The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

Since most smart people believe in God, it is a stretch to make too much of the fact that more smart people than dumb people disbelieve.

But there is a different idea that I am sure the vast majority of smart people DO disbelieve. Namely the idea that the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied.

I have brought up this issue before but it seems to get lost in other issues. The thing about most religions that cause the most problems, occurs because practitioners think not only that their religion is true, but that it is unreasonable to think otherwise. Without this unreasonable aspect they could not excuse some of their behavior.

If disbelief is not unreasonable they cannot ascribe to unbelievers, evilness, laziness, or ulterior motives. But if unbelieving atheists or members of other religions are in fact lazy, evil, selfish, or have ulterior motives, then it is OK for them to try to impose their position on these unbelievers and for God to send them to hell.

There are some religions that don't state that their beliefs are so self evident that unbelievers must have something wrong with them. I think they are in the minority. But there are also, I think, many members of all religions, who in spite of being a member of a specific religion, fully accept the idea that non members are not automatically unreasonable. Let's call those people Enlightened Theists.

It is my contention that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be either an atheist or an Enlightened Theist. And that above a certain level of intelligence, the great majority of people are one of the two. And if I'm right, that IS strong evidence for the truth of something (that something being that no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident.)

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident

[/ QUOTE ]

Most religions can lay claim to be logiclly self evidient. Proof that there is a God is not logically self evident, that is true. But most religions are based on the fact that they believe that there is a God. Consequently, the laws they follow are given to them by God (of whom they believe exists). It is therefore logically (self evident) that if one believes in God and accepts him that he religiously follows his laws or suffer the consequences. Nothing is more logical than that.

pokervintage

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

I enjoyed reading the OP, and pretty much agreed with it. I don't think there was anything new in it though, I mean nothing new for intelligent people.

What am I missing? The point?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is my contention that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be either an atheist or an Enlightened Theist. And that above a certain level of intelligence, the great majority of people are one of the two. And if I'm right, that IS strong evidence for the truth of something (that something being that no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's assume for the sake of this post that you are right. Biblically speaking, you cannot come to Christ through logic. You come to Christ through surrender.

That doesn't mean that Christian beliefs cannot be defended logically, so what does your post really prove? Only that a lot of Christians tend to relate to nonbelievers in an offensive manner.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is my contention that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be either an atheist or an Enlightened Theist. And that above a certain level of intelligence, the great majority of people are one of the two. And if I'm right, that IS strong evidence for the truth of something (that something being that no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's assume for the sake of this post that you are right. Biblically speaking, you cannot come to Christ through logic. You come to Christ through surrender.

That doesn't mean that Christian beliefs cannot be defended logically, so what does your post really prove? Only that a lot of Christians tend to relate to nonbelievers in an offensive manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take my previous post back, it appears that the OP is not generally accepted after all. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed reading the OP, and pretty much agreed with it. I don't think there was anything new in it though, I mean nothing new for intelligent people.

What am I missing? The point?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its correcting a prevailing mistake. Its not religon that is inherently stupid or dangerous its people who claim that their religon is self-evidently true. Many of these people are of low intelligence but there's also some who are just being politically dishonest.

chez

Put More Simply
 

Most highly intelligent people realize that it ridiculous to think that any religion's beliefs can be arrived at through rational thought. In other words intelligent people realize that no member of a religion can reaonably think that the evidence for their religion is so clear that anybody who believes any of the other religions or atheism (or simply that the truth lies in one of those possibilities) is not thiinking straight.

This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

Re: Put More Simply
 

Is there value in irrational thought and processes, though? They may sometimes yield different solutions to the same problems. Mostly unlikely but it does happen.

Re: Put More Simply
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say this? Original Sin alone gives Christians ample room to damn you, they don't need anything more. Heck, "being unreasonable" isn't even on the radar compared to Original Sin. It's a case of speeding tickets and Murder 1st Degree.

Re: Put More Simply
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most highly intelligent people realize that it ridiculous to think that any religion's beliefs can be arrived at through rational thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean highy intelligent people that have survived the brain washing of religion? Unfortnately, even for your premise to be correct one would have to assume that the development of religious tenets were based on irrational concepts made by less than or even by highly intelligent people.

