Christian Television Experts

[David Sklansky]

I've talked about this many times before but this time I want to be very explicit.

There are a number of people who know EXACTLY how a television works (I'm not one of them). I'm not speaking about the knowledge of a television repairman or even most who are involved in the manufacturing of them. I mean the underlying theory behind how it works. This information has been known to some people since the 1920's. I would guess there are now about a million such people in the world.

There are also a number of people who are sure that Jesus was resurrected and that those who think otherwise will not go to heaven because of that non belief. There are perhaps 500 million such people. Say 10% of the population.

If you quibble with my guesses so far don't bother to post it since it isn't relevant to the point.

Of the million people who fully understand televisons 100,000 of them would believe the Jesus saves doctrine if there was no correlation. Maybe 50,000 would be athests, 30,000 Jews, 500,000 Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos etc. with the rest being mildly religious people who don't subscribe to the "what you believe" gets you to heaven" doctrine.

While it would be interesting to speculate on the distribution of these television experts throughout the different categories, I want to focus for now only on those who specifically believe that Jesus was resurrected, and that he will save you if you believe in him but not otherwise. As I said I'm guessing that is ten percent of the world but it doesn't matter. What matters is how that percentage of the world compares to the percentage of television experts (I could have obviously picked other subjects like the knowledge of how to build a moon lander. But I tried to stay away from a scientific discipline where the practioners would be screwed if religion was correct.)

Assuming my guesses, 100,000 of the television experts should be believers. Now what do you think is the real number? I'm betting it is less than 20,000. Lay me some odds and I,ll bet it is less than 5000. In other words I am saying that fundamentalist believers are as much as TWENTY TIMES less likely to understand how televisons work than the rest of the population.

If you want to comment on this, you can either dispute my opinion above or suggest a reason for it.

If I am right I can see only two possible reasons.

1.Fundamentalists are not as curious about sceintific truth as the rest of us, on average and are therefore less likely to produce these type of knowledgeable people.

2.Fundamentalist are less likely to be extremely intelligent and are thus not as likely to produce these type of people. (Notice that I didn't say that fundamentalist's intelligence is below average. Only that they are less likely to have superior intelligence.)

If the disparity is as great as I claim, it is almost certain that BOTH reasons come into play.

[BluffTHIS!]

This is a different way of making a point that you have made before, and although it might be an exaggeration, it may not be by much. But this is only in regards to Protestant fundamentalists, and not Catholics, Orthodox and some other mainline but not fundamentalist denominations. Catholicism stresses the importance of reason as well as faith in knowing God and His creation, and doesn't engage in contortions and misrepresenatations to deny science that isn't in accord with an overly literalist and improperly interpreted reading of Scripture.

The main point is that God made us and we are His children and He wishes for us to have an eternal life with Him. How exactly he brought about the universe or our species is indeed important, as it has to do with His Creation. But it isn't important theologically for doctrines having to do with salvation. Those Christians who deny, and necessarily without any basis, that God could have brought the universe and our species into being through cosmological and biological evolution as well as direct creation, are asserting doctrines based on their own faulty understanding and interpretations. And most of all, they fail to see that there can't be and shouldn't be any conflict between true science and true theology.

[hmkpoker]

I think it is similarly reasonable to say that a random Christian will have a much better understanding of the bible than a random non-Christian. Should we conclude that:

1) Non-Christians are less literary-minded and/or don't know as much about world literature?

2) Non-Christians have poorer linguistic skills and are therefore less likely to produce these people?

There could simply be a third variable. I remember a study that concluded that religious teens are more likely to smoke cigarettes than non-religious teens, because there was a concentration of christian teens taking the test from the bible belt in the south where, coincidentally, tobacco happens to grow. Perhaps Christians simply have less interest in TV or electronics.


Also, the premises are ridiculous. Twenty times less likely? Why? This isn't evolution or astrophysics or anything where ignorance would be willed, it's mechanics. There's nothing ungodly about that. Also, I don't think that anyone knows how to build a TV from raw materials. Penicls are complicated enough. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html)

[David Sklansky]

Wow was that a horrible reply. Mind boggling. I'll let others elabortate.

