Knowing more and more things is what makes you mature.
And fairy tales and religion are the same from a Reason point of view. There is no evidence that either exist in the real world.
The fact that you cannot distinguish brands you as one of the type of people I am describing. Intellectually immature.
Notice I didn’t say “stupid.” Or “emotionally immature.” Intellectually. You lack the ability to reason between reality and illusion when it comes to mythology.
This simlpy who you are. I care not one way or the other except when you try and foist it on me and the government I live under.
I am speaking of “intellectual maturity.” Although a certain amount of courage is also required to reject mythology since the societal pressures to believe are quite strong. Most people are afraid.
Merely look at the backlash when the words “under god” in the pledge of allegiance were deemed illegal. The cowardly and intellectually weak were outraged.
I must respectfully disagree with the intellectual maturity argument too. There are many people who can comfortably hold multiple contradictory ideas in their head at the same time, often considered the very definition of intellectual maturity. That is precisely what I am talking about.
Are there people who are well educated, believe in a god or gods, are emotionally mature, yet intellectually immature? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that all believers are emotionally immature. Our own Polycarp or tomndebb are far more intellectually mature than most folks, but they are also certainly believers.
Some examples: Einstein sincerely believed in the existence of God, and it is fair to say that most people would consider him intellectually mature. His intellectual achievments constitute the foundation of modern civilization. Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan did not believe in a god, I would consider them intellectual mature because of the depth of the ideas they deveolped. Joseph Campbell was a Catholic, and saw an importance in the cultural symbolism and use of myth.
Let me expand on the Einstein example a little bit. Einstein understood the theory of quantum mechanics. Few people have ever understood this theory (which is 100 years old this month). Einstein refused to believe that it was an adequate explanation of what was going on at the atomic level, which he summarized with the famous expression: “God does not play dice with the universe.” Of course, Einstein was wrong, and he knew he was wrong. He just believed, as some theorists still do, that we did not understand the quantum state well enough to understand why it was simultaneously “up” and “down”. And we don’t know why. But it is.
You make a good point. These are indeed smart and exceptional people.
Perhaps a more appropriate description would be “delusional.” Or “lacking in courage.”
I must confess I am at a loss as to anyone with more than 3 working brain cells can believe in such mythologies, much less the greater intellects you mention. The concept of gods is so patently ridiculous that entertaining it seriously is a waste of time, much less devoting energy to actually believing in it.
It takes a great deal of courage to admit that there are things you do not know and cannot know when all of society is pressuring you otherwise.
As for Einstein, he also said this New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930:
"A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. "
" In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests. "
This perfectly describes the Catholic and Muslim churches, among others.
He also said: “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.”
Clearly, Einstein was not a fan of organized religion. His concept of god varies widely from that of the common man. WHen asked if believed in god, her said: He said, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Years later he expanded this answer by adding, “I have not found a better expression than ‘religious’ for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason.”
Clearly he does not believe in mythology. Religion to him was a feeling of humanity.
But that’s beside the point since I wouldn’t change my position if he did.
The only useful and valid mythology is one that we consciously create, like the Constitution of the U.S., which is a code of living and laws created by man.
Anyone who sincerely believes in mythology like christian or muslim is at the very least one of the following:
intellectually challenged or immature
delusional
too lazy to think for themselves
psychotic (David Koresh, Jim Jone, Joan of Arc, et al)
too cowardly to challenge the mob mentality of religion
brainwashed (literally)
of a placid and bovine personality that “goes along to get along”
their life has been so easy as to never question the dogma (I have found that those who have suffered little do not Think Great Thoughts or Ponder the Imponderables)
lack the coping mechanism to go through life without the permanent “father” that gods provide.
So, yes, I concede your point, Sparticus. Intellectual immaturity is not the exclusive reason for believing in “illusory beings” as Einstein called them.
It is possible to be intellectually mature, yet have other flaws that allow you to defy logic and believe. However, I consider it the #1 reason, followed by lack of courage.
Who am I to judge? Why, I’m me. Using what I got to reason it out.
There is nothing else, after all.
P.S. Good argument. Best one yet.
Einstein also said:
“I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”
Letter to Edgar Meyer, a colleague, January 2, 1915 Source: Robert Schulmann
Pretty funny.
Uh… WHICH did you say should be our standard of living? Reason or love?
They’re not the same thing, after all. Indeed, the two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I mean, what’s less rational than love?
In fact, if you look at love with the same jaundiced eye you turn on faith, love won’t stand up to scrutiny very long, either.
And where on earth did you get the idea that reason leads to peace? Fact is, it can be VERY rational to do all kinds of horrible things- provided that the payoff and the chances of getting away with them are great enough.
