nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

liamw

For the past couple of years I've looked at religion and it's truth claims, how and why man concieved of religion and the human predisposition to the supernatural. Any evidences for any specific religion that I've seen have been weak. Most semi-decent arguments tend towards deism but still seem weak.

I guess my primary goal was to figure out why we had religion, but more specifically why some intelligent people still believed in it. This was a question that, up to now, I just reconciled as brain compartmentalization or lack of applying the same critical thinking to that area.

However, I still think I'm missing something. I'm finding it hard to concieve how someone like Ken Miller can be a Bible believing Christian. People like Ken, and perhaps Francis Collins, really appear to apply rational thought and critical thinking. They even claim that their theism is deduced completely rationally.

I don't think they are intentionally lying about this. Why exactly do you think these people still believe that the bible is the word of god? Are there really some arguments I'm missing? Do they tend to put more weight on 'personal experience' that others? Surely these people understand the fallibility of the human brain.

Here is an example of one of Ken's speeches which got me thinking about this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Turtwig

Des Carter wrote: »

And you just stated that all Atheists and non believers have no/little common sense.:D

I know I still havent fully answered your original question but I will start by asking you a question. (bear with me)

Do you believe in coincident/luck/chance/randomness?

I really wished that were true, as I regard common sense as biggest prejudice of all time. So many things in the natural world defy common sense that this probably deserves its own thread. Anyways my favourite example is that poisoning people with a deadly disease is essentially vaccination - and it works!. Yet it definitely defies most people's common sense.

With regard to luck, chance, Randomness? Nope, **** happens, I remain agnostic over whether things are determined or if there is truly such a thing as random..

Des Carter

Wicknight wrote: »

This issue I think most Christians would take with this is that you are ignoring some of Jesus' teachings. So why accept some and not others. Why would some bits of it be profound and from the mouth of God, but not others?

I would agree in that most Christians would disagree with me but most Christians do not know the difference between Jesus' teachings and the Churchs' teaching. As Iv stated before I am very critical of the Church and feel that they often pust alternative agendas than what Jesus taught. For example Jesus never said a bad word about homo sexuality yet the Church are against it. A better example is the fact that Jesus never asked for anyone to worship him but to just copy him - do as I have done and worship the Father (not an exact quote but you get the idea) However the Church push for people to worship him. So I take everything Jesus says as profound but not the Church.

Wicknight wrote: »

Most people "do good" because they have strong emotional instincts that reward socially benefitial behavior and discourage socially determental behavior through emotional systems such as pride, guilt, empathy.

If I cheat on my girlfiend I feel guilty. If I steal from my mother I feel guilty. If I hand in a 50 euro note I feel pride. These are evolved emotions that regulate social interaction.

They can of course not function the same in everyone which is why you get people on different scales of morality. Various genetic and environmental factors can greatly alter how they work. While being social creatures we also have concepts of aggression and protective behavior that lessing these instincts. We treat our family or close social group (tribe) different to how we view outsiders. Where this line is drawn is different for different people.

Morality and emotions systems are complex and variable, but in my opinion the only context they make any sense in is in an naturalistic/evolutionary context. Introduce God and you end up with a whole host of contradictory and convoluted reasoning.

I would disagree I would think that someone who didnt feel guilt would be more likely to suceed (for example if you dont feel guilty about stealing €50 from your mother or pride in handing in €50 then your up €100) Also if you dont feel guilt on cheating on your girlfriend youll end up having more children and your "line" will be less likely to die out. Or if you dont feel guilt about killing someone you can kill them and take their food etc and become stronger and survival of the fittest etc.

Des Carter

robindch wrote: »

It's really very illogical to think that just because you can't prove that god doesn't exist, that it's ok to think that he does.

What about all the gods that aren't catholic? Do they exist too just because you can't show that they don't?

This is not what I think you just selected parts of my post and placed them out of context if you want to know what I think please read all my posts and as for the other Gods I answered that QS at least 3 times.

Des Carter

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You really think that you require religion and the threaT of hell to be good?

I answered this in post #60 I think.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How do you explain atheists that volunteer and have a clean rap sheet?

If your the Atheist you tell me.

If there is no God/afterlife why do you do "good" (apart from to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities).

[Deleted User]

Des Carter wrote: »

(apart from to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities).

Isn't that exactly why theists do good?

[Deleted User]

Des Carter wrote: »

I answered this in post #60 I think.

If your the Atheist you tell me.

If there is no God/afterlife why do you do "good" (apart from to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities).

Because with a bit of intelligence you can postulate that everybody's collective happiness is optimised by everybody being good.

Des Carter

Malty_T wrote: »

But again you're not getting the point. Using your logic for God, those who say that OJ is innocent until proven guilty are cop outs. That's purely bizarre reasoning,but I'm just using your logic.

The whole innocent until proven guilty is a cop out but it is an acceptable one because the punishment is too severe if the person is infact innocent.

Des Carter

Dades wrote: »

Key point: Atheists don't rule anything out. Ruling out is not the same as lacking a belief in something. You're using some definition of an atheist as someone who says "There is no God" - which is not what the definition means.

Done some research on this and you are correct however I still feel many Atheists have the attitude that just because I cant see him it must mean he doesnt exist.

Dades wrote: »

You lack belief in the existence of Thor, Vishnu, or tree-gods just like us!

Yes but thats because a God would be that simple to be just a man in the sky however it is extremely difficult to describe him so this discription is a simple analagy for him.

Dades wrote: »

I never said you weren't critical of Christianity - I suggested it's not reasoned thinking to reject substantial bits of a religion and still call yourself an adherent.

I just don't understand how you can conclude God exists, and then reject the tenets of the religion you claim to be part of that actually defines that God.

I answered this in post #63 I think.

Des Carter

Malty_T wrote: »

So, I take it then, that you are assuming cupid exists?

Again I dont know anything about Cupid so therefore I dont know if he exists or not. Now I dont believe the stereotypical cupid (baby with wings and bow and arrow) exists but he could be similiar to the Witch example.

For instance maybe Cupid was an analogy for describing the chemical changes that one experiences in their body when they fall in love. (If this is the case then cupid refers to these changes, which do actually occur and so cupid does technically exist)

My point is that people shouldn't be so narrowminded as to see things in such a simple way.

Improbable

Des Carter wrote: »

Done some research on this and you are correct however I still feel many Atheists have the attitude that just because I cant see him it must mean he doesnt exist.

Being an atheist means that you don't believe in a god. Nothing else. They can be skeptical of other things as well but that's besides the point. People who are skeptical of such things are usually that way because they refuse to believe that something exists when there is no evidence to say that there is.

Des Carter

MagicMarker wrote: »

but believes in god of which there is no evidence at all!

I have already answered this in post #37 but I will repeat myself

Actually many people have put forward convincing arguments/evidence for the existence of a deity its just that a lot of them were later disproven by science. There are so many books written on this topic that it would be impossible to read them all but im sure there are good arguments there somewhere. For example Jesus rising from the dead is pretty convincing and countless miracles. however the vast majority of these can be disputed (not disproven) so I believe that people should be open to the possibility of a God.

Similarly There is no convincing evidence or arguments for the existence of aliens or ghosts and so I would be skeptical but at the same time I would not rule out the possibility of them existing.

Improbable

Des Carter wrote: »

I have already answered this in post #37 but I will repeat myself

Actually many people have put forward convincing arguments/evidence for the existence of a deity its just that a lot of them were later disproven by science. There are so many books written on this topic that it would be impossible to read them all but im sure there are good arguments there somewhere. For example Jesus rising from the dead is pretty convincing and countless miracles. however the vast majority of these can be disputed (not disproven) so I believe that people should be open to the possibility of a God.

