Intelligence and religion...

Great Debates
41

Fascinating thread, and one that confirms my faith in the skills of Great Debaters – faced with a blanket assertion, they fail to take it as a slam, dissect it, and work with the results. I’m proud of you all, and extremely happy to be a part of this group.

With regard to the hijack Joel and Gaudere perpetrated regarding giving up one’s possessions, I have one comment to make in Joel’s defense, Gaudere: if you, specifically, were to undergo Joel’s experience, and, following the example of St. Francis, give up all your possessions, including your clothes, in public, I have little doubt that you would be immediately gifted with the power to make “pepperonis” magically appear. :wink:

Now, to the basic gist of the thread:

Almost everyone has some basic assumptions about the world which he (or she – I’m going to use the non-PC common-gender “he”) accepts without analysis. They are as a rule ones which enable him to get along in the social milieu in which he finds himself. David B., for example, operates on a reliance in the ability of science to test the strange hypotheses which humans are prone to invent and sift truth from folly. I have no major disagreement with this assumption – but the fact of the matter is that it is an unanalyzed assumption. The “cosmological principle” is another such unanalyzed assumption – while it seems reasonable to us that what happened there and then is subject to the same laws, the same causations, and so on, as what happens here and now, we have no proof that, e.g., angels or little green men in flying saucers did not show up on a regular basis and induce speciation and phylogenesis up until about 500 B.C.

The unanalyzed assumptions of some people include a reliance on the Judaeo-Christian God as an active omnipotent, omniscient presence, and the works he is said to have inspired.

Most people have a devotion to the truth. And most people evaluate their authorities, and accept those in whom they feel they can place reliance.

This holds true for every branch of Christendom, and for atheists, agnostics, and members of other religions as well.

So long as the search for truth does not come into conflict with those unanalyzed assumptions, any person, be he devoutly religious, a casual believer, or a nonbeliever, will sincerely employ his ability to reason to its fullest extent and try to find out the answers to the questions that he is particularly interested in. When they do, however, all Hell breaks loose.

It is equally funny and frustrating to see a Biblical literalist try to deal with the evidence for evolution and to see a sincere atheist try to explain away the Biblical accounts of Jesus’s life and doings. And in both cases, the arguments can be made but are unconvincing.

One final thought: I’ve been rereading Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land, on the 40th anniversary of its publication and the 35th anniversary of my first encounter with it. And in one passage (which Heinlein drew the attention of a critic to) Jubal Harshaw, who is emphatically not religiously inclined, explains to Ben Caxton that there are some highly significant questions: what is consciousness? how does my consciousness enable me to make changes in the world around me? is there free will? if so, why does the universe seem to function mechanically? if not, why do I seem to have it? why do I seem to be me? what happens when I die? why is the world here? where did it come from? where is it going? and these questions are generally not susceptible to answers from the natural sciences. Though religious answers run from passably glib to completely insane, at least the religions are trying to answer these questions.

In addition to which, one has the accounts of putatively sane and intelligent people, such as myself and Triskadecamus, who speak of having encountered God in the same way they might speak of having met the President. These accounts can be dealt with skeptically, but cannot be rejected as total fallacies. And, whether or not one takes them at face value, the question of what caused such experiences is a fairly deep one itself.

YMMV

42

I’m curious. What is this «ample evidence»?

43

Oh, lovely job of cut-and-paste. Here’s what I actually said: “I don’t know of any good scientist who requires that other people give up all they have to prove his personal hypotheses.”

You at one time claimed that while you followed God, you were able to conjure pepperoni rolls out of thin air. This could be proven. Find me someone who can, as you claim, take advantage of quantum physics to the degree that they can conjure up food without any trickery, and I’ll take notice. 'Til then, you look a bit like a crank.

There are historical accounts of dragons, unicorns, witches, magicians and mermaids. As I do not believe in them, I will not believe in historical accounts of conjuring, either, without verifiable scientific evidence.

I must have been really bad in my past life if I have to suffer through arguing with you again in this life. :smiley:

To paraphrase myself, exactly how much must you sacrifice “experimentally” to be a good scientist if someone tells you the Secret to Happiness is in a teapot in the Amazon?

