[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Critical Section - Religion vs IQ

Intelligence & Religion

Paraphrased from The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith, Burnham P. Beckwith, _Fre

I'm often frustrated by the argumentation of my Christian brethren. Too often, religious zealots will use their religion alone in refuting the arguments of the non-believer when logic can suffice.

It should also be noted, the IQ polling is not taking into account the socio-economic demographic of the "religious" and how it correlates with lower IQ, nor are they able to quantify "religious" with any degree of accuracy. In fact, the last link you provided said as much; [I have no idea how this was measured]. While those links provide interesting data, the non-believer has certainly not illustrated any augmented degree of intellect in this thread.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm often frustrated by the argumentation of my Christian brethren. Too often, religious zealots will use their religion alone in refuting the arguments of the non-believer when logic can suffice.

It should also be noted, the IQ polling is not taking into account the socio-economic demographic of the "religious" and how it correlates with lower IQ, nor are they able to quantify "religious" with any degree of accuracy. In fact, the last link you provided said as much; [I have no idea how this was measured]. While those links provide interesting data, the non-believer has certainly not illustrated any augmented degree of intellect in this thread.

I don't know about religious belief, but the suggestion that a susceptibility to religious fanaticism is inversely proportional to intelligence would be difficult to put in doubt. A mind that is shrewd, nimble, inquiring, and perspicacious, will not surrender to dogma. It's too mindful of possibilities and alternative perspectives and the relative nature of truth. It would be like a world class athlete confining himself to bed, forever.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Probably, but instead of rejecting the religions, they should have tried to improve them. Religions have a divine source and spirit, but they are also a human construct and need engaged and thinking people to progress and adapt to changing times and situations.

Nonetheless, the groundwork, the basis of religion, namely the existence of a personal and only one God, who created (how, if evolutionary or otherwise needs analysis) everything, and who will recreate humans on judgment day and decides who will be granted eternal life in paradise or eternal punishment in hell, and the moral framework (not to murder, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to make false witnessing and instead to strive for goodness, mercy, truth, justice and love, to repent sins and pray for forgivance), is an eternal message.

Most of these tenets are completely unreasonable*, and only a person deeply entranced by their religion would see them as self-evident. Not only that, but these most defintely do not form the basis of religion. Most religions that are not rooted in the Abrahamic tradition are polytheistic, henotheistic, animistic or involve ancestor worship and have somewhat diverse moral frameworks. Common concepts like the afterlife (not necessarily heaven and hell) and creation are naive speculations that all groups of pre-scientific people are likely to make for the reasons I explained in my very long post on page 3. Related moral beliefs, where they occur, are essentially non-religious in nature and probably exist for instinctual or practical reasons.

*Except for some of them in your moral framework, but many of them aren't universal, even among Abrahamic religions.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

I don't know about religious belief, but the suggestion that a susceptibility to religious fanaticism is inversely proportional to intelligence would be difficult to put in doubt. A mind that is shrewd, nimble, inquiring, and perspicacious, will not surrender to dogma. It's too mindful of possibilities and alternative perspectives and the relative nature of truth. It would be like a world class athlete confining himself to bed, forever.

It sure seems like "shrewd, nimble, inquiring, and perspicacious" minds wouldn't "surrender" to dogma, but they do. This is why religion is such a puzzling phenomenon. A good proportion (probably the majority) of our greatest minds adopt some version of these irrational beliefs. If religion was only due to stupidity, as this thread title implies, then the mystery would be solved.

It should be quite obvious that we have an extremely strong urge to accept the beliefs of our friends, families and communities. This is not only applicable in the case of religion but also with politics, music preferences, beer preferences, clothing preferences, food preferences, language (grammar, accents, language choice in bilingual communities), moral preference. Primitive religion, in my opinion, is just another product of this very strong human tendency.

Now we have to ask the question: WHY? Why should we befriend people who have similar taste in music to us? Why care if they are connoisseurs of the same things? The answers should be obvious in the case of politics. In our caveman ancestors the political arena was small and each individual held MUCH more political power than each person in a populous democracy like the US. If I convince my friend to adopt my political views, I have done almost nothing to help my cause, but if I was a caveman, converting such a friend could tip the scales and give my coalition the advantage. Alternately losing a political ally could prove disastrous, so it's not surprising that we try to re-enforce similarities with our political allies.

But adopting the religion, beer preferences, music preferences, clothing preferences, etc. of others seems to matter so little from a strategic (and evolutionary) POV! I think the solution is to think of these tendencies as a sort of 'secret handshake'. Those who perform the 'handshake' best are neurally most similar to us, and as a result our abilities to 'read their minds' using our own as a proxy is the greatest. In situations where we would be treacherous, we can look out for treachery in them. We can tell when they are acting a little weird or suspicious, because we intimately recognize what is normal. This is not so with people from different backgrounds. We can tell who these people are because of their different preferences.

Think about when you are befriending someone new. The goal often seems to be to try to find as many things as possible that you have in common. People often switch to the religion of their marriage partner, and back in the day before monotheism, it wasn't uncommon for allied nations or tribes to adopt some of each others gods as signs of alliance.

So all this, in combination with some of the other factors I dicussed in my previous long post, explains religiosity. The other factors give religion direction and distinguishes it from politics and connoisseurship, which really are the same as religion, deep down.

