A third of Americans take the Bible literally; that’s pretty common. It’s not some tiny fringe movement.
Good question. One would rather expect those who claim that atheists are more intelligent than everyone else to provide an answer, rather than merely linking to studies about IQ scores and hoping that no one’s familiar with the facts about IQ tests.
No.
What would be acceptable to you? Only you can answer that one.
OK. Medical doctors of whatever stripe and mechanics aren’t scientists, despite using the scientific method every waking moment, unless they discovered penicillin, the germ theory and the one-shot cure for cancer. Got it.
Poor Thomas Edison and Karl Benz. Lousy pair of mechanics.
I’m unaware of any rigorous, reliable measure of intelligence.
I don’t recall asserting that no physician was ever acting as a scientist.
Whether Edison might sometimes have played the role of a scientist or a mechanic pales before the fact that he was primarily a thief, a pirate, a fraud, and a liar – by profession and occupation I mean. I understand that as a human being he was primarily a bastard and and asshole.
Bit accepting your definition for the sake of discussion – that people who apply the scientific method are scientists, I would have to say that then that most of the scientists I encounter are cleaners, janitors, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, and car wash staff.
Spoken like anyone from a subgroup that scores low on IQ.
Knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit. Do not engage in name-calling or attempts at sneaking personal insults into the thread in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
If you’re only interested in the question of why scientists aren’t likely to be literalist Christians, then the answer is simple: Literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong, untrue, incorrect, a lie, and any other such description you choose to attach to it, and it is impossible to be a scientist without being sufficiently aware of the world to realize that. To a scientist, the claim that the Bible is literally true is exactly equivalent to the claim that God is a liar.
I think the OP was actually looking for the Biblical Literalist’s viewpoint/reasoning for the purported statistic, but as has already been said, this probably isn’t the right place to ask for that, and in the right place, the answer you get, unless it’s the same as yours, will be inherently incorrect.
You’re making yourself look stupid with your childish false dichotomies. I repeat: you obviously do not know what the scientific method is. It’s actually not the same as putting on a white coat and using a petri dish. Practising medicine may seem “sciency”, but it’s not the same thing.
Sorry, I was not really sure how to illustrate bias of judgement that might come across insulting regardless. For more on IQ and intelligence I cite:
Edited to add that my comments can not be seen as even slightly insulting if IQ is meaningless.
I’m going to chime in, as a scientist*, that most doctors and medical folks are not scientists. They take a lot of science courses, but that’s not the same thing as doing actual science. Voyager had it right in his fist post on this subject. Unless medical doctors are doing actual medical research, then they are not engaged in scientific work. Are they likely to be more familiar with the scientific method than your average Joe? Sure. But being familiar with the scientific method is not the same as being a scientist.
*or at least a former one. Can’t say I still “practice”.
Thought so. It’s the typical “buffet religion” where you get to pick and chose what’s true or not.
Please, a little rationality won’t hurt. I promise.
I don’t really see how that follows, or at least why you’d condemn it. Would you prefer somebody say, “While it’s obvious that the world wasn’t created in 6 days, I’m going to choose to believe it was?”
Ooh, you’re clever, aren’t you?
In the past, comparisons of two groups based on IQ scores have been used to argue that certain races are superior to others, that the wealthy are superior to the poor, and that men are superior to women. These days you don’t hear the argument that one group is superior to another based on IQ scores very often, but if you’d like to try leading a revival of it, you’ve got some historic company.
I’m an agnostic so there is a possibility that God exists.
In case you didn’t know, Creationists have said for decades that dinosaurs existed with humans - they are the “dragons” in history and the “behemoth” in Job.
The question is directed at literalist Christians (hence the “Christians:”) - I’m not interested in why non-literalists think literalists are wrong.
I didn’t say it was fringe, but that it wasn’t the majority. Okay, it might not be as concentrated as I implied – I was wrong there.
From your own cite:
And again, it is a recent school of thought. The three largest branches of Christianity – Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican do not take the Bible literally, nor are they anti-science.
Look, I’m not defending those who reject science because, “God said so.” But the idea that Christian automatically = anti-science is ludicrous. Of course, if you choose to believe otherwise, I’m not going to waste my time arguing with you. You haven’t proven yourself to be objective about this subject in the past.