If you choose to make any further “shame, shame” comments, I suggest you use this statement: “You know, it’s a shame no atheists or theists here will personally agree to do my incredibly inconvienient and costly experiment to find proof of God simply because I have no good proof or evidence besides my own say-so. I really think they should give up all their possessions because some guy on a message board told them to, and I feel they’re being close-minded and unscientific to not do so.” Then your position will be laid out clearly and likely no one will feel the need to argue with you.

Poly:

[Rocky Horror Picture Show]I have that power.[/Rocky Horror Picture Show] That was a groaner, Poly. :wink:

Erehm, you think an atheist who does not believe a person rose from the dead based on a 2000 year old book written many years after the supposed occurance is just as amusing as someone who ignores a mountain of currently verifiable scientific evidence? If the evidence for evolution was as subjective and ancient as that for Jesus rising from the dead, I would not gripe so about creationists.

[Edited by Gaudere on 11-08-2000 at 11:47 AM]

44

The Jmullaney Experiment

In the year of our Lord 19XX, one J. Mullaney, born into the harsh world of atheism, deprived himself of all friends, family and possessions in an effort to prove that there was no God. Mr. Mullaney was touched by the Holy Spirit in his moment of destitution and found that there is indeed a God, and He loves J Mullaney very much.

Reviewed by JAG
:rolls eyes at the necessity for peer reviews which only means that two people believe the same thing… i.e. religion? There are probably peer reviews on every belief possible… science is used as a basis for belief in aliens, ghosts, and yes, even evolution, none of which have ever been proven beyond a doubt.

Vile Orb, my bud

Voting Republican does not automatically make one unethical ;p

There is alot more to Christianity in any of it’s diverse schools than the Ten Commandments. However, morality goes much deeper than religious beliefs.

Sure, there are alot of people who claim to be Christians, who were baptized, went to church a few times as a child and grew up to kill someone, or cheat on their spouse, or even look enviously at the SUV parked across the street. But please, don’t suppose for a moment that atheists are somehow excluded from these actions. You may be more moralistic than I am, but that certainly isn’t inclusive of all atheists or all Christians.

Plus, remember that some religions teach that your wrongs can be wiped away with confession. Most Christian religions teach that Grace replaced Law with the crucifiction of Christ the Son.

Also there are alot more Christians than Atheists so you are bound to meet more immoral Christians than immoral Atheists by a law of averages.
MetropoChris

This idea that I have to prove to you anything I believe is equally silly… i.e that there is a God.

So do even the most fanatic of religious people.

I differ in opinion. You believe something, based solely upon what someone else has told you, someone you assume to be an authority. Believers of religion can describe, beyond the teachings of people they assume to be an authority, that they have ‘felt’ His presence in them, that they have prayed and received verification of their faith. Only the consequence of the belief or lack of belief is greater.

Ahh, glad you came in so open minded and not looking for an emotional battle. :frowning:

Explain to me how telescopes and carbon dating prove that there is no God. Religion is seldom taught to overide science, however, scientists often try to prove that there is no basis for religion. Why is that?

A telescope is just a series of lenses used to magnify the vision that God gave you. grin

Do you know how to carbon date anything? Have you ever witnessed a carbon dating? Do you know how carbon dating works?

That Book, which was compiled from writings of men over a course of centuries was a History Book. Some of the facts of the History Book can be documented by corresponding History Books. Other facts cannot as there were no corresponding history books surviving that period.

The majority of the authors of the Bible wrote, not out of insecurity, but by Divine Instruction and complete security in their faith.

Just as many scientists are so completely sure of their justifications and explanations that they write papers about them. Then, others, ‘peers’, i.e. scientists who seek the same atheistic explanations of WHY? verify this proof.

The writers of the Bible have been reviewed over the Centuries by peers and I would venture to say that there have been more books written on the theories of the Bible than have been written on any other matter in literary history.

45

Well, . . . actually, I met Lyndon Johnson.

It was no where near a cool as meeting Christ. (I don’t think Johnson loved me at all!)

Tris

46

::rolling eyes right back:: What would you prefer? Just let anyone publish anything as “science” without anyone checking it over to see if it’s bunk? You can publish stuff on your own, but if you want anyone to take it seriously, the methods and experiments need to hold up to other people’s scrutiny.