Moreover, reason is of absolutely NO value in determining what’s good or evil, what’s right or wrong, what’s moral or immoral. Reason CAN’T tell us what we should want or what we should do. At best, reason can ONLY tell us the best way of getting what our illogical, immature emotions tell us we want.
Of course, even barring religion, we have the mature, reasonable and loving slaughter of millions under Stalin in the Soviet Union, under Mao in China, etc.
Reason with a big R? Well Logic dictates that fairy tales and religion are two very different things. Personally I was agonistic growing up till I found sufficient proof that god exists. Because of this you might be able to understand why I find your arguements to be less than credible.
I think the OP makes a valid point. I believe that in general, people who can get beyond the child-like need to believe in and revolve their worldview around made-up stories demonstrate greater maturity than those who can not.
the fact that many intelligent and otherwise skeptical individuals believe that a heavenly father looks down on us and plays us like marionettes is what keeps the thiest/atheist threads piling up at the SDMB. I mean, if the knuckle-dragging morons were the only god-believers the rest of us could all just shake our elitist heads, roll our eyes and say, “It figures.”
but when the smart and clever get in on it it gets tricky. And these are the very people–worldly, intelligent theists-- that some other posters offer as ‘proof’ to counter the thiesm=immaturity argument.
ultimately, I think it is our whole species, not individuals that are immature (when it comes to religion). we have relied on religion as a guard against the scary, dark abyss that is ignorance. As we advance, learn and mature we first streamline (poly to monothiesm) than eventually eliminate the need for the crutch of theism.
The historical accuracy of Luke’s gospel and the Book of Acts, for example, as investigated by Sir William Ramsay, one of the foremost archaeologists of all time. Ramsay is on record as stating that he set out to disprove Luke’s accounts, but after years of research, was forced to conclude, “Luke is a historian of the first rank. Not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians” (William, Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discoveries On The Trustworthiness of The New Testament p. 222).
Well, it is certainly anti-scientific to believe in a religion or mythology, but I won’t go so far as to say anti-intellectual, because intellectualism goes much further than the mere empirical. As someone who has been a believer all my life (and as some say, “born again” for the better part of four decades) and encountering people of all beliefs the emotionally, aesthetically and morally pleasing part of theology for me is complex.
Science is wonderful and explains many things. But the state of our science leaves most of the universe unexplained, both the distant and worldly and human affairs. What do we make of human beings, how do we deal with them? The unlumped mass of human relations, particularly close relationships have a complexity that a highly trained and skilled psychologist cannot deal with on a personal basis. How should we relate to each other? Religion and myth are very useful in this regard. And different religions have different answers. Consider the teen aged female, going through severe troubles, sneaking out late at night, shop-lifting, experimenting with drugs and sex and generally driving her parents all the way up the walls. How do you advise each of these people so that they know what to expect of each other? Well, if they have all participated in the same religious culture, they all know the mechanisms for responding to the behavior of others, which may or may not work. But at least they have a guide and some solace when others do not meet the expected standard to a situation that really doesn’t have a solution short of the passage of time.
Is it intellectual or moral cowardice to refuse to consider that when we are dead, it might be complete oblivion, and not heaven? I certainly agree that is a likely end, despite my belief in a quality of life everlasting, which may include an afterlife, but of which I am doubtful that is a correct interpretation of what Jesus meant. But I hardly wish to confront every single person on the planet with the fact that we will all be wormfood. Children by a great certainty, in my opinion, should not have the world explained to them this way. I think that you would be surprised at the number of modern deep religious thinkers, without question religious people, who do not believe there is an afterlife. But that doesn’t make theology and mythology useless. It still offers a categorization of the unknown. It offers an explanation for the mystery of evil, and a framework to approach the question. The atheistic philosophers haven’t offered us an explanation of Pol Pot, Hitler, the torturer, etc. that explains the cosmic justice of the Holocaust. When a religion categorizes such an event as the work of a devil, the turning away from God by the perpetrators, it may not be an explanation that satisfies the fearless investigator of human psychology that is willing to devote a lifetime to studying it, but most intelligent and curious people are not willing to devote the energy necessary to building the groudword so that people can understand in a few hundred years exactly what happened. In the meantime, we still need to explain to ourselves these moral failings to ourselves and those about us in a way that helps us to deal with them so that we are not lead to complete dispair or down the same path. As social creatures, we generally go along with the group.
Take the example of objects falling to earth. Aristotle, one of the smartest people who ever lived, pointed out the obvious: that heavier objects fall faster. This was among his thousands of contributions to civilization. It worked for more than 1500 years and dealt nicely with the world. Galileo, rolling spheres down slopes and timing them, proved Aristotle wrong. Kepler and then Newton then upset the Ptolemiac system by laying the groundwork for showing that gravity, the same force Galileo was fiddling with (contemporaneous with Kepler IIRC) was behind the movement of the planets, not angels pushing things around. But that explanation was fine for everything we were doing up until then.
Now that isn’t intended to justify the Pope’s punishing of Galileo for publishing the truth. And keep in mind the Pope was a lifelong personal friend of Galileo, and probably personally believed that Galileo was right, but wasn’t willing to suffer the political consequences during the middle of the reformation for accepting Galileo’s theories publicly. Was this a high human cost to Galileo? Without question. Is the fundamentalist dogma of creationism inflicting a huge human cost on us now? Without question. But the fundamentalists are not capable of holding these conflicting ideas in their heads, and it isn’t fair to make them try. Evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, death, evil, altruism, etc. are concepts that they cannot grasp in order to explain their world. I think it would be awful to deprive them of their simple explanation. I think it is equally terrible, if not worse, to allow them to teach their religion in public schools, but life isn’t black and white, it isn’t even 32bit or 48bit color, but a whole universe of complexity beyond human understanding in the next few hundred, if not few thousand years. Every age thinks that it is on the brink of filling in the rest of what there is to know about the universe, and our age is no different. We haven’t even scratched the surface.
Ah, the old Ramsay saw. Regardless of how you view his implied skeptic-to-believer journey (plenty of people seem to think that he was only ever skeptical of the doctrine of inerrancy), you have to admit that his amazing evidence ultimately amounts to him being over-awed at the fact that Luke records the names of places accurately and judges traveling times within reason. Well, so does Tom Clancy. That doesn’t demonstrate that Acts is divinely inspired, litterally a history, or that any miracles happened as Luke relates (which, as is never mentioned, Ramsay was unable to find evidence of). The fact that he references a real town is not proof that his discussion of people being struck dead are accurate history.
So let’s be clear here, instead of trying to slip by with grand claims that conceal shaky premises: Ramsay was familiar with several claims about Luke being inaccurate about the placement and existence of certain towns which were often bandied about at the school he attended. He looked into these matters, and found them to be in error, and Luke not to be rightly subject to those criticisms. That, however, is hardly grounds to declare that Luke’s accounts are definitive histories, especially given his inability to substantiate anything more than geography and general sociology (Luke doesn’t have anyone eating sushi, so that means that Peter magically struck two people dead?). If I believe that O.J. wore gloves when he killed his wife and her friend, and find myself to be in error, that doesn’t serve to prove him innocent of murder. The errors supposedly made in Luke would have had to be even more silly than that, since they involved places that the author of Luke was likely to have traveled himself.
I think you’re seriously misconstruing Ramsay’s arguments. Remember, Ramsay was no mere dabbler in archaeology; rather, he was one of the foremost archaeologists of all time. To say that he was mere “over-awed” strikes me as the wishful thinking of a layman.
In addition, he specifically sought to disprove Luke’s accounts, and by extension, the New Testament. Instead, he became a staunch defender of Christianity, after years of trying to refute it. It would be most unusual for a learned archaeologist – the foremost in his field – to switch sides merely because he was awed that Luke “records the names of places accurately and judges traveling times within reason.”
Moreover, even if one disagrees with his findings, the fact remains that Ramsay (among others) tried to discredit Christianity, but ultimately chose to accept it based on the evidence at hand. This alone disproves the OP’s assertion that religious belief is based on mere fairy tale belief, rather than any investigation of the facts.
Apos beat me to it. As Apos pointed out, Ramsay verified a couple of minor geographical details about Acts and nothing about Luke. He also used specious extropolations and fallacious logic in tring to reconcile a chronological contradiction in Luke.
According to Luke’s gospel, Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, and during a “census of the world” which was administered under the Syrian governor Quirinius. Now Herod died in 4 BCE and Quirinius’ census occurred in 6 CE leaving a gap of ten years, an irreconcilable gaff on the part of Luke. Ramsay tried to explain this away by claiming that Quirinius might have been governor of Syria twice and thus might have ordered another worldwide census ten years before the one recorded by Josephus. To support his theory, Ramsay offered up…nothing. No one can prove that Quirinius wasn’t governor twice, therefore he must have been, therefore Luke was right, therefore Jesus was God. This is hardly rigorous scholarship.
Ramsay also fails to address some other obvious problems with Luke’s credibility in this regard. For instance, Quirinius’ census was not, in fact, a census of the world, but only a handful of provinces, which did not include Galilee, the home of Joseph and Mary. Luke is also wrong in asserting that people would have been required to return to their places of birth. This would have been a logistical and beaurocratic nightmare, it would have served no purpose for the Romans, and there is no documentation anywhere of the Romans ever requiring this for any census.
Ramsay really deserves no further discussion or consideration. The fact is, JThunder, there simply isn’t anything verifiable about the historicity of the gospels or virtually anything at all about Jesus. I know. I’ve spent about fifteen years trying to research it. I really wanted to know what the truth was, but there just isn’t anything that we can know for sure. We are reasonably sure that a guy named Jeshua lived, had followers, probably said some of the things attrubuted to him in the gospels, was executed under Pilate, and that a new religion was founded in his name.
If we could actually verify anything beyond that, especially with regard to any of the supernatural claims made about Jesus, believe me, it would be monumental front page news.
First of all, the idea that Ramsay had set out to “disprove” Christianity is largely a canard. He was never an atheist, in fact he was always a Christian. He only had doubts as to Biblical inerrancy. He specialized in topographical archaeology and the onlly thing he proved was that a couple of cities were where Acts said they were. This no more proved the truth of Christianity than Schliemann’s discovery of Troy proved the literal existence of Zeus.
Second of all, Ramsay did not find any evidence whatever to prove the veracity of the core claims of Christianity. He found no proof of miracles, the resurrection or the divinity of Jesus. In fact, he could not even definively prove that Jesus had ever existed.
Ramsay is an old fan favorite for evangelistic types to trot out as their prize archaeologist, but there is far less to Ramsay than meets the eye.
Immaturity is presumptuous. It presumes that it is the reality and all else is the fantasy. It believes that it has knowledge that, if only others would listen, could rescue them from their fantasies. But more than that, it believes that it knows what others believe, and it repackages their beliefs so that those beliefs will fit nicely into its own myopic reference frame. It thinks that it is right and that all others are wrong.
Immaturity is ignorant. It labels other people’s beliefs as myths and legends because it doesn’t know what else to do with them. It doesn’t know the difference between subjective and objective proof. It doesn’t understand that reason begins with axioms, and that what is axiomatic is what is experienced or known a priori. And being presumptuous, immaturity thinks that its experience is the totality of the experiences by man.
Immaturity is desperate. It forms its opinion before it investigates, and finds confirmation of its own theory in everything it sees. It is antithetical to science, which demands that a theory be falsifiable. It thinks that experience is invalid because it is not subject to scientific testing, despite that it calls upon its own experience to validate its scientific tests. And being ignorant, it doesn’t know that its sacred theory of falsifiability is itself, well, not falsifiable.
Immaturity is rude. It doesn’t care that its words might hurt. It uses them anyway. It speaks of myths and gods as though gods of fire and thunder were the objects of people’s worship. It insults the dearest things that others hold in their hearts as treasure, and it delights in hurling ridicule and inciting anger. Being desperate, it doesn’t think before it speaks.
Immaturity is intellectually weak. If forms arguments based on misrecordiam and ignorantiam — pleading that something must be false because it has not been proved true. It stumbles through logic like a drunk man in an earthquake, unfamiliar with but a handful of principles that it found on the Internet. It draws conclusions about appendices, not through reason, but through non sequitur and ad logicam. And being rude, it beats others over the head with its own stupidity.
Immaturity is hypocritcal. It insists that others be held to a standard that it itself is unwilling to attain. It requires proof of someone else’s experience, while it insists that its own experience is definitive and true without proof. It conflates soundness with validity in logic, and it requires the former of others while itself offering only the latter. And being intellectually weak, it is formulating its rebuttal before it has even read its opponent’s words.
Immaturity is jealous. It forms its opinions, not from reason and thought, but from emotions and urges. It so begrudges the happiness and security of others that simply knowing of their status motivates it to resist a sound argument. It flails and spits, stuttering about schizophrenia and delusion. It believes that it is grown up, while others are childish. Being hypocritical, it does not see in itself the weaknesses that it discerns in others.
It’s morning here, I’m about to have breakfast with my girlfriend, and right now I really can’t be bothered to read all the posts on this thread, but since the original post was a reply to me to start with, I feel I should post something.
I myself am an agnostic, but I do not judge any other person’s faith. You may see yourself as more mature than someone who calls him or herself a Christian, Jew or Muslim, but what you fail to see is that this board is filled with Christians, Jews and Muslims, and you don’t see them starting threads called “Atheists are literally ‘immature’”. Attention-seeking and the wish to create controversy are qualities all children, and by extension immature people, share. I trust you see the significance of this.
My point is: leave well enough alone. If you’re right, religion will fade and die, but it’s a process you won’t be able to affect to any appreciable degree. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and so shouldn’t run your mouth off.
If religious people want to be religious and don’t bother anyone else, what’s it to you?
IMO words like “immature” and “schizophrenic” are being used here to be either offensive or derogatory, and serve no purpose. Let’s try and keep this debate civilised.
Statement 1 - it is impossible to prove the existence of a Supreme Being, therefore anyone who believes is expressing their belief as a matter of faith.
Can anyone refute this statment?
Statement 2 - it is impossible to disprove the existence of a Supreme Being, therefore anyone who disbelieves is expressing their disbelief as a matter of faith.