OT:

Atheism may be the most logical choice from a 3rd person perspective, but within the framework of human communities (most of which are religious), atheism is a bad choice. Unless you're closeted (and a great actor) you are likely to have a hard time of it. Luckily some communities, like the scientific community, have managed to make 'atheism' take on some of the characteristics of the 'secret handshake'. Additionally you often find even more connoisseurship (notice all the wine and cheese parties!) and politics in these communities to make up for a lack of religion. Atheism just isn't natural in any community that embraces religion, and those who deny their community's god(s) are likely to be socially maladjusted and mistrusted.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

I don't know about religious belief, but the suggestion that a susceptibility to religious fanaticism is inversely proportional to intelligence would be difficult to put in doubt. A mind that is shrewd, nimble, inquiring, and perspicacious, will not surrender to dogma. It's too mindful of possibilities and alternative perspectives and the relative nature of truth. It would be like a world class athlete confining himself to bed, forever.

I'd agree that it is the one who denies inquiry, possibilities, and alternative perspectives who is most rigid and least perspicacious. As such they are often quick to indict others of lacking these traits by virtue of their world view alone. Ironically, they'll do so while boasting the relativity of truth as if somehow an absolute. In this instance, the assumption is made that there is only one kind of dogma and one must sacrifice or "surrender" their intellect to accept it. To me this illustrates perhaps best of all, an intellectual rigidity of the highest order and is founded more in opposition to an ideal than in any pursuit of enlightenment.

Now we're no longer discussing "religion" in and of itself, but religious fanaticism which if I recall, was never in question nor was it addressed as such in the examples posted by Red Rocket. Definitions of "fanaticism" will likely vary contingent upon filters of presupposition, though I do appreciate the sport in a moving target.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Hmm, seems to me like you have crossed the line of doubt and scepticism and entered the realm of certainess, I'm amazed, have you got somehow a proof that God doesn't exist?

You can't prove a negative.

Atheism is being content with as long as there is no evidence for and immeasurable probabilities against, it is good enough to assert that there is no God. Just like it is reasonable to assert that there really are no pink elephants trampling my head on Sunday morning, no flying unicorns or no green men living on Mars. Splitting hairs and calling it agnosticism is just a waste of energy.

This might be hard to fathom for a closed religious mind, but once you start applying the tools of reason to religion it falls apart pretty quickly.

[Graviton]

I think that in the face of modern scientific rationalism, claims of the supernatural are so unlikely to be true that it is quite reasonable for one to dismiss them. For this reason (and a bunch of others) I think atheists by far have the strongest argument, but I don't think that theism itself is an unreasonable proposition, just very unlikely. Am I an atheist? an agnostic? I really have no idea, nor do I wish to apply any of those labels to myself. They are unimportant. Tell me what your god is and I'll tell you whether I think it is likely or not.

I accept that I live in a natural universe that science is best placed to describe. Even so, I sometimes like to play with the idea that the universe knows I exist, just as 'religious people' do. The idea that there is such a thing as 'destiny', and things in my life 'happen for a reason' other than what we understand to be natural. However, evidence shows that the universe is not the kind of thing that can 'know' anything at all, so I'm fully aware that this is most likely a little flight of fancy that my mind likes to take from time to time. I don't 'believe' in it, or take it at all seriously, as comforting and delightful as it may be. It's just not very likely. What's more likely is that I am just another insignificant ape spinning on a rock on the outer arm of a galaxy placed nowhere in particular.

I'm born, I will die, and somewhere in between a bunch of stuff will happen, depending on what choices I make before my time is up. I guess I'm somewhat of an existentialist. Existence (whatever that may be) is an amazing thing, I'm very lucky to be here and what I do with it is down to me, but I don't think this whole shebang was created for the benefit of my stupid little life.

[Kevin]

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You can't prove a negative.

Atheism is being content with as long as there is no evidence for and immeasurable probabilities against, it is good enough to assert that there is no God. Just like it is reasonable to assert that there really are no pink elephants trampling my head on Sunday morning, no flying unicorns or no green men living on Mars. Splitting hairs and calling it agnosticism is just a waste of energy.

This might be hard to fathom for a closed religious mind, but once you start applying the tools of reason to religion it falls apart pretty quickly.

It's such a waste of breath, why bother?

Let people have their fairy tales. No one on this board's going to blow anyone up because their gods tell them to, and we can all agree that anyone who does is a moron.

So let's all just drop it.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Of course it was, cause I read it years ago and worded it from my memory, therefore I put the qualifier (he said something like) before it.



Good for you.



Hmm, seems to me like you have crossed the line of doubt and scepticism and entered the realm of certainess, I'm amazed, have you got somehow a proof that God doesn't exist?




How can there be reason or evidence about the afterlife? Reason and evidence needs verification, and surely that is not very easy to achieve don't you think?

By the way the belief in the afterlife is both comforting and frightening, depending which side of the afterlife you will make, paradise or hell.



Why? Isn't it good and desired that the elites of a society believe and act in the same moral standards as those that they govern.

But while it would be good, experience has shown that the elites and powers of a society seldomly did.






God surely doesn't need us to believe, love, thank and fear Him, it's not for His pleasure, it's merely asked from us for our own good, so that we follow Him and become merciful, just, truthful, repenting, humble...

