Intelligence and religion...

I’ve seen that kind of talk before knappy. When we (‘we’ referring to the general feelings of humanity) understood very little about the universe gods were cited as the causes for events we didn’t understand. The more we understand the less we attribute to supernatural. This, for me, shows how people can create elaborate religions without actual gods behind them (e.g. Greek mythology, I use that example because I don’t think there are any true believers in Zeus still around, regardless of what a couple of people on this board may claim). Just because we still don’t understand everything does not mean that we must believe in something supernatural causing the puzzling events. We will probably never understand everything. As long as we continue as a species, there will probably be some who believe in God.

People seem to get offended when I try to find scientific explanations for the feelings that cause their belief. It will always be a puzzle to me and I wish that I could find where their belief comes from. I am convinced it is from the belief being taught at an early age, or from a need that there be a reason for everything. I am not saying that, were one of these things true, it would invalidate their belief. By being the people they are, my parents taught me generosity and integrity at a very early age. I still struggle to live up to their example. I certainly still believe that these are worthwhile qualities, regardless of the fact that I know I would not have a deep down feeling of rightness about them had I not been raised the way I have. Maybe someday I will find some intelligent believers with thick skins so I can question them more fully without them feeling invaded or offended.

I’ll admit these are both lousy arguments. You might have a ball. You can claim Johnny threw the ball. But you can’t easily examine the ball in and of itself and determine that Johnny threw the ball.

Well, I would disagree with that, although I am still waiting to hear back from dixiechiq.

None of which describes the Christian God. Hopefully some Bible scholar can back me up on this, but I do recall Jesus specifically said (in a couple of places) God purposefully hides himself from those who do not exercise faith, convenient though that might be.

I don’t recall the phrasing you suggest, Joel, but I do think that the bit about having eyes to see is apropos. Unfortunately, this is usually interpreted in a “those stupid unbelievers refuse to look at the evidence” style that is flat-out insulting to people like Gaudere who do weigh the evidence and find it lacking. However, my little song-and-dance about worldviews is apropos: if you choose to interpret your knowledge of the world in an exclusively Materialist way (this is not a slam, but the metaphysic that suggests that all that exists is within the purview of the senses: matter or energy), then you will not see the spiritual truths that are self-evident to someone who takes the view that spirit also exists, and that the Universe finds its fulfillment in God’s plan. Under one view, the cosmos is either mechancially deterministic or random, or a mixture of the two; the other sees it as a teleologically organized if extremely complex dance. Both are valid ways of looking at the world, but neither allows for the viewpoint of the other.

To have eyes to see, in Jesus’s apparent view, would be to accept the greater reality of which the cosmos is only a part, and hence see God at work within the cosmos.

Gaudere, I do see the point you make regarding evidence for non-involved gods; my “evidence” was delimited to the usual proofs trotted out by us theists, scripture, miracle stories, and the like. Mea culpa; I’m in an intense period right now both at work and at home, and not accounting for the broader view as well as usual. Although some of your evidence would point to the non-existence of God (though I don’t think an atheist needs a theist helping find evidence against the existence of god!:D)

Regarding the causality issue, it gets back to the point I raised earlier about ontological priority. Specifically, if God is ontologically prior to the universe, then he caused it. He himself, being eternal (not perpetual but in a time-irrelevant state) need not be created; he is self-created, the unmoved mover, the first cause, etc. It sounds even to me like semantic three-card-Monte, but the idea behind it would be that the sequence of causality ends (or more technically begins) with him, and looking for a cause for him is as futile as looking for a temperature below absolute zero, a time before the Big Bang, or what’s beyond the edge of the universe. They’re statable but have no physical referent. God’s cause is statable but has no ontological referent.

