Current Poll (Religion)

[Senethro]

I don't know. If its until a non-atheist says something remotley smart about atheism and doesn't run away from replies we could be here all semester.

[Frank]

Quoting Senethro from 17:04, 13th Aug 2007
I don't know. If its until a non-atheist says something remotley smart about atheism and doesn't run away from replies we could be here all semester.

Well, it takes an odd view of time to exactly satisfy that point, but I've no doubt some folks will be satisfied with what I'm about to say.

I suppose it's perhaps worth stating that, as of Sunday the 12th of August, I'm not exactly religious. It took a good three-hour-long inner dialogue with myself. I'm pretty confident I don't believe in God anymore.

It might change in the future, should I find convincing stuff that, well...convinces me back again. But, personally, I can't really be true to myself and believe in God. Hell, I might be mistaken (and indeed: that might be where I'm going because of this), but generally and specifically I can't justify it all to myself.

So, essentially, it's a wee bit of a crisis of faith. I've little doubt that the morals I had will still be the morals I'll keep (for instance: abortion still really worries me), so in a sense I'd be an agnostic-catholic, in sofar as I'm still essentially the same mind/body/soul(oh my!) as I was, but just without the Nicene Creed.

I suppose University is still a good time to go soul searching, eh? In a sense I've simply switched from a testable hypothesis to an untestable one- God Exists vs God Doesn't Exist.

I amn't, at least not yet, an atheist. Agnostic, I guess, for the time being.

How do you make a 'goodbye' prayer to something you don't think exists without it being sanctimonious, patronising or just insulting if it does exist?

Really need to formulate my worldview, but I'm sure I'll get there. Try to hold back on the 'silly faith' etc.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[novium]

argh! argh! argh! argh! argh! argh! argh! Have I not said, about ten thousand gazillion times, that it's not important whether or not the universe has meaning? That that had nothing to do with my point, which was simply DECIDING what the point of the universe was - something? nothing? - is placing meaning on it.

therefore, science can only take you as far (in either direction)as apathetic agnosticism (if we extend that past the simple god debate): 'I don't know if the universe has meaning, but it doesn't really matter, because I don't care' ... as science is not concerned with what the point of it all is. science is concerned with how it all works.

Quoting Haunted from 15:05, 13th Aug 2007
You say science can't explain the meaning of life.
I say, so what, perhaps there isn't one

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[novium]

And what would you count as remotely smart?

In any case, I wasn't aware that the debate was primarily raging between theism and atheism.

Quoting Senethro from 17:04, 13th Aug 2007
I don't know. If its until a non-atheist says something remotley smart about atheism and doesn't run away from replies we could be here all semester.

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[[James]]

Quoting novium from 18:04, 13th Aug 2007
And what would you count as remotely smart?

At this point, I'm going to raise the issue of the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Have fun with that kids, I'll be back later to check out the rage.

[exnihilo]

It might be worth substantiating it somehow, otherwise it's just juvenile name-calling.

[Gubbins]

Quoting novium from 13:47, 13th Aug 2007
and lastly, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

I'd have to be pedantic disagree with you there. Science has not proved or disproved God. It is extraordinarily difficult to disprove the existence of something conclusively. It is, however, quite possible that we will find something, in whatever form, upon which is engraved "God was 'ere".

Frank: well done for thinking for yourself. If only more people did, whatever they might decide.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Quoting exnihilo from 18:26, 13th Aug 2007
It might be worth substantiating it somehow, otherwise it's just juvenile name-calling.

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

First thing that google found, doesn't look incredible. Plenty more for the curious though.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 18:03, 13th Aug 2007
argh! argh! argh! argh! argh! argh! argh! Have I not said, about ten thousand gazillion times, that it's not important whether or not the universe has meaning? That that had nothing to do with my point, which was simply DECIDING what the point of the universe was - something? nothing? - is placing meaning on it.

I think we're both agreeing on this. Though I made no DECISION on whether there was/is/could be meaning (a lack of meaning isn't a meaning in an analogous way to atheism not being a religion). My point was, so what? 'Meaning' is a human invention, why would/should/could it apply to the physical universe?

therefore, science can only take you as far (in either direction)as apathetic agnosticism (if we extend that past the simple god debate)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Whether the universe has meaning is something we could find out (God could just appear and go "yup its all true, the mormons got it right" etc), and that would be that. But in order to prove that there was no meaning, no intent and thus no creator is impossible (proving negatives again). So technically we must remain open to possibility, we can dismiss it to a certain extent since everything we know points to their being no such thing.

'I don't know if the universe has meaning, but it doesn't really matter, because I don't care' ... as science is not concerned with what the point of it all is. science is concerned with how it all works.

Yup, even if a god were to appear one day and explain everything we would hardly call it a scientific discovery.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[novium]

No rage. Just an eye roll.
crime is positively correlated with ice cream purchases. What of it?
Not to mention the oh so controversial issue of how to measure something like religiosity... let alone intelligence.

Quoting [James] from 18:13, 13th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 18:04, 13th Aug 2007
And what would you count as remotely smart?

At this point, I'm going to raise the issue of the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Have fun with that kids, I'll be back later to check out the rage.

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[Haunted]

Quoting Frank from 17:37, 13th Aug 2007
...

I happy to see your thinking about it. What you think isn't as important as how you think.

If you haven't already done so, you may wish to read the link I posted earlier to Penn Jillettes (of Penn and Teller fame) view on his atheism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5015557

And of course, Dawkins' new documentary starts in 15 minutes, should be a laugh.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[munchingfoo]

Quoting novium from 19:42, 13th Aug 2007
crime is positively correlated with ice cream purchases. What of it?

Where is your evidence for stating this? Show me empirical proof and then you would then need to show that there isn't some other connection or, failing that the likelyhood of connection is high.

Its quite logical really to think that the higher an IQ the more one would consider religion the wrong path. If for no other reason than those with a low IQ will tend to follow whatever the norm is in a particular situation, and the norm is religion in most places.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[Rilla]

Quoting munchingfoo from 19:49, 13th Aug 2007
Where is your evidence for stating this? Show me empirical proof and then you would then need to show that there isn't some other connection or, failing that the likelyhood of connection is high.

She just said that they're positively correlated, she didn't say that one was caused by another. Association and causation - very different things.

[hr]

Be good to yourself because nobody else has the power to make you happy.

[Frank]

Quoting Rilla from 19:56, 13th Aug 2007
She just said that they're positively correlated, she didn't say that one was caused by another. Association and causation - very different things.

Very crucial. Of course, the whole IQ/Religiousity thing does fall on very tenuous ground. But, that's again 'real life' and not 'science'. I'm never very happy with science attacking religion, rather than simply applying reason and letting it sort itself out. Certainly (ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, AHOY!), in my experience, it was simply thinking things over that shifted me, not some scientists overstepping the mark and knocking on my door then asking "Have you heard the good news...you're probably not to hell!" (before I've even answered the door! Swines...)

Yes, correlation/causation is a particularly important one. Particularly interesting too. But I'll shoosh now. I'd like to hear folks thoughts on the Documentary...I missed it.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[munchingfoo]

Quoting Rilla from 19:56, 13th Aug 2007

Quoting munchingfoo from 19:49, 13th Aug 2007
Where is your evidence for stating this? Show me empirical proof and then you would then need to show that there isn't some other connection or, failing that the likelyhood of connection is high.

She just said that they're positively correlated, she didn't say that one was caused by another. Association and causation - very different things.

Well duh.

but she was implying that the ice-cream / crime correlation was the same thing as the IQ /religion correlation. (in that they were both examples of correlations without direct causation) I was asking her to first show that there was a correlation and then give some evidence that the two are (or not) linked. Quite reasonable I think.

We have seen that the IQ / religion correlation exists and I gave one reason for believing that causation exists.

I was merely requesting that she do the same.


[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[Arashi]

After reading this thread, what has struck me is that no one seems willing to entertain the concept that scientific thought and religious beliefs can coexist. Afterall, it was the Catholic Church which had a major part in the formulation of the Big Bang theory. I cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang in the History section, just to show I'm not making it up.

Science versus religion is one of those debates that goes on forever because of those obstinate few who demand that their view must be the only truth (or Truth) out there, but why does it have to? It's one of those personal things, to want meaning out of life, and religion/faith/spirituality can provide that. But at the same time, if you want to know how something works without needing to know "is there a greater meaning for this" then science provides that. So use science for certain things in life, and call on religion for others. You don't need to deal in absolutes.

Of course, this is only my opinion, take it or leave it. Afterall, I'm just a pagan nature spiritualist, with a fondness for the Discovery Channel and astronomy.

[novium]

you've missed the pointhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_is_not_causation

And yet you've totally ignored the even more important problem here: the problem of quantifying intelligence (and, religiosity).


My ice cream example was meant to cast doubt on the other correlation. One, because i've not yet seen any actual numbers...and I have for the ice cream thing...and two, because the ice cream one is actually more sensible, as it involves things that can be quantified, and not only that, quantified in such a way that's not going to bring up murky bias issues.
Third, there's a relatively simple connecting factor with the ice cream thing: heat.
And my guess is, if the whole intelligence/religiosity thing ever took place, even in the least credible fashion, the factor that ties them together is also going to be fairly obvious- that is, cultural bias, with a geographical component.


Also, have you considered the fact that those with low IQ are going to be about as numerous of those with high IQs? Remember the bell curve...

Quoting munchingfoo from 19:49, 13th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 19:42, 13th Aug 2007
crime is positively correlated with ice cream purchases. What of it?

Where is your evidence for stating this? Show me empirical proof and then you would then need to show that there isn't some other connection or, failing that the likelyhood of connection is high.

Its quite logical really to think that the higher an IQ the more one would consider religion the wrong path. If for no other reason than those with a low IQ will tend to follow whatever the norm is in a particular situation, and the norm is religion in most places.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[Gubbins]

Quoting novium from 21:48, 13th Aug 2007
And my guess is, if the whole intelligence/religiosity thing ever took place, even in the least credible fashion, the factor that ties them together is also going to be fairly obvious- that is, cultural bias, with a geographical component.

Quoting munchingfoo from 19:49, 13th Aug 2007
If for no other reason than those with a low IQ will tend to follow whatever the norm is in a particular situation, and the norm is religion in most places.

Do you think you could both be right? Incidentally, Wikipedia has a good article about Religosity versus IQ.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Frank]

Quoting Arashi from 21:31, 13th Aug 2007
After reading this thread, what has struck me is that no one seems willing to entertain the concept that scientific thought and religious beliefs can coexist.

I generally felt that way. Hell, I do feel that way, to a degree. Save that, now, for me, current states of religion simply doen't merit my attention, or, indeed: belief.

Roman Catholocism seems lacking somewhat. If Jesus did exist, and was the son of God as depicted these days, then wouldn't He have found a better way to convince people of our salvation in Him than...testing us to see if we listen to alot of silly reasoning and a couple of dollops of good reasoning hidden amongst it all?

This is a curious feeling, somewhat, now that I feel I'm highly unlikely now to celebrate mass again. Perturbing.

If religions do hold any truth/Truth, then it follows somewhat reasonably, to me, that there's a great chance of them coexisting with science. But if they are somewhat devoid of truth, then it seems they really are an obstacle.

I would further imagine that there is some sort of "Dwakins' Wager" (as opposed to "Pascal's Wager") that asserts how I currently feel I...think. That is:
- Very little, to no, evidence for God, or indeed anything of that ilk.
- If He does exist, then He's not really making His presence felt, so it seems a further leap of awkward logic to simply assume He wishes to be found.
- Indeed, searching for Him when there's essentially no evidence* He's there is somewhat difficult to reasonably justify to myself (considering there is so much else that might exist, with little to no evidence)
- So, if God does exist, we'll probably come across Him eventually. Maybe. I mean: When we die and are judged by Him, it's as good a time as any to say "So, you're going to judge us for not listening to Mrs Ross et al?"

* Of course, if I start seeing alot of things saying "God was 'ere" with little to no explanation, then I may well start to believe in...whatever they indictate again. Miracles are an intruiging one. Whilst they would, indeed, be miraculous, I still find it difficult to pin down a need for a reason on them. So, even then, if I see someone come back from the dead, it still feels quite irrational to say "God did it" rather than wonder at the marvellous mysteries of the Universe.

That is: Science, at present, seems to have alot more going for it than alot of other stuff. Perhaps this is extreme selfishness?

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[munchingfoo]

Quoting novium from 21:48, 13th Aug 2007
you've missed the pointhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_is_not_causation

Oh yes - I didn't get that!

Myself
(in that they were both examples of correlations without direct causation)

Are you hard of seeing?

And yet you've totally ignored the even more important problem here: the problem of quantifying intelligence (and, religiosity).

I didn't mention intellect - I said IQ. IQ is quantifiable by its very nature.

My ice cream example was meant to cast doubt on the other correlation. One, because i've not yet seen any actual numbers

Theres a link to some figures and a correlation graph

...and I have for the ice cream thing...

I've seen aliens - FACT

and two, because the ice cream one is actually more sensible, as it involves things that can be quantified, and not only that, quantified in such a way that's not going to bring up murky bias issues.

As above - IQ by its definition can be quantified. Also - the people in the questionaire were all asked the same question , and they replied using their own opinions (we trust) - so where would the bias come about?

P.S - how do you quantify crime? 4 DUIs equals one murder and two stabbings?

Third, there's a relatively simple connecting factor with the ice cream thing: heat.
And my guess is, if the whole intelligence/religiosity thing ever took place, even in the least credible fashion, the factor that ties them together is also going to be fairly obvious- that is, cultural bias, with a geographical component.

I offered one simple connection.



[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!