Like I already said, God's revelations always fitted within the thinking of the society at those times. Of course when you take for granted that God doesn't exist, then it can as well be that the societies merely modeled themselves their God-figure, but that is a question of point of view.



Trust me, it's just as confounding to see the atheists expending so much energy to make their belief reasonable, when it can't ever be.

Questions of belief can never be proven 100%, be it the belief of God's existence or the belief in God's non-existence.

Everyone can choose instictively and irrationally whatever suits him best, and we will have all to wait till we die to see behind the curtain, or not.

Taliesin

No, there's no evidence because you can't have evidence for someone's imaginary friend.

Sorry, but this, "you don't have any evidence not to believe in God" is pure nonsense. You don't believe in fire breathing dragons because there's no bloody reason to believe in them.

The only difference between you and me is that I believe in one less God than you do, and that's fine. You go right ahead, but don't drag reason and logic into the muck with you by trying to pretend there's any rational foundation for these flights of fancy.

Geesh. This is the stupidest thread because these discussions can never, ever go anywhere.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

It's such a waste of breath, why bother?

There's nothing wrong with discussing things in order to have a better understanding.

It doesn't have to be about changing others' minds does it?

[Graviton]

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike"

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike"

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense."

[tie]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Trust me, it's just as confounding to see the atheists expending so much energy to make their belief reasonable, when it can't ever be.

Questions of belief can never be proven 100%, be it the belief of God's existence or the belief in God's non-existence.

Everyone can choose instictively and irrationally whatever suits him best, and we will have all to wait till we die to see behind the curtain, or not.

I don't want to argue against God's existence. (And I also have no idea why this thread is in the Political/War forum.)

But I would like to point out that this is a terrible argument that you are making. The same logic works for anything supernatural: ghosts, genies, etc. I find it quite distressing that your argument for God's existence -- and the unreasonableness of atheists' beliefs -- is equally applicable to the existence or nonexistence of Bigfoot. I guess you find it confounding that people doubt the existence of Santa Claus?

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense."

"While absence of evidence is not absolute evidence of absence, it is generally evidence of a high probability of absence."



Welcome to the modern world of the scientific method. I hope you enjoy your trip, please keep your hands inside the car at all times.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense."

The Great Fairy Queen disagrees with you, and she's always right, and apparently we should seriously believe in her despite the utter lack of reasons to do so.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense."

Are you trotting this out like some profound truth?

Try:
"You can't prove a negative"
or
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

The only difference between you and me is that I believe in one less God than you do, and that's fine. You go right ahead, but don't drag reason and logic into the muck with you by trying to pretend there's any rational foundation for these flights of fancy.

Geesh. This is the stupidest thread because these discussions can never, ever go anywhere.

This thread isn't intended to convert believers in unbelievers or vice versa. It was meant to be a discussion about the origin of religious behavior in man. "Why do people even care to spread their religion or lack of religion?" This is a question that needs answering, no matter if gods exist or not. Unfortunately no one here seems capable of having this type of discussion. Maybe it's because the subject requires strong critical thinking skills, something which the strongly religious and strongly anti-religious seem to lack. Too bad.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

This thread isn't intended to convert believers in unbelievers or vice versa. It was meant to be a discussion about the origin of religious behavior in man. "Why do people even care to spread their religion or lack of religion?

There is nothing inherently evangelical about religion. Probably most religions throughout history have not tried to expand very much; many have even specifically rejected the idea. The desire to spread one's religion around is an innovation of evangelical religions, and if you pay attention to the doctrine of these religions, the motivation is painfully obvious.

[Saetre]

I disagree. I think people are naturally somewhat evangelical about religion (or lack thereof), in the same way that they tend to be evangelical about their music and beer tastes. The main difference I see is that people tend to be interested in spreading their tastes, ideas and non-viral religious beliefs to their friends and neighbors, and not to strangers. The degree of evangelism we see in the viral religions of today is clearly a result of something like memetic evolution.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

This thread isn't intended to convert believers in unbelievers or vice versa. It was meant to be a discussion about the origin of religious behavior in man. "Why do people even care to spread their religion or lack of religion?" This is a question that needs answering, no matter if gods exist or not. Unfortunately no one here seems capable of having this type of discussion. Maybe it's because the subject requires strong critical thinking skills, something which the strongly religious and strongly anti-religious seem to lack. Too bad.

More to the point, everyone stopped talking about THAT back on the first page.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

More to the point, everyone stopped talking about THAT back on the first page.

Well, not everybody. I was just defending the idea of the thread, which I believe is a good one, even if it was implemented poorly and MacNN is a poor environment for it.

[Saetre]

For those who are interested in this topic you might want to check out "Breaking the Spell - Religion As a Natural Phenomenon" by the philospher Daniel Dennet. I haven't read it myself, but own it, and will read it soon.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

This thread isn't intended to convert believers in unbelievers or vice versa. It was meant to be a discussion about the origin of religious behavior in man. "Why do people even care to spread their religion or lack of religion?" This is a question that needs answering, no matter if gods exist or not. Unfortunately no one here seems capable of having this type of discussion. Maybe it's because the subject requires strong critical thinking skills, something which the strongly religious and strongly anti-religious seem to lack. Too bad.

The problem is the thread title. After the first page, nobody will read the first post. They'll just go off the title. And this title is rather fantastically poorly chosen.

[Saetre]

Agreed, of course.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Gee, that's fascinating and all, but it doesn't apply to me. I don't worship idols either.

I also can't help but laugh at the absurdity of "God's invisible qualities ... have been clearly seen."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Well, not everybody. I was just defending the idea of the thread, which I believe is a good one, even if it was implemented poorly and MacNN is a poor environment for it.

I've seen the statement; "... and MacNN is a poor environment for it." a couple of times now. Why is MacNN a poor environment for such discussion?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Saetre

For those who are interested in this topic you might want to check out "Breaking the Spell - Religion As a Natural Phenomenon" by the philospher Daniel Dennet. I haven't read it myself, but own it, and will read it soon.

I'm curious, how can you recommend a book you haven't read?

It could be complete rubbish, for all you know, there's no way of finding out until you've read it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I'm curious, how can you recommend a book you haven't read?

It could be complete rubbish, for all you know, there's no way of finding out until you've read it.

I was actually thinking the same thing, but didn't ask. At first I thought that maybe he was simply recommending a book that a friend recommended, but realized he didn't mention this. So... I guess we're left to believe this is a good book because he owns it. Oh well. I was interested in learning more about the author and did a little reading on him so it was not entirely without merit. I guess. I'm still curious why MacNN is not a good place for these discussions.

[richwig83]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was actually thinking the same thing, but didn't ask. At first I thought that maybe he was simply recommending a book that a friend recommended, but realized he didn't mention this. So... I guess we're left to believe this is a good book because he owns it. Oh well. I was interested in learning more about the author and did a little reading on him so it was not entirely without merit. I guess. I'm still curious why MacNN is not a good place for these discussions.

Probably for the same reason that asking someone about kernalpanics on a religious forum isn't going to yield a favorable discussion!!!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

Probably for the same reason that asking someone about kernalpanics on a religious forum isn't going to yield a favorable discussion!!!

I believe it's kernel panics. Welcome to MacNN and particularly the Political/War Lounge.

You may have noticed upon registering that there are various forum headings supporting a host of different subject matter. For example, one may discuss kernel panics in the Powerbook, MacBook Pro, Power Mac, or Mac OS X forums. They may discuss miscellaneous and widely varied subject matter in the MacNN Lounge or they can discuss what would be considered at times, inflammatory or controversial subject matter in the Political/War Lounge.

Subjects like these are why the Political/War Lounge exist. What you have here (shameless plug) is a "one-stop shop" of topical discussion regarding anything from your iPod to your iDeals comprised primarily of those with at least one common bond; Mac enthusiasm.

I had suspected that some would prefer to use another medium, one more specific to those of their world view which by nature is a circle jerk. This is a diverse group where you will often be subjected to a challenge against some core ideals. I dare say most who post here still appreciate that aspect of this forum, though I must admit an increasingly rare trait of our posters.

In fairness to Saetre, I will not make any assumptions, I'm simply curious why he/she would say this about MacNN.

[Graviton]

I have read one of Daniel Dennet's other books called 'Darwins Dangerous idea' and that's certainly a book that I would recommend to anyone.

He's a philosopher who approaches his subject from an evolutionary perspective and is one of the few philosophers who actually understands a great deal of the science involved.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I'm curious, how can you recommend a book you haven't read?

It could be complete rubbish, for all you know, there's no way of finding out until you've read it.

It has been reviewed favorably by many of my favorite authors. I have heard him speak about it several times and have read his other books, which are excellent. He has a great mind, so whether it's rubbish or not, it's worth knowing what his position is, since it's likely to form a starting point for many debates about this stuff. As far as I know, it's also the most comprehensive book on the subject.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've seen the statement; "... and MacNN is a poor environment for it." a couple of times now. Why is MacNN a poor environment for such discussion?

I'm not claiming it has anything to do with the religiosity of the members of the forum, if that's what you're thinking. I tried starting this discussion here once before in a maximally respectful manner, but as with this thread, no one would take up the debate. ChuckIt and I are the only people who have put any effort into this discussion, and he quickly backed out. Most people here are more interested in rehashing tired old debates, and it seems more like a penis measuring contest sometimes than a place to gain further understanding through debate and conversation. Therefore it seems obvious to me that a forum which attracts an audience that's more interested in the subject and more intellectually curious* would be a better environment for this discussion. Perhaps a general religion or philosophy forum would be a better pick.

* And of course there are more than a few sharp minds here, but apparently none of them are interested enough to discuss this topic. Those who claim to be interested in the subject haven't added anything of substance to the discussion.

[OldManMac]

Interesting article on the "New Atheists." It gives some indication that the number of nonbelievers may be higher than what is normally assumed.

[Super Mario]

My new religion.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...nt/6734469.stm

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I'm not claiming it has anything to do with the religiosity of the members of the forum, if that's what you're thinking. I tried starting this discussion here once before in a maximally respectful manner, but as with this thread, no one would take up the debate. ChuckIt and I are the only people who have put any effort into this discussion, and he quickly backed out.

I disagree. While I might be a little biased, I believe I've contributed a great deal to the discussion. I was not opposed to the inflammatory nature of the thread title because I've seen them posed in this manner before. I mentioned why I have faith. In fairness, I first clarified why those of faith who indict non-believers of lacking basic senses are in error while reinforcing the notion that this also applies to the assumption that by necessity the religious are stupid. Invariably, when any discussion of religion ensues, you'll see the predictable indictments of greed, oppression, etc... when these are all facets of the human condition not exclusive to those of faith. To indict religion (a human construct) for having elements of human nature is "stupid". When I see these arguments being formed I address them. I also include the positive aspects of religion in this discussion because it seemed some perspective was in order.

Most people here are more interested in rehashing tired old debates, and it seems more like a penis measuring contest sometimes than a place to gain further understanding through debate and conversation.

I'm inclined to agree with this. I generally (generally) respond to a poster in the same manner they've posted to me to establish rapport. I'm sure you'd agree, the entire premise of the thread is a tired old debate. I'm not sure what expectations you could have coming out having gone in this way, but maybe that's the point you were making.

Therefore it seems obvious to me that a forum which attracts an audience that's more interested in the subject and more intellectually curious* would be a better environment for this discussion. Perhaps a general religion or philosophy forum would be a better pick.

I grant you it is difficult for people to separate emotion from logic. IMO, too often income of information is filtered first through our own presuppositions which makes any reasonable discussion next to impossible. i.e. you may be atheist purely because you believe faith in a god is impossible to measure and you may be more interested in the intellectual pursuits of philosophy, the inception of religion and/or science in general. Unfortunately, too many are more motivated in opposition to ideals than in any intellectual interests. Not unlike respondents to a survey or those who post on their experiences with products. Either they love a thing or they loathe it. Most people are down the middle, but they're not compelled to speak.

* And of course there are more than a few sharp minds here, but apparently none of them are interested enough to discuss this topic. Those who claim to be interested in the subject haven't added anything of substance to the discussion.

Naturally, I disagree. Erik and I had a meaningful discussion IMO. Folks may not appreciate the manner in which we addressed one another, but our points were made, we heard one another. For every 10 posters here, 3-4 will contribute something meaningful including facts and figures, etc... but I think this is representative of the human collective in general don't you? I mean, from reading some of the posts in this thread, folks are very dedicated to their ideals on both sides and it often manifests in vitriolic banter and divisive mentalities, but for better or worse; this is people and this is reality. Particularly in a forum of the opinionated. I give MacNN some credit though in diversity and I've learned a great deal here.

In a thread indicting the religious for stupidity, I'd say it turned out as well as can be expected.

[Wiskedjak]

Not having posted in this thread until now (I don't really have an opinion on the matter either way as I have no desire to attack people for their beliefs, and see no need to defend people's beliefs against such obvious trolling). But, I must say that I'm surprised this thread is still alive and kicking.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Interesting article on the "New Atheists." It gives some indication that the number of nonbelievers may be higher than what is normally assumed.

IMHO, Atheists aren't really "nonbelievers". The just believe in something different.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

IMHO, Atheists aren't really "nonbelievers". The just believe in something different.

That is correct, but I was thinking of it in terms of nonbelievers in a supreme being.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

This thread isn't intended to convert believers in unbelievers or vice versa. It was meant to be a discussion about the origin of religious behavior in man. "Why do people even care to spread their religion or lack of religion?" This is a question that needs answering, no matter if gods exist or not. Unfortunately no one here seems capable of having this type of discussion. Maybe it's because the subject requires strong critical thinking skills, something which the strongly religious and strongly anti-religious seem to lack. Too bad.

No I've went on talking about such things all the time. Why do people feel the need to post either way in here. Though those against seem to have a monopoly on these threads. I've many times attempted to ask this same question and received no answer myself. So welcome to the boat.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Gee, that's fascinating and all, but it doesn't apply to me.

You mean you don't think it does.

I don't worship idols either.

I guess it depends on how deep you want to go about how abstract such things can be. Anything that replaces God for you in your life would be your idol worship. Be it a relationship, Job, Hobby, etc.

I also can't help but laugh at the absurdity of "God's invisible qualities ... have been clearly seen."

And yet not laugh at the irony of your sentence? You know comparing it to what you responded to?

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Not having posted in this thread until now (I don't really have an opinion on the matter either way as I have no desire to attack people for their beliefs, and see no need to defend people's beliefs against such obvious trolling). But, I must say that I'm surprised this thread is still alive and kicking.

Me too. I wonder how many other "<Put something here> How can so many be so stupid?" that didn't have to do with religion threads would last.

You know when someone is hired their religion is held in the same regard and respect as their sexual preference or skin color etc?

It is not the same here at MacNN.

So NN can't really call itself a open minded, or equal "opportunity" forum.

And no this isn't a baseless accusation. I've been told as much from a few admins.

I was told since religion was a "choice" and they others "weren't" that it was treated differently.

Not because they have or had any proof of that above, but because that is how they FELT, and I was told that is all that mattered.

So much more forward thinking and acceptance.

 

I couldn't deny my religion if a tried. Much like I've been told a homosexual cannot deny his homosexuality, so there is no difference. Not that anyone here could prove either way. And thats my point.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

IMHO, Atheists aren't really "nonbelievers". The just believe in something different.

Indeed.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Naturally, I disagree. Erik and I had a meaningful discussion IMO. Folks may not appreciate the manner in which we addressed one another, but our points were made, we heard one another.

I give MacNN some credit though in diversity and I've learned a great deal here.

You and Erik haven't addressed the question, as far as I can tell. Your first post starts to explain why you believe, but that was not the question.

Don't get me wrong, I love these forums, I just don't think they are a great place for this particular discussion.

I'll rephrase the question I believe the original poster intended, in a clearer, less divisive manner:

"What is it about human nature that predisposes humans to religious ideation?"

The explanation(s) must be applicable to religion in general, in order to satify my curiosity. See my long post on page 3 for a sample of what this sort of explaination might look like, although the theories I would posit if I was a theist would be of quite a different form.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I've many times attempted to ask this same question and received no answer myself. So welcome to the boat.

Well, I provided some potential answers on page 3, if you're still curious.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Interesting article on the "New Atheists." It gives some indication that the number of nonbelievers may be higher than what is normally assumed.

Interesting indeed. As well as the discussion that followed (until aymon and siouxrose started their unintelligible new age babbling). Good find.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

IMHO, Atheists aren't really "nonbelievers". The just believe in something different.

Athe?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

You and Erik haven't addressed the question, as far as I can tell. Your first post starts to explain why you believe, but that was not the question.

The OP offered the possibility that God or a god, cannot be proven or disproved, but mentioned the conundrum of using self-referential appeals to authority such as; "God exists and is good therefore, if more people believed in God they would be good too." and cited monotheism as having to sacrifice some degree of intellect in the context of a compartmentalized mind. Crudely.

I addressed this with the difference between relative truth and absolute truth. I believe in absolute truth though it is not always tangible. For example, if someone turns up missing and there is little evidence, one can extrapolate all kinds of possible scenarios based on that evidence. Two people may view the same evidence and come up with two entirely different, but plausible conclusions. In this truth may be relative as subjected to the human mind however, something absolutely concrete happened regardless.

Don't get me wrong, I love these forums, I just don't think they are a great place for this particular discussion.

They can be, but delivery is critical. The question stems from non-belief and as such non-belief is the natural assumption and the foundation of the poster's view. Which to be clear is fine, but then too often these questions are founded more in opposition to an ideal than in any genuine interest in the intellectual pursuit of the question; evidenced by the suggestion that faith spreads like a tumor, (as opposed to a warm and pleasant breeze), is dangerous, and stupid.

I'll rephrase the question I believe the original poster intended, in a clearer, less divisive manner:

"What is it about human nature that predisposes humans to religious ideation?"

Here is the crux of the problem between our perspectives Saetre. Both in the OP and in your subsequent statements, it is assumed prior that there is no god and that adherents to religions are acting on behalf of their proclaimed supernatural entity within the confines of natural law as it relates to impeded cerebral activity; i.e.; evolutionary "misfirings", social anomalies, survival instinct, etc... which I dare say will likely never be proven also. These are notions you no doubt accept without strong evidences, but there's a possible third option that is missing here. What if it were possible that the human mind was simply constructed with an innate reverence for a creator? While some have gone on to worship creation (trees, birds, the sun, moon, etc...), what if it were possible that man was created by one God with freewill and has simply gone in differing directions? To some it is an intriguing possibility while to others it is absolute truth. What if there were a trigger be it evolutionary or sociologically circumstantial; that caused non-belief as opposed to the other way around?

The explanation(s) must be applicable to religion in general, in order to satify my curiosity. See my long post on page 3 for a sample of what this sort of explaination might look like, although the theories I would posit if I was a theist would be of quite a different form.

In this case, take what you have written and reverse the subject of the post, instead referring to the non-believer. I would guess this is how theists would address the question. Again, it is assumed because of a presupposition of godlessness, that faith in the supernatural is the result of evolutionary/natural law, yet is overwhelmingly prevalent among human nature. You've relegated the faith anomaly almost in context of a disorder yet the order seems to mandate a creator. Is it possible that it is the other way around? Perhaps there is absolute truth and the minority of those not adhering to a faith have either a self-suppressed (for a host of potential reasons) or a retarded (in its literal sense) "god gene".

These are all possibilities, but one's presuppositions will often influence one's conclusions.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I couldn't deny my religion if a tried. Much like I've been told a homosexual cannot deny his homosexuality, so there is no difference. Not that anyone here could prove either way. And thats my point.

I didn't know Kevin was gay.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I guess it depends on how deep you want to go about how abstract such things can be. Anything that replaces God for you in your life would be your idol worship. Be it a relationship, Job, Hobby, etc.

I guess it also depends on how dishonestly you wish to stretch the meaning of words. Stop treating ordinary words as if they had elastic definitions. I don't worship any idols. Accept it.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I addressed this with the difference between relative truth and absolute truth. I believe in absolute truth though it is not always tangible. For example, if someone turns up missing and there is little evidence, one can extrapolate all kinds of possible scenarios based on that evidence. Two people may view the same evidence and come up with two entirely different, but plausible conclusions. In this truth may be relative as subjected to the human mind however, something absolutely concrete happened regardless.

I am unfamiliar with Dawkin's "Compartmentalization of the mind" idea so I can't really follow your argument.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Here is the crux of the problem between our perspectives Saetre. Both in the OP and in your subsequent statements, it is assumed prior that there is no god and that adherents to religions are acting on behalf of their proclaimed supernatural entity within the confines of natural law as it relates to impeded cerebral activity; i.e.; evolutionary "misfirings", social anomalies, survival instinct, etc... which I dare say will likely never be proven also. These are notions you no doubt accept without strong evidences,

Actually, I did consider various god hypotheses. Here are a few of them:

1) God created us to have a tendency to believe in him. This I rejected because the evidence for evolution is irrefutable. Even if a god intentionally birthed a universe so that humans would evolve and have minds that tended to believe in him, the behavior itself would still be explicable in naturalistic terms. My explanation is compatible with this belief. I suppose a god could have also come along and genetically engineered people to believe. Why adopt this view since evolution accounts for other biological phenomena and can clearly account for religious belief as well? Also, if god implanted us with the ability to believe in him, why did he do such a poor job? Throughout history most people have believed in nothing like your conception of god. Free will isn't the answer to this disbelief because there was no conception of your god to chose for most of humanity's history.

2) Gods have revealed themselves to some people on earth. Maybe, but then why don't religions agree at all about what these gods are like. Also the archaelogical and historical record shows clearly that the concepts of gods have changed with time. Are the god(s) revealing themselves differently now from the way they were before? Why? The god concepts have also been, and still are, geographically clumped. Do different gods control the minds of different people in different areas or does the same god appear differently to people in different areas? Why?

Of course first we should consider that science has demonstrated that people are very, very susceptible to confabulation, hallucinations, wishful thinking and proto-scientific theorizing. Would it be sensible to throw out the scientific laws we have so painstakingly discovered in order to account for our psychology of belief, when science can apparently solve the problem without resorting to such drastic measures?


These theories, of course, are also hurt by the utter lack of any scientific evidence for the existence of god. There is none (currently anyway). Not only that but just about every conception of god that I have ever come across contains dire logical contradictions. This doesn't prove that no currently conceived or unconceived god doesn't exist, but it leaves us with no reason to include "god theories" among our hypotheses. If the existence of a god could explain elements of religious belief that are inexplicable by naturalistic methods, then we should consider them, but it seems to me that the god concept is unable to help us here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

but there's a possible third option that is missing here. What if it were possible that the human mind was simply constructed with an innate reverence for a creator? While some have gone on to worship creation (trees, birds, the sun, moon, etc...), what if it were possible that man was created by one God with freewill and has simply gone in differing directions? To some it is an intriguing possibility while to others it is absolute truth.

As I said, that seems like a terrible idea.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if there were a trigger be it evolutionary or sociologically circumstantial; that caused non-belief as opposed to the other way around?

I'm not sure if I talked about this on my post on page 3 or a later post, but I agree with you here. I think atheism is unnatural, and usually the result of problems with early socialization. I think this is usually true in religious areas with religious families. For those who grow up in atheistic communities, the socialization is probably normal and the atheistic tendencies are a result of the same sort of social pressures that cause people to adopt their society's religion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In this case, take what you have written and reverse the subject of the post, instead referring to the non-believer. I would guess this is how theists would address the question. Again, it is assumed because of a presupposition of godlessness, that faith in the supernatural is the result of evolutionary/natural law, yet is overwhelmingly prevalent among human nature. You've relegated the faith anomaly almost in context of a disorder yet the order seems to mandate a creator. Is it possible that it is the other way around? Perhaps there is absolute truth and the minority of those not adhering to a faith have either a self-suppressed (for a host of potential reasons) or a retarded (in its literal sense) "god gene".

I didn't say that religion was a disorder. Where did you get that from? Maybe you are under the impression that humans are objectively rational creatures, and that grossly irrational beliefs are signs of a disorder. If objective irrationality is a disorder then we all need straight-jackets. (yes, even atheists)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I am unfamiliar with Dawkin's "Compartmentalization of the mind" idea so I can't really follow your argument.

It wasn't my argument necessarily, it was a broad answer to the disingenuous question posed by the OP, IMO. The points generally stand on their own with or without regard to Dawkins' "compartmentalization" notion.

Actually, I did consider various god hypotheses. Here are a few of them:

1) God created us to have a tendency to believe in him. This I rejected because the evidence for evolution is irrefutable.

... which really doesn't mean anything with regard to the supernatural right? I'll give you the "irrefutable" bit with disregard for the fact that science does not generally speak in these terms nor is it in the "disproving gods" biz as it would divert to yet another tired debate.

Even if a god intentionally birthed a universe so that humans would evolve and have minds that tended to believe in him, the behavior itself would still be explicable in naturalistic terms. My explanation is compatible with this belief. I suppose a god could have also come along and genetically engineered people to believe. Why adopt this view since evolution accounts for other biological phenomena and can clearly account for religious belief as well?

You speak in absolutes I don't often see in biological text. Can you cite me a link where evolution has "clearly accounted" for religious belief and any other biological phenomena that would be remotely comparable to the mysteries of faith as it would relate to logical processing, thought and reason? We understand that these have developed through what seems a profoundly evolved neocortex and brain stem, but honestly little else is understood with regard to these higher functions and is subject to considerable philosophical debate.

Also, if god implanted us with the ability to believe in him, why did he do such a poor job? Throughout history most people have believed in nothing like your conception of god. Free will isn't the answer to this disbelief because there was no conception of your god to chose for most of humanity's history.

What we know of the history of religion begins with Hinduism some 5,000 years ago. This is generally understood by religious writings and artifacts. The Torah (or first five books comprising the Old Testament of Christianity) was born from oral traditions that are said to have dated conservatively, centuries before any initial formal writing of it. Hinduism has "gods"; Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the protector), and Shiva (the destroyer). While this is considered "polytheism" by definition, it is not inconceivable that they stem from common oral traditions aged by dissent. Whether or not it was a "poor job" will be the conclusion of one's own presuppositions.

2) Gods have revealed themselves to some people on earth. Maybe, but then why don't religions agree at all about what these gods are like. Also the archaelogical and historical record shows clearly that the concepts of gods have changed with time. Are the god(s) revealing themselves differently now from the way they were before? Why? The god concepts have also been, and still are, geographically clumped. Do different gods control the minds of different people in different areas or does the same god appear differently to people in different areas? Why?

- People disagree on what Elvis was like. Change in thought is not always improvement or contingent upon enlightenment just as evolution does not always illustrate "progress". People disagree on a great many things. If I live in Utah with my family and decide growing up under the tenets of Mormonism is tiresome, I may move. I may bring with me parts and pieces of the faith that I appreciated while abandoning those I did not. This may occur beyond the individual and form tribes of the like-minded. The major religions have an immense number of commonalities and they've changed little since their inception, but in any case those are changes through human influence, not necessarily a change in God. There are numerous Christian religions for example, and their primary differences are those most would consider relatively harmless. It is the actions of those who represent (or misrepresent) a religion that often influences subtle changes in doctrine.

Of course first we should consider that science has demonstrated that people are very, very susceptible to confabulation, hallucinations...

... stopping you here to indicate that I won't be needing to consult your post on page 3 to show that you have relegated faith to a disorder. Again, it is entirely possible it is the other way around. Especially when taking into account that there is no evidence to suggest those of faith have a higher propensity for any other associated mental in-capacities. If you repeat yourself regarding the possibility that those of non-faith may in fact be in the same boat; I'll be left wondering what your point could be with all due respect.

... wishful thinking and proto-scientific theorizing.

Which as you know is not exclusive to those of religious faith.

Would it be sensible to throw out the scientific laws we have so painstakingly discovered in order to account for our psychology of belief, when science can apparently solve the problem without resorting to such drastic measures?

Because of the nature of faith, science cannot address theism with an adequate number of empiricists to solve this "problem". Primarily because that is not where its resources have been dedicated. Even if it did, wouldn't it make more sense to wait at least one more generation before asking this question? Even if a UFO came crashing into the White House, worked miracles, and claimed there never was a Jesus or God, but nothing more than celestial scientists watching us in our giant petri dish; I suspect it'd take at least one generation for everyone to abandon their respective faiths don't you?

These theories, of course, are also hurt by the utter lack of any scientific evidence for the existence of god. There is none (currently anyway). Not only that but just about every conception of god that I have ever come across contains dire logical contradictions.

I've rarely seen this indictment from one who knows what they're talking about or has even a modicum of knowledge regarding the cultures and literary stylings of the times of the initial manuscripts. The natural/tangible aspects of the texts I read are generally beyond question in their historical accuracies and you'll find them as affirmed and credible as any other revered historical text of our time. Regarding the supernatural, I'm not sure you can simply apply logic as I alluded to in my first post.

This doesn't prove that no currently conceived or unconceived god doesn't exist, but it leaves us with no reason to include "god theories" among our hypotheses.

I don't know that anyone has asked you to. In my first post I mentioned that faith is what it is, take it or leave it. If there is absolute truth, the only sin one may have committed in their life is not taking it. I'm certainly not asking you to include "god theories" among any of your hypotheses.

If the existence of a god could explain elements of religious belief that are inexplicable by naturalistic methods, then we should consider them, but it seems to me that the god concept is unable to help us here.

I'm sure you'd agree that "not including 'god theories' in our hypotheses" and "Religious people are so stupid" are two entirely different attitudes. If you adhere strictly and exclusively to naturalistic methodology, more power to you brother. IMO and in the opinion of the scientific community, science is not in the "disproving gods" business. If you'd like to view it this way you're certainly welcome to it. If there is a perfectly naturalistic explanation of faith that satisfies scientific concensus, I'm perfectly willing to accept it as the most plausible naturalistic model of the inception of faith. This does not mean I am faithful to it.

As I said, that seems like a terrible idea.

We apparently disagree.

I'm not sure if I talked about this on my post on page 3 or a later post, but I agree with you here. I think atheism is unnatural, and usually the result of problems with early socialization. I think this is usually true in religious areas with religious families. For those who grow up in atheistic communities, the socialization is probably normal and the atheistic tendencies are a result of the same sort of social pressures that cause people to adopt their society's religion.

Well on that note we're back to square one for most. I think most people have an innate reverence for their creator.

I didn't say that religion was a disorder. Where did you get that from?

I didn't say you said religion was a disorder. I said; "you've relegated the faith anomaly almost in context of a disorder." Prior to that, I gave you the quotes of where I got that from.

Maybe you are under the impression that humans are objectively rational creatures, and that grossly irrational beliefs are signs of a disorder. If objective irrationality is a disorder then we all need straight-jackets. (yes, even atheists)

I believe we govern and suppress more than we allow for a host of reasons. If we truly espoused every thought or notion and/or acted on such that occurred to us, we may likely all belong in straight jackets.