That isn’t what he said. Telescopes and carbon dating are used to produce evidence of stars and the date of objects, cross-referenced with a lot of other scientific tests. A book is an account of what some people believe they saw. They may indeed be correct about what they say they saw, but just 'cause someone said they saw something doesn’t mean you necessarily have to believe it. If I write a book that claims I was abducted by aliens, I do not think it unreasonable if you do not believe me. If I can point a telescope at the moon and you can see the alien’s city (assuming the telescope is honest), I would think you should accept that as a solid piece of evidence for aliens, far stronger than just my say-so.

How do scientists “try to prove that there is no basis for religion”? I certainly don’t recall seeing any articles by scientists titled: “Proof That Religions Are All Bunk.” Many scientists are quite religious. And as for “religion is seldom taught to override science”…err, you are aware of young-earth creationism, I’m sure? That attempts to dismiss large chunks of geology, astronomy and biology as “bunk.” They are not content to say that science shows one thing, but their faith says another…they lie about the evidence and reproduce previously debunked stupid crap. I’ve certainly seen the “evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics!” bit often enough. Hey, what about the “there’s not enough dust on the moon” one, that’s only been debunked for the last 20 years.

This is claimed by Jews, Muslims, Mormons and traditional Christians, as well as the authors of other religious Books, despite the fact that their Holy Books can differ wildly in certain important areas. Why should we assume any one, or even any at all, are correct?

47

jmullaney:

Whew! OK. I’m back. Six weeks ago, I gave up all my possessions and walked the earth until just now. I’m still an atheist, dang it. So much for your theory. No evidence of God. No pepperoni rolls, either.

And don’t tell me that I did something wrong and have to repeat the experiment! It’s amazingly difficult to recover your possessions once you’ve given them all up.

Six weeks ago, BTW, I learned by my gift of precognition that your post would appear here…that’s how I got the head start.

I expect a prompt recantation of your experimental hypothesis.

Thank you, and Goodnight.

48

I’d hate to bias any results. YMMV.

I find what you actually said to be rather argumentative. Scientific research has always required an allocation of time and resources, whether it be in a super-collider or a space telescope. I fail to see how this is any different.

OK, done. But you won’t like my directions on how to get to where such a person is. :smiley: (some line about mountains and Mohammed come to mind)

Nor should you. You are free to go and gather such evidence.

If someone told me that, and I didn’t want to find out for myself, I would accept that they were telling the truth. Why not?

It’s a shame that some here will not agree to do an experiment to find God simply because I have only the weight of two thousand years of Christian teaching besides my own experience as evidence that this is the truth. I think for them to maintain their is no God without running this experiment or believing what anyone through all of history who has run such an experiment has to say that they are being close-minded and unscientific.

Poly:

Just because the Catholic Church teaches all Christians are called to perform what, oddly, keeps being called “my” experiment, does not mean the Catholics and I believe people should walk around naked. As Paul wrote – be content with food and clothing.

Gaudere wrote:

Ignorance is ignorance, willful or otherwise.

49

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gaudere *
Just let anyone publish anything as “science” without anyone checking it over to see if it’s bunk? You can publish stuff on your own, but if you want anyone to take it seriously, the methods and experiments need to hold up to other people’s scrutiny.[\QUOTE]

As science… precisely the point. Science attempts to discredit anything that isn’t science by holding itself to a higher level of evidence by a peer review. A peer review is simply one person who agrees with another persons theories. If I wrote a hypothesis that women are actually the devil, I could probably find many, equally idiotic people (peers) to confirm my hypothesis. I could even make a machine called the Devilfinder2000 that would beep whenever a woman walked by, thus proving beyond a doubt that all women are devils.

You’re right. Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction of my misinterpretation.

That is why I said seldom and often. I don’t include all scientists or all religious persons in one category because undeniably there is an exception to every rule. I’m too ‘intelligent’ to be all-inclusive or all-exclusive.

If there is a God, why are there so many religions…

These are all religions believing in a single God. Interpretations, or retelling of stories over the years leads to an inevitable differention in versions. If I were to take 10 people and tell them all the same story and send them to tell 10 other people that story then bring it back to me, I would get 10 differing versions of the story I told. Most, if not all, religions pre-exist the documents that were written to capture their spirit.

Science, however, works precisely the opposite. Man looks at something and makes a ‘logic’ call then goes about trying to prove his hypothesis. That is like me asking why different scientists approached a situation with differing hypotheses, all of which may be plausable explanations of the same end result.

50

Interesting. Well, in the interest of science, I can prepare a few forms for you to fill out, if you’d be at all willing.

Oh, no no. I understand. But I’m going to want to collect some data in order examine the experiement and hypothesis to see how they might be revised.

Now wait a minute. You don’t find the gift of precognition, which you amazing recieved at the time you gave up your posessions to be evidence of the existence of God? Do you retain this gift now, or is this a gift you have always had a priori? I’m afraid that if you are a pre-cog by nature, which most of us are not, that might make you a poor test subject. Make sure to mention this on the forms.

As I said, I need to investigate your results. Please e-mail me at j_mullaney@hotmail.com and I will get some sample questions to you promptly. I may have subsequent follow-up questions as well.

51

I KNEW you were going to say that.:smiley:

Wait a second! You said this would prove God exists!

You didn’t say that you’d have to analyze the data yourself. Heck, I can analyze my own data. Are you saying you could feasibly examine my questionnaire and then say “No, no…right here…you see? There IS a God!” Nonsense. Are you suggesting I’m misinterpreting my own experience? Nonsense.

Oh well, I’ll gladly send you the details if I must. But first!…you must help me with MY experiment. I swear that my car tires taste like peanut butter, but only after you’ve licked one for at least seven hours. C’mon, be a sport. After all…

Thank you, and Goodnight

52

Joel:

Couple of points.

First, I used St. Francis as part of the setup for the horrible pun I pulled on Gaudere, in order to remove her clothing with her other goods. (Uh, let me rephrase that…)

Although, as I believe you are aware, First Order Franciscans are pledged to both individual and corporate poverty…neither they nor their order may own anything, and, at least theoretically, they are to beg food and clothing as alms. (Third Order Regular are vowed to individual but not corporate poverty, and Third Order Secular to simplicity of life.)

Secondly, it is my understanding (obviously different from yours) that Jesus’s admonition to the “rich young ruler” which you regularly quote was in the nature of hyperbole, being an ideal to which some are called and others not, in keeping with God’s plan. It would be seen in the context of “That which is so precious to you as to stand in the way between you and God, you must give up, so as to be free to follow Him.” If it is your mission to preach radical poverty as the path to God, then that is your mission, and I for one will not stand in its way. Be sure, however, that not all who are called are called to this particular path to Him.

Tris:

I’d debated what might make a good metaphor – and was pleased (and unsurprised) to find I’d picked one that actually had a referent.

Although:

[my late rabidly Republican aunt]
So you met both God and the Devil? :smiley:
[/my late rabidly Republican aunt]

Gaudere:

Yes, I do find both amusing, in this context. Any reasonable dating and authorship theory of at least some of the Gospels indicates that they were produced by apparently sincere men at a time when eyewitnesses were still around, and could refute incorporated fictions. Oral traditions do in fact exist, but 30-40 years is not long enough to manufacture myth out of whole cloth. Certainly accretions can and do happen – JFK is far more revered today than 38 years ago, when few Republicans could stand what he was doing – but there must remain a factual basis for a story, and suggesting that Jesus was, e.g., fictional, or totally misrepresented in the Gospels, is akin to suggesting that FDR or JFK was the invention of the Democratic Party, in need of a patron saint. However, the idea that Jesus might have done some things which are not common events in Chicago or Raleigh in 2000 A.D. appears to be sufficient grounds for a skeptic to reject the entire story – and that I don’t buy. I do not necessarily subscribe to the resuscitation of the crucified body as the explanation of what happened on Easter – but something did happen that was a life-changing experience to people who had known him for some time previous. And I don’t think you could get unanimity for risking lives to perpetrate a fraud, nor would some of the more skeptical minor characters (e.g., Thomas, Bartholomew, Nicodemus) have bought into the misinterpretation of a hallucination or a story that got changed from a what-if to an it-did over the years.