At least it’s an improvement over “turtles all the way down.” :slight_smile:

Well, jmullaney, I was sort of arguing against Poly’s involved God, and not necessarily the Christian God; trying to cover every possible permutation of God that people follow on these boards in every response is like trying to bail out the ocean with my hands. But I am curious; what is your God’s motivation for allowing his laws to be so wildly misinterpreted as you believe they are? I doubt more than a handful of people agree with you interpretation; I can see where you’re coming from, but since I do not believe in God and do not believe your experiment will have the results you claim the fact that I can understand your interpretation of the Bible means little. However, I also think that other Christian’s interpretations seem quite reasonable as well (and less, uh, unrealistic). Why didn’t God make it crystal clear: “No, I mean it, give away all your possessions. No foolin’. Nothing less than that will work. I mean it. Every last bit of 'em.” Obviously, God can see by now that He didn’t do a good enough job the first time; if He really loves people and wants them to go to heaven why doesn’t He try harder? Given his powers I would think he could arrange that. As well, if you claim God shows Himself to those who have faith, do you believe that those who say they follow God yet interpret the Bible differently than you do lack faith?

Greetings, friends.

Actually, “1 + 1 = 2” is not true by definition, but by implication. It is a proposition that is implied by the Peano Axioms, presented by Italian mathematician and logician Giuseppe Peano in 1899 in his Aritmetices Principia, Nova Methodo Exposita.

Peanno’s first premise drawn from those axioms was “1 + 1 = 2”. “Successor” and “natural number” are terms he left undefined. The 5th axiom is the so-called induction axiom which, in my opinion, is not a solid rock. But then neither is deduction.

(For those who might be curious… I hope to be done with our project in the next few weeks so I can get back to regular posting. I still owe Mr. Lissener a short story.)

By the way, Tris and Poly are among the many glaring counter-examples to the proposition presented in the Opening Post. Though I probably am not as intelligent as they, I can hold my own, and I count myself among the faithful (though not among the “religious” … Gaudere can explain).

Is there no room for an open-minded skepticism here between these two extremes? I am not a materialist, I believe, but I have not seen any convincing evidence that would allow me to reasonably make the leap to postulate actual supernatural existence of anything. I don’t think you can say that atheist is atheist and theist is theist and never the twain shall meet; people must be open-minded to a degree, otherwise no one would ever change their mind about the existence of God. If one assumes that God exists, the world will be seen to support this; and if you believed an Evil God existed, the world would be seen to support this; and if you believed an International Jewish Conspiracy existed the world would seem to support this. While I think we can agree that the world looks different based on your prior assumptions, I do not think it is right to make a blanket statement of “well, you believe X, so you will never see any evidence to the contrary.” People can and do change their underlying assumptions if the evidence challenging them is strong enough.

Lib! You’re back! Woohoo! :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

I have, at various times in my life, leaned more toward the non-materialist viewpoint. Can you name a few of these truths that are self-evident? And which god’s plan does the universe fulfill? I have heard of several.

Welcome back Libertarian! Looking foreward to hearing more from you. Perhaps you, Polycarp and I can start a thread and try some competitive humility. :wink:

Trouble is, it would be tempting to throw the contest and loose intentionally, to avoid being known as the most humble. Ah, well.

Tris

As Christianity teaches, blessed are those who have not seen and yet still believe.

Exactly. If you assume the Christian God exists, then you must assume what Christ said to be was true. Then, even if presumable out of your own natural self-interest, you should wish to be counted among the faithful. All faithful are called to sell all they have and give all their money away, at least according to the (Roman) Catholic Church, et. al. Then, the world will be seen to support this. Try not to let the Protestants confuse you. It is like you are saying you presume there is a car behind curtain number three, but this isn’t obvious because the curtain is in the way, therefore there must not be a car behind there, but you don’t want to see what is behind the curtain nor will you believe the testimony of others. It is pretty weird.

“For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: ‘He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn–and I would heal them.’”

All lies in jest… still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

As Gaudere teaches, “Yea, but we need some way to winnow the wheat of truth from the chaff of bullshit, and we should not go around believing in any arbitrary thing without sufficient evidence just because someone says you’ll be blessed if you do.”

:rolleyes: Uh huh. Just like there is no evidence the world is round, that it revolves around the sun, none for graivty, or evolution, etc. A refusal to gather evidence does not negate the facts the evidence would otherwise shed a light upon.

Let’s not get into this again, jmullaney. Your evidence-gathering experiment is quite legimately compared for the teapot-in-the-Amazon one. Quite frankly, if someone told me “blessed are those who believe the earth goes around the sun without evidence”, I’d think it was a bunk argument too. Besides, you switched your argument: first you say I should believe without seeing, then you say I should perform an experiment which would give me proof. Make up your mind–should I believe without evidence or seek proof?

