# 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:** 11
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2000, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/201 "2000-11-18T19:35:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > 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? Ok, Ok – I thought you were just being [quarrelsome](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PROV+26:20-21&language=english&version=RSV&showfn=on) – but now I get your point. I suppose the important thing is not to look at this as if it were a prison sentence and be counting the seconds. You probably would be wise to go into it as if it were a serious commitment just in case you end up liking it. So I guess the answer is: don’t wear a watch, in either the physical or spiritual sense. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Asmodean \* > 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. You forgot step zero was for the subject to be a basically good person to begin with. They might want to run down [Matthew 5-7](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+5-7&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on) (a.k.a. the Sermon on the Mount) to get a rough idea of how I’m using that word. But remember also: I know there is a God, I know there is a Holy Spirit. And so I think basically good people can wing it and if they do keep Jesus’s commandments, then they will recieve the spirit and the spirit will teach them all things, as explained in [John 14-16](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN+14-16&language=english&version=RSV&showfn=on) a.k.a. the Sermon of the Last Supper. You take those and Jesus’s Sermon to the Mulitudes ([Luke 12,13:1-9](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+12;LUKE+13:1-9;&language=english&version=RSV)) and you’ve got the 7 1/2 chapters of the Bible that even the most ardent Free Spirit would weep over their loss – but the Spirit is eternal never-the-less. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2000, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/202 "2000-11-18T20:48:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > if He has a plan for us, why do we have free will? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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? 😕 Um, first you argue to Poly people have free will, then you argue to me that they don’t! Did you think I wouldn’t notice? > [@](#): > > 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? There is nothing inherent to complex systems that make them free, but you may wish to join the debate on [this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=46958) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > _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! Well, as you have never died, there is no way for you to know this for sure! 😛 Here is the [section](http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_40.html#4.0) from that link I wanted you to read: > [@](#): > > To put this another way, Schrödinger’s question is: When can a quantum event be considered finished? Is it when the gamma ray leaves the radioactive nucleus? Is it when it interacts with the Geiger counter? > When the flask is smashed? When the cat dies? When the observer looks in the box? When he tells a colleague what he observed? When he publishes his observations in the Physical Review? When … ? A > billiard shot is over when the billiard balls stop colliding and come to rest. But the atomic “billiard balls” of a quantum billiard shot continue to collide forever, never coming to rest so that the shot can be > considered finished. > > The source of confusion here is that the wrong question is being asked. The CI [Copenhagen Interpretation] has lead us to ask when the SV [state vector] collapses instead of how it collapses. But there is not a “when”, not a point in time at which the > quantum event is finished. The event is finished when the transaction forms, which happens along a set of world lines which include all of the event listed above, treating none of them as the special conclusion > of the event. If there is one particular link in this event chain which is special, it is not the one which ends the chain. It is the link at the beginning of the chain when the emitter, having received various CW’s > from its OW, reinforces one of them in such a way that it brings that particular CW into reality as a completed transaction. The atemporal transaction does not have a “when” at the end. To make a long story short, the universe is in a higer state of flux than you think it is, IMHO. But as R. P. Feynman said: > [@](#): > > There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. … On the other hand, I think it is safe to > say that no one understands quantum mechanics. … Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, `But how can it be like that?', because you will get `down the drain’ into a blind > alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. So maybe we should take his advice and not continue down this alley if we can help it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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’! On that other thread several people brought up QM as relating to Free Will before I even broached the subject. If this is absurd, I am in good company. > [@](#): > > 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. I see your point. But that would be a little like lab testing the using same rat over and over. Maybe I am unique? I’m not entirely adverse to the idea, but someone would have to twist my arm. > [@](#): > > 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. You can always make new friends. If things get too rough, quit. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > 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.) To wit: if you want to make an omlet, you must break a few eggs. Extraordinary proof requires extraordinary experimentation. > [@](#): > > 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. Everything has an explanation. I have postualted the most simple, stripped down explanation I have, language limitations being what they are when it comes to describing the ineffable. I find Poly’s attempts to explain the breaking of physical laws in terms of the laws themselves also hard to swallow, but my explanation does take us down Feynman’s alley and we don’t want to do that either. Thanks, by the way, for bearing with me long after many others have put up a caveman-lawyer defence (ala Phil Hartman’s old skit on SNL) “jmullaney’s words and sentences, they frighten and confuse me – I’m just a caveman, etc.” ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/203 "2000-11-20T17:29:39Z")
I will pull a brand new definition out of my… 😃 What is throwing everybody for a loop appears to be my insistence on using the term miracle as John et al. used it. Let’s back off and start in with the question again. First, an assertion: _An absolute monarch cannot break the law._ Why? Because he and he alone is the source of the law; it is what he says it is. Admittedly he might proclaim a law and then, making clear that he was not in fact creating a new law or an exception, break it, but this would be by an abnegation of his absolute legislative power. What the laws are, is what he says they are. Now, by a precise analogy, if one assumes a creator God who is responsible for the parameters of the universe, He may not break physical laws. Not because He is not possessed of enough supernatural power to; because they are what they are because He designed them that way. It was by His choice that atoms are composed of electrons surrounding protons and neutrons weighing 1,837 times as much, and the electromagnetic force is 137 times the weak force. (Or whatever the ratios are; I’m working from memory.) So the idea of “miracle” as a violation of natural physical law is itself a contradiction in terms. However, while some alleged miracles are misreports or interpretations of purely mundane events, legends that never occurred, and so on – and any good Christian would be quite willing to subscribe to this, so long as you don’t pin him down on which and when – I think it quite plausible that at least some reported miracles are none of the above, but singularities in natural law – not violations of it but phase-change events that a full knowledge of natural law would account for, in the same sense as Helium II “defies common sense” in its superfluid properties but fits with a full knowledge of cryogenic physics. I do not, in consequence, insist that any particular Biblical event **must** have happened precisely as reported or **must** be a “miracle” in some mystical, supernatural sense. Every miracle reported in John’s Gospel is described as a “sign” – not a “miracle” (someone with access to the Greek can give us the technical usages). They were demonstrations that Jesus was proclaiming the will and mind of God and spoke with His authority, by their exercise of His power. And this holds true whether He multiplied seven loaves and two fishes into a feast for 5,000 men (plus women and children) or transformed people’s hearts into the generosity that would enable them to share their hoarded-away food to that extent. Most of the most significant miracles take place within the human heart. The flashy stuff is just for show. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/204 "2000-11-20T17:35:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > **😕 Um, first you argue to Poly people have free will, then you argue to me that they don’t! Did you think I wouldn’t notice?** No, I meant, “What if we are just bags of chemicals _with free will_?” Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > _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! > [@](#): > > **Well, as you have never died, there is no way for you to know this for sure! 😛** True, but I can reason out the most likely scenario, and that is: My death will have absolutely no effect whatso-freaking-ever on the fate of any star, anywhere in the universe, known or unknown, including that star most likely to be affected, due to its proximity, the Sun. > [@](#): > > **Here is the [section](http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_40.html#4.0) from that link I wanted you to read:** I read it. I wanted to refer to it, but I ran out of time. Ad I still don’t have the time to adequately discuss this. > [@](#): > > **So maybe we should take his advice and not continue down this alley if we can help it.** That’s either the lazy way out or the coward’s way out. We should NEVER shy away from understanding the universe, no matter the implications. > [@](#): > > \*\*“jmullaney’s words and sentences, they frighten and confuse me – I’m just a caveman, etc.” \*\* You have a pretty high opinion of yourself, don’t you? And a correspondingly low opinion of us as well? We’re Neanderthals and you are the only _homo sapiens_ in the room, huh? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/205 "2000-11-20T18:31:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > I meant, “What if we are just bags of chemicals _with free will_?” Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. How can a chemical reaction have free will? I have no idea, but you know where the thread is on this. And it would seem to accord with QM that in the absence of an observer (whether dead or looking the other way) reality does flux. A rock does in fact cease being 100% guaranteed to be a rock if no one is observing it. For example, neutrons always have a slight chance of decay. So, there is an even smaller chance that all the neutrons in the rock decayed, so when you go to look for the rock it won’t be there anymore. The chance might be one in a gazillion, but the chance is always there. > [@](#): > > That’s either the lazy way out or the coward’s way out. We should NEVER shy away from understanding the universe, no matter the implications. Yeah, but if it comes down to us endlessly debating an understanding of QM which Feynman says no one posesses it is a rather pointless exercise. > [@](#): > > You have a pretty high opinion of yourself, don’t you? And a correspondingly low opinion of us as well? We’re Neanderthals and you are the only _homo sapiens_ in the room, huh? Apparently, you have never seen the unfrozen caveman lawyer sketches. The point of the bit was not that the caveman lawyer was actually stupid, but that his defense of his client to the jury was that his poor client only had a supposedly stupid caveman as a lawyer. Which was actually a brilliant, if completely disingenuous, defense (assuming the jury was stupid). (Cirroc the caveman drives a Mercedes and uses a cell phone which shows he is perfectly able to cope in society, but tells the jury he is confused by his cell phone and thinks the voices inside must be demons or something.) I suppose it could be complete vanity on my part to think I’m not just a babbling fool, but I find comments like this: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Triskadecamus \* > 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. and this: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by VileOrb \* > Well, that confirms it jmullaney. I can’t understand you and you , no matter that you think you do, can not understand me. I will, from here on, ignore you. to be the equivalent of the caveman lawyer defense, especially since others don’t seem to have this problem. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/206 "2000-11-20T20:18:15Z")
Someone’s “lost it”. Maybe I’ve friggin’ lost it… Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. Great skit. I guess anything is possible when you can somehow tie-in the legal defense applied by Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer to an SDMB thread debating intelligence and religion. You know, I love the little attempts to “prove God”. But geeze, something tells me that if God was “real”, and wanted to be “known”, then there wouldn’t be any question about it. So, if there is a God, he must be trying really hard to hind any evidence of his “existence”. You know what, I give the frig up. I’m resorting to faith. That’s right…damn the facts…I have faith that there is no God. And I’m sick and freakin’ tired of hearing about miracles. Ya know, the extreme odds of something happening don’t help determine whether something is a miracle or not. Plus, if you want to somehow bestow credit upon your friggin’ savior’s head for some “good” miracle that happened, then you must credit your savior with all the “bad” miracles, like severely deformed children. I love how some people feel the power of god after seeing a miracle (miracles are conveniently all those long shots that have postive results for people, never mind the long shots that have negative results). I see the “power of God”: I see a bunch of things going on, from starvation, to pain and suffering, to miraculous cures from diseases, and all I notice is that God gets a point for any “good”, and he gets credit with “strengthening us” with any horrible afflictions: “Oh, excuse me young man, that arm growing out of your leg, and being born without a face are God’s way of strenghtening you, and happen for a reason”. Oooh…score God a point. He’s so brilliant to concot such a way of strengthening people. Several weeks go by, same boy is seen: “Ooh, young man, you have a face, and you don’t have an arm growing out of your leg…It’s a fuckin’ miracle…thank God!!!” “What’s this in the news? Planes collide, 250 killed, 50 severely burned.” That God, he pulled another miracle out of his hat, because the odds of that happening are 1 in 795 million. Gotta give him credit for so aptly testing and strengthening the people affected by that crash." You know what? Atheists don’t get enough friggin’ credit. We don’t believe in God. Shit happens, we don’t blame god, but for cripes sake, we don’t credit him either. And it makes fuckin’ sense. Show some respect, faith boy. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/207 "2000-11-20T21:41:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Philster \* > I guess anything is possible when you can somehow tie-in the legal defense applied by Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer to an SDMB thread debating intelligence and religion. LOL! > [@](#): > > if there is a God, he must be trying really hard to hind any evidence of his “existence”. It seems to me people hide themselves from God, not the other way around. > [@](#): > > I have faith that there is no God. > > And I’m sick and freakin’ tired of hearing about miracles. Ya know, the extreme odds of something happening don’t help determine whether something is a miracle or not. > > Plus, if you want to somehow bestow credit upon your friggin’ savior’s head for some “good” miracle that happened, then you must credit your savior with all the “bad” miracles, like severely deformed children. > … > Shit happens, we don’t blame god, but for cripes sake, we don’t credit him either. And it makes fuckin’ sense. This world is fleeting. From the Sermon to the Multitudes I linked to above: > [@](#): > > 1 There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their > sacrifices. > 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? > 3 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. > 4 Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo’am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? > 5 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” > 6 And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. > 7 And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Lo, these three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down; why should it use up the ground?’ > 8 And he answered him, ‘Let it alone, sir, this year also, till I dig about it and put on manure. > 9 And if it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’” Sure, we all suffer and die, but the Christians believe people do not have to perish. There is no way to prove Jesus was right about that, but as he was right about so many other things… … I really ought to repent one of these days. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/208 "2000-11-21T13:55:45Z")
I’m kissing this thread goodbye. Remember the rule: Religion and belief in God require faith - not reasoning, not intelligence, not any real brain power what so ever. The doubt and hesitation that pseudo-intelligent believers have must be a very crushing weight to carry around, because although faith is the very foundation of your beliefs…let me repeat that: FAITH IS THE VERY FOUNDATION OF YOUR BELIEFS…where was I? Oh…ok…Faith is the very foundation of your beliefs, yet people like jmullaney continue to jump ship and enter in discussions about how believing in God is an intelligent decision. Now, I smell a little paradigm, because if there was a God, he’d be laughing his ass off at anyone who practiced their religion based on reasoning, empiracal evidence and scientific study. “God” fails every intelligent test there is. I suggest religious folks not jump ship and not feel compelled to reason and rationalize the existence of God. It’s a joke - don’t you see it? Don’t you see how stupid you look when you operate on faith and yet you try to prove God’s existence? Can you even comprehend how much of a freakin’ joke you look like? I can respect any religious person who can acknowledge that their belief system is based on faith, and not on evidence, or reasoning, or intelligence. And religious people should respect the atheists, or agnostics, who approach religion intelligently, and based on intelligent thought have concluded that there is no God to “believe” in. Faith - it’s all you have, so hold it tightly if you proclaim to be such a believer. And, if the son of God were here, I’d be first in line to meet him, because I would like to bitchslap him. And should I be expecting the daughter of God anytime soon? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/209 "2000-11-21T15:06:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > **It seems to me people hide themselves from God, not the other way around.** It should not be possible to hide oneself from an omnipotent and omniscient entity. > [@](#): > > **the Christians believe people do not have to perish.** And that is your biggest flaw. The temptation of eternal life is so great, you’re all willing to believe any fool thing you read in the Bible lest you lose that wondrous “gift,” that fantasy which is so much more beautiful than ugly reality. You’ll twist and distort and contort scientific theory to try to prove (to yourselves) that it’s all true, it MUST be true because you wanna live forever and you refuse to accept the very real truth that one day, you will be dead and you ain’t comin’ back, you ain’t goin’ anywhere, you are gone forever and ever and ever. > [@](#): > > **as he was right about so many other things…** I don’t think he was right about very much at all. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/210 "2000-11-21T17:29:55Z")
(Though there are those who think he lip-synched it ;)) You know, Philster and JAB, I’m a bit mystified as to what exactly non-religious people mean when they use the word “faith.” It seems to signify a bit of intellectual contortionism, where someone’s irrational emotional need for some certainty in the universe leads them to turn off any intellectual capacity and twig out on the most improbable philosophical tangents. I have three uses for the word: First, and primarily, it means assured trust – having **encountered** (albeit subjectively and a bit mystically) an entity who gives every impression of being the God Who created all and sent Jesus, etc., I’ve put my trust in Him. I’m perfectly well aware that my own acceptance of this encounter, identity, and trustworthiness is _not transferrable_ – that there is no reason why anybody else on the planet ought to be convinced on the basis of what happened to **me**. Secondly, it’s the belief that I have in Him as a _result_ of that trust. To me the distinction here is a bit subtle. And third, it’s the dogmatic system that explains a bit about Who He is, to which I subscribe for the most part. If you choose to suggest I have deep-seated psychological needs that are fulfilled by having such a belief structure, I won’t differ with you. Where we may differ is in **why** the needs and the belief come together – according to my modulus, God created man with such needs **because** they would be fulfilled by the belief in Him that He wills man to have. Obviously, the atheist would believe that the belief structure is a (probably subconsciously) invented fulfillment of the need complex. But certainly one’s intellectual capacity **need** not be impaired by such a belief structure. Those that insist on straining at _Marrella_ and swallowing Behemoths have only themselves to blame; God is endlessly inventive and has new surprises throughout His creation for those who enjoy discovering them or learning about them. But of course, “as a believer I must be wearing blinders and not pay attention to such stuff.” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/211 "2000-11-21T17:35:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Philster \* > Faith is the very foundation of your beliefs, yet people like jmullaney continue to jump ship and enter in discussions about how believing in God is an intelligent decision. You are right, but my knowledge that God exists in no more a matter of faith than the belief in gravity. I will gladly summarize my case at this point. 1. I have faith that reality is real. Because the universe is subjective, there is no way for me to prove I’m not merely in the Matrix, but I have faith in the simplest answer. It may be wrong. 1. Apparently, people have free will. I have faith that they do. Or at least, I have free will. There is no way to know for certain others are not merely automatons, although science labels such a belief as psychotic. OTOH, I may only be an ongoing chemical reaction with delusions of granduer. If so, all bets are off. **Those are axiomatic**. 1. If reality is real, certain physical laws must apply everywhere. 2. Physical laws can not explain how a chemical reation has free will. 3. There must be some law beyond known, codified physical laws, which acts in living beings that allows them free will. To describe this fact I say that people are, at their core, “souls.” It is a primative word, and there is no reason I should have to resurrect it here excepting it is apt. The word is used to describe some existance within living beings which allow them to act beyond the mundane physical laws. **The rest is theory** 1. Under certain conditions, the power of this soul apparently can be magnified in such a way that those physical laws break down not just for the chemical reactions in one’s head, but to alter the nature of those physical laws beyond one’s head. I have existed under such conditions and witnessed others existing so also and have seen that this is apparently the case. I am still seeking more data. 2. From the empirical evidence which can be gathered under those conditions, some rational conclusions may be reached. I conclude that there is apparently some larger spiritual being existant which can be tapped into under those conditions. I only say “being” because it is something which seemingly has the properties of being that same way the soul gives the property of being to human beings. I call this being “God.” Again, I’m using an old word when making up a new one would do just as well, and perhaps have less baggage attached to it. Philster continues: > [@](#): > > Don’t you see how stupid you look when you operate on faith and yet you try to prove God’s existence? No. I am starting with axioms most reasonable people would agree with, making a few logical conclusions, and postulating a theory based on those conclusions. > [@](#): > > Can you even comprehend how much of a freakin’ joke you look like? Sadly, no. All things being relative, there could be something wrong with your eyes. > [@](#): > > religious people should respect the atheists, or agnostics, who approach religion intelligently, and based on intelligent thought have concluded that there is no God to “believe” in. I do, but if they are merely starting with different axioms then their approach is not any more intelligent. > [@](#): > > should I be expecting the daughter of God anytime soon? You mean Marguerite Porete? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > > It seems to me people hide themselves from God, not the other way around. > > It should not be possible to hide oneself from an omnipotent and omniscient entity. Very well reasoned. OK, what can we conclude then? Either there is not a God, or there is a God and you are mistaken about his nature. > [@](#): > > that is [Christianity’s] biggest flaw. The temptation of eternal life is so great, [Christians are] all willing to believe any fool thing [they] read in the Bible lest [they] lose that wondrous “gift,” that fantasy which is so much more beautiful than ugly reality. [They]‘ll twist and distort and contort scientific theory to try to prove (to [them]selves) that it’s all true, it MUST be true because [they] wanna live forever and [they] refuse to accept the very real truth that one day, [we] will be dead and [we] ain’t comin’ back, [we] ain’t goin’ anywhere, [we] are gone forever and ever and ever. I agree with you whole-heartedly. It is completely possible that the soul perishes with the body. A Christian would argue that people should live a holy life because it is the only way to truly live in the world. But, they would all maintain that the soul does not perish with the body. There is no way to know either way since the soul, (if man has free will and hence a soul), operates beyond the physical realm already. Such a belief is not entirely unreasonable, but the few true Christians I have known think living a holy life is it’s own reward. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/212 "2000-11-21T19:29:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > **You know, Philster and JAB, I’m a bit mystified as to what exactly non-religious people mean when they use the word "faith."