NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there correlation between a person's intelligence and their belief in (a) god(s)? This stems from the conversation about dogs believing in gods. It was said that dogs cannot believe in gods, because they are not intelligent enough. However, it seems to me that many people feel that those who believe in god(s) are less intelligent than those who do not believe in god(s). Do you notice this as well? Or is it just my imagination?

Poll to come. Maybe even a Pole, if I can find one.

Even the most intelligent can be deluded.

Anyone who feels they are more intelligent because they don't believe in God or vice-versa is an arrogant, elitist prick. Belief or lack of belief have nothing to do with intelligence.

Anyone who feels they are more intelligent because they don't believe in God or vice-versa is an arrogant, elitist prick.

I don't carry the opinion that I am more intelligence because I don't believe in god.

I carry the opinion that I don't believe in god because I'm more intelligent.

A subtle yet important difference.

Let me put it this way: unintelligent people are more inclined to need the securities that religion offers, while intelligent people are more likely to understand that such securities are false.

Let me put it this way: unintelligent people are more inclined to need the securities that religion offers, while intelligent people are more likely to understand that such securities are false.

*Dies, waves to Gelgisith from heaven* Who's unintelligent now? How 'bout you Issac Newton?

I don't carry the opinion that I am more intelligence because I don't believe in god.

I carry the opinion that I don't believe in god because I'm more intelligent.

A subtle yet important difference.Either way you are an arrogant elitist since you have designated yourself as "better" than someone who has a different set of beliefs than you do. The same can be said of anyone who say the opposite (like Westboro Baptist Church members would).

Belief or non belief has nothing to do with intelligence.

*Dies, waves to Gelgisith from heaven* Who's unintelligent now? How 'bout you Issac Newton?

At very least we know that Isaac Newton was smart enough to spell his own name right.

Either way you are an arrogant elitist

....duh.


since you have designated yourself as "better" than someone who has a different set of beliefs than you do.

No I don't "designate" myself better. I am better. I just recognize that.

Belief or non belief has nothing to do with intelligence.

Quite, as I said, even the most intelligent can be deluded. But I'm better than stupid people because I am smart, and better than "believers" because I am not so easily deluded. Which makes me significantly better than stupid people who believe.

At very least we know that Isaac Newton was smart enough to spell his own name right.

Are you really going to be that petty? Are you really going to blame me for a late night mistake a year ago? Do you REALLY have to dig that deep just to find a flaw in me? And I take it that you aren't contesting that intelligence and Religion have no correlation now, or are you going to contradict yourself now?

It just appears that religious people are less intelligent because the loudest and most noticeable religious people are idiots. Aside from that, I'm not aware of any correlation between religious beliefs and intelligence.

Are you really going to be that petty? Are you really going to blame me for a late night mistake a year ago?

What "year ago"? If you think I care enough about your posts to retain some memory of stuff you said months ago, you're rather seriously overestimating your own importance. I'm pointing out the mistake you made right now (hint: his name was "Isaac" not "Issac").

Do you REALLY have to dig that deep just to find a flaw in me?

It's not that deep.

And I take it that you aren't contesting that intelligence and Religion have no correlation now, or are you going to contradict yourself now?

Frankly I have insufficient evidence to conclude one way or another. I don't know how many believers there are and what their IQ spread is, and I"m fairly sure you can't find anything from me saying otherwise.

I am inclined to believe that religion is a trait shared more oftenly with the dumb than in the intelligent, but I can't really say for sure. That's just my base instinct. There are certainly a whole lot more stupid believers than smart believers, but that may just be a factor of there being far more stupid people in general.

Smart people can believe, stupid people can fail to believe, are stupid people more likely to believe? Don't know, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised.

I have a great deal of respect for a very few individuals who hold religious beliefs. Moreso towards those who have spiritual beliefs. I do admit though, that upon discovering someone is religiously-minded, my overall estimation of their intelligence takes a dip. They sort of have to prove to me afterwards that said dip was not warranted.

We can't even agree on what intelligence really means and now we're gonna add it into the religion mix?

I'd rather be munching tacos. *spots one* Yay! *pounces and commences munching*

Either way you are an arrogant elitist since you have designated yourself as "better" than someone who has a different set of beliefs than you do.

"No one is better than anyone else." How very politically correct of you.

*Dies, waves to Gelgisith from heaven* Who's unintelligent now? How 'bout you Issac Newton?

Isaac Newton went straight to hell for being a practicing alchemist. Trying to change lead into gold is as bad as trying to turn monkeys into men.

We can't even agree on what intelligence really means and now we're gonna add it into the religion mix?

I'd rather be munching tacos. *spots one* Yay! *pounces and commences munching*

I'm paying for the tacos I ate last night. They pounced me.

My experience says that most smarter people are atheists.

Either way you are an arrogant elitist since you have designated yourself as "better" than someone who has a different set of beliefs than you do.

Actually, I'm just going to leave this up for the irony. "how dare you believe that someone who believes differently is wrong? You aren't suppose to believe that, you bastard!"

No one is better than anyone else. How very politically correct of you.


Depends on what you mean by 'better'. You can both be correct.

I don't think there's any relation between intelligence and religious beliefs, at least not from my own anecdotal evidence. I've known a couple of brilliant people who were religious, and a couple complete idiots who were atheists.

HOWEVER, it does seem to me (again, through my own meaningless anecdotal evidence) that there is a negative correlation between education and religiosity.

What "year ago"? If you think I care enough about your posts to retain some memory of stuff you said months ago, you're rather seriously overestimating your own importance. I'm pointing out the mistake you made right now (hint: his name was "Isaac" not "Issac").

Whoops! My apologies, I thought you meant my name! *Has a friend whose name is spelled Issac*

Frankly I have insufficient evidence to conclude one way or another. I don't know how many believers there are and what their IQ spread is, and I"m fairly sure you can't find anything from me saying otherwise.

I am inclined to believe that religion is a trait shared more oftenly with the dumb than in the intelligent, but I can't really say for sure. That's just my base instinct. There are certainly a whole lot more stupid believers than smart believers, but that may just be a factor of there being far more stupid people in general.

Smart people can believe, stupid people can fail to believe, are stupid people more likely to believe? Don't know, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised.

I don't carry the opinion that I am more intelligence because I don't believe in god.

I carry the opinion that I don't believe in god because I'm more intelligent.

A subtle yet important difference.
Therefore, you believe that you don't believe in God because you are more intelligent, as you said. Therefore, you DO believe that there is a correlation between intelligence and religion.

I'm paying for the tacos I ate last night. They pounced me.

Risk is part of the game. *nod*

Therefore, you believe that you don't believe in God because you are more intelligent, as you said. Therefore, you DO believe that there is a correlation between intelligence and religion.

My lack of faith is a result of my intelligence presenting me with an inability to believe on blind faith and not rationality. But I can't speak for people at large, maybe those equally intelligent as I do not have as finely tuned bullshit detectors.

We can't even agree on what intelligence really means and now we're gonna add it into the religion mix?

I'd rather be munching tacos. *spots one* Yay! *pounces and commences munching*

Yeah, I was thinking this too. How do we define intelligence? What makes some one intelligent?


1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
6. Government.
a. information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
b. the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
c. an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence; naval intelligence.
7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.
8. Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or infinite Mind.
9. (often initial capital letter) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one, as an angel.

However, if we want to look at intelligence in a deeper sense, maybe we should differentiate between the words 'smart' and 'intelligence'. Smart could be defined as 'knowing things', while intelligence could be knowing how to utilize those 'things'?

Personally, I tend to think the majority of religious people aren't very intelligent, or not as intelligent as those who aren't religious. I'm not saying all of them are, mind you.

It is hard to quantify intelligence. One thing that is pretty common. Those who perceive themselves to not be that intelligent, tend to be embarrassed or insecure about their lack of intelligence. The loving embrace of religion is very comforting to these people.

People who tend to be very smart also tend to be able to make more coldly rational decision about their own mortality, and don't need the emotional safety blanket religion provides.

Theres the PC version.

What do I really think? Religions are predatory organisations that are very good at getting people at vulnerable points in their life and offering them a great prize.

Less intelligent people find it easier to accept things lacking in any logic or evidence than intelligent people. Even at a low point, most very intelligent people will still see the gaping holes in so much of religious doctrine.

I accept there are exceptions to these. You will be able to show me science based nobel prize winners who are religious.
I doubt you'll be able to find me a born again, raised by agnostics or atheists though. Most strongly intelligent religious people were indoctrinated early.

My lack of faith is a result of my intelligence presenting me with an inability to believe on blind faith and not rationality. But I can't speak for people at large, maybe those equally intelligent as I do not have as finely tuned bullshit detectors.

You know, I'm usually quite eager to read your posts because they're well-reasoned and thought-provoking, but you're taking an awfully inflammatory approach here. I'm a little disheartened by the fact that this is the way you think about people with certain religious beliefs. It's not simply a universal fact that religion is completely irrational and absurd, so it's quite disingenuous to argue as if it is. As I said in a previous post, I've known some brilliant people who are religious, and with pretty reasonable justification. I am not one of them, as I am a professed atheist, but this is a very closed-minded and shallow perspective you have.

Also, CM, I've never noticed that error in your name, but it makes me smile. Furthermore, be aware that I will lampoon you mercilessly for it should we ever get into a debate. AD HOMINEM FTW.

Heaven forbid any of us take a hard-line approach to fairy tales. Sheesh...people might think that we are incapable of reason if we can't seriously debate the merits of magical sky beings fornicating life into the cosmos.

I'd say the people who think religion is a sign of low intelligence are generally pretty dumb. I've seen them set up countless straw men about what believers supposedly believe, and then believe those straw men were truths. How about asking people what they believe before debunking it? Eh?

On the other hand, I have to agree that believing something just because a book and/or authority figures say so doesn't look very smart...

Religion or a lack of it is not a sign of (lack of) intelligence. But the depth of ones thoughts about religion is.

It's not simply a universal fact that religion is completely irrational and absurd…

It what sense is it not?

Also, CM, I've never noticed that error in your name

Wow. Neither did I. Thanks for pointing it out for all of us, CM.

You know, I'm usually quite eager to read your posts because they're well-reasoned and thought-provoking, but you're taking an awfully inflammatory approach here.

If you were of the honest and true perspective that a believe in a faith was at best, self deluded fairy tale and, at worst, dangerous to society as a whole, would you be so welcoming?


I'm a little disheartened by the fact that this is the way you think about people with certain religious beliefs. It's not simply a universal fact that religion is completely irrational and absurd

Actually, by definition, it is. Faith, by the very fundamental meaning of the word, is irrational.

but this is a very closed-minded and shallow perspective you have.

This makes as much sense of "being intolerant of intolerance makes you just as bad as the people who are intolerant!"

Some things deserve scorn.

Err?

How are we rating intelligence? Does knowing the bible count as book-smart? Are we calling people smart or stupid for trying to cheer themselves up with sweet nothings?

Heaven forbid any of us take a hard-line approach to fairy tales. Sheesh...people might think that we are incapable of reason if we can't seriously debate the merits of magical sky beings fornicating life into the cosmos.

You know, I was going to include you in that post to Neo Art as well, but then I remembered that your posts, while usually well-reasoned, are not usually very nice.

Everyone has his/her own style, I guess.

And see, it's the "fairy tale" bullshit that gets me. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, a belief in some higher power is not equivalent to Little Red Riding Hood. There are reasons-- which clearly you do not value, but they do exist-- to believe in religion. Not so much with Mother Goose stories.

And see, it's the "fairy tale" bullshit that gets me. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, a belief in some higher power is not equivalent to Little Red Riding Hood. There are reasons-- which clearly you do not value, but they do exist-- to believe in religion. Not so much with Mother Goose stories.

May the Great Goose peck you for all eternity.

Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, a belief in some higher power is not equivalent to Little Red Riding Hood. There are reasons-- which clearly you do not value, but they do exist-- to believe in religion. Not so much with Mother Goose stories.

How is it not? The fact that someone might have a reason to believe it doesn't make it any more or less true. God exists whether or not we believe in it, and our belief won't suddenly create something from nothing.

…and our belief won't suddenly create something from nothing.

I guess that's why you don't get on with Libertarians. *ba-dum tish*

I think it's incredibly arrogant to describe a belief in a higher power as a 'delusion', since there is absolutely no empirical or analytical basis for such a statement.

You know, I was going to include you in that post to Neo Art as well, but then I remembered that your posts, while usually well-reasoned, are not usually very nice.

How does Neo Art get 'more nice' than me? Sorry...are you browsing the same forum as I?

Thank you for reminding me just how dense many of you are, by the way.

Everyone has his/her own style, I guess.

And see, it's the "fairy tale" bullshit that gets me. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, a belief in some higher power is not equivalent to Little Red Riding Hood. There are reasons-- which clearly you do not value, but they do exist-- to believe in religion. Not so much with Mother Goose stories.

Some people believe in leprechauns. Since this isn't a widely held belief, those people are generally mocked, and their beliefs ridiculed.

You seem to think that because a large number of people wish to believe in something, that by sheer numbers alone, they should get our respect.

Talk about lack of reasoning.

I think it's incredibly arrogant to describe a belief in a higher power as a 'delusion', since there is absolutely no empirical or analytical basis for such a statement.

I'm sorry.

Did you just use the terms 'empirical' or 'analytical' along with 'higher power' in the same sentence?

I'm sorry.

Did you just use the terms 'empirical' or 'analytical' along with 'higher power' in the same sentence?

I'm not saying that there is an empirical or analytical basis for belief either. The whole idea (and this really is extremely simplistic first grade philosophy) is that it's impossible to make an empirical positive statement relating to any metaphysical being, for a number of reasons, including the fact that the metaphysical is not contingent on the physical and that the whole idea of god is an unfalsifiable statement.

Anyone who feels they are more intelligent because they don't believe in God or vice-versa is an arrogant, elitist prick. Belief or lack of belief have nothing to do with intelligence.

Agree, as do those who find their own liberal tolerance more significant than other's beliefs, and therefore not tolerate those who think they are smarter one way or another. And I suppose I might as well include myself in here since by posting I too participate in this chain of criticism.

Notice that no matter which ever level you go, you must have a fundamental believe you are more correct than someone else in order to judge and criticize them. To judge people require a certain level of arrogance ourselves.

This brings us to the topic of intelligence. What is intelligence? Who defines it? Certainly if I am egotistic enough I will label all my trait as better than all yours. Although culture and social group does influence our beliefs, in the end it still comes down to personal perception.

As for the atheist who think science can disprove God at this point.

At the current moment, there is no testable mean prove or disprove Gods existence. Because of science's inability to know everything at this point, it becomes a simply probability question where the chance of being right is about 50/50. Yes we can prove many traits like the great flood doesn't exist by studying layers of the earth, or the earth's strait path is warped by the sun's gravitational field. But disproving the bible as a book of fact really isn't enough evidence to assume that God in general doesn't exist, the only conclusion we can draw is that either the bible wasn't meant to be a book of facts to begin with, or that the Christian God doesn't exist (again another split in probability).

Since it's a 50/50 chance, to call head or tail is left to a person's choice, and has little to do with logics.

That aside, logic has a fundamental flaw in it's limitation to our brain. We feel and believe this world, this consciousness, this logic to be the fundamental truth, but note that our brains are really not build for understanding everything, neither the very big like space time, nor the very small like quantum physics. Our common sense simply isn't evolve for anything beyond living on earth at this given time frame. The best we can do is construct mathematic models to deal with the things that defines common sense. With our technology barely able to reach Mars, if God is to exist there's a good chance that our six layer neo cortex would not be able to make sense of so easily. It's not even hard since anything outside of the cosmic microwave background is beyond our reach at this point. There are no way for us to reach any further than the speed of light * the age of our universe. What's more? Physics breaks down as we approach the big bang, as we observe black holes, as we fail to make sense of dark energy and dark matter. We never even seen an up quark or a down quark. The LHC is still being build so we can test rather or not supersymmetry exist, and if not, back to square one for those string theorists. Our LIGO is still waiting to pick up a gravity wave that have yet to show up. When we are still stuck in figuring out the traits of the world he created, how do we even claim todays science can understand the creator, if there is one?

Therefore science is a good tool to understand our existing physical world yes, and it's practicality have greatly enhance the human ability to understand the world. But to assume science is capable to prove God doesn't make any sense.

Despite all this I must admit that if God exist, there's a high chance that our popular religion is probably not an accurate depiction of what God is.

I'm not saying that there is an empirical or analytical basis for belief either. The whole idea (and this really is extremely simplistic first grade philosophy) is that it's impossible to make an empirical positive statement relating to any metaphysical being, for a number of reasons, including the fact that the metaphysical is not contingent on the physical and that the whole idea of god is an unfalsifiable statement.

You can't tell me that Santa Claus doesn't exist, cuz you can't PROVE he doesn't! Therefore you must accept that his existence is unknowable, and my worship of him is valid and worthy of respect. Neener neener!

Save it.

It's also impossible to make an empirical statement that disproves my theory that there are magical engineering fairies flying out of the crack of my ass, but that lends no credence to the argument that they actually exist.

It's also impossible to make an empirical statement that disproves my theory that there are magical engineering fairies flying out of the crack of my ass, but that lends no credence to the argument that they actually exist.

Exactly.

My fairies are of the musical variety though.