Is there any scientific experiment that couldn’t be legitimately compared to this? If you look out of your window, you can clearly see the world is flat. You can’t balance one round ball on another, yet if you put a tennis ball down on the ground it doesn’t roll away, hence, again the world is flat. Getting a plumb bob and a deep well and observing the motion of the sun over time takes time and resources to prove something anyone can plainly tell is a ludicrous idea, right? So please go join the flat earth society, because believing that the world is round is like believing the secret of happiness can be found in a teapot in the Amazon.

I am saying, your objection to performing the experiment sems to be that you maintain the hypothesis is false, and you see no evidence that would lead you to suggest a requirement to gather evidence which might lead you to a conclusion other than the one you already presume. If you believed in the Christian God, and thus believed the teachings of Jesus, you would have no objections to performing such an experiment to begin with.

jmullaney - You have no knowledge of how much effort I have put into searching for evidence. When I was doing my most fervant searching I was a minor and would not have been allowed to give away everything etc., but I put a lot of time and effort into searching for God, but internally and externally. I prayed and fasted and studied to the point that my mother made me start going to a psychologist for counceling. Eventually, I concluded that there is no God.

Your assertions and eye rolling just insult my efforts and my integrity. Go away. Your relentless grip on ignorance offends me. I’m speaking of your ignorance of basic logic, not of religious concepts. Even if you were to think of a new inanity instead of the same one that we’ve already conclusively debunked, you would be more tolerable. As it is you’re just clogging up this otherwise interesting discussion.

Praying, fasting, and reading the Bible are all well and good. I presume, as Jesus commanded, you prayed and fasted in secret so I must wonder at a mother who sent you to a shrink for reading the Bible but that is not unheard of! But merely do these things are simply not sufficient. If Jesus comes to you and leaves you and you do not follow him and even deny that he was ever there, that is not God’s fault. Otherwise, I don’t think concluding that there is no God because you said a few prayers, went without some food, and read some books is a valid conclusion, but you are entitled to your opinion.

dixiechiq did seem to start with a well reasoned debunking but has failed to return to answer a simple follow-up question. She posted a link to a picture of a man who looks like a spiritual person to me, but I don’t know how to react to her hearsay that this man would not in principal agree with Jesus’s teachings.

But, otherwise, I must have missed the “conclusive debunking.” Perhaps if you could summarize again, and explain the flaws in my logic?

First: Lib, welcome back!! It’s great to see you! I know about work pressures, but I hope things mellow to give you time to post again. :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

Second, to Gaudere and all, I wasn’t intending to draw an either-or proposition in my “worldviews” dichotomy, but to present two differentiated stances…I am aware, and if I had had time would have thought to specify, that it is a spectrum rather than a black-or-white situation.

Tris, your twinkling wit once again throws things into proper perspective. Have you ever considered the passage towards the end of Deuteronomy which describes Moses as “a prophet the like of which has never been seen in Israel before or since” and goes on to call him “a very humble man” – and this traditionally was written by Moses! :smiley:

Joel: I will concede that that “sell all you have” passage is Scriptural (though retaining food and clothing is human pilpul on it) and that it was Jesus’s advice to one rich person, about whom he appears to have cared. However, though I am an outsider to Roman doctrine, I do not see this preached as the standard of Catholic morality, nor do I see the great majority of good Catholic laypersons going and doing so. I’d ask for your cite from the compendia of Catholic doctrine on this as standard for that church.

Yeah, Poly, I just wanted to point out that even a theist, who may see evidence of God due to this viewpoint, can be opneminded enough to evaluate that evidence at some point and find it unconvincing. And an atheist can evaluate a materialistic worldview and change his mind about the evidence too. I just really hate to see an implication of “you believe X, therefore nothing will ever convince you otherwise because of your preconceptions.” I think atheists and theists have enough axioms in common that they can reasonably debate evidence presented and quite possibly even change their minds.

jmullaney - Jesus never did comes to me. People came to me and told me that Jesus existed. Since, these were respected adults including my mother, I believed them. When I got old enough to doubt what my mother tells me, I began to try to examine my beliefs. I looked at the people around me and saw that there were good people and bad people and that what church they belonged to didn’t seem to have any correlation to whether they were good or bad. I continued to go to church mostly out of habit. Then I was called to the priesthood, or so they said. For the next two months I rarely left the house, I stayed in my room alone. Mom would only let me fast for one day but I managed to do it for 3.

One of my favorite scriptures in the bible is the one that Joseph Smith came across when searching for inspiration. Regardless of what you think of Smith, this is a new testament verse and should be respected by any Christian. I can’t remember the exact chapter and verse (maybe John III? or was it James? It’s been a long time since I’ve opened the Bible.) but it goes like this, “If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of it.” It goes on to say that God grants wisdom to those who ask in sincerity. I asked. I wanted so desperately to know if I should accept the call to the priesthood. No answer came, nothing, I felt less than when I would talk to my dead grandfather with whom I could at least imagine his voice answering. Not even a inner feeling of his existence like JAG described. My faith evaporated. I studied further, I prayed further. The more I studied the more atheistic I became. I stopped praying. But I still studied. Now I am a Reductive Materialist and the more I learn the more I think I have chosen the right path. Whether it’s studying scripture or fiction or scientific texts, it all leads me to believe I am right about this.

Scientists can make predicitons mased upon they’re knowledge of astronomy. The accuracy of these predictions in enough for me to believe they are right about things like the roundness of the earth. They make predictions like exact time and dates of eclipses by calculating the movement of celestial objects. I have heard religious types make predictions but generally their accuracy is poor or their predictions are too vague to be verifiable (or they make contradictory predictions and then claim that the one that turned out right was inspired by God). What exactly would faith do for me? Oh yeah, I could summon pizza rolls. There’s an eye roller for you.

What Dixiechiq was saying is that there are examples of people who have abandoned their posessions who have not found God. Many, many Buddhist monks do this and have been doing it for centuries. I have known two people who have given up all their posessions to become a monk. One of them only gave up contact with all friends and relations for two years and now is back in contact with me, but is still a monk, still has no posessions, and lives a very simple life in a temple. The other is in India in a Buddhist Temple and I have no way of contacting him short of going to India and touring the Temples. I think that, if he had discovered Christianity, he would have left the temple and contacted his parents by now, it’s been 6 years. I think he would have contacted ME, we were roommates for 10 years.

New scientific theories are generally scoffed at and much testing is done before they are accepted. Various scientific organizations an journals have a reputation to uphold. If they publish something controversial that was not sufficiently tested, they lose that reputation and later scientists become uninterested in what they publish in the future. They can’t do this and stay in business. They have a strong motivation to maintain their integrity. Religions, OTOH, have no such motivation since much of what they say can not be tested. The test you propose says nothing of good testing practices like control subjects. Even if Gaudere were to decide to go through with your test and she DID find God, I still would want a pretty detailed edescription from her as to how it occurred before I would be willing to try. And, if I didn’t know and respect her already, it still wouldn’t be enough.

For scientific facts like the structure of the solar system, I have done quite a lot of tests as I studied astronomy for a while at Johns Hopkins. I have looked through powerful telescopes that reveal the planets as disks and made calculations based on their locations in the sky over a long period to calculate their orbits. You can use scientific hypothesises (hypothesi?) to predict other things about the universe that can be tested in turn. The accuracy of those predictions then further enforces the accuracy of the original hypothesis. When scientists so frequently succeed in making accurate predicitions, they build my trust in them. When Christian continue to disregard the studues of respected scientist, I lose respect for the Christians. I don’t see any value in performing your test jmullaney. The worth of a soul to me is zero. The cost (according to you) of finding mine is everything I own. I’ll just continue as I have.

That’s my longest post ever, sorry for the shoddy proofreading. I gotta go hit happy hour and swill some Guiness.

VileOrb I think your belief was never spiritual in nature, IE you have to have more than “adults told me so” to find god.

I think that because I did kinda the same thing as you. I believed when I was young because other people told me but after a lack of evidence stopped believing.(though i am much lazier and woulden’t fast:)) So I became agonistic for about 6 years untill my belief was inspired by others rather than told by others. Then I found proof of god.

“When Christian continue to disregard the studues of respected scientist”

When you make wild generalizations and judgement about a whole lot of people I lose respect for you. Which christans do you mean? And who respects these scientists? I think i lose respect for atheists who disregard respected christans.(namely me:))