world where logic, reason and other scary monsters threaten their delusion, they run back to fantasy land where they can play pretend with their friends.

[my_wan]

Given the time periods involved which lacked as many rational reasons to not believe in God I suspect that atheist were very rare. Why then were so many of the best known historical people atheist? Notoriety for religion itself notwithstanding.

[Freethinker]

Given the time periods involved which lacked as many rational reasons to not believe in God I suspect that atheist were very rare. Why then were so many of the best known historical people atheist? Notoriety for religion itself notwithstanding.

So you are saying that atheists, or at least those who didn't believe in the standard issue god, were disproportionally represented in the ranks of famous people of the past?

Interesting thought. People who weren't constrained by "conventional wisdom" would have been the ones to make revolutionary discoveries or to have stood out among their peers by not following the herd. Might be some merit to the idea that the OP is not only untrue, but that the exact opposite is true. :idea:

[Bob Klase]

I'd be willing to accept the claim that 99% of all great men were theists.

I'd also be willing to accept that, since for most of the history under discussion, 99% of the entire population were theists. So, as usual, we find that god causes things to happened in the exact same proportion that they would happen by chance without any god.

And crediting god with creativity for that 99% should make one wonder where the other 1% got theirs.

[Darat]

Loki.

[dogjones]

Let us now praise famous men...

...tal homes for loonies like me!

[Lonewulf]

I'd also be willing to accept that, since for most of the history under discussion, 99% of the entire population were theists. So, as usual, we find that god causes things to happened in the exact same proportion that they would happen by chance without any god.

Do you mean world population? I question that figure. Notably, you have to include in asia and india.

Does believing in a polytheistic religion the same thing as "theism", necessarily? Or believing in the supernatural? Then I'd have to agree with 99% of world population.

Though I'd question whether buddhists, taoists, etc. would fit that bill...

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now I'm positive you're all making fun of me :mad: ;)
Not I! I've already declared my affection for you!

[-Fran-]

Not I! I've already declared my affection for you!

:blush: :)

[Lonewulf]

Get a room, you two.

[LostAngeles]

Wallace didn't publish first, he and Darwin published together. Darwin sat on it for a few decades until Wallace came to the same conclusion and told him.

Wallace did publish a paper before the publishing of The Origin of The Species. Darwin had read his first paper and then the essay outlining natural selection was sent to Darwin and was a result of their correspondance. That was in 1858. Origin was 1863, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, they did end up working together, but Wallace's papers were published first.

[Lynx2174]

Do you mean world population? I question that figure. Notably, you have to include in asia and india.

Does believing in a polytheistic religion the same thing as "theism", necessarily? Or believing in the supernatural? Then I'd have to agree with 99% of world population.

Though I'd question whether buddhists, taoists, etc. would fit that bill...


I believe that the OP indicated western civilization only. Presumably, this only includes predominately christian countries.