** Trust. But I trust only those things and people whom I know for sure exist. And those things and people must have some kind of physical, non-mystical evidence for their existence. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow because I know that the only thing that could prevent it is a catastrophe of Biblical proportions, for lack of a better term, and the chances of something like that happening are vanishingly remote. (Collision with a really big asteroid, for example. Possible, but unlikely. And I don’t mean the Earth would stop rotating; I mean the planet would be blasted into pieces. And they would rotate!) Anyway, I am not convinced God exists, therefore I have no faith He’s gonna save me from the Fiery Pits o’ Hell and I don’t believe the Fiery Pits exist besides! I also have faith that you will write intelligent, thought-provoking posts. I also have faith that **jmullaney** will continue to mis-interpret Quantum Mechanics. > [@](#): > > having **encountered** (albeit subjectively and a bit mystically) an entity who gives every impression of being the God Who created all and sent Jesus, etc., I’ve put my trust in Him. How do you know it wasn’t the Devil pretending to be God? If he’s the Prince of Lies, it seems to me he could pretend to be God and do a convincing job of it. Hell, he wouldn’t even have to do it perfectly, you being an imperfect creature and all. He’d just have to do it well enough. Or maybe it was Zeus. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/213 "2000-11-21T19:54:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > **my knowledge that God exists in no more a matter of faith than the belief in gravity.** My life will continue whether I believe there is a God or not. However, if I should stop believing there is gravity… > [@](#): > > **Because the universe is subjective** No, the universe is objective. It’s your perception of it that is subjective. Big difference. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > > It should not be possible to hide oneself from an omnipotent and omniscient entity. > > **Very well reasoned. OK, what can we conclude then? Either there is not a God, or there is a God and you are mistaken about his nature.** Then the Bible is also mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/214 "2000-11-21T20:02:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > I also have faith that **jmullaney** will continue to mis-interpret Quantum Mechanics. I’ll admit what I know about QM comes only from my father who has a PhD in Physics (and another one in astronomy), every book I’ve ever read in his extensive library on the subject, every other book I’ve read on the subject, and the web link I provided you. I know that doesn’t make me an expert, but I have no idea where you get your knowledge which supposedly contradicts my own. > [@](#): > > How do you know it wasn’t the Devil pretending to be God? If he’s the Prince of Lies, it seems to me he could pretend to be God and do a convincing job of it. Well, Poly probably believes each individual should be able to interpret the Bible however they like. I can tell you whose advantage this serves. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/215 "2000-11-21T20:17:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > My life will continue whether I believe there is a God or not. Your point? > [@](#): > > No, the universe is objective. It’s your perception of it that is subjective. Big difference. Then you at least agree that reality is real, though there is no way to prove it. An act of faith on your part, no? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Either there is not a God, or there is a God and you are mistaken about his nature. > > Then the Bible is also mistaken. Well, I am unaware that this ancient document makes any such claims about God being omni-anything outside of an interpretive reading of few poems (psalms) written about 3000 years ago. I don’t know what bearing that has on the discussion at hand. This lengthy document does make it clear with in the first few chapters that it is possible to hide from God. As a document that was composed by many authors writing to an audience various primitive people, re-written by myriad editors, and canonized by various editoral comittees over a 3000 year period, I’m sure there are various erroneous understandings of the universe described in its passages. It is just a book. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/216 "2000-11-21T20:48:07Z")
**JAB** said: > [@](#): > > How do you know it wasn’t the Devil pretending to be God? If he’s the Prince of Lies, it seems to me he could pretend to be God and do a convincing job of it. Hell, he wouldn’t even have to do it perfectly, you being an imperfect creature and all. He’d just have to do it well enough. Hmmm. Flip answer first: I know **Satan** personally, and he doesn’t perpetrate that kind of Divine Weasel stuff. More seriously, to quote Voltaire: > [@](#): > > If the Devil became God, he would be forced to assume the attributes of divinity. There seems to be a standard of right and wrong in the universe. Any three-year-old can inform you, “That’s not fair” (and probably will). **Philster** raised what’s technically known as The Problem of Evil before he decamped: why in a universe with a putatively omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God do bad things happen? And, not having the self-assurance to unscrew the inscrutable with any degree of certitude, I have to answer with a very profound “I dunno.” I _suspect_ it has much to do with the maturation process of humanity individually and as a race, towards a goal that God only hints at in the Gospels and Epistles. (See Teilhard de Chardin for more on this; cloaked in his mystical noosphere and cosmic consciousness are some very interesting and quite Earthy concepts.) Or possibly Heinlein called it right forty years ago. I simply know that I was confronted with a sense of immense, illimitable power and wisdom that showed every evidence of expression of compassionate love for me. And the destiny to which this entity called me is one that has done wonders for my own self-concept, and guides me to an attitude towards my fellow man that seems to be most acceptable to atheist and theist alike. If I’m wrong in my perceptions, I **don’t want to know** : I like who He called me to become, and would keep doing it if you were able to prove to me that I manufactured that entity out of whole cloth. (On the other hand, you’d have some major questions about psychic powers to resolve, given the highly favorable and humanly unpredictable consequences I have encountered from following His guidance – if I’m inventing Him myself, then I have wonderful precognitive talents that I would dearly like to have control of.) \*\*Joel Mullaney commented: > [@](#): > > Well, Poly probably believes each individual should be able to interpret the Bible however they like. I can tell you whose advantage this serves. Hmmm, I suspect that you don’t mean Brian but his namesake. However, in most cases it benefits the thinking individual who reads the Book, instead of having the “right” interpretation spoonfed to him by a religion politician. You were saying? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/217 "2000-11-21T21:03:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > in most cases it benefits the thinking individual who reads the Book, instead of having the “right” interpretation spoonfed to him by a religion politician. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Scribes complaining about pharisees. Nothing new under the sun. The kingdom could use a good peacemaker though. I only pick on you cause I care! ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/218 "2000-11-21T21:55:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*(On the other hand, you’d have some major questions about psychic powers to resolve, given the highly favorable and humanly unpredictable consequences I have encountered from following His guidance – if I’m inventing Him myself, then I have wonderful precognitive talents that I would dearly like to have control of.) > \*\* Color me intrigued Poly. Care to elaborate on this? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2000, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/219 "2000-11-22T15:23:46Z")
Yeah, I’m intrigued too, **Poly**. I hesitate to do this, but, in the interests of fairness, I think we have to hold you to the same standards as we do **Jack Dean Tyler** : If you make a claim, you must be prepared to back it up with some kind of evidence. You’re simply going to have to describe, in detail, these experiences that have led you believe either there is a God or that you have precognition. And the reason I hesitate is because I realize this may be too personal a revelation. It’s up to you. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2000, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/220 "2000-11-22T17:33:04Z")
Ptahlis and JAB…I’ve been holding off on answering Ptahlis’s question on this, but not for the reason you think. First, to tell the story in anything like sensible fashion, it’d be far too long a post. Second, one important part of it “washes the dirty laundry” of someone else, and I don’t feel right about posting that. Secondarily, a lot of it is quite simply subjective, and I’m going to need to convey the _feeling_ involved. There was no “And then the angel touched Grandma, and the cancer went away” sort of miracle involved, just mundane events that led inexorably to gratifying results, though nobody involved could have known it at the time. In brief, though, here’s the story: At age 15, attending church as socially appropriate but having doubts about what I’ve been taught as a kid, I pray the “Glitch prayer” – If You’re really there, give me some sort of assurance. And during the hymn that follows this prayer, which was “Nearer My God to Thee” as it happens, that’s precisely what happens. The simplest way to describe it is with a line Larry Niven used about thoughts placed into the narrator’s mind by a telepathic alien: “I never sensed _receiving_ any such thoughts. But there was in my mind a crystal certainty that had not been there before.” Move onward to 1982. Intellectual knowledge of God and the Christian faith, but no sense of its being meaningful in my life. Attend a theological course by extension, taught at my church by a priest/college professor using a curriculum from a church-affiliated university seminary. In the course of this, in an ironically silly way, events happen that bring a sense of God’s _presence_ to me. And activate a drive within me to commit to Him. I described the feeling above, and cannot explain it any better than that, though I’d be glad to resolve any questions about it – bearing in mind that there may be no good answers to the questions. In 1989, I was working for a state agency, more or less enjoying my job but with effectively no life outside it. My wife and I were not estranged, but had no emotional involvement with each other’s lives – we just shared a home and kept our feelings hidden away. I had very little self-confidence, a very negative self-image, an