The idea that “it couldn’t have happened as described, so we must find some natural explanation” is what I find hard to swallow. There was a phenomenon recorded, in somewhat mysterious terms, that hit these people with the impact of a major change in their world vision, and they changed their lives greatly in consequence. What it was, in terms of physical evidence, may be open to debate. But I think you can rely on people to use some common sense, at least where their immediate circle of acquaintances are concerned, and not buy some mystic B.S. And that goes for the Judah-in-the-street of 1st Century Palestine as much as for the John-in-the-street of 20th Century America.

One can easily be too credulous. But one can also be too incredulous.

I’m not preaching a theology in stating all this – just identifying what strikes me as a failure to look at all the facts – because they don’t fit what appears to be one of those assumptions I spoke of in my first post.

53

Well, it is not very scientific not to share your data with your peers.

I am a very keen discerner of spirits. I take you at your word as a matter of course, but am still curious about your experience and if you did perhaps in some way violate the parameters of the experiment. If I look at Saturn and say there are rings, and you say you do not see the rings it is very useful to know if you might in fact be looking at Jupiter instead.

Perhaps, despite your precognitive abilities, we have managed to miscommunicate on the parameters of the experiment which I have only roughly designed and which you claim to have followed.

Exellent. Send me your e-mail and I will prepare the questionairre.

I believe you. See how easy that is?

54

jmullaney - What is your goal here? What are you trying to accomplish by your postings? Maybe you think that the more you get us to think about God the more likely we are to find a belief? Is that it? Let me just tell you that the more annoying you get the less likely anyone around you will be inclined to take seriously what you have to say.

JustAnotherGuy - Peer Review is a misnomer. It doesn’t always mean that your experiment has to be reviewed by someone like you. It means that it has to be reviewed by someone knowledgeable in the field, frequently by someone who disagrees or at least used to disagree before reviewing your experiment. If a untrained individual accidentally discovers something and manages to recreate it, the experiment must be reviewed by an expert in the field not by the individual’s cousin Albert. The reason why it’s called a ‘peer review’ is that most experiments are carried out by experts and so the expert that reviews the experiment is usually a peer. Often, especially for controversial stuff, a peer from a competing lab.

Gaudere - Way back in this thread I said some things about epiphany etc. Let me just assure you that I have by no means reached any conclusions on why Christians believe. It’s just that I have only had serious conversations on that topic with three people and these three all sounded like they had come to there belief through an epiphany. Other intelligent church goers I know seem (from casual observation) to see church as a social gathering. I do know one who seems to be devoted to her religion and who is very active in trying to get other members of her faith to constantly reevaluate their beliefs and morality. I would like to some day ask her how her faith came to be.

A snide comment, sorry. - I don’t believe there is such a thing as a soul so I value it at nought.

You can find lots of reasons for the emergence of diverse monotheistic religions of the world other than the existance of a God. Read Joseph Campbell’s books, they trace the origins of religions throughout history without proposing that God had a hand in the process. I seem to remeber another thread where someone said something about how religion was created to explain things like lightning and that the more science we learn the less reason we have for religion. IMO science will never reach into the realm of spirit and soul because there is no such thing. So, religion is safe from eradication, but, again IMO, religion should not try to compete with science for understanding of the material world. Meanwhile, I would think that fundies would be pleased when science attempts to delve into the spiritual world because this shows that scientists are open to the idea.

Sorry for the somewhat disjointed post, I am suffering from sleep deprivation.

55

Goodness, I guess unicorns, mermaids, magic-wielding witches, aliens and dragons are real, too, then. There are first-person accounts of all of these, many by quite valid witnesses. I do not dispute that a man named Jesus probably existed (though I wouldn’t bet my life on it), but “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.” If my own brother claims he saw a man walk on water by divine power I would be as skeptical as if he tells me he saw a fire-breathing dragon. The eyewitness accounts of an amazingly unusual event just doesn’t cut it, for me; I know how the eye and mind can be fooled.

How about: we have seen no solid material evidence for X and X has never had solid, verifiable, falsifiable scientific evidence to support it, so the default position is disbelief. The same cannot be said of those who deny evolution.