There is absolutely no correlation between someones beliefs, and their intelligence. Certain beliefs (such as those relating to them being "followed" or "chosen" etc.) can be signs of a mental condition, but that is a completely separate matter to intelligence, and fall well beyond the realms of what most people would consider a general, less introspective belief in the gods/god.

You can't tell me that Santa Claus doesn't exist, cuz you can't PROVE he doesn't! Therefore you must accept that his existence is unknowable, and my worship of him is valid and worthy of respect. Neener neener!


Actually, you can prove he doesn't exist, since his existence is contingent on many things relating to the physical earth which are not present (children not getting presents, no north pole castle, etc...). However, since there is an infinite amount of possibilities as to what a 'higher power' could be, meaning it's not inherently contingent on factors unlike with Santa clause, it is absolutely impossible to have an empirical basis for a statement claiming that a belief in a higher power is a delusion.

You can't tell me that Santa Claus doesn't exist, cuz you can't PROVE he doesn't! Therefore you must accept that his existence is unknowable, and my worship of him is valid and worthy of respect. Neener neener!

Save it.

Actually you can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. You can go to the North Pole and see there is no magical workshop there. However, you can't jump out of space and time and see where God exists.

Actually you can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. You can go to the North Pole and see there is no magical workshop there. However, you can't jump out of space and time and see where God exists.

it's an invisible magic workshop.

Prove it isn't.

It's also impossible to make an empirical statement that disproves my theory that there are magical engineering fairies flying out of the crack of my ass, but that lends no credence to the argument that they actually exist.

Actually our science is capable of dissecting you to find out, or to install surveillance of different measures, or to simply give you a drug test to see if you have taken hallucinogen lately. I am sure there are plenty of other ways to prove you otherwise.

Note there's a difference between not able, and not care enough to.

A more accurate statement than any in the poll would be "People with faith are less rational than those without." Rationality and intelligence are not the same thing, however.

And by the way, atheism is also a type of faith. Belief in nothing is still belief, and since there is not a bit of valid scientific evidence for either a god or a lack thereof, atheism is as much a belief as Christianity, Hinduism, etc. Agnosticism is rational and logical; atheism only masquerades as such.

As for a correlation between intelligence and religion, I think very intelligent people are less likely to have orthodox religious beliefs, but this doesn't exclude religious beliefs as a whole.

It's also impossible to make an empirical statement that disproves my theory that there are magical engineering fairies flying out of the crack of my ass, but that lends no credence to the argument that they actually exist.

No, but a belief in a higher power is not the same a specific belief constituting what that higher power exactly is. So believing something like that is believing in one out of infinite possibilities as to what this higher power could be, making that belief to be practically infinitely unlikely. Again, when I say you can't make any empirical claim as to what the higher power is, I mean it.

it's an invisible magic workshop.

Prove it isn't.

I've never heard that version of the story. Also, with current technology gov't would be able to track a man in the sky traveling on a sled. WE don't track that. Why? Because he doesn't exist. (And don't give me the BS NORAD Santa tracker. We all know that's a spoof thing the gov't does for kids)

Actually you can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. You can go to the North Pole and see there is no magical workshop there. However, you can't jump out of space and time and see where God exists.

In this short post you have assumed
That God exists
That God exists outside of space and time
That there is an 'outside of space and time' for God to exist in
That existence in 'outside of space and time' is possible
That magical workshops would necessarily be visible
That the non-existence of a magical workshop in the vicinity of the North Pole disproves the existence of Santa Claus

In this short post you have assumed
That God exists
That God exists outside of space and time
That there is an 'outside of space and time' for God to exist in
That existence in 'outside of space and time' is possible
That magical workshops would necessarily be visible
That the non-existence of a magical workshop in the vicinity of the North Pole disproves the existence of Santa Claus

Let me ask you, what is more believable:

A magical man with an invisible workshop, able to deliver presents to every kid in the world in a 24 hour period, without ever being caught by anyone

OR

The existence of a force outside of our known universe that created all that we know?

I've never heard that version of the story. Also, with current technology gov't would be able to track a man in the sky traveling on a sled. WE don't track that. Why? Because he doesn't exist. (And don't give me the BS NORAD Santa tracker. We all know that's a spoof thing the gov't does for kids)

Santa is of course immune to primitive human technology.

Prove he isn't.

Let me ask you, what is more believable:

A magical man with an invisible workshop, able to deliver presents to every kid in the world in a 24 hour period, without ever being caught by anyone

OR

The existence of a force outside of our known universe that created all that we know?

You mean which is more believable, an undetectable, supernatural entity with powerful, but limited abilities, versus an undetectable, supernatural entity with unlimited powers?

You basically asked, which is more unbelievable. A magic creature who can do a lot of crazy shit, or a magical creature who can do a lot of crazy shit and create a universe. Do you really need to ask this question?

Based purely on scale, god is far more unbelievable than santa, as ther's nothing santa could do that god couldn't.

Let me ask you, what is more believable:

A magical man with an invisible workshop, able to deliver presents to every kid in the world in a 24 hour period, without ever being caught by anyone

OR

The existence of a force outside of our known universe that created all that we know?

They are equally unbelievable since there is no evidence to support either.

You mean which is more believable, an undetectable, supernatural entity with powerful, but limited abilities, versus an undetectable, supernatural entity with unlimited powers?

You basically asked, which is more unbelievable. A magic creature who can do a lot of crazy shit, or a magical creature who can do a lot of crazy shit and create a universe. Do you really need to ask this question?

Based purely on scale, god is far more unbelievable than santa, as ther's nothing santa could do that god couldn't.

Oh, so you are saying that its more believable for a story book figure to do what I have said, than for a force outside our universe to exist and have created what we know today? Simple yes or no.

Santa is of course immune to primitive human technology.

Prove he isn't.


I am a God. I created you in your mother's womb, using your father's sperm. Prove to me otherwise.

See how silly this can get?

I think there's a correlation not between religious belief and intelligence but between how one approaches that belief and intelligence. There is nothing particularly unintelligent about saying, "I honestly don't know if a god or gods exist, but I personally choose to believe/not believe." There is a fair amount unintelligent about saying, "God(s) absolutely do/don't exist, and I won't listen to anyone who suggests otherwise, shut up shut up shut up."

I think there's a correlation not between religious belief and intelligence but between how one approaches that belief and intelligence. There is nothing particularly unintelligent about saying, "I honestly don't know if a god or gods exist, but I personally choose to believe/not believe." There is a fair amount unintelligent about saying, "God(s) absolutely do/don't exist, and I won't listen to anyone who suggests otherwise, shut up shut up shut up."

But the latter is much more fun.

They are equally unbelievable since there is no evidence to support either.

I believe there is more proof for the second. Why? Because even science is unsure how this universe came into existence. There have been threads on how some think there might have been other universes before this one, giving way at sometime to create what we know. So let me ask again, is it more believable for a force outside of our current universe to have created everything we know now, or for Santa Claus?

I notice a lot of the "we can't prove a lot of things either" argument. Here's the simple reason to distinguish Santa vs God. While we do not magically receive gifts on Christmas, there is one undeniable fact that we existed. Our existence is without a purpose, seemingly without a causation link beyond the big bang. We might as well be or not be, to exist or to not exist. Therefore, as the universe does exist, and as do we, it is up to a person's interpretation to what happens beyond the big bang. As of right now the popular argument seems to be God vs Nothingness, then there's also the M theory model of clashing realities in the 11th dimension, and probably some other not so possible scenarios like Scientology or Christian by the book.

But then again it brings the question of why post here, especially knowing the chances of anything I said being taken seriously is fairly slim.

A magic creature who can do a lot of crazy shit, or a magical creature who can do a lot of crazy shit and create a universe. Do you really need to ask this question?


Of course when you anthropomorphize anything you radically make it a much more specific belief considerably harder to believe in.

Let me ask you, what is more believable:

A magical man with an invisible workshop, able to deliver presents to every kid in the world in a 24 hour period, without ever being caught by anyone

OR

The existence of a force outside of our known universe that created all that we know?

The first one sounds more plausible to me.

At the current moment, there is no testable mean prove or disprove Gods existence. Because of science's inability to know everything at this point, it becomes a simply probability question where the chance of being right is about 50/50.

And FreedomEverlasting whips out the Really Bad Bayesian Probability at us…

I believe there is more proof for the second. Why? Because even science is unsure how this universe came into existence.

You have a very unusual definition of "proof". By the very same logic there is proof of a giant, invisible, undetectable unicorn in my refrigerator because science can't prove there isn't.

So let me ask again, is it more believable for a force outside of our current universe to have created everything we know now, or for Santa Claus?

I believe he already answered that question.

But the latter is much more fun.

Well, the latter definitely spawns lots of religious threads on NSG. :tongue:

While we do not magically receive gifts on Christmas

You might not because you don't believe in the mighty Santa.

prove I don't.

I believe there is more proof for the second. Why? Because even science is unsure how this universe came into existence. There have been threads on how some think there might have been other universes before this one, giving way at sometime to create what we know.
Humanity as a whole has been unsure about how many phenomena happened. So it was a god. The lightning god made lightning. Rain god made rain. Small-four-legged-wool-covered-creature-making god makes sheep. I trust you see the point I'm trying to make here. The existence of gaps is not proof of a god to fill them.

So let me ask again, is it more believable for a force outside of our current universe to have created everything we know now, or for Santa Claus?

Since the last time I answered this question I have not become aware of any evidence that would lead me to conclude that this universe was created by some force outside of it or that Santa Claus exists. To save you asking and me answering this over and over again why don't we just agree that if I do come across such evidence I'll tell you about it.

Santa is of course immune to primitive human technology.

Prove he isn't.

The problems with entities like Santa Claus and fairy tale creatures and the like is that there is usually some inherent contradiction in their concpetions. This, I think, is often what's taken as evidence of non-existence. In order to talk about Santa Claus, we have to attribute certain essential properties. Many of these are in contradiction with each other, or at least in contradiction with things that we can reasonably know to be true. For example, he is meant to be a wholly physical entity that performs feats that are physically (as far as we can tell) impossible.

God does not have the same restrictions, and as such is not subject to the same criticisms. He/she/it is certainly vulnerable to a whole slew of other objections, but they are not so easily dismissed as we have little experience or real knowledge in the realms or manners in which God is meant to exist. There can certainly still be contradictions, but as I said, they're not so clearly defeated. As a matter of fact, this is why I don't believe in God (at least the traditional Western conception). I think there are inherent contradictions, but there are arguments against my own, and some of them are fairly convincing.

Finally, my assumption that Neo Art was pretty amiable had to do with the fact that, from what I'd seen, he just came in, posted his opinion (usually on law), and left without all the incendiary nonsense. Clearly, this was a mistaken impression. It'd be a lot easier to discuss things with the two of you if you didn't assume a defensive posture and ready yourselves for a melee upon reading a comment from anyone.

Finally, my assumption that Neo Art was pretty amiable had to do with the fact that, from what I'd seen, he just came in, posted his opinion (usually on law), and left without all the incendiary nonsense. Clearly, this was a mistaken impression. It'd be a lot easier to discuss things with the two of you if you didn't assume a defensive posture and ready yourselves for a melee upon reading a comment from anyone.

I don't "ready myself for melee" in the slightest. The problem is that some people think that their belief renders them immune from criticism merely because they believe it. It doesn't.

There is no correlation between belief and intelligence, however there is a correlation between intelligence and the ability to accept that not everyone shares your opinion.

The poll question doesn't match up with the questions I doubt many people would deny that "people who believe in God(s) can be just as intelligent as those who do not believe" (my bold) but that doesn't exclude the possibility of a correlation between belief and intelligence.

HOWEVER, it does seem to me (again, through my own meaningless anecdotal evidence) that there is a negative correlation between education and religiosity.

Your intuition is right: studies tend to find negative correlations between levels of education and 'religiosity'.

I carry the opinion that I don't believe in god because I'm more intelligent.

There's a difference between simple criticism and that ^^^. To say nothing of Neesika's assertion that I'm dense, which, while certainly not the worst thing I've ever been called, is something which I'd like to believe is false.

You might not because you don't believe in the mighty Santa.

prove I don't.

It is irrelevant because it still doesn't change the fact that we exist. Existence is therefore universal and each person can interpret what this means for themselves. Gift from Santa is non universal as I have never gotten a gift from him. If you happen to receive gifts and meet up with him for dinner well good for you, there's always the possibility that you know someone named Santa with 6.6 billion people in this world.

Unless of course you are going to take the stand that you don't really exist and I am just hallucinating as I am typing this message. Otherwise causality rule suggest that beyond the big bang is either a force we not yet understands or a force we not yet understands. Nothingness seems just as extreme as God since we have an uneven amount of matter/anti matter ratio, making it harder to claim that our world just spontaneously come out of nothing.

That being said, forces we not yet understand of course does not necessary mean God, nor does "natural causes" beyond big bang rules out the possibility of God either. Perhaps one day we will finally reach the source of natural causes, where we can no longer move beyond because there is nothing beyond it, and for the lack of a better word we cause this God.

You might not because you don't believe in the mighty Santa.

prove I don't.

Whatever fairy tale creature you are talking about, if you go down this path of qualifier after qualifier it will always lead to exactly the same being (invisible, unidentifiable, invulnerable, able to create things ex nihilo etc...), have you read Flew's analogy of the gardener?

A few years ago there was a thread about whether something similar to the matrix could really be real, and that everyone is merely experiencing a shared dream. A large portion, I think around half of NSG, believed that this was a possibility, even those who are self proclaimed atheists. I got into one debate with someone, who was constantly qualifying what his belief was. When I told him that to map every single particle in this universe, the computer would have to be the size of the universe itself for example, the person responded by saying that in the real universe the laws of physics are different, thus something could exist that could have created this artificial universe. Eventually after more nitpicking, the belief ended up being a force that does not obey our laws of physics and that created our artificial universe, this was the only way his belief could not be disproved, and yet this belief is no clearly different from God. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Your intuition is right: studies tend to find negative correlations between levels of education and 'religiosity'.

But that would be obvious wouldn't it? The poor, who also happen to have less access to good education, would tend to believe in an answer to their troubles and a justification for suffering to give them hope and a sense of meaning.

A few years ago there was a thread about whether something similar to the matrix could really be real, and that everyone is merely experiencing a shared dream. A large portion, I think around half of NSG, believed that this was a possibility, even those who are self proclaimed atheists. I got into one debate with someone, who was constantly qualifying what his belief was. When I told him that to map every single particle in this universe, the computer would have to be the size of the universe itself for example, the person responded by saying that in the real universe the laws of physics are different, thus something could exist that could have created this artificial universe.

The Matrix? Omniscient computers? Wha?

The problems with entities like Santa Claus and fairy tale creatures and the like is that there is usually some inherent contradiction in their concpetions. This, I think, is often what's taken as evidence of non-existence. In order to talk about Santa Claus, we have to attribute certain essential properties. Many of these are in contradiction with each other, or at least in contradiction with things that we can reasonably know to be true. For example, he is meant to be a wholly physical entity that performs feats that are physically (as far as we can tell) impossible.

You're failing to appreciate that Santa can't be described as an object of existence, but only as an entity which is beyond existence. As such, although Santa may appear superficially to share qualities with the mundane objects of existence he is unconstrained by the natural laws of the Universe and can perform tasks which would be impossible within the limits these laws without breaking them, as he was never bound by them in the first place.

Bullshit, yes, but is it any less coherent than what Theologians come up with to justify contradictions in their belief systems? ;) I also offer a proof of Santa's existence.

1. Santa can be defined as an infinitely jolly entity.
2. I can conceive of an entity jollier than which none can be imagined, so Santa exists in the imagination.
3. It would be jollier for Santa to truly exist rather than to exist only in the imagination.
4. Therefore Santa exists.

I notice a lot of the "we can't prove a lot of things either" argument. Here's the simple reason to distinguish Santa vs God. While we do not magically receive gifts on Christmas, there is one undeniable fact that we existed. Our existence is without a purpose, seemingly without a causation link beyond the big bang. We might as well be or not be, to exist or to not exist. Therefore, as the universe does exist, and as do we, it is up to a person's interpretation to what happens beyond the big bang. As of right now the popular argument seems to be God vs Nothingness, then there's also the M theory model of clashing realities in the 11th dimension, and probably some other not so possible scenarios like Scientology or Christian by the book.

But then again it brings the question of why post here, especially knowing the chances of anything I said being taken seriously is fairly slim.

tl;dr :p

And FreedomEverlasting whips out the Really Bad Bayesian Probability at us…

Go ahead, entertain me with scientific proof that shift the probability one way over another. Keep in mind that you cannot use the bible or any other religious text as I already gone through how they fail in great details. Personal intuition also doesn't count since science have already prove how intuition fails when we are looking at things too far beyond our everyday perception.

It is irrelevant because it still doesn't change the fact that we exist. Existence is therefore universal and each person can interpret what this means for themselves. Gift from Santa is non universal as I have never gotten a gift from him.

I assume that, in the past, you have recieved gifts*. You deny these gifts are necessarily from Santa.
I exist. So why does my existence necessarily come from a higher power?

*If not, :(

1. Santa can be defined as an infinitely jolly entity.
2. I can conceive of an entity jollier than which none can be imagined, so Santa exists in the imagination.
3. It would be jollier for Santa to truly exist rather than to exist only in the imagination.
4. Therefore Santa exists.

Gah, I hate the ontological argument.

Whatever fairy tale creature you are talking about, if you go down this path of qualifier after qualifier it will always lead to exactly the same being (invisible, unidentifiable, invulnerable, able to create things ex nihilo etc...), have you read Flew's analogy of the gardener?

A few years ago there was a thread about whether something similar to the matrix could really be real, and that everyone is merely experiencing a shared dream. A large portion, I think around half of NSG, believed that this was a possibility, even those who are self proclaimed atheists. I got into one debate with someone, who was constantly qualifying what his belief was. When I told him that to map every single particle in this universe, the computer would have to be the size of the universe itself for example, the person responded by saying that in the real universe the laws of physics are different, thus something could exist that could have created this artificial universe. Eventually after more nitpicking, the belief ended up being a force that does not obey our laws of physics and that created our artificial universe, this was the only way his belief could not be disproved, and yet this belief is no clearly different from God. Do you see what I'm getting at?

This is a valid point. In both cases, the only way to overcome the quandry of "Well, we don't really KNOW what's true," is to use inference to the best explanation. We can't really prove that we're not in a matrix, but evidence suggests that we are not. Similarly, we can't really prove that God doesn't exist, so you go with what your evidence seems to be. This mostly comes down to logical assertions (as opposed to empirical evidence). The concept of God can explain away a lot of philosophical problems out there, and for a lot of brilliant people, this is the best explanation to those phenomena. On the other hand, there are (logically based) arguments that can point away from the existence of a God. The point is that there is reason to believe either one, without empircal evidence either way, based on inference to the best explanation.

Thus a belief in God is (plausibly, not always) much more rational than some would have us believe.

Here's the thing...

...I don't think that someone who entertains the existence of a higher being to be less intelligent, as people have said - in my limited reading of this thread - who can definitely describe reality.

I do believe that those who are certain, and certainly those who think they know the rules of any higher being, to be of lesser intelligence.

It's almost implied.

I think this argument of "Can we Prove God?" is pretty irrelevant, considering that the mere fact that people either research or try to think of a way to prove God encourages doubt as to their own religious standing and thus proves that they are more intelligent than anyone that says "God exists and I'm going to plug my ears until you stop talking about Richard Dawkins, you liberal, CommuFasciNazi, homosexual, left-wing, Al Gore humping sack of mule meat."

:p

Go ahead, entertain me with scientific proof that shift the probability one way over another.

That's not the point. What makes your assignment of probability Really Bad, and Also Bayesian, is that you claim that lack of information presents us with a 50% chance.

There's a cabinet next to me, which could contain an enraged snake. Now, maybe I want to know how the probability of my cabinet containing an angry slithering reptile. If I were a Good Frequentist, I could check a random sampling of cabinets for snakes, and assign a probability based on that.

Obviously, that doesn't work for universes, because we don't know if there are any others with gods, and if there were we would have no means of checking. There are many other cabinets, which do or do not have snakes in them, but they're all locked. Therefore, the Good Frequentist says: "There is not enough information to predict the state of this universe or cabinet". The Really Bad Bayesian says: "Like the angry snake, God either is or isn't. Two states, meaning a 50% chance for either one."

I assume that, in the past, you have recieved gifts*. You deny these gifts are necessarily from Santa.
I exist. So why does my existence necessarily come from a higher power?

*If not, :(

Exactly, you don't necessary come from a higher power. The question, if look at under the causality law should be, would we eventually reach an endpoint, a source of some kind? Or would it be an infinite amount of endless causation? And rather any of this have to do with consciousness.

Now, here's a tricky part, our universe happens to spontaneously generate conscious being call human being. Yet we are here perfectly sure that consciousness must be unique to human. We deny it in animals, and now we proceed to deny any possibilities of consciousness that might be higher than ours.

Again it's just something to think about.

You're failing to appreciate that Santa can't be described as an object of existence, but only as an entity which is beyond existence. As such, although Santa may appear superficially to share qualities with the mundane objects of existence he is unconstrained by the natural laws of the Universe and can perform tasks which would be impossible within the limits these laws without breaking them, as he was never bound by them in the first place.

Bullshit, yes, but is it any less coherent than what Theologians come up with to justify contradictions in their belief systems? ;) I also offer a proof of Santa's existence.

1. Santa can be defined as an infinitely jolly entity.
2. I can conceive of an entity jollier than which none can be imagined, so Santa exists in the imagination.
3. It would be jollier for Santa to truly exist rather than to exist only in the imagination.
4. Therefore Santa exists.

I was not aware of any explication of Santa that dubs him an entity beyond existence. As far as I know, he's just a fat man/elf who brings presents to children. In fact, I think that one of his essential characteristics is that he is a physical entity. I mean, if you're talking about a ghost or something "beyond existence" (a phrase that seems unbearably vague and ambiguous ;)), then I think you have a very different entity.

And as Hydeland said, I too hate the ontological argument. Anselm was a jerk. :tongue:

That's not the point. What makes your assignment of probability Really Bad, and Also Bayesian, is that you claim that lack of information presents us with a 50% chance.

There's a cabinet next to me, which could contain an enraged snake. Now, maybe I want to know how the probability of my cabinet containing an angry slithering reptile. If I were a Good Frequentist, I could check a random sampling of cabinets for snakes, and assign a probability based on that.

Obviously, that doesn't work for universes, because we don't know if there are any others with gods, and if there were we would have no means of checking. There are many other cabinets, which do or do not have snakes in them, but they're all locked. Therefore, the Good Frequentist says: "There is not enough information to predict the state of this universe or cabinet". The Really Bad Bayesian says: "Like the angry snake, God either is or isn't. Two states, meaning a 50% chance for either one."

Exactly, which is why I find it odd for people to so strongly claim their beliefs must be true. Can be either, can even be none. I guess I just want people to look outside their box rather than so immediately and spontaneously call each other stupid. But as the first paragraph of my first post suggest, I am fully aware of my own arrogance for taking the middle ground.

snip

You completely missed the point. I'm saying gifts from Santa could be just as universal as existence.

Yet we are here perfectly sure that consciousness must be unique to human. We deny it in animals…

Do we now?

Exactly, which is why I find it odd for people to so strongly claim their beliefs must be true.

You missed the point again. It's not a case of 50/50. Although I guess you could claim that there's a 1% chance that it's a 50% chance, which is as good as anything else.

There's a middle ground in saying that there might not or might be a higher being - that's about it, and I'm not even sure about that. Once anyone tries to define, in any way, what a higher being might consist of shifts that percentage away from 50/50 and into 1M/1

You missed the point again. It's not a case of 50/50. Although I guess you could claim that there's a 1% chance that it's a 50% chance, which is as good as anything else.

Any percentage chance you assign would be purely arbitrary tbh.

Any percentage chance you assign would be purely arbitrary tbh.

Precisely. Which is what makes it so Really Badly Bayesian.
I'll stop writing that now.

You completely missed the point. I'm saying gifts from Santa could be just as universal as existence.

Do we now?

You missed the point again. It's not a case of 50/50. Although I guess you could claim that there's a 1% chance that it's a 50% chance, which is as good as anything else.

Yes, but in the case of Santa, all you have to do is give out a survey to see how many people receive gifts from him, and if you happen to run into one person like myself, who happens to not receive a gift, it becomes non universal. But existence isn't like this, because the very notion of an existing nonexistence is a paradox in itself. If you exist you must exist.

As of right now, the possibility that the source of the universe might be conscious seems to offend a lot of atheist.

I am simply here to suggest that there's not a possible way to determine one way or another. We don't know the possibilities because we don't have the means to narrow it down, leaving it open for any interpretation. Of course the whole point of this is to bring more possibilities than 100% no God or 100% God, if we come up with 10 thousand possibilities beyond God and no God that's perfectly fine in my book.

It's funny how discussions about the existence of god(s) tend to degenerate into discussions about whether or not the universe was created by a conscious being. This is really missing the point.

First of all, the universe cannot have been literally created by a conscious being, simply because creating can only be done by a being that is part of the (physical) universe, and no physical being is capable of creating itself. Therefore the "being that created the universe" must be considered a metaphor, at the very least the creation part of it. So, an argument about whether or not the universe was "created" by a "god" is an argument about whether or not we like the metaphor. Completely useless.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the universe came into existence without any god(s) having influence on that, and yet god(s) exist!

"No, people who believe in God(s) can be just as intelligent as those who do not believe"

This isn't worded right for a neutral statement. If you can edit it (and want to change it) could I suggest

"There is no correlation between belief in god and intelligence"

Yes, but in the case of Santa, all you have to do is give out a survey to see how many people receive gifts from him, and if you happen to run into one person like myself, who happens to not receive a gift, it becomes non universal. But existence isn't like this, because the very notion of an existing nonexistence is a paradox in itself. If you exist you must exist.

You know, I replied to you originally to try and show that the Santa analogy is prefectly relevant, but I can respond no more because I honestly have no idea where you're going with this.

As of right now, the possibility that the source of the universe might be conscious seems to offend a lot of atheist.

True, because skyhooks don't work.

I am simply here to suggest that there's not a possible way to determine one way or another. We don't know the possibilities because we don't have the means to narrow it down, leaving it open for any interpretation.

Right. So don't go around claiming it's a 50% chance.

Personally, I don't think not being religious makes you intelligent in the slightest. Some of my collegues are big athiest crusaders (in totally the wrong state) and I think they're some of the biggest dumbasses I know. Even my thesis advisor, who's agnostic, thinks they're pretty dumb.

Point: I'm a Christian and a loud defender of the faith at that... I make straight A's in graduate school and I'm going to be a college professor once I finish my master's and Ph.D... Am I dumb? I think not.... My mommy told me I'm not, so I'm not. Understand?! :mad:

It's funny how discussions about the existence of god(s) tend to degenerate into discussions about whether or not the universe was created by a conscious being. This is really missing the point.

First of all, the universe cannot have been literally created by a conscious being, simply because creating can only be done by a being that is part of the (physical) universe, and no physical being is capable of creating itself. Therefore the "being that created the universe" must be considered a metaphor, at the very least the creation part of it. So, an argument about whether or not the universe was "created" by a "god" is an argument about whether or not we like the metaphor. Completely useless.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the universe came into existence without any god(s) having influence on that, and yet god(s) exist!

Last I check Dark Energy is spontaneously generating itself as our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Counter intuitive to our physical reality doesn't necessary mean it isn't happening. Not to mention the known spontaneous particles popping in and out of existence inside a vacuum.

Useless as it might be, we are wasting our time here making a post on who's more intelligence than who, and I am simply pointing out that rationality has nothing to do with believing or not believing in something far beyond our reach.

Besides consciousness spontaneously existing out of nothingness is just as far fetch as universe spontaneously existing out of nothingness. Then again so does black holes and any other seeming impossible phenomenon.

Not really, no.

Less intelligent persons are more prone to believe blindly, yes. But because they were raised with faith as a constant.

Let's move to a secular society, say the Netherlands. There are unintelligent people in the Netherlands just as there are intelligent and unintelligent people in every country. Now let's say we have a boy named William. William is not a particularly bright child. He's not retarded, but not exactly a genius either. His parent are atheists, not because they thought deeply about it and came out denying the existance of a God, but because they are apathetic to spirituality. As such, they do not raise him with religion, and he does not believe in God. Just the same as an unintelligent child who is raised as a Southern Baptist.

Now, intelligent people are more prone to question rather than rely on blind faith, but their answers to their questions do not belie any difference in intelligence. Intelligent people are more elikely to be drawn to science, and oppose Theism for lack of empirical proof, though some scientists do maintain belief in God, Freeman Dyson, for example, or Jane Goodall.

So no, belief in God has no direct bearing on intelligence. Intelligence affects your ability to understand the concept. Whether it be Atheism or Theism is irrelevant.

Right. So don't go around claiming it's a 50% chance.

Actually in a yes or no question, with absolutely no other information, we can only draw a 50/50 chance, as in one is just likely to be wrong than another. As you bring in more factors, such as more possibilities, obviously this ratio changes. It is the same as flipping a coin, some people can control throwing a head or a tail at will (call cheating), for those of us who don't know that, we can only assume it's 50% until we play enough rounds with the guy. The lack of knowledge hinders our ability to make decisions, and that's all I was trying to say.

Counter intuitive to our physical reality doesn't necessary mean it isn't happening.

… I'm pretty sure it does.

Besides consciousness spontaneously existing out of nothingness…

And who claims this, I wonder?

…is just as far fetch as universe spontaneously existing out of nothingness. Then again so does black holes and any other seeming impossible phenomenon.

Does your whole argument consist of "common sense does not apply to real life, therefore God"?

Actually in a yes or no question, with absolutely no other information, we can only draw a 50/50 chance, as in one is just likely to be wrong than another.

Only if you are a Really Bad Bayesian. *Sigh*. I'll try explaining again. Flip a coin 100 times. The results are most likely about 50% heads, 50% tails. Okay. Now flip the universe 100 times, and see how many times it comes up God.

It's a too wide question to bring any conclusive results. Not all religions apply to the same principles and audiences. If an study like "Correlation between intelligence and belief in Scientology" was scientifically done, the results would be completely different of what it would be a "Correlation between intelligence and belief in Buddhism"

Certain religions are simplified, paternalistic and seek to exploit ignorance and stupidity intentionally to profit over ignorance. Others are much more complex, philosophical and explore metaphysical concepts that a simpleton would have difficulty to understand.

Two things, I feel, justify my argument. (For the intelligence being negatively correlated with religiosity):

1) Quite simply, they don't agree with me, and I regard myself having made the intelligent choice (else, why would I have made it), so, by averaging out all other factors, they must, in my eyes be less intelligent in some manner.
2) A study with no bias (or so I have been lead to believe) correlated IQ against religiosity (in America) found my opinion to be true, except among politicians.

Does your whole argument consist of "common sense does not apply to real life, therefore God"?


I think a more generous interpretation would be "Counter-intuitive does not imply false," which, awkward wording of the above post aside, is certainly true.

I was not aware of any explication of Santa that dubs him an entity beyond existence. As far as I know, he's just a fat man/elf who brings presents to children. In fact, I think that one of his essential characteristics is that he is a physical entity.

Well, that's certainly a perspective that you may get from the description of Santa given to children; then again if you asked young children from the Christian tradition what they understood by the term 'God' they'd probably describe him as a magic man living in the sky, yet I'm sure most thinking Christians would disown such a simplistic description.

I mean, if you're talking about a ghost or something "beyond existence" (a phrase that seems unbearably vague and ambiguous ;)), then I think you have a very different entity.

I absolutely agree with you that the phrase is unbearably vague and ambiguous: I lifted it from a book on Eastern Orthodox theology I skimmed in a bookshop earlier. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence-Energies_distinction) also uses the phrase:

The Energies of God are a central principle of theology in the Eastern Orthodox Church, understood by the orthodox Fathers of the Church, and most famously formulated by Gregory Palamas, defending hesychast practice involving the vision of a "Divine Light" against charges of heresy brought by Barlaam of Calabria. In support of his understanding of ancient tradition, Palamas argued that conflating "nature" and "things pertaining to nature" would make a Christian fall into heresy.

The principle is that God's essence (ousia) is distinct from his energies (energeia) or activities in the world, and it is the energies that enable us to experience something of the Divine. These energies are "unbegotten" or "uncreated". These energies can not be created or destroyed. They are unbegotten or uncreated, because they are a natural by-product of something which is beyond existence. Orthodox theology holds that while humans can never know God's "Essence" and that direct experience of God would simply obliterate us (much as Moses could not survive seeing God's face), God's "Energies" can be directly experienced (as Moses could see God's back and live). These energies are considered to be uncreated in nature. Unlike the realities[1], of the Trinity such as being the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, the energies of God are not considered to be unique to a specific hypostasis of the Trinity. Instead, they are common to all three.

See what I'm getting at? :p

And as Hydeland said, I too hate the ontological argument. Anselm was a jerk. :tongue:

Yup. :D

… I'm pretty sure it does.

And who claims this, I wonder?

Does your whole argument consist of "common sense does not apply to real life, therefore God"?

Only if you are a Really Bad Bayesian.

Go back to post 1 from now, I am fairly certain my argument was never to proof or disprove God in any way. But rather both possibilities are still too early to be answer by our current scientific capabilities. I suppose since I keep responding to atheists, what I said becomes more polarized to the other end than I thought.

Let me put it this way: unintelligent people are more inclined to need the securities that religion offers, while intelligent people are more likely to understand that such securities are false.

When you can prove to me that all religious ideas are false, then you can suggest outright that it only makes sense that they are.

I completely believe in Christ Jesus, and His amazing sacrifice for humanity. At the same time, I don't can you an idiot for not seeing whats obvious to me, because I understand merely because I think something is obvious (Christian beliefs, in this case) does not mean that you would find a similar belief obvious.

So now, who is more intelligent, you, who cannot bend you mind around why or how and intelligent person can believe something different than yourself, or me, who accepts, and understands what everyone (except Scientologists) believes.

Intolerance is the first part of ignorance, people who cannot abide others with different beliefs are stupid, I don't care to what faith they subscribe, or what their "IQ" is. (the Priests who advocated the crusades, say, or Richard Dawkins... both are fools cut from the same vine of ignorance, foolishness, and stupidity).

Two things, I feel, justify my argument. (For the intelligence being negatively correlated with religiosity):

1) Quite simply, they don't agree with me, and I regard myself having made the intelligent choice (else, why would I have made it), so, by averaging out all other factors, they must, in my eyes be less intelligent in some manner.
2) A study with no bias (or so I have been lead to believe) correlated IQ against religiosity (in America) found my opinion to be true, except among politicians.

Simply by believing you have made one right decision where others have made the wrong one, you are not required to believe that they are less intelligent than you overall. They just happen to have one incorrect belief (by your view). Einstein might have believed that there were men inside the TV that made it work (or something equally ludicrous). He still would have been a genius, and certainly smarter than us.

Point: I'm a Christian and a loud defender of the faith at that... I make straight A's in graduate school and I'm going to be a college professor once I finish my master's and Ph.D... Am I dumb? I think not.... My mommy told me I'm not, so I'm not. Understand?! :mad:

Presumably a person as intelligent as yourself realises how completely irrelevant this anecdote is when discussing a correlation between religion and intelligence, no? It's rather like countering the statement "Men tend to be taller than women" by saying "No way! I know this chick who's like, six foot seven!" ;)

Is there correlation between a person's intelligence and their belief in (a) god(s)? This stems from the conversation about dogs believing in gods. It was said that dogs cannot believe in gods, because they are not intelligent enough. However, it seems to me that many people feel that those who believe in god(s) are less intelligent than those who do not believe in god(s). Do you notice this as well? Or is it just my imagination?

Poll to come. Maybe even a Pole, if I can find one.

One I would have wrote that there is no correlation between faith and intelligence since faith is more in the realm of emotion than rational thought. Yet I have seen a study on this very subject and it showed a clear-cut correlation between sense of religiousness and intelligence (rated as IQ): the higher the IQ the lower the religiousness.

So, I'm afraid that I must vote for "Yes, people who believe in God(s) are less intelligent than those who do not".

Yes, but in the case of Santa, all you have to do is give out a survey to see how many people receive gifts from him, and if you happen to run into one person like myself, who happens to not receive a gift, it becomes non universal.

You're assuming that Santa's gifts are solely material. For unbelievers such as yourself, Santa is loving enough to give you the gift of disappointment which may one day lead you to believe in him.

But that would be obvious wouldn't it? The poor, who also happen to have less access to good education, would tend to believe in an answer to their troubles and a justification for suffering to give them hope and a sense of meaning.

IIRC at least some of the studies were carried out by measuring belief in the same people before and after university.

It's also worth noting that if the metric for religiosity includes regularity of attendence at a place of worship (and they usually do) this will actually favour the leisured classes over the poor.

Personally, I don't think not being religious makes you intelligent in the slightest. Some of my collegues are big athiest crusaders (in totally the wrong state) and I think they're some of the biggest dumbasses I know. Even my thesis advisor, who's agnostic, thinks they're pretty dumb.

Point: I'm a Christian and a loud defender of the faith at that... I make straight A's in graduate school and I'm going to be a college professor once I finish my master's and Ph.D... Am I dumb? I think not.... My mommy told me I'm not, so I'm not. Understand?! :mad:

Well put. You get a cookie.

Well, that's certainly a perspective that you may get from the description of Santa given to children; then again if you asked young children from the Christian tradition what they understood by the term 'God' they'd probably describe him as a magic man living in the sky, yet I'm sure most thinking Christians would disown such a simplistic description.

Very true, and good point. However, I wasn't really aware that there was a conception of Santa that was beyond childhood beliefs. Perhaps I'm just too sheltered. ;)

I absolutely agree with you that the phrase is unbearably vague and ambiguous: I lifted it from a book on Eastern Orthodox theology I skimmed in a bookshop earlier. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence-Energies_distinction) also uses the phrase:

See what I'm getting at? :p

Haha, I'm terribly sorry, but I don't. Santa is supposed to be God-energy? Even under this usage of the phrase, I'm not quite sure how this coule apply to Santa. I think I'll need more explanation than this wiki. :$

Is there correlation between a person's intelligence and their belief in (a) god(s)? This stems from the conversation about dogs believing in gods. It was said that dogs cannot believe in gods, because they are not intelligent enough. However, it seems to me that many people feel that those who believe in god(s) are less intelligent than those who do not believe in god(s). Do you notice this as well? Or is it just my imagination?

Poll to come. Maybe even a Pole, if I can find one.

http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/media/30/north_pole_MG0233.jpg

Not sure if anyone has added a pole to the thread yet... I added two (get it?).

Why should the two necessarily have a correlation?

Example 1: I believe in some mystical God who can somehow, magically create everything, and shaped living being and decided to care specifically about humans.

Example 2: I believe in no God... and matter (that didn't exist a moment ago) came from no where, magically, and then got energy and time (also, from no where) and then exploded, and the universe formed perfectly for human growth.

Now, when you explain things like that, they can both look bad. If I were to take the time, I could probably make them both look reasonable.

Like I said, intolerance is the first part of ignorance, anyone betrays their intelligence when they are intolerant of others for 'believing' something.

"Did you like that movie?" Said John

Gary looks hard at John, while thinking about the question, "Yes John that movie was quite enjoyable."

A disgusted look crosses John's face, "Ugh, I can't understand how you could like a movie like that... clearly I am more intelligent than you!"

Now, yes, this example is about opinions, rather than the factual issue of religious reality... but still, because the answer is unprovable at the moment, religious beliefs are similar to opinions... and did John, from the above story sound very intelligent to you? He wasn't because he was unable to accept that someone believed something that he didn't.

Why should the two necessarily have a correlation?

Example 1: I believe in some mystical God who can somehow, magically create everything, and shaped living being and decided to care specifically about humans.

Example 2: I believe in no God... and matter (that didn't exist a moment ago) came from no where, magically, and then got energy and time (also, from no where) and then exploded, and the universe formed perfectly for human growth.

Now, when you explain things like that, they can both look bad. If I were to take the time, I could probably make them both look reasonable.

Like I said, intolerance is the first part of ignorance, anyone betrays their intelligence when they are intolerant of others for 'believing' something.

"Did you like that movie?" Said John

Gary looks hard at John, while thinking about the question, "Yes John that movie was quite enjoyable."

A disgusted look crosses John's face, "Ugh, I can't understand how you could like a movie like that... clearly I am more intelligent than you!"

Now, yes, this example is about opinions, rather than the factual issue of religious reality... but still, because the answer is unprovable at the moment, religious beliefs are similar to opinions... and did John, from the above story sound very intelligent to you? He wasn't because he was unable to accept that someone believed something that he didn't.

While I agree with your sentiment, I think you'll have a hard time equating intelligence with open-mindedness.

I think a more generous interpretation would be "Counter-intuitive does not imply false," which, awkward wording of the above post aside, is certainly true.

No… he's saying:
a) Common sense is equal to rationality
b) Real life is difficult to understand
c) Common sense is not difficult to understand
d) Common sense does therefore not apply to real life
e) Rational positions are therefore unrealistic
f) Therefore God.

Very true, and good point. However, I wasn't really aware that there was a conception of Santa that was beyond childhood beliefs. Perhaps I'm just too sheltered. ;)

Apparently so. :tongue:

Seriously though, I'm just arguing for the intellectual equivalency of the two. I don't see Christianity as being intrinsically more rationally founded than belief in Santa: it's just had more time and effort put into justifying it. Give me a week and a dozen bored philosophy students and see what I could make of Santa!

Haha, I'm terribly sorry, but I don't. Santa is supposed to be God-energy? Even under this usage of the phrase, I'm not quite sure how this coule apply to Santa. I think I'll need more explanation than this wiki. :$

The sentence reads "[The energy is] unbegotten or uncreated, because they are a natural by-product of something which is beyond existence." 'Beyond existence' refers to the source of the energy i.e. God.

No… he's saying:
a) Common sense is equal to rationality
b) Real life is difficult to understand
c) Common sense is not difficult to understand
d) Common sense does therefore not apply to real life
e) Rational positions are therefore unrealistic
f) Therefore God.

Meh, perhaps. I just like to be as generous as possible, since the position you attribute to our friend is completely indefensible.

Apparently so. :tongue:

Seriously though, I'm just arguing for the intellectual equivalency of the two. I don't see Christianity as being intrinsically more rationally founded than belief in Santa: it's just had more time and effort put into justifying it. Give me a week and a dozen bored philosophy students and see what I could make of Santa!

It certainly has; however, don't let this lead you to believe that the concepts really are equivalent. Religion happens to be better defended, but it also happens to have more merit, I think. I don't see any reason to attribute some sort of correlation between the two. There are different burdens of logic placed on Santa than on God and vice versa. The two concepts are almost infinitely different, so to say that the two are equally reasonable and meritworthy rings false to me.

The sentence reads "[The energy is] unbegotten or uncreated, because they are a natural by-product of something which is beyond existence." 'Beyond existence' refers to the source of the energy i.e. God.

I see....

But while I can see how this can (and probably does) apply to God, I don't think Santa can plausibly be afforded the same luxury. After all, Santa is significantly more relatable than God, I think, in just about any conception. Santa is supposed to be, at least partially, in the realm of empiricism, while God is not.

No… he's saying:
a) Common sense is equal to rationality
b) Real life is difficult to understand
c) Common sense is not difficult to understand
d) Common sense does therefore not apply to real life
e) Rational positions are unrealistic
f) Therefore God.

If you interpret my words at that, it's obvious that you completely misinterpret the post that I made. You have it wrong starting from B to F.

a) Common sense is equal to rationality
b) Rationality is equip for us to understand our current physical world
c) Common sense does not account for the very small, or very large, because they are outside of our reality.
d) Common sense apply to real life, but cannot be use to justify anything outside.
e) Rational positions are realistic, but limited.
f) Therefore when it comes to issues such as pre-big bang, we really don't know either way. It is better to accept not knowing, than to cling on to any beliefs without basis.

Example 2: I believe in no God... and matter (that didn't exist a moment ago) came from no where,

It isn't really meaningful to talk about the time before the Big Bang in those terms (it's debatable whether it's meaningful to talk about before the Big Bang at all).

magically,

No magiks plz, we is skeptikz

and then got energy

Interestingly enough, it seems likely that the net energy of the Universe is zero so there's no need to 'get' energy.

and time (also, from no where)

Time doesn't come until after the Big Bang, and and you don't need to 'get' it.

and then exploded,

'Expanded' might be a preferable term, but exploded will do.

and the universe formed perfectly for human growth.

Perfectly? Seriously? In a Universe where more than 99.9% of space is uninhabitable by man and large chunks of the Universe will always be unreachable by man? This was created for our benefit?

Like I said, intolerance is the first part of ignorance, anyone betrays their intelligence when they are intolerant of others for 'believing' something.

Yesterday, while walking home, I found that somebody had drawn swastikas in chalk all over a patch of pavement. I stopped and rubbed them out because I despise Nazis and what they stand for. Does that make me ignorant?

No, I not equivocating religious belief with Naziism, merely challenging the lazy assumption that disliking people for their beliefs is necessarily ignorant and wrong.

It certainly has; however, don't let this lead you to believe that the concepts really are equivalent. Religion happens to be better defended, but it also happens to have more merit, I think. I don't see any reason to attribute some sort of correlation between the two. There are different burdens of logic placed on Santa than on God and vice versa. The two concepts are almost infinitely different, so to say that the two are equally reasonable and meritworthy rings false to me.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

I see....

But while I can see how this can (and probably does) apply to God, I don't think Santa can plausibly be afforded the same luxury. After all, Santa is significantly more relatable than God, I think, in just about any conception. Santa is supposed to be, at least partially, in the realm of empiricism, while God is not.

Isn't he? What about His wrestling match with Jacob? God may be completely non-anthropic in some traditions, but in by no means all.

If you interpret my words at that, it's obvious that you completely misinterpret the post that I made. You have it wrong starting from B to F.

a) Common sense is equal to rationality
b) Rationality is equip for us to understand our current physical world
c) Common sense does not account for the very small, or very large, because they are outside of our reality.
d) Common sense apply to real life, but cannot be use to justify anything outside.
e) Rational positions are realistic, but limited.
f) Therefore when it comes to issues such as pre-big bang, we really don't know either way. It is better to accept not knowing, than to cling on to any beliefs without basis.

Well, if I interpreted a) correctly, then it doesn't really matter you put afterwards. Because the premise of a) is absurd.

While I agree with your sentiment, I think you'll have a hard time equating intelligence with open-mindedness.

My attempt isn't to equate the two. Merely to suggest that intelligence is foremost contingent on tolerance.

When someone is intolerant... I stop accepting any assertion of their intelligence... now, by 'intolerant' I don't mean 'athiest' (I'm pretty sure I've heard that from some theist before, so I'm just clarifying). And I don't even mean slightly intolerant, I'm a picky eater, I am intolerant of Broccoli on my plate... but that's not quite to context either.

Another example, I'll make myself. I know that God created the universe, and blah blah blah... but I don't know it. I don't know it in the sense of ability to prove it to anyone else, which is fine for me, my knowledge stems from personal experience, and religious experiences, I have no question as to whether or not what I believe is correct, but at the same time I can see how someone could possibly arrive at the complete opposite perspective... there seems to be as much evidence for not God, as there is for one (not, specifically to me, but my beliefs lean one way).

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think you're probably right, though I do fear that I haven't represented myself clearly enough.

Isn't he? What about His wrestling match with Jacob? God may be completely non-anthropic in some traditions, but in by no means all.

Yeah, it certainly gets tricky if you're going for Biblical literalism. So tricky, in fact, that I don't give the view much sway due to the massive amounts of contradiction justification that needs to take place. However, generally, your more philosophically minded theologian (in my experience) tends to use the Bible mainly as parable and allegory, avoiding the problems of God's physicality and the like.

Those that believe in a God CAN be as intellegent as those who don't! of course. Many people today don't believe in a God just because it is what their parents believe, or because they haven't had a good enough education to create their own belief systems and many (in fact the majority don't follow their religious text to the full stop!) many people mix and match between religions or for example christianity and humanism. I think this shows us that religious people CAN be just as clever as those who do not!

Well, if I interpreted a) correctly, then it doesn't really matter you put afterwards. Because the premise of a) is absurd.

yes premise A is absurd, but how many of us here doesn't bias our rationality to our day to day world? But If you honestly believe that you can rationalize things like the behaviors of an electron outside of mathematic then what can I say? If you can't, then your rationality is biased toward common sense.

Although it's almost as if I am being set up here since I decided to keep the structure of your post, and miss the notion of a biased rationality vs a complete equal to common sense.

After looking at it again I notice I am trying too hard to make a point, and simply listed too many things which increases the likelyhood of saying something in a wrong way. I guess I just keep it simply and say this, I don't believe in God, I don't believe in no God, there's an absence of evidence on the causality of the universe, and I much rather admit to not knowing than pretend like either side have some truth to it in any way.

Even the most intelligent can be deluded.

I agree with that. IIRC Most of the 9/11 Highjackers were University educated, yet they killed 3000 people for religious reasons.

My attempt isn't to equate the two. Merely to suggest that intelligence is foremost contingent on tolerance.

When someone is intolerant... I stop accepting any assertion of their intelligence... now, by 'intolerant' I don't mean 'athiest' (I'm pretty sure I've heard that from some theist before, so I'm just clarifying). And I don't even mean slightly intolerant, I'm a picky eater, I am intolerant of Broccoli on my plate... but that's not quite to context either.

Another example, I'll make myself. I know that God created the universe, and blah blah blah... but I don't know it. I don't know it in the sense of ability to prove it to anyone else, which is fine for me, my knowledge stems from personal experience, and religious experiences, I have no question as to whether or not what I believe is correct, but at the same time I can see how someone could possibly arrive at the complete opposite perspective... there seems to be as much evidence for not God, as there is for one (not, specifically to me, but my beliefs lean one way).

Sure, I agree with everything at the end of this post. However, how accepting someone is of other opinions has no correlation with his/her intelligence. It may make a difference to you, personally, as to what kind of person he/she is, but to say that it makes them less intelligent, I think, is disinguenuous. For instance, someone (it may have been you; I can't remember) mentioned Richard Dawkins earlier in the thread. He is certainly a curmudgeonly fellow who doesn't accept anything that even has a hint of religion, but no one can deny the fact that the man is extremely intelligent. The same can apply to the Pope. I don't know if he's particularly intelligent or not, but we can imagine that he would be, despite his unwillingness to consider atheism.

I agree with that. IIRC Most of the 9/11 Highjackers were University educated, yet they killed 3000 people for religious reasons.

Yeah totally dude. Political ideology had nothing to do with it.

My lack of faith is a result of my intelligence presenting me with an inability to believe on blind faith and not rationality.

What about atheists? They have 'blind faith' that god does not exist, just as theists have blind faith that there is a higher power, so I can't see a correlation there unless you can describe atheism as a religion.

...Or rephrase the question as being about 'faith', but unfortunately, you need blind faith if you are ultimately rational too, otherwise you slip into solipsism. Beyond 'Cogito ergo sum', it's all rather vague. Unproductive as scepticism is, you cannot deny it's logical and rational.

What about atheists? They have 'blind faith' that god does not exist, just as theists have blind faith that there is a higher power, so I can't see a correlation there unless you can describe atheism as a religion.

I believe that in Terry Pratchett's 'Small Gods' there's a line about how the gods love a good atheist just as much as a believer :p

Are the religious idiots still babbling in their padded rooms?

Are the religious idiots still babbling in their padded rooms?

Actually, the padded rooms are being cleaned today. It seems they've been repeatedly soiled.

Are the religious idiots still babbling in their padded rooms?

Hey, nice contribution. ;)

I don't carry the opinion that I am more intelligence because I don't believe in god.

I carry the opinion that I don't believe in god because I'm more intelligent.

A subtle yet important difference.

Aren't you Jewish?

Also, there is a high correlation of uneducated people who are religious, however, most people are uneducated, and correlation is not much when it comes to cause/effect.

Yeah totally dude. Political ideology had nothing to do with it.

I never said that. I was merely trying to point out that even someone who has a University education can be motivated by religious fanatics to do horrible things. I'm sure they had some political motivation, but it's easier to do something if you adamantly believe you'll be rewarded with paradise and 72 virgins afterward.

I've known a couple of brilliant people who were religious, and a couple complete idiots who were atheists.
Likewise.

HOWEVER, it does seem to me (again, through my own meaningless anecdotal evidence) that there is a negative correlation between education and religiosity.
There most certainly is. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the studies that have been carried out (and there have been plenty) consistently show that the higher the level of education a person attains, the less likely they are to affirm any kind of religious belief. I've seen this spun many ways but the simplest explanation is that the more an individual knows and understands about the world and universe around them, the less need they seem to have for supernatural explanations. I'm not going to say that it's 'intelligence', per se, since I'm not satisfied with any of the measures of intelligence that people have come up with over the years, but I think that the fact speaks for itself.

see, it's the "fairy tale" bullshit that gets me. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, a belief in some higher power is not equivalent to Little Red Riding Hood. There are reasons-- which clearly you do not value, but they do exist-- to believe in religion. Not so much with Mother Goose stories.
And it's this insistence on the part of religious people that their own particular set of myths (which, of course, vary according to who is doing the speaking) should be set apart from other stories that gets me.

Is there correlation between a person's intelligence and their belief in (a) god(s)? This stems from the conversation about dogs believing in gods. It was said that dogs cannot believe in gods, because they are not intelligent enough. However, it seems to me that many people feel that those who believe in god(s) are less intelligent than those who do not believe in god(s). Do you notice this as well? Or is it just my imagination?

Poll to come. Maybe even a Pole, if I can find one.

I don't think that I'm smarter than someone who isn't religious/spiritual. I don't think I'm dumber either.

But then again, it would depend on what the religion is wouldn't it?
Some people would think that I'm pretty dumb for believing in Christ. But I'm sure if I travelled enough, I could find someone who believed in something that even I would go....Respect your faith, but thats the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

I don't think we need a set IQ to have faith though. I've met some people with intellectual disabilities, from all different religions, and listening to them...they're profound. I would classify them as being more spiritually aware than most normal IQs.

If you interpret my words at that, it's obvious that you completely misinterpret the post that I made. You have it wrong starting from B to F.

a) Common sense is equal to rationality

No it isn't. Similar, perhaps. But not the same.

There is a sort of arrogance in assuming one's lack of belief is a sign of intelligence. Atheism in its current form is relatively new, and to say that everyone before, say, 1600 was deluded is...well, like I said above, arrogant.

That being said, I do empathize with many atheists. When the loudest religious people are not only irrational (not necessarily a bad thing) but anti-intellectual, it's easy to see them as stupid.

who knows what is smarter. The religious idea of creating as many babies as possible (despite the fact that the world is overpopulated) may sound stupid but if we all start dying out due to natural disasters I am sure that this wont target religious belief. By the religious groups pushing to have sooo many children they may lead to human demise but if more religious people survive (as their numbers were greater to begin with) then they will be the same percentage of the world as they were before.

Religion may just be a subtle way for world domination or spreading the genetics to cause your offspring to have more survival

No it isn't. Similar, perhaps. But not the same.

I know, that's what happens for trying to copy/paste a critique I gotten and attempt to modify it to explain my points. If I am to word it my own way it would be rationality is bias toward common sense and our understand of the everyday physical world that is presented to us.

Aren't you Jewish?

Thanks to teh ebil anti-semites, Jewish is a state of being, rather than a state of mind.

Anyone who feels they are more intelligent because they don't believe in God or vice-versa is an arrogant, elitist prick.How about if they don't understand politics or science very well? How about people like that? How about people who have to deal with people like that?
Food for thought:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/08/rush-limbaugh.html

Even the most intelligent can be deluded.True. But the lesser intelligent of the bunch would persist in and insist on the delusion, instead of introspection, investigation, and critical reasoning.

It just appears that religious people are less intelligent because the loudest and most noticeable religious people are idiots. Aside from that, I'm not aware of any correlation between religious beliefs and intelligence.There is, however, a correlation between political beliefs and intelligence ... which, by extension, is important, when you consider the political beliefs involved.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/09/brain-study-lib.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center
+ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/08/rush-limbaugh.html

"No one is better than anyone else." How very politically correct of you.S/he's a closet commie. This seemed like a good time to interject it, subtly.

No difference at all, in my experience.

Actually, I'm just going to leave this up for the irony. "how dare you believe that someone who believes differently is wrong? You aren't suppose to believe that, you bastard!"Jhan had a funny quote along these lines. :)

No difference at all, in my experience.Are you experienced?
You said you weren't.

an infinite amount of possibilities as to what a 'higher power' could beError.
By definition, this is an erroneous statement.

There is a sort of arrogance in assuming one's lack of belief is a sign of intelligence. Atheism in its current form is relatively new, and to say that everyone before, say, 1600 was deluded is...well, like I said above, arrogant.

It's arrogant to say that we know more today that people living four hundred years ago did? On the contrary, it'd be rather worrying if we didn't.

It's not necessary to say that they were 'deluded', only that they were wrong. If you applied your principle consistently then you'd have to reject every novel political and scientific idea: "Feminism? Sorry, if Patriarchy was fine for people in the past then I'm not arrogant enough to dispute it. Heliocentrism? Who do you think you are, calling Aristotle and the Pope idiots? Lightning as a natural phenomenon rather than divine retribution? Shame on you! etc."

overall, no, but if someone were to reject absolute scientific proof one way or another (be it whether a religion was proven to be absolutely true, or atheism) if said scientific proof ever came about than they would be a fool
though thats not to say they could refuse to worship whatever was proven

also: if they were extremists who rejected everyone elses ideas and beliefs, than their intelligence would most likely be lower than that of the average person, other than that it is entirely individual

There is no correlation between belief and intelligence, however there is a correlation between intelligence and the ability to accept that not everyone shares your opinion.
Hear hear.

Error.
By definition, this is an erroneous statement.

Eh? .

What about atheists? They have 'blind faith' that god does not exist, just as theists have blind faith that there is a higher power

incorrect

i must have missed it, but someone at some point in here did explain that the mere fact that there can be dumb atheists and smart christians doesn't necessarily affect the overall correlation of intelligence and religiosity (assuming there is one), yes?

incorrect

some additional clarification would be nice, in that case!

I am aware there is a spectrum of atheistic belief, but I'm pretty sure some atheists are ardent believers in the non-existence of a deity, which (despite so much argument on these forums) cannot be proven either way.

some additional clarification would be nice, in that case!

I am aware there is a spectrum of atheistic belief, but I'm pretty sure some atheists are ardent believers in the non-existence of a deity, which (despite so much argument on these forums) cannot be proven either way.

ardent disbelief in a thing for which there is no evidence is the right and proper thing to do. this is the opposite of 'blind faith', which holds that the epistemic judgment you should make in the absence of any evidence (and even evidence to the contrary) is to believe that that thing really does exist.

nobody disputes this in normal aspects of life. no evidence, don't believe. no evidence after much looking for evidence, treat those that believe anyway as slightly crazy. it is only in a couple of specialized places that people try to remove this epistemic rule from operation. religion is the big one, but secret jewish cabals that run the world is also a popular choice.

nobody disputes this in normal aspects of life.

I don't think that's how it works. When there is no evidence for something, you find that there is no reason to believe in such a thing and go on under the assumption that it doesn't exist, that's not the same as firmly believing that something isn't the case, it's merely a pragmatic assumption. But that doesn't even apply in all circumstances. I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that my brother likes chilli sauce, my brother is also trained to be undetectable under a lie detector, that doesn't then give me an excuse to believe firmly and absolutely that my brother doesn't like chilli sauce.

I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that my brother likes chilli sauce, my brother is also trained to be undetectable under a lie detector, that doesn't then give me an excuse to believe firmly and absolutely that my brother doesn't like chilli sauce.

That's a good example.

There are issues of plausibility involved, of how much a certain explanation fits with our understanding of the way things work (to speak somewhat roughly.)

Thus, if your bother says, "I like chili sauce", you have every reason to believe him (assuming you have no basis to suspect a lie, etc.), while if your brother says "I'm Zeus in disguise", you'd find the suggestion absurd to the extreme.

ardent disbelief in a thing for which there is no evidence is the right and proper thing to do. this is the opposite of 'blind faith', which holds that the epistemic judgment you should make in the absence of any evidence (and even evidence to the contrary) is to believe that that thing really does exist.

nobody disputes this in normal aspects of life. no evidence, don't believe. no evidence after much looking for evidence, treat those that believe anyway as slightly crazy. it is only in a couple of specialized places that people try to remove this epistemic rule from operation. religion is the big one, but secret jewish cabals that run the world is also a popular choice.

There will never be any empirical evidence for the metaphysical, either way. If something is outside the realm of empirical knowledge claims, it is is blind faith to make any claims on it at all. It is not to do with 'normal life', which is why the epistemic position of not finding evidence = must be false, does not hold. However, neither does "it must be true'.

You also ignore the fact that it may be possible to know in the future, and therefore may be true. What was lacking evidence in science was dismissed in the past, only to be found as true once we reached a level of technological sophistication that allowed us to provide the requisite evidence.

And as I said before, there is no 'evidence'' for the world being real, because there is no way to 'prove' perception outside of itself, and any citing of empirical evidence is circular as it is within your perceptions. So we also ignore the 'rule' you mentioned just to exist in everyday life.

That's a good example.

There are issues of plausibility involved, of how much a certain explanation fits with our understanding of the way things work (to speak somewhat roughly.)

Thus, if your bother says, "I like chili sauce", you have every reason to believe him (assuming you have no basis to suspect a lie, etc.), while if your brother says "I'm Zeus in disguise", you'd find the suggestion absurd to the extreme.

Yeah, but is there an objective way to actually measure plausibility? Although most people will share the same ideas in general as to what is more plausible and what is less, that doesn't stop it from being arbitrary.

incorrect
Bit of a sweeping statement.

Yes, people who believe in God(s) are less intelligent than those who do not.
So that's how most atheists believe?
I'm religious and I'm pretty sure I'm more intelligence than most of my friends, including those who are not religious, of course. At least I'm intelligent enough to realize that there is no correlation between the two issues, especially in the personal level.
On another issue, which is not related to spirituality, if human beings only believe in what have been proven, there'd be no progress.

There will never be any empirical evidence for the metaphysical, either way.

demonstrate this. certainly no religious people actually believe it, what with the miracles and divine interventions and the conversing with the gods and all. also, i never limited evidence to the empirical - abstract logic could work as evidence too, for example.

You also ignore the fact that it may be possible to know in the future, and therefore may be true. What was lacking evidence in science was dismissed in the past, only to be found as true once we reached a level of technological sophistication that allowed us to provide the requisite evidence.

the ultimate truth value of a thing isn't directly related to what beliefs we can justifiably hold. it is only really related to whether our justified beliefs are right. but while we want true beliefs, we really want to have justified processes for forming beliefs - the person who accidentally gets some belief right is not better than the person who is justly mistaken.

the mistaken person holds to a process that presumably would have gotten them the right answer if they had been aware of some relevant additional factor or whatever. the accidentally right person is just making shit up.

And as I said before, there is no 'evidence'' for the world being real, because there is no way to 'prove' perception outside of itself, and any citing of empirical evidence is circular as it is within your perceptions. So we also ignore the 'rule' you mentioned just to exist in everyday life.

evidence is not the same as proof, and proof is unnecessary. we have very powerful experiences of the world as an actually existing place. so powerful that not even those that accept the skeptical argument leave rooms on the 14th floor via the window rather than the door.

Bit of a sweeping statement.

and yet it is clearly true. atheists as a class do not have 'blind faith', even if some do. even if the vast majority do. because i do not.

and yet it is clearly true. atheists as a class do not have 'blind faith', even if some do. even if the vast majority do. because i do not.
And what do you have but faith that there is no god, of any kind?

Even if it was an arsehole god that wasn't particularly New Testament-esque?

And what do you have but faith that there is no god, of any kind?

a belief that is justified by standard good epistemic practice.

I'm intelligent enough to realize that there is no correlation between the two issues

statistical demographic evidence, plz

And what do you have but faith that there is no god, of any kind?

Even if it was an arsehole god that wasn't particularly New Testament-esque?

Most atheists lack belief, rather than believing in a lack...

But, you don't need faith to be unconvinced by the need for a god or gods.

There's no evidence - it's not unreasonable to assume that 'no evidence' might be because there's nothing to have evidence of.

Everyone keeps insisting that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god or higher power with such certainty, and I don't believe it's quite warranted. While Free Soviets has clearly said that he does not limit 'evidence' to the empirical, I think a lot of people in this thread have indeed done just that. I think it would be clearly difficult to argue that there is solid empirical evidence for God; however, there are justifiable reasons to believe in him/her/it that are based on logic. I've argued this point (with little response) on an earlier page (page 6, post 82). The existence of some god or higher power of some nature answers a lot of philosophical puzzles, which does indeed serve as evidence of its existence.

When considering the possibility of God, you can't use the same standards you use to consider gravity. Instead, think of something like Platonic Forms-- something that can't be empirically observed or empirically proven/disproven, but can be rationally analyzed regarding its existence. Most of us don't believe in Platonic Forms, but it's not because we've never seen them; it's because a purely logical assessment usually leads us to that conclusion. If a purely logical assessment leads to the same conclusion about God (which it does for me, hence the atheism), then good; at least you've considered it. But it seems like a lot of people are simply asserting that they've never seen empirical/scientific evidence, so it must be false. When thinking philosophically, this is not enough.

I don't think that's how it works. When there is no evidence for something, you find that there is no reason to believe in such a thing and go on under the assumption that it doesn't exist, that's not the same as firmly believing that something isn't the case, it's merely a pragmatic assumption.

the more extensive the evidence against x (such as a prolonged and robust lack of evidence for x despite valiant attempts to find some, for example) the more firm our belief of 'not x' is and should be. however, this firmness is just a statement of how robust we expect that belief to continue to be. all things are always open to change due to new evidence.

But that doesn't even apply in all circumstances. I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that my brother likes chilli sauce, my brother is also trained to be undetectable under a lie detector, that doesn't then give me an excuse to believe firmly and absolutely that my brother doesn't like chilli sauce.

what precisely do you mean by having 'absolutely no evidence whatsoever'? is it merely a lack of any evidence at all (he has never encountered chili sauce to the best of your knowledge), or do you have reasons to believe that he doesn't like it - he has told you he hates it, you saw him try it and make a face, etc.?

The existence of some god or higher power of some nature answers a lot of philosophical puzzles

at the expense of opening up even worse ones

a belief that is justified by standard good epistemic practice.
A belief. There we have it. Nothing more.
Most atheists lack belief, rather than believing in a lack...

But, you don't need faith to be unconvinced by the need for a god or gods.

There's no evidence - it's not unreasonable to assume that 'no evidence' might be because there's nothing to have evidence of.
And there's no evidence for gods not existing either. So it basically comes down to opinion. I'm an atheist, but that's a belief as much as reckoning there's a god split into three parts is a belief.

A belief. There we have it. Nothing more.

a justified belief.

a belief is just some cognitive content you hold - that it is currently about 1:31pm where i am, for example. i hold this belief because the clocks around me say so, and the sun looks to be in about the right position, etc. thus i am justified in that belief. and the fact that it is true means that my belief counts as knowledge.

at the expense of opening up even worse ones

That's very possible. Like I said, I'm an atheist myself, and for that exact reason to be honest, but I think a lot of people are just basing their atheism on a lack of empirical evidence, and that's shortchanging the whole discussion.

a justified belief.

a belief is just some cognitive content you hold - that it is currently about 1:31pm where i am, for example. i hold this belief because the clocks around me say so, and the sun looks to be in about the right position, etc. thus i am justified in that belief. and the fact that it is true means that my belief counts as knowledge.
Uhu, whereas "there is no god" is not justified belief, nor knowledge. There is no proof either way. You might as well say "there is humanoid life somewhere in the galaxy" - might be true, might not be true. We, as a species, may well never know.

a justified belief.

a belief is just some cognitive content you hold - that it is currently about 1:31pm where i am, for example. i hold this belief because the clocks around me say so, and the sun looks to be in about the right position, etc. thus i am justified in that belief. and the fact that it is true means that my belief counts as knowledge.

Well, Gettier showed us that this is not quite enough in itself to claim knowledge (a justified, true belief), but I see what you're getting at, and I agree.

demonstrate this. Certainly no religious people actually believe it, what with the miracles and divine interventions and the conversing with the gods and all. also, i never limited evidence to the empirical - abstract logic could work as evidence too, for example.


I can't, because it is a metaphysical proposition. In your example, religious people are only using your epistemic logic i.e. in their opinion there is not enough evidence for a natural explanation of an event, logic dictates a cause, therefore the cause is non-physical.

Is abstract logic proof of anything other than the self-consistency of logical abstractions? (Oooh, there's a dry title for a new thread)

the ultimate truth value of a thing isn't directly related to what beliefs we can justifiably hold. it is only really related to whether our justified beliefs are right..

But we cannot 100% know our beliefs are right, we say they are right because we consider they are justifiable, because we believe our methods are the best, because of whatever criteria we choose e.g. logic, internal coherence, yet to be disproved, we have x number of proofs etc...


but while we want true beliefs, we really want to have justified processes for forming beliefs - the person who accidentally gets some belief right is not better than the person who is justly mistaken.

Our processes are only as good as we think they are until they fail. How can you judge whose is the best? You can't predict how knowledge paradigms will change. This means we can't say who might be mistaken in their methods with any degree of certainty.

the mistaken person holds to a process that presumably would have gotten them the right answer if they had been aware of some relevant additional factor or whatever. the accidentally right person is just making shit up.


But unless we can predict the future and all future discoveries, we can't say who is who now. (I'm not defending blind faith, just the fact there are different schools of thought on knowledge and burden of proof)

evidence is not the same as proof, and proof is unnecessary.

I don't see how those statements follow. What governs your epistemic standards, and why should they be the ones we all use? The problem of induction is not irrelevant just because you decide you have enough evidence to satisfy you. You have 'blind faith' that your epistemic model is the best.

we have very powerful experiences of the world as an actually existing place.
We have experiences, nothing else follows from that apart from an inference to the existence of something, potentially only ourselves.

so powerful that not even those that accept the skeptical argument leave rooms on the 14th floor via the window rather than the door.

Just because my psyche fears itself being extinguished, and therefore is not willing to take a risk on a theory I do not have the evidence to answer, does not invalidate the consistency of that theory. People have fears of many things, it doesn't mean they are justified to have them.

In summary (because I'm writing too much now), everyone has to have axioms in their belief system that they take on blind faith, and are only as good as they are consistent according to some arbitrary criteria. Therefore we all have blind faith in something, religious or not.
----

I noticed you have mentioned that you do not have the 'positive atheist' belief, so my original comment does not apply to you. However, some atheists do, and I was only giving an example of non-religious people holding a blind faith belief.

I can't, because it is a metaphysical proposition. In your example, religious people are only using your epistemic logic i.e. in their opinion there is not enough evidence for a natural explanation of an event, logic dictates a cause, therefore the cause is non-physical.

Is abstract logic proof of anything other than the self-consistency of logical abstractions? (Oooh, there's a dry title for a new thread)



But we cannot 100% know our beliefs are right, we say they are right because we consider they are justifiable, because we believe our methods are the best, because of whatever criteria we choose e.g. logic, internal coherence, yet to be disproved, we have x number of proofs etc...




Our processes are only as good as we think they are until they fail. How can you judge whose is the best? You can't predict how knowledge paradigms will change. This means we can't say who might be mistaken in their methods with any degree of certainty.



But unless we can predict the future and all future discoveries, we can't say who is who now. (I'm not defending blind faith, just the fact there are different schools of thought on knowledge and burden of proof)



I don't see how those statements follow. What governs your epistemic standards, and why should they be the ones we all use? The problem of induction is not irrelevant just because you decide you have enough evidence to satisfy you. You have 'blind faith' that your epistemic model is the best.


We have experiences, nothing else follows from that apart from an inference to the existence of something, potentially only ourselves.



Just because my psyche fears itself being extinguished, and therefore is not willing to take a risk on a theory I do not have the evidence to answer, does not invalidate the consistency of that theory. People have fears of many things, it doesn't mean they are justified to have them.

In summary (because I'm writing too much now), everyone has to have axioms in their belief system that they take on blind faith, and are only as good as they are consistent according to some arbitrary criteria. Therefore we all have blind faith in something, religious or not.
----

I noticed you have mentioned that you do not have the 'positive atheist' belief, so my original comment does not apply to you. However, some atheists do, and I was only giving an example of non-religious people holding a blind faith belief.

I think you are wrongly equating "blind faith" with "lack of certain proof." There are gray areas, and these areas are what we refer to as 'justified belief.' Just like Free Soviets said, he is justified in believing that it is (was, now) 1:31 pm, due to all the evidence around him. However, he does not have 100 percent certainty. After all, we could be living in the matrix, or some other formation of the skeptical hypothesis could be true. Nevertheless, knowing that there is a possibility that we are wrong does not necessitate "blind faith." Blind faith seems to constitute a complete lack of evidence, not a lack of complete evidence. As I strongly believe and will continue to argue, there is evidence both for and against the existence of God, so either way, I do not believe it is necessarily blind faith that leads a person to his/her conclusion on the issue.

In truth, intelligence is not just one thing. I don't doubt that some parts of what I would call intelligence reduce the likelihood of religious views, whereas others have no effect.

I think that certainly a lot of people believe in God because they are too stupid and/or lazy to think for themselves. However, I think that there are a fairly decent number of intelligent people who also believe in God.

In truth, intelligence is not just one thing. I don't doubt that some parts of what I would call intelligence reduce the likelihood of religious views, whereas others have no effect.

You should elaborate. :)


What parts of intelligence do you think would be detrimentally affected by religious views (or at least religious views would be evidence of lesser intelligence in said part)? For that matter, what are the different parts of intelligence that you consider?

I think that certainly a lot of people believe in God because they are too stupid and/or lazy to think for themselves. However, I think that there are a fairly decent number of intelligent people who also believe in God.

That's true. On the same token, there are a lot of atheists who are too lazy or otherwise unwilling to feel morally responsible for their behavior.

I don't think there is a direct correlation. As with any group, some will be smarter and others dumber.

I had a 3.91 GPA while getting my MA, and a 3.77 getting my BA, if that helps anyone.

You should elaborate. :)
Yes, but it's been a while since I've considered the issue, so my thoughts aren't quite fresh. I'll give it a go though.

What parts of intelligence do you think would be detrimentally affected by religious views(or at least religious views would be evidence of lesser intelligence in said part)?
Religious view don't affect intelligence, it's the other way around. I presume there are certain parts that avoid softening reality by believing things that the mind is capable of logically dismissing. Of course, some people are genuinely incapable of the necessary reasoning, but it would be foolish to attribute this quality to all religious people.

For that matter, what are the different parts of intelligence that you consider?
Well, I've never properly tried to deconstruct human intelligence/the human mind, though it is, if I recall correctly, accepted that the mind has both an analytical and an intuitive part. That said, I think it's likely that only the analytical part is relevant here.

I guess I rambled a bit. To try to make some kind of clear statement, I would say that the ability to distinguish reality and fantasy is independent from reasoning capacity, where that capacity is above a certain level.

Yes, but it's been a while since I've considered the issue, so my thoughts aren't quite fresh. I'll give it a go though.

Religious view don't affect intelligence, it's the other way around. I presume there are certain parts that avoid softening reality by believing things that the mind is capable of logically dismissing. Of course, some people are genuinely incapable of the necessary reasoning, but it would be foolish to attribute this quality to all religious people.

It would certainly be silly to attribute the incapacity you mention to all religious people. Do you, alternatively, believe that all religious people, at the very least, possess the willingness or capacity to "soften [var] reality by believing things that the mind is capable of logically dismissing"? In other words, do you think that it's always the case that religious people accept their beliefs, despite the fact that they know them to be, at least in part, illogical?

Well, I've never properly tried to deconstruct human intelligence/the human mind, though it is, if I recall correctly, accepted that the mind has both an analytical and an intuitive part. That said, I think it's likely that only the analytical part is relevant here.

I guess I rambled a bit. To try to make some kind of clear statement, I would say that the ability to distinguish reality and fantasy is independent from reasoning capacity, where that capacity is above a certain level.

So is the real issue here a distinction between reality and fantasy then? Are you making the assertion that religious people have a lower ability to distinguish reality from fantasy? I'm just trying to get a clear picture of your assertions. (So that I can POUNCE, haha)

That's true. On the same token, there are a lot of atheists who are too lazy or otherwise unwilling to feel morally responsible for their behavior.

I'm sure thats the case. Personally though, I feel that as an atheist Ive been more of a moral person. Then again, different people have differing opinions on what constitutes morality.

Do you, alternatively, believe that all religious people, at the very least, possess the willingness or capacity to "soften [var] reality by believing things that the mind is capable of logically dismissing"?
They would have to have the willingness and capacity. Side note: I do not know what "var" means here.

In other words, do you think that it's always the case that religious people accept their beliefs, despite the fact that they know them to be, at least in part, illogical?[/quote]
It is always the case that religious people accept their beliefs (by definition), even though some are capable of understanding that they are illogical.

So is the real issue here a distinction between reality and fantasy then?
The issue defined by the post that begins the thread. My posts merely attempt to tackle it, surely?

Are you making the assertion that religious people have a lower ability to distinguish reality from fantasy?
Where the difference in the desirability between reality and fantasy is sufficiently great.

So that I can POUNCE, haha
Well, don't expend too much effort.

I think you are wrongly equating "blind faith" with "lack of certain proof." There are gray areas, and these areas are what we refer to as 'justified belief.' Just like Free Soviets said, he is justified in believing that it is (was, now) 1:31 pm, due to all the evidence around him. However, he does not have 100 percent certainty. After all, we could be living in the matrix, or some other formation of the skeptical hypothesis could be true. Nevertheless, knowing that there is a possibility that we are wrong does not necessitate "blind faith." Blind faith seems to constitute a complete lack of evidence, not a lack of complete evidence. As I strongly believe and will continue to argue, there is evidence both for and against the existence of God, so either way, I do not believe it is necessarily blind faith that leads a person to his/her conclusion on the issue.

The sceptic position does argue from the position of burden of proof rather than justifiable belief, but why is that position any less justifiable than saying 'justified beliefs' are adequate for knowledge? I don't think we can make any knowledge claims unless we take some arbitrary criteria on faith, probably to do with the axioms of our epistemological framework, or their relative importance. Religion is not on its own in this (but seems divorced from reality if it do not share the same epistemological framework as you e.g. 'the bible is true' being the very first consideration of ANYTHING)

Interesting you believe there is evidence....You say there is logical evidence - are you talking about ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments? I thought these had been shown as specious by Kant.

They would have to have the willingness and capacity. Side note: I do not know what "var" means here.

So the ability to "suspend disbelief," as it were, is necessary for all people with religious beliefs (meaning belief in religion, not simply religious beliefs insofar as atheism is a religious belief) according to your view then. Is it not possible to have what one feels to be a perfectly rational and logical belief in God? Your assertion here doesn't seem to leave room for a rational thought process to be the basis for religious belief. Side note: I just put "var" to indicate that I changed the tense of your verb, so it wasn't quite a direct quote. I think it's short for "variation" or something along those lines.

It is always the case that religious people accept their beliefs (by definition), even though some are capable of understanding that they are illogical.

Of course religious people accept their beliefs. The question I was getting at is whether or not it is your position that one must necessarily realize on some level that these beliefs are illogical. I suspect that this is indeed your position.

Where the difference in the desirability between reality and fantasy is sufficiently great.

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify here. Are you saying that the more desirable fantasy is, the more likely it is that reality will be ignored?

Well, don't expend too much effort.

Was that sass, sir or madam? Because I'll have you know that I won't stand for sass. ;)

Let me put it this way:

It is just as difficult for a scientist to understand the difference between water and holy water as it is for a priest to understand that there is no difference.

Not really much of an answer I know, but it's something related to think about.

Everyone keeps insisting that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god or higher power with such certainty, and I don't believe it's quite warranted. While Free Soviets has clearly said that he does not limit 'evidence' to the empirical, I think a lot of people in this thread have indeed done just that. I think it would be clearly difficult to argue that there is solid empirical evidence for God;


By 'clearly difficult', one assumes you mean 'impossible'.


...however, there are justifiable reasons to believe in him/her/it that are based on logic.


A false dichotomy - it is the evidence, not the process, that is being perceived as flawed. Logic is only as good as the imput.


I've argued this point (with little response) on an earlier page (page 6, post 82). The existence of some god or higher power of some nature answers a lot of philosophical puzzles, which does indeed serve as evidence of its existence.


Answering a philosophical puzzle isn't evidence of the literal existence of a thing.


When considering the possibility of God, you can't use the same standards you use to consider gravity. When thinking philosophically, this is not enough.

Two bold statements, but no justification. Why should I change paradigms? Why sanction special exception for this question?

The sceptic position does argue from the position of burden of proof rather than justifiable belief, but why is that position any less justifiable than saying 'justified beliefs' are adequate for knowledge? I don't think we can make any knowledge claims unless we take some arbitrary criteria on faith, probably to do with the axioms of our epistemological framework, or their relative importance. Religion is not on its own in this (but seems divorced from reality if it do not share the same epistemological framework as you e.g. 'the bible is true' being the very first consideration of ANYTHING)

That's a rather bleak outlook on knowledge, I think. While I do agree that our knowledge claims are based largely on epistemic framework, I see nothing that would indicate that faith enters into the equation, unless you count deductive reasoning as faith. I assume what you mean with your assertion that faith enters into knowledge claims at some level would be something like the fact that we have faith that our senses function correctly. However, in order to understand our epistemic framework in this context, we simply use deduction, not blind leaps of faith. If I have misrepresented you, please correct me.

Interesting you believe there is evidence....You say there is logical evidence - are you talking about ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments? I thought these had been shown as specious by Kant.

I must admit that I'm not terribly familiar with Kant's arguments against God. (I'm more familiar with his ethics.) Regardless, the existence of a God can be supported by inference to the best explanation-- a strategy which we use in just about every discipline. For instance, you may be of the view that the universe has a beginning. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that matter has a beginning, as it can be said that our universe began with the Big Bang; the same cannot be said for matter. It would simply be a feasible solution to the dilemma of the beginning of matter to posit an ultimate Creator, for which there is no cause. While it's certainly difficult to wrap one's head around, it answers the question of origin quite nicely. Now, as I said, this could certainly introduce other problems which would need to be addressed, but those are irrelevant to this particular evidentiary argument for the existence of a god.

And there's no evidence for gods not existing either.


There's no evidence that tiny people DON'T have an entire city located just inside my ass, either.

The evidence is required for the claim, not refusing to accept it.


So it basically comes down to opinion. I'm an atheist, but that's a belief as much as reckoning there's a god split into three parts is a belief.

I'm an Atheist, but it's not a belief. It's skepticism. It's a LACK of belief.

...but I think a lot of people are just basing their atheism on a lack of empirical evidence, and that's shortchanging the whole discussion.

I don't see a problem.

If you can't justify 'belief' without changing the rules... I don't see any logical reason to renegotiate the parameters to allow your 'evidence'.

A truly intelligent person who does not believe will be willing to concede the possibility that he is incorrect and that there is a God and vice-versa. A completely closed mind and unwillingness to consider the opposite of your position is a sure sign that intelligence is in fact lacking. Sadly, I see a huge amount of this on the atheist side and more than just a little on the believer side as well.

That's true. On the same token, there are a lot of atheists who are too lazy or otherwise unwilling to feel morally responsible for their behavior.

That doesn't even make sense - Atheists have to 'feel morally responsible for their behaviour', because we LACK some method of absolution that divests us of our moral reponsibility, and transfers it to some higher arbiter.

By 'clearly difficult', one assumes you mean 'impossible'.

Haha, while I'm not sure if I would ultimately agree with you, we can take this as a given for now.

A false dichotomy - it is the evidence, not the process, that is being perceived as flawed. Logic is only as good as the imput.

Certainly the evidence is what matters. My assertion is only that there has probably not been an appropriate analysis by many people of the logical evidence. In other words, it seems to be assumed in some cases that since there is no empirical evidence, there can be no logical evidence. I believe this to be false.

Answering a philosophical puzzle isn't evidence of the literal existence of a thing.

Sure it is. It's inferrence to the best explanation. Gravity answers the question, "Why do things fall?" and since it seems to be the best answer to the question, there is evidence that gravity exists, namely that things fall and gravity is the force that causes it.

Two bold statements, but no justification. Why should I change paradigms? Why sanction special exception for this question?

The paradigm must be changed because God seems to be the kind of thing that, by its very nature, cannot be explained by wholly empirical means. It's like the study of numbers. Since you can't actually see the concept of 'twoness' or 'being two,' you must use logic to consider mathematical facts, not empirical study. It certainly is tricky to think about God appropriately because he is often supposed to be some strange mix of the physical and the metaphysical, but at the very least we need to consider purely rational logic to answer some questions about God.

So the ability to "suspend disbelief," as it were, is necessary for all people with religious beliefs (meaning belief in religion, not simply religious beliefs insofar as atheism is a religious belief) according to your view then. Is it not possible to have what one feels to be a perfectly rational and logical belief in God? Your assertion here doesn't seem to leave room for a rational thought process to be the basis for religious belief.
It is irrational to consider the existence of God more likely than the non-existence. And most definitions of God seem to be self-contradictory, making the existence of said God impossible.

Of course religious people accept their beliefs. The question I was getting at is whether or not it is your position that one must necessarily realize on some level that these beliefs are illogical. I suspect that this is indeed your position.
For some people, yes, on some level they are aware of the irrationality.

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify here. Are you saying that the more desirable fantasy is, the more likely it is that reality will be ignored?
Yes.

Was that sass, sir or madam? Because I'll have you know that I won't stand for sass. ;)
No, just warning that I don't put too much into NSG debates. I would not want to cause disappointment if I were to become bored and leave the topic.

I don't see a problem.

If you can't justify 'belief' without changing the rules... I don't see any logical reason to renegotiate the parameters to allow your 'evidence'.

So are you then a strict empiricist? Do you believe that there are no a priori truths? If so, you're going to have philosophical problems beyond religion. If you think that there must be hard physical evidence for every truth, then that rules out a lot of truths that we take for granted.

That's a rather bleak outlook on knowledge, I think. While I do agree that our knowledge claims are based largely on epistemic framework, I see nothing that would indicate that faith enters into the equation, unless you count deductive reasoning as faith. I assume what you mean with your assertion that faith enters into knowledge claims at some level would be something like the fact that we have faith that our senses function correctly. However, in order to understand our epistemic framework in this context, we simply use deduction, not blind leaps of faith. If I have misrepresented you, please correct me.

Bleak maybe, but I never rated theories by 'bleakness factor' when looking at their strengths and weaknesses, I'm not sure it's relevant.

To the extent you have faith that 'you are not deceived' is what I am saying at one level, I am also saying that the logical foundations are taken on faith e.g. the validity of deductive reasoning as the basis for any claims. You cannot use deductive reasoning to prove deductive reasoning.

I must admit that I'm not terribly familiar with Kant's arguments against God. (I'm more familiar with his ethics.) Regardless, the existence of a God can be supported by inference to the best explanation-- a strategy which we use in just about every discipline. For instance, you may be of the view that the universe has a beginning. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that matter has a beginning, as it can be said that our universe began with the Big Bang; the same cannot be said for matter. It would simply be a feasible solution to the dilemma of the beginning of matter to posit an ultimate Creator, for which there is no cause. While it's certainly difficult to wrap one's head around, it answers the question of origin quite nicely. Now, as I said, this could certainly introduce other problems which would need to be addressed, but those are irrelevant to this particular evidentiary argument for the existence of a god.

Kant didn't argue against god, but he said you could not use reason to prove god existed either. The concept of god is not logically necessary, the teleological argument is not sound because it posits everything as having a cause except god. There is no logically necessary reason why god should not have a cause. Nor is there a necessary reason why the universe should have a cause. It is an arbitrary distinction - either everything has a cause or there are exceptions - in which case prove why something is an exception. Plus does an exception invalidate the universality of every effect having a cause?

That doesn't even make sense - Atheists have to 'feel morally responsible for their behaviour', because we LACK some method of absolution that divests us of our moral reponsibility, and transfers it to some higher arbiter.

That's a meritworthy perspective. It could also be said that an atheist doesn't have to worry about being moral because there is no fear of retribution. I certainly don't mean to say that I believe it, but I would be very surprised if it were never used as a justification for atheism.

Haha, while I'm not sure if I would ultimately agree with you, we can take this as a given for now.


It has to be a given - unless what we are talking about is a 'god' that is capable of being bounded by, and measured in, empirical terms.

ANd, if that be the case... why are we calling it 'a god'?


Certainly the evidence is what matters. My assertion is only that there has probably not been an appropriate analysis by many people of the logical evidence. In other words, it seems to be assumed in some cases that since there is no empirical evidence, there can be no logical evidence. I believe this to be false.


There's no such thing as 'logical evidence'. There is logic, and there is evidence. But the logic relies upon the assuptions or assertions of the evidence.

If the assumptions are false or flawed, the logical results - while logical - are similarly flawed or false.


Sure it is. It's inferrence to the best explanation. Gravity answers the question, "Why do things fall?" and since it seems to be the best answer to the question, there is evidence that gravity exists, namely that things fall and gravity is the force that causes it.


And that parallels the 'philosophical' question of 'is there a god', how?


The paradigm must be changed because God seems to be the kind of thing that, by its very nature, cannot be explained by wholly empirical means.


That doesn't explain why I ened to change the paradigm. It's a cop-out, because 'god' doesn't fit with in the paradigm that works for everything else.


Since you can't actually see the concept of 'twoness' or 'being two,' you must use logic to consider mathematical facts, not empirical study. It certainly is tricky to think about God appropriately because he is often supposed to be some strange mix of the physical and the metaphysical, but at the very least we need to consider purely rational logic to answer some questions about God.

Why?

If you can't prove that a god or gods exist, that they have any impact upon reality, or that they serve any purpose other than being a security blanket for that primitive part of our brains that needs an omnipresent daddy on dark nights... WHY do we need to extend the conversation to considering questions about god/s at all?

It is irrational to consider the existence of God more likely than the non-existence. And most definitions of God seem to be self-contradictory, making the existence of said God impossible.

For some people, yes, on some level they are aware of the irrationality.

Even if what you say is true, and it truly is irrational to posit the existence of God, your position, as I took it and you apparently affirmed, is that a person cannot truly believe his/her beliefs to be rational. For me to oppose your argument, all that matters is that the person in question believes that they are being rational. I think that some people certainly believe their positions to be rational, and I have met such individuals on more than one occasion.

No, just warning that I don't put too much into NSG debates. I would not want to cause disappointment if I were to become bored and leave the topic.

Fair enough. Should that happen, I'll try to protect my fragile heart. :wink:

So are you then a strict empiricist? Do you believe that there are no a priori truths?


That rather depends what you mean by it. To my mind, an assumption like "If the biblical god exists, he would be beyond the scope of sciecne to comprehend", seems like a reasonable a priori 'truth'.

But, the question of whether the biblical god DOES exist would require a posteriori truth.


If so, you're going to have philosophical problems beyond religion.


Why?


If you think that there must be hard physical evidence for every truth, then that rules out a lot of truths that we take for granted.

That you take for granted.

That's a meritworthy perspective. It could also be said that an atheist doesn't have to worry about being moral because there is no fear of retribution. I certainly don't mean to say that I believe it, but I would be very surprised if it were never used as a justification for atheism.

Atheism doesn't need justification.

It's what is left when the claims to the contrary are found to be unjustifiable.

It has to be a given - unless what we are talking about is a 'god' that is capable of being bounded by, and measured in, empirical terms.

ANd, if that be the case... why are we calling it 'a god'?

Alright, fair enough. I was really thinking about the possibility of miracles as evidence, but I think I would ultimately agree with you.

There's no such thing as 'logical evidence'. There is logic, and there is evidence. But the logic relies upon the assuptions or assertions of the evidence.

If the assumptions are false or flawed, the logical results - while logical - are similarly flawed or false.

There certainly is logical evidence. When you consider ethical questions, how do you determine the answers? You can't observe 'wrongness,' so how do you determine if an action is wrong? You use logic-- logic without a basis in empircal fact. You start with a given, perhaps something like, "Human life is valuable," (which itself has no empirical evidence but seems to be true) and then you rationalize to something like, "Thus, human life should not be needlessly taken." Perhpas logical evidence is a bad term, though I find it difficult to come up with a better one, and this is why we disagree.

And that parallels the 'philosophical' question of 'is there a god', how?

It's only to demonstrate an instance of where we use iferrence to the best explanation to posit the truth of a proposition.

That doesn't explain why I ened to change the paradigm. It's a cop-out, because 'god' doesn't fit with in the paradigm that works for everything else.

Empiricism is not an appropriate starting point for many discussions, especially (and maybe exclusively) the questions addressed in philosophy. Take the example of ethical facts I gave above. Similarly, we can talk about metaphysical issues like time or absolute space without empirical evidence entering the discussion. Since God is supposed to be at least partially metaphysical in nature (as opposed to physical), it is appropriate to go beyond the confines of empiricism to consider those questions. Conversely, it is wholly inappropriate to discuss a metaphysical entity, such as time, only in terms of physical considerations.

Why?

If you can't prove that a god or gods exist, that they have any impact upon reality, or that they serve any purpose other than being a security blanket for that primitive part of our brains that needs an omnipresent daddy on dark nights... WHY do we need to extend the conversation to considering questions about god/s at all?

Answering this would, I think, be redundant, so I'll direct you to the above points.

That rather depends what you mean by it. To my mind, an assumption like "If the biblical god exists, he would be beyond the scope of sciecne to comprehend", seems like a reasonable a priori 'truth'.

But, the question of whether the biblical god DOES exist would require a posteriori truth.

Why?

Again, consider things like mathematical facts, ethical facts, or metaphysical facts, and they go well beyond the realm of empiricism, unless of course, you don't believe in any of those facts, which would lead to the other problems to which I was referring.

As to God's existence being a posteriori, I agree with you. My point was really to show that there are certain things you believe without an empirical basis. I agree that it is a different task to show why God should be one of those things. In other words, the existence of God shouldn't be taken a priori, but could be taken without empirical evidence.

That you take for granted.

No, all of us. Such as the rules of logic which you mentioned above. We assume their truth a priori, or take it for granted. You're not immune.

Atheism doesn't need justification.

It's what is left when the claims to the contrary are found to be unjustifiable.

Perhaps you're right in saying that it doesn't need justification. Nevertheless, some poeple have it, and in some cases it is what I said above.

Regardless, this is kind of a silly thing to argue at all.

Excuse me while I re-order reality.


Answering this would, I think, be redundant, so I'll direct you to the above points.

It was re-iteration. So.. I'll just re-order reality so I can answer this first by saying I'll address your points made earlier, later.

Alright, fair enough. I was really thinking about the possibility of miracles as evidence, but I think I would ultimately agree with you.


*Peace reigns*


There certainly is logical evidence. When you consider ethical questions, how do you determine the answers? You can't observe 'wrongness,' so how do you determine if an action is wrong? You use logic-- logic without a basis in empircal fact. You start with a given, perhaps something like, "Human life is valuable," (which itself has no empirical evidence but seems to be true) and then you rationalize to something like, "Thus, human life should not be needlessly taken." Perhpas logical evidence is a bad term, though I find it difficult to come up with a better one, and this is why we disagree.


*Peace stops reigning*

Personally - pragmatism makes all those questions go away, for me. I don't like pain, so I don't inflict pain, see?


It's only to demonstrate an instance of where we use iferrence to the best explanation to posit the truth of a proposition.


But the situations aren't parallel. There is empirical evidence of gravity (whatever 'gravity' turns out to be) - so the philosophical question-y-ness isn't parallel.


Empiricism is not an appropriate starting point for many discussions, especially (and maybe exclusively) the questions addressed in philosophy. Take the example of ethical facts I gave above. Similarly, we can talk about metaphysical issues like time or absolute space without empirical evidence entering the discussion. Since God is supposed to be at least partially metaphysical in nature (as opposed to physical), it is appropriate to go beyond the confines of empiricism to consider those questions. Conversely, it is wholly inappropriate to discuss a metaphysical entity, such as time, only in terms of physical considerations.


But we don't NEED to have those discussions?

Also - the 'effect' of 'time' is empirically evident...

No, all of us. Such as the rules of logic which you mentioned above. We assume their truth a priori, or take it for granted. You're not immune.

I don't assume the rules of logic are 'true'. I merely find them to be a consistent tool.

Why am I reminded of the episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer gets the crayon removed from his brain and turns out to be hyper-intelligent. He disproves the existance of God, and Ned Flanders goes over his proof, totally in his head, finds it real, and burns the results, to find Homer is putting it on car windshields. I think that while Faith is a very real power, it's application is in question here. If this were not about the Judeo-Christian God, but simply a question of correlating Faith to Intelligence, we would find the two mutually exclusive. Einstein believed in God, after all,and he is largely heralded as the greatest mind of the twentieth century. My question is, why, after communism has been proved to fail every time it's taken off paper or the laboratory and put into use in the Real World, do so-called intelligent people insists it's a perfect system? At least Christianity pulled Europe out of the Dark Ages to become a world-dominating power...

There's no evidence that tiny people DON'T have an entire city located just inside my ass, either.


And, as I have already said, there is absolutely no evidence that my brother likes chilli sauce. Lack of evidence has never been a reason, in itself, to firmly and absolutely deny that something exists. Other things go into practice when deciding how plausible something is (as soheran pointed out), otherwise the idea that my brother likes chilli sauce would sound just as implausible as the idea that there are tiny people up your ass.

Excuse me while I re-order reality.

Alright...
...
...
...

*Peace stops reigning*

Personally - pragmatism makes all those questions go away, for me. I don't like pain, so I don't inflict pain, see?

Oh, snap!

So do you think it's the right thing for you to do to not inflict pain on others, or do you view it as morally neutral, and it makes no difference whether you inflict pain on others or not? If you go by the golden rule, you must assume the truth of the golden rule.

But the situations aren't parallel. There is empirical evidence of gravity (whatever 'gravity' turns out to be) - so the philosophical question-y-ness isn't parallel.

The only parallel they need to have is that they both involve a theory acting as an answer to a question. My only argument was that we often use inferrence to the best explanation as justification for a belief, regardless of the content of that belief.

But we don't NEED to have those discussions?

Sure, we need to talk about the physical parts as well, but we need to not assume that that's the whole story.

Also - the 'effect' of 'time' is empirically evident...

That's true. I really wasn't referring to the existence of time, though. Only questions about the nature of time-- A Theory vs. B Theory and the like. Anyway, it's not really necessary to my point. We can stick with ethical facts or something else metaphysical like Platonic Forms.

I don't assume the rules of logic are 'true'. I merely find them to be a consistent tool.

Really? So you don't find the following argument to be true?


If I am wearing a watch, then I am wearing something on my wrist.
I am wearing a watch.
_____________________
Therefore, I am wearing something on my wrist.


Your only choices here are true, false, or no truth value. I assume you don't think it's false, so you really think this argument has any truth value? That's awfully counter-intuitive....

I don't assume the rules of logic are 'true'. I merely find them to be a consistent tool.

Ha! The argument I was using against Giapo about faith in axioms, which he tried to refute, he tried on you! Bloody cheek. Give me my argument back!

Btw Grave, if you posit an entity that you cannot use empirical evidence to find the truth of, do you agree that we cannot make a positive or negative claim to its existence or non-existence?

Why am I reminded of the episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer gets the crayon removed from his brain and turns out to be hyper-intelligent. He disproves the existance of God, and Ned Flanders goes over his proof, totally in his head, finds it real, and burns the results, to find Homer is putting it on car windshields. I think that while Faith is a very real power, it's application is in question here. If this were not about the Judeo-Christian God, but simply a question of correlating Faith to Intelligence, we would find the two mutually exclusive. Einstein believed in God, after all,and he is largely heralded as the greatest mind of the twentieth century. My question is, why, after communism has been proved to fail every time it's taken off paper or the laboratory and put into use in the Real World, do so-called intelligent people insists it's a perfect system? At least Christianity pulled Europe out of the Dark Ages to become a world-dominating power...

Haha, opening a can there...

Why am I reminded of the episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer gets the crayon removed from his brain and turns out to be hyper-intelligent. He disproves the existance of God, and Ned Flanders goes over his proof, totally in his head, finds it real, and burns the results, to find Homer is putting it on car windshields. I think that while Faith is a very real power, it's application is in question here. If this were not about the Judeo-Christian God, but simply a question of correlating Faith to Intelligence, we would find the two mutually exclusive. Einstein believed in God, after all,and he is largely heralded as the greatest mind of the twentieth century. My question is, why, after communism has been proved to fail every time it's taken off paper or the laboratory and put into use in the Real World, do so-called intelligent people insists it's a perfect system? At least Christianity pulled Europe out of the Dark Ages to become a world-dominating power...

*opens can*

What? Is that the same Christianity that stifled the progress of science and KEPT Europe in the dark ages for 1,000 years , while the rest of the world made leaps and bounds? The age of reason ushered in Europe's dominance through technology and industrialisation. The Church saw science as a direct threat to its power and tried to stamp it out.

Ha! The argument I was using against Giapo about faith in axioms, which he tried to refute, he tried on you! Bloody cheek. Give me my argument back!

Btw Grave, if you posit an entity that you cannot use empirical evidence to find the truth of, do you agree that we cannot make a positive or negative claim to its existence or non-existence?

Haha, sorry I didn't get back to that one. It's difficult to respond to multiple people at once.

Actually, you have different issues here. He's saying that a logical structure can't be true (though this is not to say that it's necessarily false); you were saying that it required accepting something on faith. Your proposition still allowed for the room for it to be true.

And perhaps you're right in the long run. I suspect that there would be a way to get these truths to be something other than a priori, but I fear that my thinking is not quite sophisticated enough to do it. So for now, we'll say that at some point one does have to accept a truth without hard proof, but I'm okay with that, as long as we keep the number of truths that we have to accept that way relatively low. Oh, and by the way, I think what we're arguing here is the existence of 'primitives,' or facts that cannot be deduced to anything beyond themselves.

And, as I have already said, there is absolutely no evidence that my brother likes chilli sauce.


Absolutely none?

What about parallel evidence? Does he like barbecue sauce? Salsa?

And - couldn't we fairly easily test this assumption?


Lack of evidence has never been a reason, in itself, to firmly and absolutely deny that something exists.


Sure it has.

It's not necessarily a good reason, but it's certainly a reason.

And it's more than adequate to doubt existence.


Other things go into practice when deciding how plausible something is (as soheran pointed out), otherwise the idea that my brother likes chilli sauce would sound just as implausible as the idea that there are tiny people up your ass.

But your brother (I'm assuming you didn't invent the brother for the example) can be empirically verified,a nd we can give him chilli sauce and observe him to get some kind of empirical evidence?

My 'little-ass-people', or 'god' can always hide in the gaps (so to speak), and avoid ever being actually empirically assessed.

So do you think it's the right thing for you to do to not inflict pain on others, or do you view it as morally neutral, and it makes no difference whether you inflict pain on others or not?


It makes a difference to me. I don't enjoy it. And I dislike breaking the pragmatic axiom.


If you go by the golden rule, you must assume the truth of the golden rule.


Again - unfounded.

All I have to assume is that it is functional, not 'true'.


The only parallel they need to have is that they both involve a theory acting as an answer to a question.


I don't agree. You started by talking about philosophical questions - and I'm not sure 'gravity' fits, or is a good parallel.

I just want to see what you actually mean.


Sure, we need to talk about the physical parts as well, but we need to not assume that that's the whole story.


Why?

Why borrow trouble? If reality is explained pretty well with observable, verifiable mechanisms, why do I need to assume there's more?

Hell - even without all that observation, 'gaps' are not a good enough reason to invoke 'gods'.

Really? So you don't find the following argument to be true?


If I am wearing a watch, then I am wearing something on my wrist.
I am wearing a watch.
_____________________
Therefore, I am wearing something on my wrist.


Your only choices here are true, false, or no truth value. I assume you don't think it's false, so you really think this argument has any truth value? That's awfully counter-intuitive....

I don't think the argument is 'true'.

I can assume the bases premises to be true, for the sake of the argument. They might even be true, but I have no way to know.

Consequently, the result would be true, if the base premises are true.

But the argument is just an argument. It's a logical deduction based on the (observable? At least - assumed) evidence.

Ha! The argument I was using against Giapo about faith in axioms, which he tried to refute, he tried on you! Bloody cheek. Give me my argument back!

Btw Grave, if you posit an entity that you cannot use empirical evidence to find the truth of, do you agree that we cannot make a positive or negative claim to its existence or non-existence?

I would agree that there is little value to an assertion either way, based on our ability to verify it.

But, I would also add as a qualifier, that assertion which requires the basic observable paradigm to be altered, needs BETTER evidence than the alternative(s), to be judged equally.

Absolutely none?

What about parallel evidence? Does he like barbecue sauce? Salsa?

And - couldn't we fairly easily test this assumption?



Sure it has.

It's not necessarily a good reason, but it's certainly a reason.

And it's more than adequate to doubt existence.



But your brother (I'm assuming you didn't invent the brother for the example) can be empirically verified,a nd we can give him chilli sauce and observe him to get some kind of empirical evidence?

My 'little-ass-people', or 'god' can always hide in the gaps (so to speak), and avoid ever being actually empirically assessed.

Perhaps a reason to doubt your ass-dwellers is that it's sort of spontaneously generated without being in response to anything or without answering anything. And this brings us right back to what we've been discussing.

The existence of something should be taken as being much more likely if it solves some sort of problem or answers some sort of question. For instance, if you had some strange sensation of tiny feet in your ass, then the existence of asstopians would merit consideration, and your sensation could serve as evidence of said assivarians. It may not ultimately be true that they exist, but it does not refute the fact that your sensation serves as evidence of these disgusting creatures.

Now you may be inclined to say that you can't have evidence of something that's false, but I would disagree with you. Let's substitute the phrase 'reason to believe' for the term 'evidence,' as I think this will make my point more easily understood, and the terms are synonyms anyway. Consider the possibility that the Earth is stationary, and the solar system revolves around it. The fact that we detect no movement of the Earth is reason to believe that the Earth doesn't move, even though it in fact does move. There are reasons to believe, or evidence, that the Earth remains still, though we know that fact to be false. Similarly, even if God does not in fact exist, there are arguably reasons to believe that he does. There is evidence for the existence of God, regardless of whether or not he exists. If no one was going to argue this point, then ignore this paragraph. ;)

I don't think the argument is 'true'.

I can assume the bases premises to be true, for the sake of the argument. They might even be true, but I have no way to know.

Consequently, the result would be true, if the base premises are true.

But the argument is just an argument. It's a logical deduction based on the (observable? At least - assumed) evidence.

Exactly! So you agree that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Thus, the logical fact, if A then B; A; therefore B, must necessarily be true. So the truth of the argument is irrelevant, as you've hinted at. The point is that the logical structure must be true. This is what I mean when I refer to logical facts. The structrue of the argument necessarily holds truth. This is clear when you say "the result would be true, if the base premises are true." You do believe in the truth of logical facts after all.

Many organized religions prey on the emotionally vulnerable to gain converts. They take people who are suffering and offer them something better to look forward to, a sense of purpose.

One can be intelligent and still fall prey to that kind of manipulation. While religion, especially of the fundimentalist type, may attract a kind of stupid, ignorant "follow the herd" mentality, being religious does not inherently rule out intelligence.

I tend how ever, to think that the most intelligent religious individuals will be those who are in moderate or liberal churches or who have independent spiritual beliefs, given the often corrupt nature of organized religion.

What about parallel evidence? Does he like barbecue sauce? Salsa?


He may say he does, but there would be absolutely no evidence for that either.


And - couldn't we fairly easily test this assumption?


Nope (see below).


My 'little-ass-people', or 'god' can always hide in the gaps (so to speak), and avoid ever being actually empirically assessed.

Same with my brother, he can't be detected by lie detectors, so even if I gave him chilli sauce, there is no evidence that he isn't merely pretending to like it and that in reality he is merely apathetic towards it or even dislikes it.

It makes a difference to me. I don't enjoy it. And I dislike breaking the pragmatic axiom.

But why do you dislike it? According to the views you've espoused so far, your dislike of breaking the pragmatic axiom is completely arbitrary, and whether you or anybody else follows it is neither right nor wrong. It has no moral value whatsoever.

Again - unfounded.

All I have to assume is that it is functional, not 'true'.

But the golden rule is a prescriptive claim. It tells one to "do unto others..." and inherent in any prescriptive claim is the assumption that it is the right thing to do. I mean, why do unto others unless it was right? If it's morally neutral, then there's no reason to follow it or not follow it; like I said above, it's completely arbitrary.

I don't agree. You started by talking about philosophical questions - and I'm not sure 'gravity' fits, or is a good parallel.

I just want to see what you actually mean.

Okay, so let's talk about time for a second. The A Theory of time dictates that the present is the only moment that actually exists in any sense. The past and future do not currently exist. The problem with this is that it renders all statements about the past or future meaningless. You can't say, "Abraham Lincoln wore a tophat," because Abraham Lincoln doesn't exist, so there's nothing to have worn a tophat. Since it seems true that statements about the past do have truth value (that is, be either true or false), we infer that the past does indeed exist, which leads to a new theory of time-- one that includes the existence of the past. We infer to the best explanation.

Why?

Why borrow trouble? If reality is explained pretty well with observable, verifiable mechanisms, why do I need to assume there's more?

Because God is not a wholly physical entity. I think that's something we can agree on. So if you want to have a thorough discussion about whether or not God exists, you can't ignore any non-physical implication that the discussion entails.

Perhaps a reason to doubt your ass-dwellers is that it's sort of spontaneously generated without being in response to anything or without answering anything. And this brings us right back to what we've been discussing.

The existence of something should be taken as being much more likely if it solves some sort of problem or answers some sort of question.


Why?

The existence of the world, in all it's complexity - poses us a problem, or question.

Where did it come from? What is it for?

How many ways can we answer that question? One? Two? Ten? A hundred? I must have read at least that many 'creation' stories.

Which one is true?

If the empirical evidence explains just about all of it... should I ignore it in favour of a story that claims to explain everything?

How can ALL of the stories be 'much more likely'?


For instance, if you had some strange sensation of tiny feet in your ass, then the existence of asstopians would merit consideration, and your sensation could serve as evidence of said assivarians. It may not ultimately be true that they exist, but it does not refute the fact that your sensation serves as evidence of these disgusting creatures.


Some posit a theory whereby food enters the top of the digestive system, migrates throughout the body being processed, and finally arrives in the toilet bowl.

Not me. I believe in Intelligent Shitting.


Now you may be inclined to say that you can't have evidence of something that's false, but I would disagree with you. Let's substitute the phrase 'reason to believe' for the term 'evidence,' as I think this will make my point more easily understood, and the terms are synonyms anyway. Consider the possibility that the Earth is stationary, and the solar system revolves around it. The fact that we detect no movement of the Earth is reason to believe that the Earth doesn't move, even though it in fact does move. There are reasons to believe, or evidence, that the Earth remains still, though we know that fact to be false. Similarly, even if God does not in fact exist, there are arguably reasons to believe that he does. There is evidence for the existence of God, regardless of whether or not he exists. If no one was going to argue this point, then ignore this paragraph. ;)

There is 'evidence' - but not OF 'god'. If the evidence points to a million stories, why pick one from among them? Even moreso - why pick one that contradicts parts of the evidence?

I would agree that there is little value to an assertion either way, based on our ability to verify it.

But, I would also add as a qualifier, that assertion which requires the basic observable paradigm to be altered, needs BETTER evidence than the alternative(s), to be judged equally.

Surely it needs better evidence to be judged as better, equal evidence to be judged as equal?
(for example the many worlds interpretation versus the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics did not have a definitive way to prove one was more accurate than the other).

They have ramifications for how we understand reality to work, even if they do not affect the way we live our life day-to-day. I think they have some value in that respect even if they are not provable over each other.

Exactly! So you agree that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Thus, the logical fact, if A then B; A; therefore B, must necessarily be true. So the truth of the argument is irrelevant, as you've hinted at. The point is that the logical structure must be true.


The structure is neither true nor untrue. It's a mechanism. A process.


This is what I mean when I refer to logical facts. The structrue of the argument necessarily holds truth.


No - it yields 'truth', if the input is true.


This is clear when you say "the result would be true, if the base premises are true." You do believe in the truth of logical facts after all.


No. I don't 'believe' it - I'd contest the 'truth', and I disagree with the concept of 'logical facts'.

I've already explained, I consider it a valuable tool, but it's just a tool, it relies on the quality of the raw materials, and it could be wrong.

You're pinning 'beliefs' to me I'd not claim for myself.

Why?

The existence of the world, in all it's complexity - poses us a problem, or question.

Where did it come from? What is it for?

How many ways can we answer that question? One? Two? Ten? A hundred? I must have read at least that many 'creation' stories.

Which one is true?

If the empirical evidence explains just about all of it... should I ignore it in favour of a story that claims to explain everything?

How can ALL of the stories be 'much more likely'?

I'll answer this at the end. :wink:

Some posit a theory whereby food enters the top of the digestive system, migrates throughout the body being processed, and finally arrives in the toilet bowl.

Not me. I believe in Intelligent Shitting.

Well, then you've got to explain things like x-rays showing all of our GI system and why medical treatments based on the first theory work, things like that. It's "inference to the best explanation," not just "inference to an explanation."

There is 'evidence' - but not OF 'god'. If the evidence points to a million stories, why pick one from among them? Even moreso - why pick one that contradicts parts of the evidence?

It's evidence of all the stories. It's evidence that there is a story, as opposed to there being nothing. The fact that there must be a beginning to matter, for instance (I don't know if I believe this, but bear with me), would lend creedence to any theory that provides an answer as to when or why or how matter was created. If there were multiple theories, we would go with the one that explained it the best, or was most in line with things we already know to be the case.

And now, alas, I must take my leave, but be sure that I enjoyed myself, and hopefully you guys will continue the discussion without me.

He may say he does, but there would be absolutely no evidence for that either.

Nope (see below).

Same with my brother, he can't be detected by lie detectors, so even if I gave him chilli sauce, there is no evidence that he isn't merely pretending to like it and that in reality he is merely apathetic towards it or even dislikes it.

The problem is - you're still invoking an empirically measurable value.

Your brother does either like, dislike, or register an apathetic response to chilli sauce. The question is, how to measure it. Polygraphs are not the only methods of detecting lies... but asserting the truth of his own claims, is also not the only way of finding out if he 'likes' something.

By measuring the right (empirically verifiable) responses, we can draw conclusions about this empirically measurable value.

There's no parallel with 'gods'.

Your brother does either like, dislike, or register an apathetic response to chilli sauce. The question is, how to measure it. Polygraphs are not the only methods of detecting lies... but asserting the truth of his own claims, is also not the only way of finding out if he 'likes' something.


Lets assume my brother is now dead before any testing could take place. Because of this, there is no empirical way of testing how truthful the claim that he liked chilli sauce is. Since there is no evidence, according to your logic, that now justifies disbelieving that he liked chilli sauce.

This thread is making me chuckle.... The question of God's existence has come down to whether someone's dead brother liked chilli sauce, or if someone else has little people up his ass.

Inspired!

this Thread Is Making Me Chuckle.... The Question Of God's Existence Has Come Down To Whether Someone's Dead Brother Liked Chilli Sauce, Or If Someone Else Has Little People Up His Ass.

Inspired!

Nsg Qed.

But why do you dislike it? According to the views you've espoused so far, your dislike of breaking the pragmatic axiom is completely arbitrary, and whether you or anybody else follows it is neither right nor wrong. It has no moral value whatsoever.


Fair enough. Maybe I dislike breaking it because I have a history of OCD. I couldn't tell you. All I know is I don't like inflicting pain, and I don't like having pain inflicted on me, and pragmatism lets me arrive at a situation where neither of those things happen.


But the golden rule is a prescriptive claim. It tells one to "do unto others..." and inherent in any prescriptive claim is the assumption that it is the right thing to do.


I don't buy that.

Inherent in the claim is the fact that it works. That's enough.


I mean, why do unto others unless it was right? If it's morally neutral, then there's no reason to follow it or not follow it; like I said above, it's completely arbitrary.


Morally neutral means no reason to follow or not follow? I disagree. It's morally neutral to shit in the swimming pool, but I'm not going to do it.


Okay, so let's talk about time for a second. The A Theory of time dictates that the present is the only moment that actually exists in any sense. The past and future do not currently exist. The problem with this is that it renders all statements about the past or future meaningless. You can't say, "Abraham Lincoln wore a tophat," because Abraham Lincoln doesn't exist, so there's nothing to have worn a tophat. Since it seems true that statements about the past do have truth value (that is, be either true or false), we infer that the past does indeed exist, which leads to a new theory of time-- one that includes the existence of the past. We infer to the best explanation.


An interesting diversion. Probably best left to it's own thread, since there's way too much capacity to go (even further) off topic.

I can't tell you which of those 'theories' IS 'true'.


Because God is not a wholly physical entity. I think that's something we can agree on. So if you want to have a thorough discussion about whether or not God exists, you can't ignore any non-physical implication that the discussion entails.

Wholly physical? I don't see ANY evidence that god(s) is/are AT ALL physical.

If we want to have THAT discussion, yes - we need to change the paradigm - but that doesn't mean that other paradigm is 'true'.

On the other hand - since there is no physical evidence, why worry too much about having that discussion?

Surely it needs better evidence to be judged as better, equal evidence to be judged as equal?


Nope.

If there is a mundane explanation that requires us NOT to change the paradigm, and that seems to fit okay with the rest of our evidence, you're going to need better evidence of a less-mundane explanation that DOES require us to assume a new paradigm.

Nope.

If there is a mundane explanation that requires us NOT to change the paradigm, and that seems to fit okay with the rest of our evidence, you're going to need better evidence of a less-mundane explanation that DOES require us to assume a new paradigm.

So if there are two equally valid paradigms, the better one is just the one we had first?

Well, then you've got to explain things like x-rays showing all of our GI system and why medical treatments based on the first theory work, things like that. It's "inference to the best explanation," not just "inference to an explanation."


That's the work of Shitan, dark lord of the netherhole. He just makes it LOOK like there is a logical, scientific explanation.


It's evidence of all the stories. It's evidence that there is a story, as opposed to there being nothing. The fact that there must be a beginning to matter, for instance (I don't know if I believe this, but bear with me), would lend creedence to any theory that provides an answer as to when or why or how matter was created. If there were multiple theories, we would go with the one that explained it the best, or was most in line with things we already know to be the case.


It's no more evidence of ALL of those stories, than it is evidence of the mundane, Occam-friendly explanation.

So - why ignore the mundane?


And now, alas, I must take my leave, but be sure that I enjoyed myself, and hopefully you guys will continue the discussion without me.

And, thank you. :)

This thread is making me chuckle.... The question of God's existence has come down to whether someone's dead brother liked chilli sauce, or if someone else has little people up his ass.

Inspired!

I think I'm gonna sig this.

Lets assume my brother is now dead before any testing could take place. Because of this, there is no empirical way of testing how truthful the claim that he liked chilli sauce is. Since there is no evidence, according to your logic, that now justifies disbelieving that he liked chilli sauce.

We could check his groceries... if he bought a lot of chilli sauce, maybe he liked it. :)

Personally, my own take on it would be - in absence of ANY evidence either way (that we have access to), ANY claim about whether he liked chilli sauce is somewhere between speculation and hearsay.

It's certainly grounds for doubting anyone who makes an explicit claim that he DID like it.

And, if there's no evidence at all, why? He hid his secret chilli sauce habit? Or maybe he just didn't much like it.

I can see why people would jump to the conclusion he didn't like it - it's not necessarily the best assumption, but it's not that unreasonable.



Does your brother know you're willing to kill him to prove a point? ;)

I think I'm gonna sig this.

Eh, I like what I sigged better. :tongue:

So if there are two equally valid paradigms, the better one is just the one we had first?

No. If they're equal, then we just have to deal with two equal paradigms.

Eh, I like what I sigged better. :tongue:

*bows*

Must be something in the water - this has been an awesome week for sig-inspirations.