online presence (on the AOL predecessor PC-Link) that functioned _in place of_ a social life, no close friends and a fear of making any – that they would end up not liking me. We were childless, extremely likely to stay that way. I’d lost my parents and both aunts in the preceding decade, and had no real hopes or dreams left. A neighbor kid showed up on the average of every couple of weeks to do what chores we wanted him to do: mow the lawn, rake the leaves, shovel the walk, and so on. He was a fairly personable teenager, and we both enjoyed his company. On occasion, he’d come to play games on my home computer. On one such occasion, he brought his same-age cousin and best friend, who thereafter fell into the same roles – occasional visitor for odd jobs and casual friendship. In retrospect, that we were adults who treated them as people, not “specimens of the species teenager” probably had a lot to do with the relationship that evolved. Flash forward. I have a heart attack, and the cousin discovers me, alerts my wife (not at home but reachable), and she rushes me to hospital, takes time off from work to nurse me through the ensuing months of recuperation. Quadruple bypass operation follows. The two kids visit me in the hospital. Back home. Resume life as it’s been happening. However, two incidents need recording. First, I had been scheduled (and my wife fulfilled the obligation) to do one scripture reading on the day of my surgery. Text is from Ezekiel: “I will take away your heart of stone; I will give you a new heart and a new spirit.” Uh, in both a literal and a metaphoric way, that is just what He did. If not a new heart, a “valve job” that replaced the arteries “made of stone” (arteriosclerotic plaque will stand in quite effectively). And immediately after the heart attack, I had a sense that whatever was left of my life needed to be personally fulfilling and meaningful – I may not have many years left, but they’ll be **good** ones. This was about half commitment on my part and half a promise to me, and I recognize that that clause may not make a great deal of sense to anyone else as it stands, but that was the sense I got. A few months later, one of the two kids – the cousin – shows up and tells me that the other one has been arrested for a socially repellent crime. (Yeah, I can name it, but this is where I’m being exceedingly cautious not to mess around with **his** dirty laundry in public.) My initial reaction is not to cast aspersions on him, but to think, and say, “He’s going to need friends after this.” No sense of sticking myself out for someone else, but just a “this is the right thing to do” feeling – it was almost spontaneous, and assuredly God’s doing, or at least that’s the sense I got. So he’s out on probationary, pretrial release, and cannot go home to his parents’ house (more laundry). Meanwhile, the cousin is physically abused by parents and leaves home. At this point, we’re living in half a two-family structure I’ve inherited, with the other half vacant. We agree to put the kids up in the other half, rent whatever they can afford, on the basis that they either attend school (both dropouts at the moment) or work and agree to work on reconciling with parents, not necessarily immediately. Slowly a near-“family” relationship starts growing between the four of us, heterodyned by the original boy’s 18th birthday – which his girlfriend picks to break up with him, causing a crash-and-burn emotional crisis which his cousin comforts him through – and emotionally starved me is zapped by this scene, realizing for the first time as a gut reaction that honest caring and emotional closeness does happen. Thirty miles away, another teenage boy, formerly a neighbor and close friend of the cousin, gets into sequential fights with his boss at work, his girlfriend, and his mother – they heterodyned, each giving rise to the next – and hitches back to the city we lived in to find the one thing he can turn to, his friend the cousin. And ends up at our house. The night he showed up is engraved on my memory. The cousin tried to introduce us, hoping we’d get to like each other. Little did he know. The two of us were “in synch” from first meeting – swapping stories, talking like we’d known each other all our lives. One of the funniest memories I have is of the cousin looking back and forth between the two of us, with his jaw agape, as we talked. (It needs to be noted here that I was very introverted at this point, and this quick friendship was totally out of character for me.) Wife’s boss changes, and work becomes a hostile environment for her. She’s approaching the 20-year mark for retirement, though too young to retire. I tell her to resign when the 20 years are up; we’ll live off my salary. As I enter into helping the third boy out of his emotional turmoil and get his life straightened out, he reverses the process and lifts me out of the negatives in my life, giving me self-confidence, self-assurance, and a sense of self-worth. And he falls in love with the sister of the first boy; they marry and have three wonderful children for whom I am a stand-in grandfather (his father having decamped years before and hers being dead). In the course of all of this, my boss retires, is replaced by a guy whose attitude makes my job less than enjoyable. But I’m now building the self-confidence to change jobs, relocate where I like the weather and the social ambience better, make a new life for myself. Slowly but surely I evolve from the cloistered, introverted, self-disliking creature into the guy you know from these boards. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059.md?page=12)