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.