Similarly There is no convincing evidence or arguments for the existence of aliens or ghosts and so I would be skeptical but at the same time I would not rule out the possibility of them existing.

Evidence which is shown to be false is no longer considered valid...
If I'm not mistaken, the stories about jesus were written a long time after he died were they not? I'd consider them to be suspect at the very least.

Most intelligent, critical thinkers do not discount the possibility of a god, they simply do not see any reason to believe in such a being at the present time when there is no evidence.

Ickle Magoo

Des Carter wrote: »

For example Jesus rising from the dead is pretty convincing and countless miracles.

Eh, hang about...

Improbable

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Eh, hang about...

Down boy/girl. It's ok, he didn't mean it. Don't listen to the weird man.

Ickle Magoo

(girl)

Phew, for a second there I thought he was seriously trying to tell a forum of religious skeptics how convincing biblical "miracles" are...

<_<

>_>

:pac:

Improbable

I think most religious people have gotten past the futility of trying to argue from scripture. There are so many problems with it that even they have to admit that you just can't do that and pretend to still be intelligent and a critical thinker.

Des Carter

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm still not following how this is an argument for the existence of deities?

answered this in post #69.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, no, yes yes

I don't believe in fate or luck or pre-destiny.

Ok so you believe in randomness/coincidence/chance yet there is no proof that randomness/coincidence/chance exists yet you still believe in it but you dont believe in a God?

is this not an accurate statement?

however I do not believe in randomness/coincidence/chance in that I believe that things happen as a result of previous things happening in the past.

For example if I flip a coin the result will not be random, it will be determined by a large number of factors (the size,weight of the coin, the direction the coin is facing before its flipped, the velocity at which its flipped, the angle it hits the ground at etc).

yawnstretch

Because we realize there is more to existence than the entirety of human knowledge.

My religion is my gratitude for my life which I believe is very special. Because I am capable of love I offer it back to where it came from.

Improbable

Des Carter wrote: »

answered this in post #69.

Ok so you believe in randomness/coincidence/chance yet there is no proof that randomness/coincidence/chance exists yet you still believe in it but you dont believe in a God?

is this not an accurate statement?

however I do not believe in randomness/coincidence/chance in that I believe that things happen as a result of previous things happening in the past.

For example if I flip a coin the result will not be random, it will be determined by a large number of factors (the size,weight of the coin, the direction the coin is facing before its flipped, the velocity at which its flipped, the angle it hits the ground at etc).

If anything, I would believe in randomness from something such as the decay of radioactive particles. They may discover exactly how to predict the exact time at which a particle will decay but at the current time, they cannot.

Des Carter

bluewolf wrote: »

(apart from to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities).
Isn't that exactly why theists do good?

Yes but most theists are just as narrowminded (if not more so) as Atheists.

Improbable

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes but most theists are just as narrowminded (if not more so) as Atheists.

Care to try and justify that?

Des Carter

answered this in post #60 I think.

If your the Atheist you tell me.

If there is no God/afterlife why do you do "good" (apart from to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities).

Deleted User wrote: »

Because with a bit of intelligence you can postulate that everybody's collective happiness is optimised by everybody being good.

I completely disagree as if this was the case the rich western world would have made some progress in irradicating starvation, but instead billions of dollars go toward weapons and bombs which are used to blow up these people just so they will remain poor and the rich will remain rich.

Im sorry but it is clear that humans are inherintaly selfish creatures who wish to maximize there profit/pleasure.

Ickle Magoo

You mean like the weapons and wars brandished by staunch christians like blair and bush? Or perhaps the violence and weaponry from the crusades? Or perhaps you mean people like mother theresa squirrelling away all that money to keep the vatican in all their pomp and splendour while her people starved?