[hmkpoker]

You ignored the possibility of third variables and assumed your own conclusion from ridiculous premises. You can imagine why my mind was boggled.

[Borodog]

David,

Your OP is worded poorly. What you're actually doing is proposing a hypothesis and a test for falsification. In essence you are saying something like:

Hypothesis: Christians are either on average less interested in science, on average less intelligent, or some combination of both.

If true: We expect to see the fraction of Christians who understand television technology to be lower than the fraction of non-Christians who understand television technology.

Ignoring all kinds of confounding effects (like over representation of Christians in places without widespread television usage, like Latin America), you could test this and either support or discard your hypothesis.

But what it looks like you're doing is this:

1) I bet the fraction of christians who understand TV is below average.
2) If true, then it must be because they are either less interested in science or are less intelligent or both.

The problem is that in 1 you haven't said why you think the fraction is lower, and of course you think it is lower precisely because you think they are less interested in science or less intelligent (again, on average).

This is why it looks to hmk like you're assuming your conclusion.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is similarly reasonable to say that a random Christian will have a much better understanding of the bible than a random non-Christian. Should we conclude that:

1) Non-Christians are less literary-minded and/or don't know as much about world literature?

2) Non-Christians have poorer linguistic skills and are therefore less likely to produce these people?

There could simply be a third variable. I remember a study that concluded that religious teens are more likely to smoke cigarettes than non-religious teens, because there was a concentration of christian teens taking the test from the bible belt in the south where, coincidentally, tobacco happens to grow. Perhaps Christians simply have less interest in TV or electronics.


Also, the premises are ridiculous. Twenty times less likely? Why? This isn't evolution or astrophysics or anything where ignorance would be willed, it's mechanics. There's nothing ungodly about that. Also, I don't think that anyone knows how to build a TV from raw materials. Penicls are complicated enough. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

He never said that anyone knows how to build a tv from raw materials (but obviously someone does otherwise we wouldnt have TVs).
He said they *know* now if you want to agrue the distinction fine.

P.S. I agree with you in that we should explore other variables

[David Sklansky]

Perhaps I could have worded it better.

"Hypothesis: Christians are either on average less interested in science, on average less intelligent, or some combination of both."

The hypothesis is that certain types of Christians are less likely to contain extremely intelligent people. Not what you wrote above.

[Borodog]

Yes; I was being sloppy. You are correct.

[txag007]

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/tv-roundup.htm /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Lol. I know it continues to blow your mind as to how christians can believe what they do, David. Can you verify your numbers?

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 1 Corinthians 1:18-19

[David Sklansky]

"Lol. I know it continues to blow your mind as to how christians can believe what they do, David. Can you verify your numbers"

Only through personal sampling. Of the few hundred people I have known who are knowledgeable in this or similar fields, none are fundamentalist Christians.

[dvsfun1]

I would like to hear your opinion on why the population of those with superior intelligence produces a disproportionate number of believers than the rest.
As this seems to be true, is it not unreasonable to infer that the more intelligence one has, the less they are able to perceive concepts outside the limits of intellect?

[She]

[ QUOTE ]

1.Fundamentalists are not as curious about sceintific truth as the rest of us, on average and are therefore less likely to produce these type of knowledgeable people.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see counter arguments to both sides of that. On one hand I would actually think that fundamentalists should be more curious about scientific truth than the general population, since they claim to live their lives in accordance with the Bible, and it in turn encourages good stewardship, as well as having a desire to learn more about the God they believe created them through his creation. I would think that should permeate every area of a true believers life.

On the other hand, just because it should doesn't mean it always does, and I am disappointed countless times be seeing "christians" waste what they believe that God has given them. The only think I personally believe that God gives us is opportunities. I see that point made clear over and over again in scripture as well as in daily life.

I have heard it said that the greatest single cause of atheism today is christians. They acknowledge Christ with their lips, and deny him with their life. While perhaps not a cause of atheism, I do think it makes a very good point of a common hypocrisies in the church. I can't explain this except to say that I believe that we hold christians to a higher standard which they (oftentimes) don't deserve.
[ QUOTE ]

2.Fundamentalist are less likely to be extremely intelligent and are thus not as likely to produce these type of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that you are implying that lack of intelligence is one of the causes of religious fundamentalism? If so, then I have no argument but would be interesting in finding out why you think this is a likelyhood.

[almostbusto]

David,

i agree with all of your points in this thread. which is a rarity. but your thesis begs the question, "so what?"

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

i agree with all of your points in this thread. which is a rarity. but your thesis begs the question, "so what?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I agree with the logic, and the way it's laid out is clear enough. Heck, I can even go along with the conclusion.

I'm used to skimming over threads that don't have much significance for me, but your post reminded me to ask... of what significance is it to anyone!?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I could have worded it better.

"Hypothesis: Christians are either on average less interested in science, on average less intelligent, or some combination of both."


[/ QUOTE ]

Phrased in that way, it directly addresses the point.

If you were to survey 100 Christians and 100 atheists, and ask them if they heard of the theory of evolution or the big bang, most of them would say they have. For argument's sake lets say 100% of them said they did.

But if you then asked them to describe the ToE or BB, I'd be willing to bet that only 20% of the Christians could explain the theories accurately. And I'd also wager that 80% of the atheists could provide an adequate explaination.

But I don't think you can conclude from this that Christians are less intelligent than atheists - simply less informed.

And while you could argue that intelligence is a sign of how informed a person is, the general scientific community is just as guilty on the issue of lack of information as a Christian is. While a broadly educated person can explain the big bang theory, how many of them can give even vague describtion of plasma cosmology - yet Hannes Alfvén won a Noble prize for his work on the subject.

Whether Christian, theist, or atheist, our beliefs define our depth of knowledge, or lack therof, in a particular direction - but I don't think it defines intelligence, one way or the other.

But I will say that when push come to shove and philosophic integrity comes into play - I place my bets on the scientist and the scientific method. And I extend that same belief in the atheist community - if the oceans suddenly parted and some 'chosen' group walked through, I believe most atheists would re-evaluate their beliefs. If a scientist 'created' life in a test-tube - I'm not sure the Vatican would be quite as open minded.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I could have worded it better.

"Hypothesis: Christians are either on average less interested in science, on average less intelligent, or some combination of both."


[/ QUOTE ]

Phrased in that way, it directly addresses the point.

If you were to survey 100 Christians and 100 atheists, and ask them if they heard of the theory of evolution or the big bang, most of them would say they have. For argument's sake lets say 100% of them said they did.

But if you then asked them to describe the ToE or BB, I'd be willing to bet that only 20% of the Christians could explain the theories accurately. And I'd also wager that 80% of the atheists could provide an adequate explaination.

But I don't think you can conclude from this that Christians are less intelligent than atheists - simply less informed.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you gave those same 100 Christians and 100 atheists a logic test? No prior information required, just logical reasoning skills. I'd wager that you'd get similar results, although maybe not as drastically skewed. Perhaps 50/90.

~MagicMan

[Mickey Brausch]

Start from the end, but work your way algebra-like. Example:

[ QUOTE ]
...If I am right I can see only two possible reasons:
<font color="white">. </font>
1. Persons that belong to set X are not as curious about scientific truth as the rest of us, on average, and are therefore less likely to produce these type of knowledgeable people.
<font color="white">. </font>
2. Persons that belong to set X are less likely to be extremely intelligent and are thus not as likely to produce these type of people. (Notice that I didn't say that the intelligence of persons that belong to set X is below average. Only that they are less likely to have superior intelligence.)

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the premises. Sklansky then goes on to claim the evident conclusion that

[ QUOTE ]
Persons that belong to set X are as much as K TIMES less likely to understand how science works than the rest of the population.

[/ QUOTE ] Consider next if the premises are True for Persons that belong to set X --&gt; Christian Fundamentalists, i.e. for what Sklansky actually argues about. If they are not, then the argument is very leaky. If they are, then the man has a point in his claim, at the very least.

Of course, it is then also legitimate to argue with DS about the value of K. (But arguing whether or not "science understanding" is equivalent to "how television works" would be silly. It'd be debating the example, rather than the argument.)

Mickey Brausch

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a different way of making a point that you have made before, and although it might be an exaggeration, it may not be by much. But this is only in regards to Protestant fundamentalists, and not Catholics, Orthodox and some other mainline but not fundamentalist denominations. Catholicism stresses the importance of reason as well as faith in knowing God and His creation, and doesn't engage in contortions and misrepresenatations to deny science that isn't in accord with an overly literalist and improperly interpreted reading of Scripture.

The main point is that God made us and we are His children and He wishes for us to have an eternal life with Him. How exactly he brought about the universe or our species is indeed important, as it has to do with His Creation. But it isn't important theologically for doctrines having to do with salvation. Those Christians who deny, and necessarily without any basis, that God could have brought the universe and our species into being through cosmological and biological evolution as well as direct creation, are asserting doctrines based on their own faulty understanding and interpretations. And most of all, they fail to see that there can't be and shouldn't be any conflict between true science and true theology.

[/ QUOTE ]

But aren't you then suggesting that parts of the bible are symbolic and other parts aren't? Then wherein does your faith REALLY lie? You must put just as much faith in those who interpret the bible for you, as in Jesus Christ Himself.

In fact, shouldn't you LOSE faith in whoever wrote certain parts of the bible (such as the creation story), when you acknowledge these parts are not literally true, but only vague metaphors? I'm asking a serious question here...

Who's to say the resurrection wasn't symbolic as well? I mean literally... WHO is to say? Your priest? The pope? Who determines what is symbolic and what is reality in the bible? Sorry for the hijack.

[Lestat]

A television expert and a priest are walking down a street and come upon a ladder. Who is MORE likely to walk around it, rather than under it?

[Borodog]

A priest, a cub scout leader, and a high school algebra teacher find a twelve year old crying in the woods.

Who [censored] him first?

[bluesbassman]

It's self-evident that fundamantalist Christians are, on average, less intelligent than non-believers. (And are therefore less interested in science.) The ability to think rationally is part of the *definition* of high intelligence.

[Zeno]

The OP also refers to only (?) the present time.

Take the years from say 1500 to 1850. Within this 350 year span during the development of science and 'scientists' nascent as they may have been, were almost universally fundamentalist Christians (in the west) at least nominally. Indeed many clerics contributed to the advancement of science in the early days. There is a fly in the ointment it seems but perhaps some historical illumination will clear this up.

-Zeno

[David Sklansky]

"It's self-evident that fundamantalist Christians are, on average, less intelligent than non-believers. (And are therefore less interested in science.) The ability to think rationally is part of the *definition* of high intelligence."

You repeated Borodog's error. They may well be slightly above average in average intelligence. But they have only a miniscule representation in the extremely above average intelligence community. And the reason that is relevant is, because whether people want to admit it or not, when the vast majority of the brightest people disagree with any group about anything they are far more likely to be correct.

[Borodog]

Again, my error was in sloppy paraphrasing, not in understanding the point. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[David Sklansky]

I know

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]

1.Fundamentalists are not as curious about sceintific truth as the rest of us, on average and are therefore less likely to produce these type of knowledgeable people.

2.Fundamentalist are less likely to be extremely intelligent and are thus not as likely to produce these type of people. (Notice that I didn't say that fundamentalist's intelligence is below average. Only that they are less likely to have superior intelligence.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that these are both true.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[Fundamantalist Christians] may well be slightly above average in average intelligence. But they have only a miniscule representation in the extremely above average intelligence community. And the reason that is relevant is, whether people want to admit it or not, because when the vast majority of the brightest people disagree with any group about anything they are far more likely to be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another relevancy is of course connected to the point the OP made recently here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7589216&amp;page=).

[DougShrapnel]

I used the TV arguement many years ago in high school for a purpose that I can't remember. I was handed a TV/VCR repair trade school brochure. I'm still scared in two distinct respects. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP also refers to only (?) the present time.

[/ QUOTE ]The minds that are eager to take it one step further are usually minds that wanna dispute the established social paradigm as well (i.e. they usually see the flaws of the time period more clearly), but are reluctant to do so. (No one said that intelligence equals courage.) It can be argued that Zorog, the primitive who lived 20,000 BC and belonged into the 0.5% upper tier of human intelligence of his time, had a lot of questions about everything he saw around him but kept them mostly to himself. The more the social environment is receptive to heresies the more progress is speeded up --- and we have not just intellectual achievements ("I discover electricity") but also the dissemination of those achievements among my tribe ("I discover electricity and instead of burning me at the stake they wanna buy electric appliances").

[ QUOTE ]
Take the years from say 1500 to 1850. Within this 350-year span during the development of science and 'scientists' nascent as they may have been, were almost universally fundamentalist Christians (in the west) at least nominally. Indeed many clerics contributed to the advancement of science in the early days.

[/ QUOTE ]Beyond the above, there are these points:

1. "Christian fundamentalist" is not the same as "pious Christian" or just "Christian faithful".

2. A lot of scientific advances have been made (and some scientists continue to work like this today) in the context of "examining and better understanding God's work, God's creation". Which gets rid of a lot of bothersome -to them- questions, but also, by definition, slows down the pace of progress [1]. Put differently, if the same Christian faithful scientists of the recent past were doing the same work but without the delusionary and quest-deadening beliefs about a Bible-prescribed God, their work would've probably been better and faster.

(When a discovery seemed to contradict the biblical truth, a scientist was more prone, at the timespan you mentioned, to forego the discovery, chicken out, mangle it, renounce it, or just plain cause delays.)

Mickey Brausch

***

[1] I'm not arguing that a "fast" pace of scientific progress is necessarily good for humanity.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
And the reason that is relevant is, because whether people want to admit it or not, when the vast majority of the brightest people disagree with any group about anything they are far more likely to be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or how about less likely to be wrong? An agnostic or a weak atheist can't be correct since they don't assert anything definitive, but they also can't be wrong. Fundamentalist Christians are almost certainly wrong because of the high number of definitive assertions they make.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
"Lol. I know it continues to blow your mind as to how christians can believe what they do, David. Can you verify your numbers"

Only through personal sampling. Of the few hundred people I have known who are knowledgeable in this or similar fields, none are fundamentalist Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I'm being presumptuous, but you live in Las Vegas and associate with professional gamblers. I live in the Bible belt. Our personal sampling would probably be different, no? Neither I'm sure is accurate.

By the way, how many christians do you know?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[Zeno said] There is a fly in the ointment it seems but perhaps some historical illumination will clear this up.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Mickey for filling in and doing the work for me. It was late and I didn't have the time. And indeed the definition of Christian Fundamentalist is crucial - but it should be noted that the political overtones now associated with this definition is a recent occurrence (say within the last 80 years or so, W. J. Bryant being a forerunner). But all this aside good post and your points are well made.

I would like to point out the example of Newton however. He wrote some treatise about the book of Revelation and engaged in some rather strange fundamentalist beliefs, but this did not deter him from making great leaps for science; however it did sap energy and time away from a mind that could have contributed more.

I wonder if a study has been done of "rationalists" or scientists' beliefs in regard to religion, starting say with the ionian greeks down to the present day.

-Zeno

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's self-evident that fundamantalist Christians are, on average, less intelligent than non-believers. (And are therefore less interested in science.) The ability to think rationally is part of the *definition* of high intelligence."

You repeated Borodog's error. They may well be slightly above average in average intelligence. But they have only a miniscule representation in the extremely above average intelligence community. And the reason that is relevant is, because whether people want to admit it or not, when the vast majority of the brightest people disagree with any group about anything they are far more likely to be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm making the stronger claim that fundamentalists are underrepresented among the "extremely" intelligent, *as well as* have a lower than average intelligence.

[AthenianStranger]

I wonder if you converted if you would be an equally lame apologist for Christianity... I mean you seem obsessed with this topic. This is basically the "Religion" forum now... I mean I don't know if you're ready for it, but I'm sure there's some "fundamentalist" ready to baptize you. You could go to some non-fundamentalist, but it seems that you think fundamentalism is the true representation of Christianity, so you couldn't go anywhere else. We would want a full reversal now. Maybe even some Pentacostal with snakes and tongues and fainting in the Holy Spirit... probably would be about your level, as you are lacking even the faintest concept of irony.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I live in the Bible belt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shocking.

[bxb]

In my experiance this has not been the case. I go to caltech and there is a huge population of devout Christians. Many of the smartest people I know are extremely religious.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
It can be argued that Zorog, the primitive who lived 20,000 BC and belonged into the 0.5% upper tier of human intelligence of his time, had a lot of questions about everything he saw around him but kept them mostly to himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. An accurate, dispassionate psychological profile of Jesus of Nazareth could imply the same thing. He just had looser lips.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
would like to point out the example of Newton however. He wrote some treatise about the book of Revelation and engaged in some rather strange fundamentalist beliefs, but this did not deter him from making great leaps for science; however it did sap energy and time away from a mind that could have contributed more.



[/ QUOTE ]

I understand he also worked diligently at his alchemical studies.

[David Sklansky]

"In my experiance this has not been the case. I go to caltech and there is a huge population of devout Christians. Many of the smartest people I know are extremely religious"

Among the math, physics and chemistry majors? And by devout Christians, do you mean that they believe that belief that Jesus was resurrected is pretty much a necessary and sufficient condition for going to heaven? I don't think so.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem obsessed with this topic. This is basically the "Religion" forum now.

[/ QUOTE ]The religious quest begat Philosophy and Science. Don't chicken out now.

[ QUOTE ]
You are lacking even the faintest concept of irony.

[/ QUOTE ]Very bad read.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
But aren't you then suggesting that parts of the bible are symbolic and other parts aren't? Then wherein does your faith REALLY lie? You must put just as much faith in those who interpret the bible for you, as in Jesus Christ Himself.

In fact, shouldn't you LOSE faith in whoever wrote certain parts of the bible (such as the creation story), when you acknowledge these parts are not literally true, but only vague metaphors? I'm asking a serious question here...

Who's to say the resurrection wasn't symbolic as well? I mean literally... WHO is to say? Your priest? The pope? Who determines what is symbolic and what is reality in the bible? Sorry for the hijack.

[/ QUOTE ]


To answer your hijack question and hijack a bit myself, Stat,


Whether the Resurrection did or didn’t happen or was or was not symbolic would have been discussed and decided at the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea back in 325 A.D. Remember the (Nicene) Creed at Mass - -the litany of beliefs we recite about The Father, Son and HS, on the third day he rose, etc? The Creed is the product of that Council. At the Council would have been Bishops and the Pope - perhaps some theologians. (Btw, it was decided that it happened and it was not symbolic.)

But your question brings up an important point. How can the Resurrection be True and non symbolic and yet Science as we understand it still be valid?

I think it has something to do with the Resurrection not really being how we think of it. It is not how we describe it or even envision it.

Let me explain myself by bringing up the question I have talked about before: What does Jesus mean when he says “The Kingdom of God is at hand”? Scholars still debate this short sentence. Does he mean the Kingdom of God is now - that it is a present event. Or is it a future event? Or is it both a present and future event?

The important thing is that the Kingdom of God is at hand, period. For practical purposes it does not really matter the exact understanding of it. We just have to believe in Him and do His works - - love God/neighbor. (Fwiw, I think once one really becomes Christian, one can enter (and then does enter when he dies) the Kingdom of God. I think one catches a glimpse of it while alive and then really enjoys it in the next life. I see this in really good Christians. There is something about these folk that make me think that they “get it”. - I am talking about the Mother Teresa types. )

I think the R happened, but it didn’t happen as we think it did. Yet, it is not symbolic. It does not really matter so much how it happened. Like my point about the whole meaning of K of G. Just that it did happen.

But, to give hope to those who think this all double speak: Once the geniuses of world get a bit smarter, I think they we be able to describe it (the Resurrection) a bit better than how we currently envision it.

[Magic_Man]

In all non-challenging seriousness, do you have any theories for how the Resurrection really did go down? I am always interested in speculative mergers of science and religion.

~MagicMan

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
In my experiance this has not been the case. I go to caltech and there is a huge population of devout Christians. Many of the smartest people I know are extremely religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please answer David's question. I would like this to be true (for sci majors), but I'm skeptical as well.

[thesnowman22]

Almost all Christians believe this. You guys keep saying "Fundementalist Christian", but MOST Christians believe this.

Also, why is this such a big topic? I mean, its fun to discuss, but some of your preoccupation with it seems strange to me.

Finally, as with many topics in this world, many people have opinions on it with very little actual knowledge of what they speak. As an example, many of the people who are so anti-poker and online gaming actually know very little of it yet have hard and fast opinions. I see religion and Christianity specifically on this site as such a topic.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I see religion and Christianity specifically on this site as such a topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, like Poker but with less real impact and greater imaginary one.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost all Christians believe this. You guys keep saying "Fundementalist Christian", but MOST Christians believe this.

Also, why is this such a big topic? I mean, its fun to discuss, but some of your preoccupation with it seems strange to me.

Finally, as with many topics in this world, many people have opinions on it with very little actual knowledge of what they speak. As an example, many of the people who are so anti-poker and online gaming actually know very little of it yet have hard and fast opinions. I see religion and Christianity specifically on this site as such a topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you are right in that some of us have a muddled view of Christianity, but thats at least as much the fault of the Christians as it is ours. They are just so hard to nail down on anything, slippery buggers! Bible isn't much help either, unfortunately.

[FortunaMaximus]

It's just a book with an overrated cover.

That's not to say there's value in it. There's some fun stuff and a decent moral standard for the masses in there. Otherwise, perhaps it's not the best of value to take it so literally, but weigh what you take from it with what you see around you.

[bxb]

[ QUOTE ]
"In my experiance this has not been the case. I go to caltech and there is a huge population of devout Christians. Many of the smartest people I know are extremely religious"

Among the math, physics and chemistry majors? And by devout Christians, do you mean that they believe that belief that Jesus was resurrected is pretty much a necessary and sufficient condition for going to heaven? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes these people major in real subjects. And yes they believe that you absolutely need to believe that Jesus was resurrected to have any chance at going to heaven. I've had lengthy discussions with them about this specific point. I was also pretty shocked to find them here, but there are a surprising number of them.

[David Sklansky]

What is an abelian group?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What is an abelian group?

[/ QUOTE ]
nearly the answer to what's purple and commutes?

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
…There's some fun stuff and a decent moral standard for the masses in there…

[/ QUOTE ]

FM,

Did you mean to sound as elitist as you just did? Either it is a decent moral standard (for everyone) or it is not a decent moral standard (for anyone).

RJT

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
…There's some fun stuff and a decent moral standard for the masses in there…

[/ QUOTE ]

FM,

Did you mean to sound as elitist as you just did? Either it is a decent moral standard (for everyone) or it is not a decent moral standard (for anyone).

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, that wasn't the intent, if the perception was such...

OK, I look at it as I would the legal system. I don't break the laws because I think I'm above them.

And I'm essentially a good person. I just don't need my hand held and being told what is right morally. This is not the case for every individual, and most people tend to do better when they're organized and governed.

Just that moral standards are moral standards, and they need to be made more clearly defined for most people, not on the morality issues themselves, but what will be acceptable in society.

Personally, I recognize my own intelligence is a few standard deviations above the mean. I've never considered myself a better person for it. Just one that needed less time to understand concepts. And I find it abhorrent to use the advantages inherent with that, unless the beneficial effects are spread out over the people involved in the situation.

So, no, the statement wasn't made in an elitist manner. Sorry if that was the way it was taken, but that might be unavoidable at times.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is an abelian group?

[/ QUOTE ]
nearly the answer to what's purple and commutes?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I think there is a valid third reason, but it's not very strong. If you truly believed in the bible, jesus, etc. If you were (or felt) certain of it, then everything else is fairly meaningless. If David happened to find Jesus instead of poker when he was 20 years old he would (probably) never of written any of his books, there would be no website, or even 2+2. Even if he found the error of his ways it's possible he might try to delude himself with his intelligence by making up a "complicated dice sytem" which would be less shaming then changing his life completely. I think you can change the question to what percent of poker players understand tv's to that level, probably less than average(I assume, could be wrong). I think that the reason for this would be because they are already rich, so why would they spend the time to understand how a TV worked? The main reason wouldn't be intelligence in their case, but it is for Christians whether the admit it or not.
My analogy skills are poor, but I think what I'm saying is coming across.