I believe that the one of the most difficult relgious beliefs to accept is the Christian miracle of Easter. Yet it a totally rational and logical concept to believe that a God would have the power to resurrect a dead human. After all since he created them he must know how they work and has the power to make them again or even bring them back to life. Most concepts of religion are indeed logical and rational if one accepts that there is an all powerful being. I do not understand why you do not understand this. Belief is the key to religion and because they believe they do not question their beliefs. But usually what they believe has a rational and logical reason behind it. One reason usually is to govern behavior of the individual. Another is to show the power of God. These are perfectly rational and logical reasons.

pokervintage

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied.


[/ QUOTE ]
ie.
[ QUOTE ]

logically self evident.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason.

There's really not much point in Christians talking to you. You don't listen.

PairTheBoard

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident

[/ QUOTE ]

Most religions can lay claim to be logiclly self evidient. Proof that there is a God is not logically self evident, that is true. But most religions are based on the fact that they believe that there is a God. Consequently, the laws they follow are given to them by God (of whom they believe exists). It is therefore logically (self evident) that if one believes in God and accepts him that he religiously follows his laws or suffer the consequences. Nothing is more logical than that.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

I completely agree, David.

The idea that some people will go to hell because they're too logical is absurd, and any belief system tossing atheists into hell suggests just that. Even when everyone "deserves" to go to hell and only some people "find salvation" (an absurd point in general IMO), if those who fail to find salvation fail only because they respect logical thinking, then it's their logical nature that results in their damnation. This can't be a sensible position. (It can be logical, but only given bizarre premises.)

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied.


[/ QUOTE ]
ie.
[ QUOTE ]

logically self evident.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason.

There's really not much point in Christians talking to you. You don't listen.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Also not the point. It doesnt matter if he says "logically" self evident or "rasberry-flavored" self evident.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied.


[/ QUOTE ]
ie.
[ QUOTE ]

logically self evident.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason.

There's really not much point in Christians talking to you. You don't listen.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm I'm Christian yet I kinda think DS has a point. I haven't been around here long, but in what I've read thus far, I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. He seems to have great tolerance and understanding of the "Enlightened Theist," whereas others here seem to belittle even that position.

I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. Similarly though I don't like when my Christian friends seem to think that they have proof that Christianity is correct. I recognize that my stance requires faith, but that faith is not illogical as some claim. It may be illogical to believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary, and logical to believe when there is evidence. However, in the absence of evidence, it's pretty much a logically neutral position. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding this.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. Similarly though I don't like when my Christian friends seem to think that they have proof that Christianity is correct. I recognize that my stance requires faith, but that faith is not illogical as some claim. It may be illogical to believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary, and logical to believe when there is evidence. However, in the absence of evidence, it's pretty much a logically neutral position. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding this.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you believe is highly relevant here. Do you believe in hell? Do you believe that human nature is inherently wretched and shameful? No? Then I wouldn't call you a "Christian." Semantic maybe. But given that so many people (including at least 50% of my own country) believe that I, as an atheist, deserve to be tortured for eternity, and that my whole species is basically a spit-ball stuck to the bottom of God's desk, I can deal with a little "collateral damage."

If you can't understand why there's some hostility from atheists toward your religion, then you're missing something big. I'm fine with the Buddhists - and remarkably, none of them think I deserve to be tortured until the end of time for my beliefs.

Re: Put More Simply
 

<font color="blue"> Most concepts of religion are indeed logical and rational if one accepts that there is an all powerful being. I do not understand why you do not understand this. </font>

I think he does understand this, but that's not his point.

The point is that even an intelligent Christian who accepts what the bible says and therefore believes his religion is rational, should also accept that those who worship a different bible or set of beliefs are behaving in no less of a rationally manner than he is.

In other words, while he might not agree with his Muslim neighbor and might even pity him for believing in the wrong religion, an intelligent Christian would not say that his neighbor's beliefs are any less rational than his own. Only someone who is not very smart could think that.

This is also the reason why hard line fundamentalists of any religion are almost always the least intelligent. This has nothing to do with piety. Even the pope could recognize that Muslims are no less rational than he is. Even if he does think they are wrong and going to hell.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof could he possibly need? His position is correct, it's the same one you use for alien abductions and elves and people walking through walls ... "until you have proof, your claim is unproven and I have no reason to treat it as true."

Why would your claim be granted some special status and be accepted without evidence being presented.

If you make specific physical claims, such as age-of-earth etc, then an atheist may say he has evidence you are wrong.

luckyme

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

"You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?"

You are completely confused. I never said that this is most Christian's position. In fact the only regular Christian poster who takes that position is txaq. In fact my OP is saying that most intelligent believers of any religion don't take that position. And I neve mentioned Christianity specifically at all.


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason."

I didn't say it was. What I said was that those religious people who admit that their faith isn't clearly the most "reasonable" can't claim that non believers are automatically evil, lazy, or have ulterior motives. And if they can't claim that, most people would agree that it is wrong to ponounce others condemned.

There was a time when you agreed with all that.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. Similarly though I don't like when my Christian friends seem to think that they have proof that Christianity is correct. I recognize that my stance requires faith, but that faith is not illogical as some claim. It may be illogical to believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary, and logical to believe when there is evidence. However, in the absence of evidence, it's pretty much a logically neutral position. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding this.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you believe is highly relevant here. Do you believe in hell? Do you believe that human nature is inherently wretched and shameful? No? Then I wouldn't call you a "Christian." Semantic maybe. But given that so many people (including at least 50% of my own country) believe that I, as an atheist, deserve to be tortured for eternity, and that my whole species is basically a spit-ball stuck to the bottom of God's desk, I can deal with a little "collateral damage."

If you can't understand why there's some hostility from atheists toward your religion, then you're missing something big. I'm fine with the Buddhists - and remarkably, none of them think I deserve to be tortured until the end of time for my beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are lumping all Christians together, seemingly assuming they all believe in the same stuff. While it's true that many Christians don't understand atheists, I think it's also true that many atheists don't understand Christianity. They know that they have serious problems with some beliefs of some Christians, but those beliefs are not universal.

I believe that humans have, in general, a tremendous capacity for good, but inevitably we will make mistakes. I'm not sure how that answers your second question. As for the question of Hell, in recent years I've been troubled by that notion and now think it's unlikely that it exists, at least in the form it's commonly portrayed. I can't reconcile the notion of an omni-benevolent God with the notion of eternal punishment. Personally I'm Catholic, but I don't know whether or not those beliefs (or any others I have) happen to directly violate any parts of Canon Law of the Church.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

<font color="blue"> I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. </font>

There's a reason for that. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

<font color="blue"> I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. </font>

We don't need proof. We're just saying there is no compelling reason to buy the fact that there's an invisible man upstairs that no one can see. If you want to convince rational people to believe that there is, then YOU'RE the one who's gonna need the proof. Not us.

If I tell you my dead aunt's ghost visits me every night and guides me through life, why would you accept that was true without any proof? More importantly, why should I become agitated with you just because you can't prove she doesn't visit me?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof could he possibly need? His position is correct, it's the same one you use for alien abductions and elves and people walking through walls ... "until you have proof, your claim is unproven and I have no reason to treat it as true."

Why would your claim be granted some special status and be accepted without evidence being presented.

If you make specific physical claims, such as age-of-earth etc, then an atheist may say he has evidence you are wrong.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Earth is likely about 4.5 billion years old, though I'd be willing to modify that belief in light of new evidence. My religious beliefs do not contradict that. A lot of people don't know this, but Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

We do not have evidence that atheism is correct, nor do we have evidence that it is incorrect. As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. However, I choose to have faith in something that I do not have evidence for or against. Logically there is nothing wrong with that. Strong atheists are essentially doing the same thing; they have faith in nonexistence even though they have no proof.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. </font>

There's a reason for that. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

<font color="blue"> I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. </font>

We don't need proof. We're just saying there is no compelling reason to buy the fact that there's an invisible man upstairs that no one can see. If you want to convince rational people to believe that there is, then YOU'RE the one who's gonna need the proof. Not us.