I’m sure many of the Heaven’s Gaters were quite skeptical in some ways (not to make invidious comparisons). Heck, they refused to believe those silly scientists when they said it was just a comet. 2000 years ago most people believed devoutly in witches and demons and various other beasties. Why should we accept the account of a man performing miracles and deny the accounts of a woman cursing cattle?

I do not believe Christ rose from the dead due to a God’s influence. Nor do I believe aliens abduct people, or that virgin-loving unicorns once roamed the earth, or that witches once made people vomit up pins due to deals with the devil, or that Elvis is still alive. There are several first-person accounts of these things–even official court documents, for some–but I do not accept them as convincing. I have looked at the facts–which is that these are all personal accounts, some from a very magic-believing time, and we lack any physical evidence of what apparently are amazingly unsual and irreproducable occurances. ::shrug:: Your Credence May Vary.

56

**

Well, the idea that if one part of the Bible is false then the whole thing is cockeyed is not viable. I believe that is part of what keeps literalists clinging to unreasonable beliefs despite the evidence all around them.

Well Poly, that makes me have to ask about other examples in our history. What about the many instances where people believe(d) some really odd things most of us would dismiss out of hand? Most Christians completely reject the Book of Mormon, and there was certainly a group that altered and risked their lives for beliefs that seem no odder than that of mainstream Christianity to an outsider. Same goes for the Muslims. Just because people attest to a phenomenon does not mean that it occurred. People were willing to send their peers to the gallows alleging that they were witches who were seen consorting with demons, flying through the air, and casting hexes. When I look at Scientology, I certainly don’t feel reassured by the common sense of my fellow man. I’m afraid that your argument reads, to me at least, as “Well, a lot of people say there’s something to it, so there must be.” The same can be said of ghosts. Certainly there is something there, but I have to say that self-delusion sounds far more plausible to me than divine intervention, spooks, or demons, especially in light of what I have experienced in my own life.

Will I say that you are categorically wrong, that God cannot exist and the Bible has to be a complete pack of lies? No, that would be unreasonable. I will, however, say that the events described in the Bible and other holy texts, the gods described by various religions, and other supernatural phenomena are pretty darned unlikely. Unlikely, in fact, to the point where I can place no credence in them without being shown at least an indication that there may be something to them beyond the telling of tales.

57

I am aware that you are a Protestant, and like most Protestants, you hold to this interpretation. Catholics, Free Spirits, and even humble apostate me, do not.

And I won’t stand in your way in maintaining the belief that faith without works, faith without charity, and faith without love of Christ, despite all the evidence of Scipture and the long held teachings of the Catholic Church, might still in some far fetched realm of the imagination lead to salvation.

58

jmullaney claims to be a former atheist who now believes in God but doesn’t follow the teachings he believes to be true. His only purpose in any of these threads seems to be to try and make atheists and theists both look silly. In various threads he mentions the idea that if you give up everything you own then you will receive proof of God’s existence, and somehow that is supposed to be a reasonable thing to do and/or request that somebody else do. Gaudere is always ready to counter such nonsense (the woman is tireless), and Poly always mentions that jmullaney’s interpretation of that particular pronouncement is not exactly standard. In any case, I have long ago decided for myself that he doesn’t really want to be taken seriously, but gets some sort of perverse joy out of presenting this argument repeatedly, even though its flaws have been repeatedly pointed out by those posters mentioned above.

59

::pssst:: Hey, jmullaney! JustAnotherGuy seemed to think your God-finding experiment was just as scientifically valid as carbon-dating experiments. Since he thinks your proof of God is valid already, he needs to be shown how to truly follow Jesus instead of following the mistaken beliefs he currently has. Don’t let this one get away!

[sub]I am evil…[/sub]

60

I am attempting to fight ignorance.

In the context of this thread, I am attempting to demonstrate, under the assumption that willful ignorance evidences a lack of intelligence, that the presumption of this thread that those who believe in God are a priori less intelligent than those who do not, is inherently flawed.

Think? I don’t recall asking anyone to think.

OK, I won’t be annoying. Thanks for your advice. :slight_smile: