It seems there are two types of religionists. One type, like the person above, accepts religion emotionally, and usually says it all comes down to faith. I bet this teacher did not condemn those who believed otherwise, am I right?
Then there is the other type who claims that they have the answer, and can prove it scientifically. We see some of them here - they are the type who wander in with some crap about how evolution can’t be true because there are still apes, and run away. I don’t think you can say anything about the intelligence of the first set, but I personally feel the second set aren’t too swift.
I wish people whouldn’t bring up as examples of intelligent theists those who lived 500 years ago. No matter what they believed, saying you are an atheist when it is likely to get you killed or worse is no sign of intelligence.
Oh, and I came into atheism purely logically - but I don’t think I have the awe of the cosmic muffin gene in me.
You talk about “overwhelming evidence,” but most theists do not see it like that. I see no evidence that God did not create the earth; rather, I feel that the entire universe testifies of God. Not that he is obviously visible, because clearly he isn’t–and I think that it’s set up that way for specific reasons. Nor do I believe in a “God of the gaps,” as some say. I simply think that he is behind the physical processes that we see. He is a very good chemist. The thing is, as Zagadka above stated, religion and science are not contradictory but IMO mutually compatible and can shed light on one another. The scientific method is a wonderful tool, but it does not apply to everything, and God is metaphysical; he cannot be proven or disproven by empirical methods. It’s about love, faith, and other intangibles, not about evolution being wrong.
As for why I think God exists, I just have many personal experiences that are evidence to me of his existence. It is not really very important what they are, for they are personal, and everyone has to find his own. I do not expect anyone to believe anything based on what I say about my own experiences. But for me, God is an ongoing presence in my life, and I get real effects from that. Just this week, my family has been greatly influenced and blessed in very obvious ways. Not only that, I’m a reasonably bright person with a wide life experience and a good deal of education.
What it feels like–to feel God’s influence–seems to be different for various people. For myself, it’s a burst of unexpected and unreasoning joy, or a feeling of absolute calm at a time when I really should be very worried (not that I never worry, that’s only happened at certain times). Or something else.
I can’t say my faith is based on fear. I mean, if I’m wrong, I’ll never know, right? I’ll just die and that will be the end of that. But I try to find truth, and this is as close as I’ve been able to get so far. I don’t follow my faith because I’m afraid of punishment, or because I need a crutch (though we can all use one sometimes), but because I think it’s true–so whether I like it or not, that’s how things are and I should learn to live with it. I don’t always like it. It would certainly be a lot less work not to do this, but it wouldn’t be honest.
I think you’re actually the first Christian I’ve met to claim this, unless I’m completely misunderstanding you. (Which is, as always, a possibility.)
Every other Christian I’ve met believes that god: can and does work miracles in the world; was born as a man (Jesus) and died on the cross; is referred to in the Bible and probably other historical documents; has left His handiwork in every or nearly every aspect of the universe; can be either proven to exist or that enough evidence exists to make the existence of god a very likely true fact.
My 2 cents on the topic of the OP:
I haven’t noticed much if any correlation between religion and intelligence. However, I have noticed a significant correlation between religion and education. (Obviously, this is based only upon my own experiences and I am not putting it forth as universal truth.) What I’ve noticed is that, in general, the more education a person has, the less likely that person is to be a theist. Moreover, the more education a person has, the less “fundamentalist” that person is, even if they are a theist.
I cheated; I’m not a Christian. I was, though, and I held the same beliefs.
I don’t think it would entirely floor most Christians. As I understand it, the “ancient” concept of the Jewish G-d was way more abstract than a physical entity - even the angels are depicted in a much different way. G-d doesn’t appear himself ever - he has to manifest himself/itself. The angels (one of the SDSAB reports on the Bible discusses this) were (if I recall correctly) moer like “the wheels of a chariot” - and everything is made of energy. This sounds a lot like men trying to express abstract emotions more than literal, existing forces.
So, given that neither of us claims a belief in Thor, I should accept your assessment of the beliefs of those who do over mine… why?
I have seen nothing to suggest that Thor exists outside of the ancient Norse writings that describe him.
These writings do not deal in abstractions. Anything outside what is written down is simply an invention of the reader. IMO, any such abstraction as described above is simply rationalization on the part of a believer who does not wish to admit to themselves or the world that they believe fairy tales.
I’m spiritually undecided, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. I guess it comes down to whether Atheism is a logical default, or just another formal religion with its own dubious dogma. I’m leaning towards the latter.
For whatever reason, the Atheist denies the likelihood of there being a higher moral authority than himself, or a greater intelligence (hence the dismissive attitude towards the intelligence of people of faith). This is hubristic, and as arrogant in its way as what you’ll find in even the most glassy-eyed, speaking-in-tongues, I’m-gonna-witness-you-until-you-convert church out there. What could be more arrogant than “You’d agree with me if you weren’t so ignorant”?
Perhaps because I actually know some Asatru and Germanic heathens, including some with whom I have discussions of religious issues, and can thus speak from a position of other than complete ignorance on the subject? (Given that you have displayed complete ignorance on the subject of the beliefs of those who follow Thor, even my piddling knowledge is an improvement.)
There has never been a mythology that was not at some level metaphorical.
If you’re going to define religious believers as intrinsically all basically like the Abrahamic Genesis-equivalent literalists, then you’re going to come away with an impression that believers in whatever system are stupid. And people who know better are going to come away with the impression that you’re ignoring evidence that doesn’t support your point.
But take Eden, which I will presume that you’re familiar with; the number of people who believe in a literal Eden is small (but vocal). The majority will look at the story and when asked about it discuss what it illustrates, generally some form of corruption or loss that leads to living in an imperfect world. From this, you can get an understanding of the cosmogeny of that particular faith, the basic structure under which it operates, this idea that the surrounding world is in some way flawed, and it is so because of either human action or response to human action. Different people go different ways with this particular approach; some consider it a necessary road towards adulthood as humans to be kicked out of the womb-that-was-Eden, others are off in search of cosmic atonement, and so on.
Stomping around insisting on literalism doesn’t get anywhere closer to an understanding. The creation myths of Asatru show a basic conception of a world formed by conflict and opposition, getting back to the fire and the ice and the bones of Ymir; this cosmogeny leads to a mythology aimed towards final battle and renewal rather than Christianity’s reconciliation-and-glorification. Different worldviews, informed by different sets of metaphoric realities.
To me, it would seem that Atheism is the logical default. It isn’t something taught. I can’t imagine anyone is born with a belief in g-d but are instead one has it instilled in them. Assuming those facts to be true (which I do), how likely would it be to create a belief in g-d through logical thought and no outside religious interference?
As for atheism being a dogma, I’d strongly disagree. Being an irreligious person (irreligious being defined as: neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices) does not necessitate a code of tenets, but in fact could be just ignorance towards any relative or applicable tenets. (Yes, ignorance is being used in its “positive” sense there). It’s in that same camp that (incorrectly) postulates that atheism is indeed a belief system.
I brought up the subject in GD a couple years ago asking if a [genius level I.Q. had any effect on a belief system](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=138628&page=1&pp=50) and this [link](http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/L-thinkingchristians.htm) was provided that determined that intelligent people tend to be less religious. (Take it with a grain of salt, obviously). From the three page, it seems safe to extrapolate that there isn't much, if any, proven correlation between I.Q. and religiousity but strong religious beliefs may impede critical thought which is an indicator of a higher I.Q. (That's what I've taken out of it at least, YMMV).
I am sorry if i am repeating anyone here, seeing as i didnt take the liberty of reading every entry. But in my humble opinion when i know someone to be of a certain faith i do see them as intellegent, maybe not in all things but at least in one aspect of their life. Although just because someone is a Christian dosent mean that they know all. Although wisdom is gained through experience. A believer may have more knowledge of an unbeliever and vice versa.
Although again and again the Scriptures proclaim that “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”- a wisdom which develops with piety and worship, as science develops with experiment and proof. Yet another distinctive mark of wisdom is that it cannot be misused. We recognize that badn men as well as good may possess other kinds of knowledge. But we do not ordinarily think a man wise unless he acts wisely…
I think the more intelligent a person is the more likely they are to have rationalized religion and come to an atheistic conclusion about why it exists in society.–Lobsang.
So, the “atheistic conclusion”, namely the atheist himself/herself, is the “more intelligent” than the non-atheist.
So, it would follow that agnostics, or anyone that has a belief in a “God” or any other higher power to be somehow less intelligent? And none of us have any proof one way or the other. Not for the “atheistic conclusion”, nor Christianity, nor any other belief based on mere speculation, and no real observed and tested facts… ;j
Atheism a formal religion? Please direct me to our statment of principles and our churches.
Dogma? Let’s hear it. I wasn’t aware of any besides lacking a belief in any god. Makes for a damn short Bible, if you ask me.
Higher moral authority? I’d guess that most atheists can accept the existence of philosophers who have higher moral authority by having studied morals more and more deeply than they have. I myself however have an issue with accepting someone or something as a higher moral authority by fiat - I represent god, so you better listen to me. I also have a problem with uncritically accepting moral dictates from a book filled with moral dictates that are explained away today. Many of the morals we universally accept today are far ahead of what is in the Bible. (No slaughtering people who get in the way, for instance.)
For higher intelligence - I doubt many or any atheists rule out the existence of alien races smarter then we are. Nothing against the laws of nature in that. However, before I start following the advice of such a race, I’d better have met them or had some strong evidence they exist. The connection between this and an atheist’s opinion about the intelligence of a person of faith is beyond me.
Anyhow, I have no problem with the intelligence of a person of faith - I only have problems with the intelligence of persons of certainty that turns out to be based only on faith.
Shorter than most, I suppose. The dogma I’ve gleaned from this thread includes:
–There is no God and no Afterlife (Stated as a factual claim)
–All babies are born Atheist; only exposure to the bullying influences of Theism conditions them otherwise (A Muslim of my acquaintance makes a very similar claim about Islam)
–The position that there is no God and no afterlife is the logical default position (as opposed to, say, “I don’t know whether or not there is a God or an afterlife” or “I had never considered whether or not there is a God or an afterlife”)
Put it this way: If there is, for certain, no God, no higher power, no source of a higher morality, then you (a rejecter of even the possibility of these concepts) are the highest moral authority that you’re aware of. Are you really ready to wear that particular yoke?
So your cosmology–which excludes God outright–has plenty of room for Vulcans, even though there’s no more physical evidence of their being than for God’s? Interesting. As for the connection with your opinion of the intelligence of a person of faith… The hubris that disallows the existence of a higher moral power than yourself also discounts the intelligence of people who don’t share your specific cosmology. Not only are you your own highest moral authority, you (and the people who agree with you) are also the greatest intellect you know.
Surely, in your travels, you’ve encountered a stupid Atheist. Can you imagine a smart Theist as well? I’ve met some. Really! They weren’t even handling snakes or sipping strychnine!
For much of Western history, the teachings of classical Greek philosophers were preserved in Catholic monastaries, and not much of anywhere else. You really think one point of religious dogma is all it takes to separate the smart from the stupid?
What you are doing is arguing that because you can point to actual people who believe as you describe, that it somehow lends a greater legitimacy to your interpretation of the Thor legends than mine.
I call this the “Fifty Million Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong” fallacy.
If you have no more case for your interpretation over mine than “X number more people agree with what I say than with what you say”, you are far from establishing any objective truth.
There has hardly ever been a story told by any human that did not serve to illustrate some metaphorical point.
When you invoke the name of Thor, you are invoking the entity enshrined in those tales as recorded, however you choose to interpret him at this point. The same goes for The Lord from the Bible or The Force from “Star Wars”. These are all stories that are passed on to us that tell of entities with great power.
My issue is not that no one should deviate from the source material. My issue is that twisting the metaphor of the story into a cocked hat, no matter what style, in order to try and render it relevant to your life today is not a healthy way to employ one’s mind.
I get thunder. I don’t need a Thor to exist to understand it. Once that state is reached, there’s no reason to continue on with Thor. To mangle the concept of Thor until it is unrecognizable in a bid for continued relevancy is a waste of time.
Move on, already. Find a new story. The old one will not be angry or destroy your life because of it.
Good post devilsknew. Sums up what I think too.
Me and my boyfriend were just discussing this very point last night.
I also agree with Aldebaran that just because someone follows a religion it does not mean that they aren’t critical of certain aspects of it. Why else are there campaigns to change religions from within e.g. allowing openly gay or female clergy, getting rid of the celibacy rule etc.?
That said there are a lot of stupid religious people too. And I also disagree strongly with the notion that all atheists are atheists because of some deep conviction. Many atheists I know are just too lazy and uninterested to contemplate the spiritual. They’ve never really questioned the beliefs/ doctrines of their former religions. They were made practice as kids and as soon as they could they stopped mostly because they just couldn’t be bothered (me included). Many people who describe themselves as atheists have never truly thought about/ considered the possibility of the existence of a god/ gods.
However, having got older and more mature (I hope) I have questioned my stance more. I used to call myself an agnostic with Christian sympathies. Now I know I can’t in good conscience be ‘Christian’ (after a discussion with my highly intelligent Catholic mother) as I cannot believe that the man Jesus Christ was ‘God’. If my neck was on the line I’d have to call myself an atheist unless I can be some sort of ‘pantheist’ because I do believe that the universe is a delicately balanced, hamonious and organic whole and I’m just a cog in the wheel but that what I do and how I live is significant and consequential nonetheless, and that gives me a sense of comfort similar I’m sure to many people’s idea of ‘God’s will’.
Sorry I’m getting totally off the point here suffice to say that I know many, many ‘atheists’ who are not atheists because they are intelligent or have really thought about anything spiritual with much effort/ dedication.
And I also know there are large numbers of blind religious believers who again haven’t really thought about what they believe (otherwise why so many so-called ‘Christians’ with so much prejudice, greed etc. etc.)
I think as someone already said that chances are most intelligent/ intellectual people will usually think more deeply than the average person about spiritual matters. Which side, if any, of the fence they fall does not depend on their level of intelligence but rather their choice of belief based on their perception of the world around them. Kind of like 'glass is half empty, glass is half full, you say tomay-to, I say tomah-to etc.
No and no. Not all atheists are Humanists. You don’t have to belong to any organization or register at a website to be an atheist. Try again.
If you’ve been paying attention, you’d know that most atheists do not make the nonexistence of God a factual claim - in part because God is not well defined. As for afterlife, I’d suppose most atheists do not believe in it due to lack of evidence, but Buddhists, who do not believe in any gods, do believe in an afterlife, if I’m not mistaken.
Since newborn babies cannot be said to believe in anything much, this is a true statement - but it does not mean very much.
This has nothing in particular to do with atheism,. only reason. Speaking about hurkles of Rigel V, since we agree that we do not know whether or not they exist, is it reasonable to say that you don’t believe in them? If you read a story about them, especially one that violates the laws of physics in laughable ways, would that increase your belief? Why should god be any different? It ain’t dogma, it is just common sense.
Why should I? I can just repeat what I said, which you did not really respond to. If you believe in the Bible, is the slaughter of babies in the flood really a sign of a higher moral authority? I’d rather make Homer Simpson a deity than the OT god.
Why don’t you read what I wrote, and why don’t you lay off the strawmen. I have no belief in Vulcans or any other alien race - but I certainly believe in the possibility that some such race exists (but not the certainty.) Could you give me a good reason an alien race cannot exist? And, btw, I do not believe in UFOs for the same reason I do not believe in god - no decent evidence for, much evidence that reports of them are false or mistaken. I’d say that the case for UFOs is better than the case for god though - more supposed eyewitnesses.
Again, why don’t you respond to what I actually wrote? It would be refreshing. If there are any atheists who are atheists so they can do what they want, they would be stupid also. I never said that atheists are necessarily smart. I did say theists who know that their belief rests on faith are not necessarily stupid. And do you think someone who, against all evidence, believes the earth is 6,000 years old is not stupid? Actually, some aren’t. Some are just fanatics.
Around here, making up beliefs to ascribe to other people so you can deride them is called setting up a strawman. Pointing out that it’s not an accurate description of the beliefs of those people is hardly an ad populam argument.
Cherish that strawman dearly, the guardian of your ignorance. It has already driven away Huginn.
The thing is, as Zagadka above stated, religion and science are not contradictory but IMO mutually compatible and can shed light on one another. The scientific method is a wonderful tool, but it does not apply to everything, and God is metaphysical; he cannot be proven or disproven by empirical methods. It’s about love, faith, and other intangibles, not about evolution being wrong.