If I tell you my dead aunt's ghost visits me every night and guides me through life, why would you accept that was true without any proof? More importantly, why should I become agitated with you just because you can't prove she doesn't visit me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though. Clearly many do not believe they can prove that, so no hostility there.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
We do not have evidence that atheism is correct,

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you believe in thor? wow.
Atheism is correct because if you don't believe in thor or yahwah or whoever, you are an atheist, by definition .. it HAS to be correct.

Explain how it is incorrect.

I may be an atheist because I am an agnostic ( they are not contradictory positions they deal with different topics).

luckyme

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We do not have evidence that atheism is correct,

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you believe in thor? wow.
Atheism is correct because if you don't believe in thor or yahwah or whoever, you are an atheist, by definition .. it HAS to be correct.

Explain how it is incorrect.

I may be an atheist because I am an agnostic ( they are not contradictory positions they deal with different topics).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe in Thor, but I do not have evidence that Thor does not exist. I also don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even though I don't have any evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not create the universe. I cannot tell Pastaferians that I can prove that they are wrong, even though I'm pretty confident that they are wrong. Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What choice do I have. If I don't believe in a god, I'm an atheist. ( that's what my "by definition" pointed out). When someone hasn't proven their claim, my non-belief is the only place I can stand.
How can it not be correct?

luckyme

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

I guess anyone can be a nut. But I don't know of any non-believers who claim they can prove there isn't a god. We might try to prove that it's more logical to hold the position there isn't one however. I for one, claim this and believe I can show it to be logically correct. I would never claim I could prove there isn't a god. Everyone should know you can't prove a negative.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

What you believe is highly relevant here. Do you believe in hell?



[ QUOTE ]
To the extent the soul world is the abode of man immediately after death, it is called the region of desires. The various religious systems that have embodied in their doctrines a knowledge of these conditions are acquainted with this region of desire under the name “purgatory,” “cleansing fire,” and the like.

The lowest region of the soul world is that of Burning Desire. Everything in the soul that has to do with the coarsest, lowest, most selfish desires of the physical life is purged from the soul after death by it, because through such desires it is exposed to the effects of the forces of this soul region. The unsatisfied desires that have remained over from physical life furnish the points of attack. The sympathy of such souls only extends to what can nourish their selfish natures. It is greatly exceeded by the antipathy that floods everything else. Now the desires aim at physical enjoyments that cannot be satisfied in the soul world. The craving is intensified to the highest degree by the impossibility of satisfaction. Owing to this impossibility, at the same time it is forced to die out gradually. The burning lusts gradually exhaust themselves and the soul learns by experience that the only means of preventing the suffering that must come from such longings lies in extirpating them. During physical life satisfaction is ever and again attained. By this means the pain of the burning lusts is covered over by a kind of illusion. After death in the “cleansing fire” the pain comes into evidence quite unveiled. The corresponding experiences of privation are passed through. It is a dark, gloomy state indeed in which the soul thus finds itself. Of course, only those persons whose desires are directed during physical life to the coarsest things can fall into this condition. Natures with few lusts go through it without noticing it because they have no affinity with it. It must be stated that souls are the longer influenced by burning desire the more closely they have become related to that fire through their physical life. On that account there is more need for them to be purified in it. Such purification should not be described as suffering in the sense of this expression as it is used in the sense world. The soul after death demands its purification since an existing imperfection can only thus be purged away.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


Above excerpt is from Steiner's "Theosophy".



In Hindu parlance this is known as Kamaloca. Read the "Tibetian Book of the Dead" and the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and they offer hints as to the afterlife. The priest is speaking to the dead in order to help them in the way through the afterlife, prayer as speaking to the dead.The period in the "soul world" lasts about one third of a man's life on earth,i.e. Lives 72 years and travels through the "soul world" during a period of about 24 years. And yes there is more, much more, to the tune of about 900 years betweens incarnations. This of course is variable dependent upon the persons development.

This doesn't speak directly to "hell" but it can give some clarity to the present age's misrepresentation of the after life.

In consideration of "original sin" a perspective that it is our "heredity' which is this very first "original sin". All that passes from generation to generation via heredity is that very 'sin" in which man works in returning to the world from which he came which is the same world we return to in the after life. Only upon his "return" or "salvation" he is reborn anew into the spirit cleansed and purified and stands as a free spirit in that world. This is his work.

I will repeat the mantra that this can only be accomplished through reincarnation and karma.And yes, Christ is the Lord of Karma.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What choice do I have. If I don't believe in a god, I'm an atheist. ( that's what my "by definition" pointed out). When someone hasn't proven their claim, my non-belief is the only place I can stand.
How can it not be correct?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

One can choose to believe something in the absence of proof, as long as it has not been disproven. Not only are laypeople allowed to do this, but even professional mathematicians sometimes do this, and theirs happens to be the discipline MOST concerned with proof. For example, most mathematicians that I know choose to believe the Axiom of Choice, even though we have no proof for it. In fact, not only do we not have proof for it, but it has been proven that it is NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE IT. There happen to be a few troubling things about accepting the Axiom of Choice (like the Banach-Tarski paradox), but there are also some nice consequences (that every vector space has a basis, etc.). Actually that analogy worked much better than I expected it to...

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

<font color="blue"> As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. </font>

Most atheists are indeed agnostics. I certainly don't claim to know for sure there isn't a god. But I think it's so unlikely that I feel very comfortable dismissing the notion altogether. Thus to you, I guess I'd be considered an atheist.

You should also understand that there shouldn't even be a term for someone who doesn't believe in something. There's no anumerologists, or atoothfairyists, and there shouldn't be atheists either. I presume you yourself are an atheist with respect to many of the ancient gods who have been put out to pasture such as Zeus, Thor, Wotan, etc. What you describe as an atheist, is merely someone who lumps the God of Abraham into this same mythological heap.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

<font color="blue">I cannot tell Pastaferians that I can prove that they are wrong, even though I'm pretty confident that they are wrong. </font>

You've just described an atheist. It's exactly how I feel when debating with the theists here. At least you can feel some sympathy for us given your views on Pastafarianism.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since most smart people believe in God, it is a stretch to make too much of the fact that more smart people than dumb people disbelieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends what you are making of it.
It's certainly sociologically and psychologically very interesting if the ratio is out of whack and highly correlated with education and intelligence.

Assuming education and intelligence are factors in non-belief, then "why" comes to mind.
On a separate track, a bookie may want to set a price for one group or the other being correct, but that's another issue ..also interesting.

luckyme

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
On a separate track, a bookie may want to set a price for one group or the other being correct, but that's another issue ..also interesting.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a bookie set a price on an issue if the results could never be observed?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see... you claim you have an invisible friend. My position is " I don't think there is evidence to support that belief" ...and rest my case.

Proven.

What other evidence do I have to come up with... photographs of the invisible guy not being there?

luckyme

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

Perhaps I should explain a bit how I arrived at my beliefs. I was raised in an Irish-Catholic household and didn't question the faith taught to me very much as a child. Although I believed, I wasn't really educated enough to have much opinion either way. When I received Confirmation, I did question myself to make sure I believed what I claimed, but again I feel I wasn't in a great position to do so (even though I was 18, much older than most when they receive Confirmation).

I went to a Catholic undergraduate university (Jesuit in fact), and we were required to take a bunch of philosophy and religious studies courses. I surprisingly enjoyed the PL courses and took a few more and minored in it (in addition to my double major in math/CS). I spent a fair amount of time pondering the origin of the universe. Either the universe has always existed, or it has not. The former seems to be a troublesome infinite regress, so consider the latter. If it has not always existed, either some Supreme Being(s) created it, or they did not. In the latter, I'm troubled by the idea that the universe suddenly came into being out of nothing. I can accept the Big Bang and all the stuff thereafter, it's getting to the Big Bang that is troublesome for me. However, the notion that some Supreme Being(s) lit the fuse for the Big Bang is also troublesome, as it leads to the question of where the Being(s) came from. The default answer is that God always has and always will exist, but again that is troubling. No matter which way you pick, it seems you must run into some rather troubling ideas. I am slightly less troubled by the idea that some sort of omnipotent being could have, in His omnipotence, somehow managed to have always existed than I am by the idea that the Big Bang could have spontaneously arisen from nothing. You could argue then I suppose that agnosticism is the correct path. However, the fact that we have something rather than nothing, that the universe exists at all, is very troubling. My troubles are slightly more eased with the belief in some sort of God.

Now how do I get from there to Catholicism? Well I won't deny that much of it has to do with the fact that that is how I was raised. However, I really do like Jesus' message and style. Many sects of Christianity believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which I believe (as do the atheists here) has some problems. That is not a problem for Catholics though. Several times on this forum I've read someone criticizing Christianity, but I've observed that that particular criticism does not apply to Catholicism.

I'd set the over/under on the number of posts before someone makes a Catholic joke at 1.5...

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see... you claim you have an invisible friend. My position is " I don't think there is evidence to support that belief" ...and rest my case.

Proven.

What other evidence do I have to come up with... photographs of the invisible guy not being there?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely correct that there is no evidence to support that belief. However, the conclusion is not that he does not exist. Something can be true even without there being evidence for it. Before the invention of the telescope, was there any evidence that Pluto existed? I think not. That does not mean that Pluto does not exist?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dogma is the enemy of human freedom... The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with COMPLETE CERTAINTY that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice... To diminish the danger that ideology will deteriorate into dogma, and to protect the free, open ,questing, and creative mind of man, as well as to allow for change, no ideology should be more specific than that of America's founding fathers: "For the general welfare."
Niels Bohr, the great atomic physicist, admirably stated the civilized position on dogmatism: "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question."

[/ QUOTE ]
-Saul D. Alinsky

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Something can be true even without there being evidence for it. Before the invention of the telescope, was there any evidence that Pluto existed? I think not. That does not mean that Pluto does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

and in 1200 AD you'd be angry with someone who replied to claims about there being a Pluto with " there is no evidence for that, so I don't believe it exists" an a-plutoist. and you'd believe the correct position was to believe there is a pluto even though there was no evidence because there might be one.
I don't believe you would, or would you ...hmmmm.

You must be careful that you understand the atheist or aplutoist position ... it's purely reactionary to a positive claim by someone who claims that bread is flesh and wine is blood ( or worse). Regardless of their lack of direct evidence, they certainly haven't built up any credibility over the centuries, so we can't even say "well, gee, they've been right so much over the years maybe they're onto something."

luckyme

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Something can be true even without there being evidence for it. Before the invention of the telescope, was there any evidence that Pluto existed? I think not. That does not mean that Pluto does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

and in 1200 AD you'd be angry with someone who replied to claims about there being a Pluto with " there is no evidence for that, so I don't believe it exists" an a-plutoist. and you'd believe the correct position was to believe there is a pluto even though there was no evidence because there might be one.
I don't believe you would, or would you ...hmmmm.

You must be careful that you understand the atheist or aplutoist position ... it's purely reactionary to a positive claim by someone who claims that bread is flesh and wine is blood ( or worse). Regardless of their lack of direct evidence, they certainly haven't built up any credibility over the centuries, so we can't even say "well, gee, they've been right so much over the years maybe they're onto something."

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1200 AD, I'd would NOT be angry at someone who did not believe in Pluto due to lack of evidence. I WOULD be angry at someone that claimed they had a proof of the non-existence of Pluto. The most philosophically correct position would be that we could neither prove nor disprove Pluto's existence. Now if someone chose to believe in in Pluto despite no evidence for it, that'd be OK so long as they didn't purport to have proof.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I'm Catholic, but I don't know whether or not those beliefs (or any others I have) happen to directly violate any parts of Canon Law of the Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't you find out, given your belief that your eternal soul depends on it, and that the whole universe is based on it?

I won't go into specific Catholic beliefs because they're convoluted in the extreme. If we take it at face value, Catholic doctrine is both cruel and illogical. But few Catholics do take it at face value.

However, the Catholic Church does make a number of specific statements and take a number of specific actions supported by funds from its membership. Particularly if you grant the primacy of the Pope, I think it's perfectly fair to criticize you on the basis of those statements and actions (even if you don't know what they are). Even moreso if you've personally given money to the Catholic Church.

Going any further will get off-topic, and I'm not in the mood for a detailed criticism of the Catholics, and I'm angry enough about it that I'll have trouble staying reasonable, so I'll leave it at that.