EoghanRua

Fishie wrote: »

My flatmate is very intelligent, and is doing a science PhD. Yet not only does she believe in god, she also comes out with statements like "There are no coincidences" and "Everything happens for a reason". I have tried to appeal to her logical side by saying that this is confirmation bias, but to no avail. I honestly don't understand how she can have one set of logic rules for her academic/work life, and another set for her personal/spiritual life

The 'confirmation bias' argument of yours holds no water because it applies both ways. People who would argue the opposite to her are as guilty of confirmation bias as she is as they will interpret and explain everything away from what they call a 'rational' perspective.

Des Carter

Improbable wrote: »

Evidence which is shown to be false is no longer considered valid...
If I'm not mistaken, the stories about jesus were written a long time after he died were they not? I'd consider them to be suspect at the very least.

Most intelligent, critical thinkers do not discount the possibility of a god, they simply do not see any reason to believe in such a being at the present time when there is no evidence.

In terms of the bible a lot of the stories were written long after he died also the Catholic Church censored these stories and manipulated them to fit their agenda and so there is a lot we dont know about jesus.

As for no evidence there is lots another example of this evidence would be the huge number of outer-body/near-death experiences that have been reported.

Des Carter

Improbable wrote: »

Care to try and justify that?

Which part?

Ghost Buster

Des Carter wrote: »

In terms of the bible a lot of the stories were written long after he died also the Catholic Church censored these stories and manipulated them to fit their agenda and so there is a lot we dont know about jesus.

As for no evidence there is lots another example of this evidence would be the huge number of outer-body/near-death experiences that have been reported.

Ah. Like the abductions of people by the aliens you dont believe in. Those guys are pretty convinced that they have been abducted..
I admitted in this thread that in my hinterland between abandoning Christianity and realising I was athiest I had a brief flirtation with Wicca and had a profound experience with a pentacle. I eventually realised that the experience, very vivid and convincing at the time, was had because i wanted to have it.
Oh and google 'Sleep paralysis'.

Des Carter

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You mean like the weapons and wars brandished by staunch christians like blair and bush? Or perhaps the violence and weaponry from the crusades? Or perhaps you mean people like mother theresa squirrelling away all that money to keep the vatican in all their pomp and splendour while her people starved?

Yes exactly as I said before the Church (Along with others) have censored/altered and manipulated the bible (and other sacred texts im sure) to fit their own agenda. They became corrupt from the powerful positions they held and have given religion a bad name. It was their human failings and lust for power that caused the above further proving that people are inherintly selfish.

Des Carter

Ghost Buster wrote: »

[/B] Ah. Like the abductions of people by the aliens you dont believe in. Those guys are pretty convinced that they have been abducted..
I admitted in this thread that in my hinterland between abandoning Christianity and realising I was athiest I had a brief flirtation with Wicca and had a profound experience with a pentacle. I eventually realised that the experience, very vivid and convincing at the time, was had because i wanted to have it.
Oh and google 'Sleep paralysis'.

I never said that it was proof that god exists I said it was evidence (which it is) just like abductions are evidence that aliens exist.

If we take the court case example many witnesses truly believe they saw a certain person kill someone (when in reality the person they saw was innocent) however their testamony/eye-witness account is still evidence (although it is false)

Im just after finding concrete evidence that God exists, I sense a book deal in my future

Ickle Magoo

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes exactly as I said before the Church (Along with others) have censored/altered and manipulated the bible (and other sacred texts im sure) to fit their own agenda. They became corrupt from the powerful positions they held and have given religion a bad name. It was their human failings and lust for power that caused the above further proving that people are inherintly selfish.

So if faith is no assurance for goodness, selflessness and kindness and atheism is no promise of badness, selfishness or corruption - where does the relevance of faith come in? Baring in mind you are on a forum surrounded by many people who have no faith and do much good...

I'm not sure how you rationalise kind, well-balanced atheists Vs greedy theists with the argument that faith keeps people good.

Des Carter wrote:

I never said that it was proof that god exists I said it was evidence (which it is) just like abductions are evidence that aliens exist.

You mean those eye-witness accounts of Nessie are evidence of a Loch Ness Monster? I think you may be muddling personal testament with evidence btw. :pac: