# Intelligence and religion... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2000, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059 "2000-11-07T03:28:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/181 "2000-11-16T16:23:40Z")
Just in case it makes a difference, Vile, I am a Christian, and I have been reading the thread, and even posted to it in the beginning. I don’t understand a word Jmullaney has said. I seldom do. I pretty much assume, now days that I am not going to. I tried really hard to follow his arguments in previous threads, and just cannot make head or tail of them. Perhaps I am one of those not too intelligent Theists. I haven’t had much difficulty following the rest of the thread, though. The thing is, that intelligence has so little to do with the phenomenon of faith that it really is tempting to just accept the point from those atheists who need to feel smarter than theists. It really doesn’t matter much, to my faith. It makes them feel so much better, too. Since they will not accept the comfort that the Love of God could give them, denying them their feeling of superiority seems mean. It could even be true. Perhaps only really smart people think about God enough to become atheists. In terms of other reasons to dispute the “atheists are smarter” argument, I must admit having little interest in the “smarter than” portion of the entire subject, when intelligence is mentioned. I have serious misgivings about sciences purported ability to measure with three digit accuracy a characteristic upon which they are unable to agree to a coherent definition. Since my own measured intelligence has varied over multiple iterations of professional assessments by more than fifty points, my confidence in such things is quite guarded. You think God’s existence is hard to prove. I think it harder to prove who is smarter than whom. So, not being smart, or the smartest, is fine with me. Atheism is a very intellectual belief. It is especially so when it reaches the level of fervor shown by Evangelical Atheists. While some find it distressing to be grouped with morons, and illiterates, I don’t. Grouping of people is an intellectual habit. Not a particularly perspicacious one, and seldom based on real information, but it only matters to the person making the association. I am content to sit with the morons. That I might not be one, is one of life’s ironic mysteries. Or, I could be a deluded moron, myself. I am not less content, if it were so. Faith is not a matter of the mind; it is given by the heart. Tris ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/182 "2000-11-16T17:47:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > **Some theists do believe God exists because they do have proof of God’s existence.** Describe this proof. (Warm, fuzzy feelings that God is watching over us all do not count. I want something objective, and feelings are VERY subjective.) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I believe that “x” drug cures “x” disease because the appropriate methods were used to prove “x” works. I believe, though it’s not based on faith. > > **Even though you do not have proof yourself by your own eyes? I fail to see the difference here.** I am not surprised. HUGE difference between objective, physical evidence and non-physical, subjective evidence. There’s the fact, for example, that pharmaceutical companies and the FDA, as a general rule, do not lie to the public about the effectiveness of certain medicines because they are aware that if they are ever caught in a lie, their credibility is damaged. Once in a while, they are not accurate, but it’s nearly always a case of an honest mistake. How do we know that? The mistake was pointed out by a third party and they confessed to it. Thalidomide for pregnant women comes to mind. Both the FDA and the company that developed it believed it was harmless for the women and their babies, and it took other parties to show that it was VERY harmful to developing fetuses. > [@](#): > > **I believe God exists because I have used the appropriate methods to prove God exists.** You are apparently the only person on this thread who believes you have used the appropriate methods. The burden of proving to the rest of us that they are appropriate is on you, not us. > [@](#): > > **Atheism is however based on a refusal to use the appropriate methods to prove there is a God, or a refusal to accept the testimony of others who have.** Wrong. I was once a believer. I am now an atheist. And I would be willing to bet that most atheists were believers until they saw the light, as it were. And it’s not that we refuse to accept testimony as a rule, it’s that testimony is all the believers have to offer! AFAIK, you cannot convict someone even of jay-walking by testimony alone! And yet you think we should change our beliefs JUST on testimony! > [@](#): > > **All I can do is testify to what I have seen and tell others how they might see the same things. I think that fullfills my scientific duties.** Demonstrating once again that you do not understand the scientific method. > [@](#): > > **Atheism is based upon willfull ignorance.** I consider this insulting. > [@](#): > > **I think most people are roughly co-equal in intelligence.** Well, yeah. That’s what “average intelligence” means. > [@](#): > > **Some people are just too weak to do some scientific research, but instead of admitting they are weak simply deny the scientific method.** You still do not understand the scientific method. It’s the main reason why we refuse to conduct your silly experiment. _It isn’t a scientific experiment._ To be a proper experiment, it must produce _objective_ results and not _subjective_ ones. A belief that there is a God is not an objective result, it is a subjective one, because such a belief does not prove the existence of God. People believe in all kinds of things that aren’t true, like being kidnapped by extra-terrestrials or that the government is monitoring their thoughts or that Elvis Presley is alive. **Belief is not evidence.** ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/183 "2000-11-16T18:49:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > **Any unobserved object is in an unknown state until such a time as it is observed.** No, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know both the location AND the velocity of a _particle_ at the same time. It does NOT mean that a rock stops being a rock when there is no one looking at it. If this were true, it would mean the Earth was not the Earth until there were living things upon it to observe it. It would mean there were no stars until there were living things with sufficient eyesight to see them. > [@](#): > > **What I postulate is that it is possible to alter the nature of the observer so he/she acts differently in the equation such that the state to which the matter should happen to be in when observed tends to conform to the wishes of the observer for matter to arrive at a certain state.** I wish I had a million dollars… I wish I had a million dollars… I wish I had a million dollars… Nope. Nothing yet. I’ll keep you posted. I wish I had a million dollars… I wish I had a million dollars… > [@](#): > > **That does seem to be the case for observers conforming to a certain state of rules (as dictated by a certain individual who could indeed bend the macro-physical laws in his favor).** How would he do this? > [@](#): > > **That implies there is indeed a hidden variable in the equation that is difficult to measure scientifically. I call this hidden variable “God” for lack of a better word, although you may call it what you wish.** Okay, I prefer to call it a figment of your imagination. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Which transubstantiations have you seen? > > **Does manna from heaven count?** Only if you could prove that you did not make it yourself or pluck it from a tree… That is, you must be able to prove that it had a supernatural origin and not a natural one. (What the hell IS manna, anyway?) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > For me to hate the ones I love, or to behave as though I hated them, would be unethical. > > **As opposed to loving who you love and hating who you hate? It is more ethical to love everyone equally, is it not? If you love your friends and hate your enemies, that is easy.** Actually, Jesus was saying, “Reject your family if they tell you not to love Me.” ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/184 "2000-11-16T19:13:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > Describe this proof. Miracles. Transubstantiations. Highly mprobable occurances recurring repeatedly over long period of time. More coincidental and/or unlikely occurances. Often in accordance with unexpressed needs of individual at time of occurance. > [@](#): > > I am not surprised. HUGE difference between objective, physical evidence and non-physical, subjective evidence. What is subjective about the above? > [@](#): > > You are apparently the only person on this thread who believes you have used the appropriate methods. The burden of proving to the rest of us that they are appropriate is on you, not us. Tell me what I must do to show my method is appropriate. > [@](#): > > And it’s not that we refuse to accept testimony as a rule, it’s that testimony is all the believers have to offer! AFAIK, you cannot convict someone even of jay-walking by testimony alone! And yet you think we should change our beliefs JUST on testimony! But I am not only offering testimony. I have described an experiment anyone can do which would demonstrate to them that my testimony is true. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **All I can do is testify to what I have seen and tell others how they might see the same things. I think that fullfills my scientific duties.** > > Demonstrating once again that you do not understand the scientific method. Perhaps you need a refresher on the philosophy of science. I found [this article](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,115090+8+108542,00.html?query=scientific%20method) in the Brittanica useful. I’ll quote a portion for you: > [@](#): > > Each of these three groups of elements poses problems about which philosophers of science > are still in deep disagreement; and these differences of view can usefully be illustrated by > indicating the various approaches adopted by members of rival schools when discussing each of > the groups. At one extreme can be cited philosophers of a radically Empiricist frame of mind, > who regard it as important, above all, to emphasize the empirical foundations of scientific > knowledge; for them, the raw facts of experience are primary and entitled to absolute respect. > On this view, general theoretical principles have authentic scientific content only when > interpreted as empirical generalizations about directly grasped empirical data; and, > correspondingly, abstract theoretical entities must be understood as logical constructions from > more fundamental elements that can be directly identified in empirical experience. (This belief, > of course, was the basis of Mach’s conclusion that submicroscopic atoms were merely > intellectual fictions and derived their scientific meaning entirely from the macroscopic sense > experiences that they were used to explain.) > > At the other extreme, philosophers of a fully Rationalist, or Cartesian, bent can be cited who > reject the idea that raw empirical facts, in and of themselves, display any intelligible or > law-governed relationships whatsoever–and still less any necessary ones. For them, as for > Plato, the scientist’s bare experience of nature is a disorganized aggregate, or flux, unless and > until he is able to discover some rational structure or principles relating these disconnected > facts to a larger, more intelligible whole. Rather than allow equal significance and authority to > every passing occurrence, the scientist, on this view, must be highly selective in the > observations to which he pays attention; indeed, the very function of a well-designed > experiment is now to create phenomena that can illustrate the intelligible relationships that are > the true concern of science and so deserve the status of scientifically authenticated facts. So perhaps we have a difference of opinion on the philosophy of science. You are perhaps an empiricist. I am more of a rationalist. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **Atheism is based upon willfull ignorance.** > > I consider this insulting. Let me get this straight. Let’s say you met a man who had never looked up at the sky before who insisted the sky was yellow. You tell him, “no sir, the sky is in fact blue.” He says that is merely your opinion. You say, “well sir, if you do not believe me all you have to do is look up.” He says there is no reason for him to believe looking up would give him any indication as to what color the sky is. You say you’ve looked up at the sky and seen it is blue. You cite several historical and modern teachings which indicate that looking up at the sky is a valid way of seeing that it is in fact blue. He says he spent a good deal of his life trying to figure out if the sky was blue or not and that he has looked all over the ground and seen no evidence that the sky is blue what-so-ever. He asks you to give him objective proof that the sky is blue beyond your own testimony and without him actually having to look up. Wouldn’t you conclude the man is being willfully ignorant at this point? Do you think there is anything further you can do for this man to convince him? > [@](#): > > You still do not understand the scientific method. It’s the main reason why we refuse to conduct your silly experiment. _It isn’t a scientific experiment._ To be a proper experiment, it must produce _objective_ results and not _subjective_ ones. A belief that there is a God is not an objective result, it is a subjective one, because such a belief does not prove the existence of God. It is the only explanation I have found which fits the evidence I have seen. An empiricist would conclude that the miracles in and of themselves do not give evidence supporting the existence of a god, and if that is your stance perhaps we have reached an agreement that we have different philosophical approaches. In the future, I will try to take the way empiricists approach the scientific method into account despite having a rationalist worldview. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/185 "2000-11-16T19:28:44Z")
Okay, I want to call on all Atheists, but rather let me call on “all those who do not believe in God/Gods”, and this may very well include atheists (all types of atheists) and agnostics. This Agnostics/Atheists’ group feels they’ve made the intelligent conclusion. Jmullaney seems to be carving himslef out as an exception to the typical believer in God in that he has approached the decison to believe both intelligently and scientifically. He also seems to be the exception to the rule, because most believers have a belief system based on faith, not evidence. Jmullaney seems to be working off evidence (in his mind). Therefor, Jmullaney has helped us reach our conclusion. We’ll declare jmullaney intelligent. Okay…I’ll concede and recognize that he is intelligent because he is applying some respected principles to his decision making process. I don’t even care how accurately. I’ll assume he is right-on-the-money. jmullaney is certainly the exception to most believers, who act on faith alone. Acting on faith is less intelligent than making intelligent decisions based on scientific method. Since jmullaney’s religious peers, in general, are making decisions based on faith, they are less intelligent than non-believers. So, to tie this in with the OP: Non-believers are more intelligent than believers. Of course, there is some overlapping, so you will find some intelligent theists, and you will find some less intelligent atheists/agnostics. But, as a rule, non-believers are more intelligent. There are individual exceptions, but viewed as groups, non-believers are more intelligent. There - I said it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/186 "2000-11-16T19:51:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > **Miracles. Transubstantiations. Highly mprobable occurances recurring repeatedly over long period of time. More coincidental and/or unlikely occurances. Often in accordance with unexpressed needs of individual at time of occurance.** I said describe them. All you did was LIST them and without any kind of physical evidence. (Looks like I just pointed out that you cannot prove your claim on a message board. Too bad for you, but them is the breaks.) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I am not surprised. HUGE difference between objective, physical evidence and non-physical, subjective evidence. > > **What is subjective about the above?** All we have is your word that it happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and your word does not qualify. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You are apparently the only person on this thread who believes you have used the appropriate methods. The burden of proving to the rest of us that they are appropriate is on you, not us. > > **Tell me what I must do to show my method is appropriate.** That is EXACTLY what you must do: SHOW us. It must be demonstrated in front of witnesses and thoroughly documented. > [@](#): > > **But I am not only offering testimony. I have described an experiment anyone can do which would demonstrate to them that my testimony is true.** But conducting the experiment puts the experimenters at great risk. Before I put myself at such risk, I will require more than the word of one person. > [@](#): > > **(This belief, of course, was the basis of Mach’s conclusion that submicroscopic atoms were merely intellectual fictions and derived their scientific meaning entirely from the macroscopic sense experiences that they were used to explain.)** Were you aware that Mach was wrong? We are as certain as can be that atoms DO exist. They have been photographed and individual atoms have been arranged into designed patterns. One lab arranged some atoms to form the letters IBM, for example. Atoms are NOT “intellectual fictions.” > [@](#): > > **the very function of a well-designed experiment is now to create phenomena that can illustrate the intelligible relationships that are the true concern of science and so deserve the status of scientifically authenticated facts.** This is my understanding of how and why experiments are conducted. > [@](#): > > **Let me get this straight.** Unfortunately, you got it wrong.It’s more like this: I was told all my life that the sky was yellow, and then, one day, I got up the courage to remove the yellow-lens sunglasses that I had been given in my youth (and which everyone else also wore) and saw for myself that the sky was actually blue. Unfortunately, nearly everyone else finds their sunglasses very comfortable to wear and refuse to take them off lest they go blind. ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/187 "2000-11-16T20:14:04Z")
**Philster:** I still don’t find your argument persuasive. Given that faith (I’m using it in the belief without proof/evidence sense here) is a non-rational process, it has no bearing on intelligence at all. Intelligence is irrelevant to faith just as it is in other non-rational processes, like love for instance. Saying that those who rely on reason in determining the likelihood of deity are more intelligent thatn those who rely on faith is like saying that those who refuse to love are likewise more intelligent than those who partake of it. There are other ways to experience the world besides empiricism, and it may be that those with faith actually are apprehending the divine. Personally, I happen to value logic and empiricism, and I have found it to be a surer guide than any kind of faith in most of the areas of my life, including the question of whether or not a deity exists. However, I certainly didn’t decide to love and trust my wife out of any rational process. It is something that transcends and supercedes logic and cold reason. The same might very well be true regarding faith in God’s existence. _I_ don’t experience it that way, but that does not entitle me to say that it doesn’t exist. A strict materialist might say that the love I feel for my wife is a result of a cascade of sodium ions in a certain area of my brain. The truth of such a statement being debatable, **even if true** the love itself is no less real, and no more permeable to my interior logic circuits for all that. I have heard many describe their faith as a knowledge that comes from deep down inside, an undeniable certainty of the truth. Who is to say that faith is any more assailable, or any more deniable, to one’s logic than love? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/188 "2000-11-16T21:01:28Z")
**JAB** : Many of us believe in God (and there are few if any people who “accept the existence of God” who do not also “put their trust in Him” – playing on the two disparate meanings of “believe in” as we must in circumstances like this) – many believe because they have sufficient evidence to satisfy their intellectual concerns. This evidence may consist in adherence to the revealed nature of the Bible, in personal experience with an entity whom they consider God, in miraculous events they perceive to have happened in their lives, etc. In general, few people fail to resolve the intellectual questions involved to their satisfaction, whichever answer they may come up with. Now, I will grant that: a) adherence to the Bible as proof of God is engaging in circular reasoning – if there is any validity to what the Bible has to say about Him, the proof goes the other way around; its truth depends on Him. (Have I mentioned that I detest the kids’ religious song “Jesus Loves Me” for that very reason?) b) I think any honest experientialist believer (i.e., someone who had a “personal encounter with God” type conversion experience) would immediately allow that his experience constitutes subjective evidence, at best anecdotal as regards a third party. That is, I would expect you, Gaudere, or David to accept that **I believe** I had such an experience, not necessarily that I **did** have such an experience. That would depend on the degree to which you trust my ability to unbiasedly evaluate and report the experience, and I would not be offended by your judgment that what I concluded from it is far less than sufficient to convince you. c) Miracles, as I maintain by song and dance on a regular basis, are not uncommon, but are rarely if ever the hiatus in natural law that the standard connotation of the word implies. They are God acting to benefit the recipient in some way, spiritually, intellectually, emotionally, or materially, and are in general capable of being “explained away” by natural circumstance and coincidence. Indeed, the point on which David and I would part in such an analysis is not in **what** happened, but in **why** – I seeing God’s hand at work, and David presumably seeing solely the natural forces of the world. But we would be in agreement on the sequence of observed phenomena. Manna, if you are interested, is the edible sugary exudation of a desert insect found in the Sinai, which collects and dries at night into thin wafers. This is why it needed to be harvested daily and not kept (because it would rot) – except on the Sabbath. (And I’ll leave the explanation of that last to Chaim or Zev, thanks! :)) I find it really hard to believe that some of the atheist posters to this thread (not JAB or Gaudere or Ptahlis) find it difficult to accept that a theist may have the intellectual honesty to consider and evaluate the evidence, and, having weighted it differently than would the atheist, to arrive at the conclusion that it does support a belief in God. I certainly have no problem in doing the reverse. (This is toned down from a mild flame on how “atheists use their intelligence and theists just have faith” is singularly darn offensive, especially in view of my having asserted the opposite and explained the reasoning behind it, a few posts before.) ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2000, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/189 "2000-11-17T17:00:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > b)I would expect you, Gaudere, or David to accept that **I believe** I had such an experience, not necessarily that I **did** have such an experience. That would depend on the degree to which you trust my ability to unbiasedly evaluate and report the experience, and I would not be offended by your judgment that what I concluded from it is far less than sufficient to convince you. I can accept that. I would also hope that you would be willing to have your experience be subjected to close examination. > [@](#): > > **c) Miracles, as I maintain by song and dance on a regular basis, are not uncommon** Meaning that they ARE **common**? If everything is a miracle, then nothing would be miraculous. That is, miracles would be the standard and not the exception. > [@](#): > > **They are God acting to benefit the recipient in some way, spiritually, intellectually, emotionally, or materially, and are in general capable of being “explained away” by natural circumstance and coincidence.** Occam’s razor, **Poly** : If God isn’t needed to explain the phenomena, why believe that He is responsible? Why add this unnecessary extra layer of complexity? One time, when I was homeless, I was desperately trying to get to a shelter to spend the night rather than sleep on the streets. I and another man got there at the same time (both of us had taken the same bus). He said, “I prayed to Jesus that I would get here before they closed, and here I am. He answered my prayers.” _I had not prayed at all._ (I haven’t prayed in YEARS, certainly not since I became an adult.) And yet I got there anyway. Maybe Jesus did answer his prayers and made sure that bus got there in time and it was just dumb luck that it helped me too. Or maybe it was just a coincidence. Maybe we both would have gotten there at the same time even if he had not prayed at all. There’s no way to tell, I’ll grant you. But since, in that situation, there is no way to know for sure, why believe that prayer was the reason we got there? It seems to me that the best anyone can do is say, “There’s no way to know for sure.” > [@](#): > > **Manna, if you are interested, is the edible sugary exudation of a desert insect found in the Sinai, which collects and dries at night into thin wafers.** So it’s an entirely natural phenomenon and not a supernatural one. (Payin’ attention, **jmullaney**?) > [@](#): > > **I find it really hard to believe that some of the atheist posters to this thread (not JAB or Gaudere or Ptahlis) find it difficult to accept that a theist may have the intellectual honesty to consider and evaluate the evidence, and, having weighted it differently than would the atheist, to arrive at the conclusion that it does support a belief in God.** Frankly, I DO find it difficult to accept. But with you, I’m willing to make an exception. Why? Because you don’t argue like a tape recorder, mindlessly repeating “God did it,” over and over as an explanation for everything. I’ve learned a lot from you and hope to learn more. One last thing: I find your explanation that Jesus walked on water because He was able to greatly magnify the surface tension of the water’s surface more than difficult to swallow. Let’s not forget that it was storming at the time and increasing the water’s surface tension would have made it difficult for waves to form. And yet the verses (Matthew 14:22-33) state that there were waves. I’m also curious how the water would have lifted him up, assuming He was of normal weight for a man of His time, say, 140-175 pounds or so. (See how many things you have to explain? How does this satisfy that well-known Razor?) ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/278dde/32.png) [@JustAnotherGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2000, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/190 "2000-11-17T17:39:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Philster \* > \*\*Acting on faith is less intelligent than making intelligent decisions based on scientific method. Since jmullaney’s religious peers, in general, are making decisions based on faith, they are less intelligent than non-believers. > > So, to tie this in with the OP: Non-believers are more intelligent than believers. Of course, there is some overlapping, so you will find some intelligent theists, and you will find some less intelligent atheists/agnostics. > > But, as a rule, non-believers are more intelligent. There are individual exceptions, but viewed as groups, non-believers are more intelligent. > > There - I said it. 🙂 \*\* I forget who said it… “Everyone is intelligent and everyone is ignorant, it just depends on the subject” or something to that affect. Intelligence, IMHO, has absolutely nothing to do with belief in God or what ‘facts’ you have accepted in your mind. Since we are all, from birth, exposed to differing information, including: parents, religion, books, television, radio, friends, schools, life experiences… a vast variety of input into our brains. Intelligence has only to do with to what degree one’s brain can take in, store, and process information. One’s ignorance, a completely different matter than intelligence or stupidity, has to do with one’s exposure to information. To assume that a farmer is stupid because they lack a higher education is indeed as much a fallacy as to assume that all Harvard graduates are the most intelligent people on the Earth by virtue of their degree. Generalization, in itself, has been proven lacking in the intelligence behind it’s reasoning. Reverting to atheism being a religious belief, Gaudere, I understand fully your statements above. I don’t really see the semantical difference as that significant, but perhaps it is the level of subjectivity that could lead to misinterpretation as you indicated. The argument still stands, that as there is no way that someone with Fantasy Beliefs could prove to me that there are Faeries, as someone who does not believe in Faeries, it would be equally impossible for me to prove their nonexistence. Same as the ghosts or the Earth revolving around the Sun. In any case, the believer would have to accept the proponent’s evidence on faith to prove that their claim is true. Example: People have published pictures of ghosts. These paranormal photographers believe strongly in ghosts and wish others to believe likewise, thus they introduce evidence to support their beliefs. People that believe in ghosts, believe the pictures further indicate that their belief is justified. People that do not believe in ghosts, believe the pictures are false or explicable by other means. Some people who did not believe in ghosts before, see the evidence as sufficient to alter their beliefs. The belief in ghosts, however, is not necessarily derived through evidence, but the evidence can affirm one’s relative belief in ghosts. I have a friend who is terrified that she will be kidnapped by aliens. I thought she was putting me on at one time, but later discovered that she was completely on the level. Now, she has never had any personal evidence as to the existence of alien life, but she firmly believes based on her level of required evidence that aliens exist. This has no impact on her intelligence. I don’t think that makes her less intelligent than me because I don’t believe the same thing. I could consider her gullible (sp), but an individual’s requirements for belief in something is not a reflection of their intelligence. Many intelligent people are afraid of spiders, snakes, dark basements, heights… It doesn’t lessen their intelligence because they believe something that another person does not. I could prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt that any spiders in my household will not harm my wife. She will still always be afraid of spiders. It does not affect her intelligence in any way, shape or form. I have a fear of mice, that doesn’t make me an idiot. I can hear the rush to the typewriters now… ‘so JAG, you admit that belief in God is irrational! AHA!’ Maybe, but, because to me, there is a fear of being bitten by a mouse as to my wife there is a fear of being bitten by a spider, there is a bit of rationality to the fear. I can’t prove it will ever happen, another person could prove in their mind that it never could happen, thus it seems irrational to anyone who doesn’t share my beliefs. It is, however, very real to me. I can prove that mice have teeth and that the capability exists for them to bite me. Another could argue the nature of mice is timid and they would run before they bit you. I could argue all day that they ‘could’ bite me while the opponent argued the same length of time, but they won’t. At the end of the day we part with differing views. I will presume for a moment that atheists such as VileOrb once believed in God as much as I do today. My ‘belief’ is that they were converted, much as a member of any religion might be converted to another religion. Either through their own studies or by outside influences, they came to believe that there is no God. The argument that it is irrational is a very real experience for those converted to atheism. However, the steps undergone, the influences to convert one person cannot continuously and without exception convert other individuals who had/have similar beliefs. It depends upon their level of faith in the conflicting evidence and their prospective level of necessary preponderance of evidence to inflict a change in beliefs. That is why atheism is a belief, not a provable or proven position. If you were to ask a dozen atheists who were all formerly believers in God what led them to their conclusion of atheism, I would wager you will get nearly twelve different answers. Just as if you asked a dozen Christians how they reached their belief in God, you would likely receive a variety of responses. If Vile Orb were to walk me, step by step through all the proponderance of evidence that led him to his conclusion that there is no God, the only way the evidence could convert me is if I am willing to accept his evidence as fact through believing in the source and I have to be willing to be converted. Without the former, all ‘evidence’ is for naught. Without the latter, all evidence can be rationalized into my beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2000, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/191 "2000-11-17T17:42:25Z")
Hmmm…it’s easy to concede to some theists that they might have arrived at their decision intelligntly. I believe, however, that you share the title “believer”, or theist, with the rest of the theists out there, who for the most part are a large group of people who follow based on blind faith. Tie this back to the OP. I will concede however that brilliant people can still be theists. I don’t know why the intelligent theists have such a problem with this. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2000, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/192 "2000-11-17T18:14:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > > I would expect you, Gaudere, or David to accept that **I believe** I had such an experience, not necessarily that I **did** have such an experience. That would depend on the degree to which you trust my ability to unbiasedly evaluate and report the experience, and I would not be offended by your judgment that what I concluded from it is far less than sufficient to convince you. > > I can accept that. I would also hope that you would be willing to have your experience be subjected to close examination. Absolutely. I’ve dealt with it in previous threads (as have RT Firefly and Libertarian, among others, and would not object to its being dealt with again, if you so choose. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Miracles, as I maintain by song and dance on a regular basis, are not uncommon > > Meaning that they ARE **common**? If everything is a miracle, then nothing would be miraculous. That is, miracles would be the standard and not the exception. I’m simply saying that, like the popular notion that “Einstein’s theory says that nothing can travel at light speed or faster,” the popular notion that a “miracle” is a violation of natural law is a misnomer. As used by the Gospel writers (particularly John), and as interpreted by Christians of all stripes today, the term means something like “God’s hand at work for the benefit of a human or humans; a sign of God’s power and providence.” So that, yes, you were IMHO the recipient of a miracle – perhaps owing to that other man’s prayers, the bus got you to the shelter before it closed, and you were housed for the night. Most miracles are these sorts of “miracles of convergence” – to borrow ghoti’s term – where completely natural things “coincidentally” fall into place to cause a good thing to happen. I hold that the “singularity” miracles, where natural law **appears** to be contravened, have at times happened. But I don’t insist on it in any particular circumstance, and would not be bothered by its never having happened. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > They are God acting to benefit the recipient in some way, spiritually, intellectually, emotionally, or materially, and are in general capable of being “explained away” by natural circumstance and coincidence. > > Occam’s razor, **Poly** : If God isn’t needed to explain the phenomena, why believe that He is responsible? Why add this unnecessary extra layer of complexity? {snippage of shelter account} Occam’s Razor is not a statement of **logical requirement** but of **probability**. If you walk down the street and see a dandelion growing in a lawn, Occam’s Razor says that a seed probably fell there and the plant grew from that. Least assumption, since we know that dandelion seeds do fall on lawns and dandelion plants do sprout from them. But there is nothing **proving** that an angel or a little green man from a flying saucer did not show up in the middle of the night and magick the dandelion plant into place (highly improbable) or that the householder is not a fancier of dandelions who intentionally transplanted the dandelion there (still improbable, but less so, since there are people who like dandelions as flowers, or make dandelion wine). There is an old conundrum called “The Spanish Barber” which is a bunch of fun. In a certain town in Spain, many of the men shave themselves. A barber lives in town. He shaves all the men who do not shave themselves. Now, who shaves him? By the terms of the conundrum, he shaves (only) those men who do not shave themselves. Since he therefore does not shave himself, and nobody else shaves him (since he shaves all the men who do not shave themselves), we are forced to conclude that nobody shaves him. Yet there he stands, beardless. Heinlein: Occam’s Razor is not sharp enough to shave the Spanish Barber. Suppose we have a subatomic particle. Let’s call it the lambda particle, since it has some queer properties. (:::Ducking bricks thrown by gay posters::: :D) It has no mass, no spin, no charge; in short, it does not interact with any other particle under any circumstances. It is totally undetectable. _You cannot prove that it exists, but equally you cannot prove that it does not exist._ God is perhaps not necessary to the phenomena one attributes to his work (although the case can be made that he created the natural laws of the universe, and preplanned events deterministically, therefore being necessary to the results as first cause). But Occam’s Razor does not thereby **disprove** God; it merely states probabilistically that he is an unnecessary add-in to the mix of causes required to show why that phenomenon happened. He may very well have “planted that dandelion.” > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I find it really hard to believe that some of the atheist posters to this thread (not JAB or Gaudere or Ptahlis) find it difficult to accept that a theist may have the intellectual honesty to consider and evaluate the evidence, and, having weighted it differently than would the atheist, to arrive at the conclusion that it does support a belief in God. > > Frankly, I DO find it difficult to accept. But with you, I’m willing to make an exception. Why? Because you don’t argue like a tape recorder, mindlessly repeating “God did it,” over and over as an explanation for everything. I’ve learned a lot from you and hope to learn more. Thank you. Sincerely. > [@](#): > > One last thing: I find your explanation that Jesus walked on water because He was able to greatly magnify the surface tension of the water’s surface more than difficult to swallow. Let’s not forget that it was storming at the time and increasing the water’s surface tension would have made it difficult for waves to form. And yet the verses (Matthew 14:22-33) state that there were waves. I’m also curious how the water would have lifted him up, assuming He was of normal weight for a man of His time, say, 140-175 pounds or so. (See how many things you have to explain? How does this satisfy that well-known Razor?) No problem. I simply advanced it as a **possible** “natural” explanation for an account of a phenomenon that would be classed as “miraculous.” I need to say several things here: (1) This is an account of one particular miracle ascribed to Jesus. I tentatively take it as a valid story, since I subscribe to the idea that the Gospels in general provide an accurate, if slanted story of Jesus’s doings. But it would not concern me overly to find out that this was a legend. (2) I don’t have a clue what actually happened. The point to the story was the ability to accomplish great things through faith – as shown by Jesus’s ability to walk on water and by Peter’s sporadic ability to do so as well, varying with his confidence in Jesus and his fear. That, not the razzle-dazzle of “Man of God Walks on Water” (hypothetical headline from Capernaum Daily Tattler the next day) was the reason that Matthew preserved and retold the story. (3) Insects are able to walk across water due to its surface tension holding them up against gravity all the time. Basilisk lizards can do it at speed for short periods of time. Weight is not a factor; it’s the **distribution** of weight over surface area. Gaudere can miraculously **float** on water when she chooses to swim (as someone who has only recently put on enough non-bone weight to be able to float, _I_ consider it miraculous! :)) For Jesus to be able to walk on water is simply his ability to cause the water to support, not his weight in a dead-man’s float or back float, but his weight concentrated on the soles of his feet. (4) It’s a story. That George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree and thus proved to children the value of virtuous truth-telling does not discount his documented abilities as a general and chief executive, nor does it furnish us grounds to ignore the advice he put into his Farewell Address. Jesus’s stroll on Galilee may have happened; I may even have an accurate causal mechanism for it. But it’s merely one story about him. And whether or not it happened does not refute the value and importance of what he taught. If it did happen, it’s one small link in a chain of evidence that helps to validate his claim to be one who knew the mind of God. I certainly don’t object to anyone rejecting this story as highly-improbable legendary anecdote, provided that they don’t throw out the truths that he espoused and taught along with it. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2000, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/193 "2000-11-17T19:16:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\*(BTW: one could argue that as abortion is legal, the people must go along with it or they would be disobeying God yet again. And people claim the Bible has no contradictions.) \*\* I think that’s a bad example. The Bible simply says “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (i.e what is rightfully his), and render unto God what is God’s”. It doesn’t say that one should obey Caesar – or the government – even if it means directly disobeying God. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2000, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/194 "2000-11-17T19:22:39Z")
> [@](#): > > There is an old conundrum called “The Spanish Barber” which is a bunch of fun. In a certain town in Spain, many of the men shave themselves. A barber lives in town. He shaves all the men who do not shave themselves. > > Now, who shaves him? By the terms of the conundrum, he shaves (only) those men who do not shave themselves. Since he therefore does not shave himself, and nobody else shaves him (since he shaves all the men who do not shave themselves), we are forced to conclude that nobody shaves him. Yet there he stands, beardless. > Heinlein: Occam’s Razor is not sharp enough to shave the Spanish Barber. Er, I think this is a paradox, so what would Occam’s razor have to do with it? When I apply Occam’s razor, I discover the most likely explanation is that someone has poor phrasing skills or deliberately created an impossible situation, like the “the other side of the card is false” and “the other side of the card is true” card. 🙂 Actually, “The Spanish Barber” only says he shaves all the men who do not shave themselves; it does not say that he _only_ shaves those who do not shave themselves. So he could shave one man who shaves himself: himself. Problem solved. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2000, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/195 "2000-11-17T20:02:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > > Any unobserved object is in an unknown state until such a time as it is observed. > > No, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know both the location AND the velocity of a _particle_ at the same time. It does NOT mean that a rock stops being a rock when there is no one looking at it. If this were true, it would mean the Earth was not the Earth until there were living things upon it to observe it. It would mean there were no stars until there were living things with sufficient eyesight to see them. Hmmm… Well, tell you what you do: die, and then if you still see the stars let me know. No hurry! There is more to QM than Heisenburg. Things do tend to conform to certain physical laws, but were you absolutely right, humans do not have free will. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. If they don’t, we are both just bags of chemicals under going various reactions. If humans do have free will, then quantum mechanics does have a role in the universe and somehow we as observers can influence the nature of reality. **Here’s [a link you should read](http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html)** But I’ve started a new thread on this. > [@](#): > > I wish I had a million dollars… I wish I had a million dollars… I wish I had a million dollars… But you don’t need a million dollars! > [@](#): > > Looks like I just pointed out that you cannot prove your claim on a message board. Too bad for you, but them is the breaks. Give this man the nobel prize! 😛 > [@](#): > > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and your word does not qualify. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. (And you don’t have a spoon.) > [@](#): > > That is EXACTLY what you must do: SHOW us. It must be demonstrated in front of witnesses and thoroughly documented. So, you are suggesting I get one volunteer to do the experiment and then find a dozen more volunteers willing to follow him/her around 24 hours a day for six weeks with a clip board to see what happens. I don’t think that would work because the nature of these observes would negate the quantum flux created by the prime observer. But just in case, which job are you volunteering for? > [@](#): > > But conducting the experiment puts the experimenters at great risk. Risk? What risk? > [@](#): > > Were you aware that Mach was wrong? We are as certain as can be that atoms DO exist. They have been photographed and individual atoms have been arranged into designed patterns. One lab arranged some atoms to form the letters IBM, for example. Atoms are NOT “intellectual fictions.” Yep, and it cost millions of dollars to prove to Mach that atoms do exist. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **the very function of a well-designed experiment is now to create phenomena that can illustrate the intelligible relationships that are the true concern of science and so deserve the status of scientifically authenticated facts.** > > This is my understanding of how and why experiments are conducted. No, you don’t seem to think concluding an intelligible relationship as evidenced by the data is valid. You say only the data itself might be valid, and might further more be an aberration. As a rationalist, I have no problem concluding the miracles I have witnessed evidences God. You say you could witness miracles all day and that still would not be evidence of God. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Philster \* > We’ll declare jmullaney intelligent. Okay…I’ll concede and recognize that he is intelligent because he is applying some respected principles to his decision making process. I don’t even care how accurately. I’ll assume he is right-on-the-money. **Here is a man with no duplicity.** Thanks Phil! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Asmodean \* > So let me just say jmanuallys wrong on his interpretation of the bible, [disingenuity on] Well, a billion Catholics can’t be wrong! [/disingenuity off] ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2000, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/196 "2000-11-17T20:13:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > **So that, yes, you were IMHO the recipient of a miracle – perhaps owing to that other man’s prayers, the bus got you to the shelter before it closed, and you were housed for the night.** Which begs the question: "What about all the OTHER people who uttered the same prayer (“Lord, please get me to the shelter on time!”) and who DIDN’T get in? Were they less deserving than an atheist? Why did God let me in and not them? (“To hear His message of love, of course!” is the standard response. Except I’ve heard it before and if God is as all-knowing as people claim, He should know that it ain’t gonna change my mind this time any more than it did the last time.) It also means that someone who MIGHT have converted didn’t get in because I had his bed! And why didn’t God make sure there were enough beds for all? [sidetrack]Frankly, events like this and the explanantions for them and for most of Genesis make me really skeptical of the claim that God has a plan for us. (And if He has a plan for us, why do we have free will? _Ad infinitum._) Reading Genesis, I get the feeling that God had no plan, that He was just making it up as he went along! "I’ll make people to worship me. I’ll plant a tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Why _was_ that tree in the Garden anyway?) in the Garden, but I don’t want them to eat of it, so I’ll just tell them not to. They’ll obey me 'cause I’m the Lord. "Oh, dear. Guess I’ll have to throw 'em out. I didn’t anticipate they’d be so strong-willed. Well, their descendents will be good people, I’m sure. "Oh, dear. Guess I’ll have to drown them all. I didn’t anticipate that they’d turn out so evil. And they’re ALL evil, aren’t they? "Wait a second, here’s this man Noah. He’s actually a pretty decent fellow. How did I miss him? Oh, well. I can’t change my plan to drown the world and start over, so I’ll have him build a boat. I could make a boat for him and all, but I want to see if he’s good enough to do it himself. And so on and so on and so on…[/sidetrack] The Spanish Barber is shaved by a woman. (Simplest explanation that fits all the facts. Unless you were describing an all-male community.) > [@](#): > > **it would not concern me overly to find out that this was a legend.** I’m surprised you would say this. > [@](#): > > **(2)The point to the story was the ability to accomplish great things through faith – as shown by Jesus’s ability to walk on water and by Peter’s sporadic ability to do so as well, varying with his confidence in Jesus and his fear.** Agreed. > [@](#): > > **(3)For Jesus to be able to walk on water is simply his ability to cause the water to support, not his weight in a dead-man’s float or back float, but his weight concentrated on the soles of his feet.** And as I pointed out, if He accomplished it by increasing the stregth of the surface tension of the water, waves would not form in this suddenly “hard” water. Of course, Jesus could have made Himself lighter by manipulating gravity, but there are a host of side-effects here, as well. > [@](#): > > **And whether or not it happened does not refute the value and importance of what he taught.** I agree with that. Unlike so many others, I do not see why it is necessary to believe that Jesus was God in the flesh before I may agree with what He said, so far as what is right and what is wrong. Going by that standard, I’d have to believe that **David B** , for example, was God in the flesh before I could agree with him that evolution is true. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2000, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/197 "2000-11-17T20:24:30Z")
I have something to say to **jmullaney** ’s most recent post, but it will have to be tomorrow. Toodles. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2000, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/198 "2000-11-18T00:56:26Z")
I just [can’t leave this thread alone](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PROV+26:11&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on)… I’ve expressed some confusion in the course of this thread about whether jmullaney’s “experiment” involves _permanently_ forsaking all those whom you love, or merely taking some sort of “vacation”. I do not believe it is ethical to forsake your friends and family for all time in order to “find yourself” (or even to “find God”). When I made this objection jmullaney replied “You can’t leave your friends and family for six weeks? Exactly, what is the time limit of not being with these people does an unethical situation occur? Can you go to work for 8 hours? A two week vacation? A month sabattical? Is six weeks just over the limit or what?” As I said, jmullaney now has me thoroughly confused as to whether he is talking about _permanently_ abandoning one’s life or not. He has said that “The pararmeters of the experiment are rather clear”–but when I go back and look at the parameters of the “experiment”, as posted in this thread, I find this: > [@](#): > > Step 1: Go sell all that you have > Step 2: Give away all of your money to the poor > Step 3: Leave you friends and family > Step 4: Without negating Steps one and two in the process (beyond reason), wander off > doing whatever you feel moved to do. > Step 5: Allow six **(or more)** weeks for observation as to whether or not there is a God or not. > _[**Emphasis** added – MEB]_ I’m 30 years old. Assuming I live to a reasonably normal life-span, I should have in excess of 2,000 weeks of my life left. Two (or, who knows, even three thousand) is certainly more than six. If in fact I wind up spending the rest of my life on this quest to find God before I get an answer, I would still be within the parameters of Step 5 there, wouldn’t I? ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2000, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/199 "2000-11-18T02:51:53Z")
The problem with that experiment is where jmanually is wrong:) Exchange step 4 with “follow jesus and obey his teachings” and then IMHO your right. Doing whatever you feel moved to do is not religious. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2000, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/200 "2000-11-18T16:20:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > **Hmmm… Well, tell you what you do: die, and then if you still see the stars let me know.** This is the most absurd thing I’ve read since **Jack Dean Tyler** ’s last post. _Of course I will stop seeing the stars after I’m dead!!!_ What YOU have been implying is that they will _cease to exist_ the moment I’m dead! Which is absurd! How do I know this? Because other people have died _and the stars are still there!_ Why should my death be any different? > [@](#): > > \*\*but were you absolutely right, humans do not have free will. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. > > If they don’t, we are both just bags of chemicals under going various reactions.\*\* What if we are? Why would this be too difficult for you to accept? And why should a “bag of chemicals” not have free will if the “bag of chemicals” is complex enough? Why is it not possible for a “bag of chemicals” to be that complex? Why does one exclude the other? > [@](#): > > **If humans do have free will, then quantum mechanics does have a role in the universe and somehow we as observers can influence the nature of reality.** And the absurdities just keep on comin’! > [@](#): > > **But you don’t need a million dollars!** Says you. 😛 > [@](#): > > **But just in case, which job are you volunteering for?** Observer. You would be conducting the experiment. Since you have successfully conducted the experiment in the past, you should not be adverse to doing it again. Unless you are admitting that there IS great risk involved? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But conducting the experiment puts the experimenters at great risk. > > **Risk? What risk?** Others have pointed this out, but I guess I have to do it all again: The risk of losing all your money and never getting it back. The risk of losing all your family and friends for the rest of your life, of being alone until you are dead. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > One lab arranged some atoms to form the letters IBM, for example. Atoms are NOT “intellectual fictions.” > > **Yep, and it cost millions of dollars to prove to Mach that atoms do exist.** Your point? (I think I know what it is, but I want to see you state it.) > [@](#): > > **You say you could witness miracles all day and that still would not be evidence of God.** That would make me closed-minded and I am NOT closed-minded. Besides, I disagree with you and **Polycarp** on what would constitute a miracle. I say that a miracle is some event that cannot be explained except as the result of Divine Intervention. I don’t believe that such an event has happened yet; a mystery that cannot be explained because we lack sufficient information does not make that mystery a miracle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059.md?page=11)