How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2010 09:17AM

liamw wrote: »

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.

I do not think the mystery is as big as you think, but it can be confusing. I myself wondered at this for a long time.

However what I realise is that the reasons for religion in intelligent people are actually quite simple. It is connected to an aspect of the human condition which is our tendency to assume something is true first and support it with evidence later.

Which means that intelligent people are almost MORE likely to believe a bad idea, given they have greater mental faculties to use when engaging in this form of confirmation bias.

The test for my theory is to literally try it yourself. Be religious for a week or a month. Act and think like it is true. You will find that the idea is confirmed almost everywhere you look, from the “something rather than nothing” to the “complexity of life and the universe” it quite literally all makes sense in the light of the assumption being made.

This happens ALL The time in our world. There are people who think the number 23 exists everywhere, and they FIND it everywhere which confirms their idea. The more intelligent they are, the better they are at engaging in the mental arithmetic usually required to find 23 within other numbers or letters.

This confirmation bias is dangerous, especially when it results in religious opinions that are mutually incompatible and, since they are devoid of evidence, not useable as a basis for conversation. No 23ist ever realises that the same argument also works for every other number, especially prime numbers.

In this way, intelligence can actually be a positive predictor of religiosity, not the negative one you would expect from your question above.

liamw · 22-09-2010 09:47AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is connected to an aspect of the human condition which is our tendency to assume something is true first and support it with evidence later.

Best response so far, thanks for that.

Why do you think that some of us have managed to drop the assumption and become atheist?

Dades · 22-09-2010 10:20AM

Des Carter wrote: »

Here is another major flaw in your argument. You are saying that scientific evidence must be true because a whole lot of scientists from a whole range of different areas of expertise etc have come to the same conclusion

Yet nearly every different society in the history of the Earth have all come to the conclusion that there is a "God"/something more to the world yet you dont take this as evidence. Again very hypocritical!

Do you really consider Ba'al, Odin, Thor, Vishnu, Anunnaki, Aušrinė and Ra to be the "same conclusion"?

Even the God of the Old and New Testaments - who is supposed to be the same entity - is a completely different character in each book.

Honestly, this is not intellectual and critical thinking.

philologos · 22-09-2010 10:20AM

King Mob wrote: »

Jakkass can you please explain why this happened?

Or does God also give morals to Buffalo?

Good question.

My view of morality is that there is a universal source, but that humans have the free choice as to whether or not they abide by this source, or indeed they may pick and choose on the basis of this universal source. However, the general framework of morality (mainly human) is logically based on the assumption that there is a universal source whether this is contemplated by the individual or not. I pretty much adhere to C.S Lewis' thinking on this, Augustines thinking on divine illumination in philosophy also makes a lot of sense (albeit it is based on all knowledge not just morality).

In terms of animals, I believe that it is the same, but that animals have a limited sense of contemplation and as such a limited sense of understanding in comparison to humans due to the fact that animals aren't self-reflective to the same degree as humans are.

The universal source being an intelligent being whom can be referred to as God as I see it.

I'm willing to be corrected on any of the above.

However, all I need to do to dismiss Wicknights understanding of morality is to show it as being utterly inconsistent. People and indeed animals, don't employ morality for their own benefit in plenty of cases. Chemical, biological or otherwise. Morality often goes beyond the level of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine". Indeed, this is a pretty big reason why I adhere to Christian ethics rather than secular ones. The same can be said of Bentham's utilitarianism. Pain and pleasure being our two masters is horribly hedonistic.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2010 10:21AM

liamw wrote: »

Best response so far, thanks for that.

Why do you think that some of us have managed to drop the assumption and become atheist?

I do not think we have in one way. The error itself I mean, rather than in relation to atheism.

I am sure you and I both do it all the time in other realms of our discourse without yet having realised it. The error itself is common, the subjects people make it in relation to are not.

As for why… I guess we have just put more thought into it than others, or someone arguing against it has been more successful with us that with others.

Or maybe, as in my case, the base assumption was never instilled in my in the first place. I was simply never religious, so I never made that basic assumption and then proceeded to confirm it.

In my school our teacher used to do a bible reading a day every day up until the age of 12. At no point during that time did I EVER realise “Hang on, people believe this is true”. It was just “Story time” to me you know?

So I guess to answer your question, at least for my case, I never did drop the assumption because I never did make it.

For many people, like Dawkins, they speak of how they realised how many religions there was, realised they could not ALL be true, and started to think about it. Maybe when you see the same assumption being made in someone else, it sheds a light on the fact you have made it yourself. Sometimes it takes seeing others make a mistake to identify that mistake in yourself.

Zombrex · 22-09-2010 10:35AM

Jakkass wrote: »

However, all I need to do to dismiss Wicknights understanding of morality is to show it as being utterly inconsistent.

No offense Jakkass but I don't think you understand the first thing about my understanding of morality, certainly not if you think I'm saying that humans only do things that give them direct benefit or pleasure.

Did you read my reply to you about how someone giving up their life could evolve in a purely evolutionary/naturalistic moral system?

In the context of God our morality makes no sense. You guys recognize that which is why you introduce such convoluted ideas as the Fall and our corrupted sinful nature, and the greatest get out of having to explain things card, the mystery of God.

So an Islamic terrorist lays down his lives for his fellow terrorists to escape while at the same time blowing up a school bus you have a very hard time explaining that in the context of God given morality. His sinful nature made him blow up the bus but his God given love made him save his fellow bothers in arms.

On the other hand in an evolutionary context if is easy to explain.

It is simply intellectual dishonesty to claim that human morality makes sense within a Christian framework of morality.

22-09-2010 10:41AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Good question.

My view of morality is that there is a universal source, but that humans have the free choice as to whether or not they abide by this source, or indeed they may pick and choose on the basis of this universal source. However, the general framework of morality (mainly human) is logically based on the assumption that there is a universal source whether this is contemplated by the individual or not. I pretty much adhere to C.S Lewis' thinking on this, Augustines thinking on divine illumination in philosophy also makes a lot of sense (albeit it is based on all knowledge not just morality).

In terms of animals, I believe that it is the same, but that animals have a limited sense of contemplation and as such a limited sense of understanding in comparison to humans due to the fact that animals aren't self-reflective to the same degree as humans are.

The universal source being an intelligent being whom can be referred to as God as I see it.

I'm willing to be corrected on any of the above.

However, all I need to do to dismiss Wicknights understanding of morality is to show it as being utterly inconsistent. People and indeed animals, don't employ morality for their own benefit in plenty of cases. Chemical, biological or otherwise. Morality often goes beyond the level of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine". Indeed, this is a pretty big reason why I adhere to Christian ethics rather than secular ones. The same can be said of Bentham's utilitarianism. Pain and pleasure being our two masters is horribly hedonistic.

Or it could be a product of survival strategies developed from millions of years of natural selection. And where as the moral action may not be beneficial to the individual, it could help the family unit or the species as a whole.
A species that exhibits the behaviour of supporting the family or other social structure over the benefit of an individual is going to have an evolutionary advantage.
The video I posted is a clear example of this. Those ants that explode themselves are another. (Do ants have morals too?)

But yea magic is a much better explanation....

liamw · 22-09-2010 11:07AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As for why… I guess we have just put more thought into it than others, or someone arguing against it has been more successful with us that with others.

I'd like to see a theist response to this.

Jakkass, it appears that you have put quite a bit of thought into the topic. Would you consider your belief to have any sort of confirmation bias or would you say you have arrived at the decision in a purely objective fashion?

Also, if you don't mind, could you let me know if you were born into a christian family?

Zombrex · 22-09-2010 11:08AM

King Mob wrote: »

But yea magic is a much better explanation....

you notice how magic can explain anything

raah! · 22-09-2010 11:29AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not disparaging theology because it is in the arts. I'm disparaging it because it is nonsense.

Imagine instead of theology we were talking about Star-Trek-ology. Imagine some where someone spend their entire lives studying the the ins and outs of Star Trek, all the time believing it was real?

Now would you say it is wrong for me to dismiss this because I am not an expert in Star-Trek-ology? Think about that for a minute.

I would say it is wrong for you to say "I know about star trek". Or "Star Trek contains such and such inherent contradictions", be proved wrong about those contradictions, being showed that it is you yourself who are self-contradictory (see thread), and yet then still presume you know as much about star trek as the people who study it. The "courtier's reply" is all well and good, and I've referenced it several times, as I consider it to be entirely irrelevant. If you engage in a theological debate, are shown wrong then you don't know about theology. You can fall back on that then, yes, but don't pretend you know about theology.

The position of atheism as espoused by dawkin's (and subject to this courier's reply quote) is implicitly backed by philosophy, philosophy he seems to know very little about (if the statements of his fans are anythign to go by). So the thing is not appropriate. Just because he doesn't know he's using philosophical assumptions or arguments doesn't mean philosophical arguments or assumptions aren't necessary for the formulation of his position.

I would put this down to biologists being somewhat removed from the full philosophical grounding of science, as could be found in maths , or physics, when physics states it's grounding.

If theology has some secret reason that only people who have studied it for years know as to why it is in fact not a gigantic irrelevance to reality by all means can they share it with the rest of us

Well, here , like dawkin's your tacit assumptions about what reality is inform statements like this. And whether you like it or not, matters like this are philosophical. You can't just assume your conclusion and then use predictions made by that system to support it. We all know what that type of reasoning is.

Nothing was addressed in the other thread. It just descended into the usual "well this is what I believe..." nonsense.

It descedned into people showing how you contradicted yourself. I could go to that thread and pick out the logically contradictory statements if you like. And that's a serious error, that sort of contradiction.

See Star-Trek-ology analogy above. If someone spends their entire life studying theology and believes it is true they know less than I do in a very crucial area..

Well this does infact contradict what you were saying earlier about knowing all abotu theology. The courtier's reply would suggest that you should reject it outright, and that is your argument against it. That it's premises are wrong, not that you know all about it and have dismantled the arguments piece by piece.

Why? You think people never believe imaginary characters are real....?

That's not really pertinent to those points being discussed.

raah! · 22-09-2010 11:38AM

King Mob wrote: »

Again you said:

Do you still think rationality still plays no part?
Cause I can't see any other meaning for this sentance.
That's true of the first example, but not of the second.

I think it plays no part in the act of appreciating. It can reveal matter to be appreciated, but not take part in the appreciating. It's not really something that is worth continuing the discussion over. The context in which I phrased it, as well as many other things I said made the meaning very clear.

Uncovering thigns provides one with more uncovered thigns to appreciate. But uncovering and appreciating are two separate things.

That's not what I believe or am arguing.

Then in all those examples cited I stand by my statement that rationalising and appreciating the beauty of somethign are separate. One is relatively objective, the other is inherently subjective.

So my appreciation is not coming from the "surprise" contrary to what you had claimed?

I don't believe I would make a statement that implies the only way to appreciate things is to be surprised by them. That would be silly.

And it seems you don't understand my position.
The video specific addresses how understanding something allows Feynman to appropriate it even more. And this understating requires rationality. So therefore it plays a very valid part in appreciation, contrary to your claim.

Well if you've been reading any of my posts, I mentioned this loads. How understanding things plays a part in finding out more things to appreciate etc. you can even appreciate your understanding. But they are different.

And as you said you are not arguing about their being different, so then you are not arguing against that sentence you like to keep quoting.

I wasn't implying that was your position.
It's still a valid question: if rationality is removed does the appreciation improve?

I don't know, it's a good question, and poetically phrased. There has certainly been talk about this on the philosophy forum, and I also once read a poem about it on the creative writing forum... or perhaps another forum. But that's a good thign to think about. I'm not sure how easy it will be to arrive at conclusions here due to the subjective nature of appreciation.

Zombrex · 22-09-2010 11:48AM

raah! wrote: »

I would say it is wrong for you to say "I know about star trek".

Why?

I've watched pretty much every episode of Star Trek. I haven't spend my entire life researching it back and forth in ridiculous detail. But I don't need to in order to know for example it isn't real and there are a lot of plot holes and that the sets are cardboard.

This is my point.

If theologists have found some secret they aren't sharing with the rest of us by all means let us know.

If there is something you discover after re-reading the Bible for a millionth time that suddenly makes the nonsense disappear, please let us know what this is.

But since there is actually nothing new to discover (the Bible is the Bible, just like the episodes of Star Trek are the episodes) this would seem unlikely.

If there is a glaring plot hole in Star Trek spending your life re-watching every single episode doesn't make this go away, or if it does it should be easy enough to simply explain how without saying you must spend your life watching all Star Trek episodes and then you will understand.

Des Carter · 22-09-2010 12:04PM

Dades wrote: »

Do you really consider Ba'al, Odin, Thor, Vishnu, Anunnaki, Aušrinė and Ra to be the "same conclusion"?

Even the God of the Old and New Testaments - who is supposed to be the same entity - is a completely different character in each book.

Honestly, this is not intellectual and critical thinking.

Yes its the conclusion that there is something more to the universe, something more to life rather than just plain living, dieing and then thats it.

(This is what I mean when I say "God")

Des Carter · 22-09-2010 12:13PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't "blindly" believe anything, what with having a physics background.
I also know that if I got up off my backside and went to research physics, I could do so. Hell I could ask my friends doing postdocs in physics.

Are you saying that you wouldnt believe in science if you didnt have a background in physics? - a genuine question.

bluewolf wrote: »

Of COURSE it is admitting it may be wrong that is the WHOLE POINT.
You don't learn anything new if you don't admit you may be wrong.

I wouldnt say its the WHOLE POINT as I believe in a God yet still admit I may be wrong.

Zombrex · 22-09-2010 12:17PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes its the conclusion that there is something more to the universe, something more to life rather than just plain living, dieing and then thats it.

(This is what I mean when I say "God")

How is that a rational conclusion? It seems to be merely an appeal to emotion.

It is similar to people who complain about their jobs saying they feel they were "meant for something more"

There is nothing logical about that.

raah! · 22-09-2010 12:17PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

I've watched pretty much every episode of Star Trek. I haven't spend my entire life researching it back and forth in ridiculous detail. But I don't need to in order to know for example it isn't real and there are a lot of plot holes and that the sets are cardboard.

This is my point.

If theologists have found some secret they aren't sharing with the rest of us by all means let us know.

If there is something you discover after re-reading the Bible for a millionth time that suddenly makes the nonsense disappear, please let us know what this is.

But since there is actually nothing new to discover (the Bible is the Bible, just like the episodes of Star Trek are the episodes) this would seem unlikely.

If there is a glaring plot hole in Star Trek spending your life re-watching every single episode doesn't make this go away, or if it does it should be easy enough to simply explain how without saying you must spend your life watching all Star Trek episodes and then you will understand.

And would we be better to listen to you, or a star-trek ologist when it comes to the internal dynamics of star trek?

And the analogy isn't complete either, theology isn't confined to the bible, for one thing.

What's more, the bible is far more complicated than star trek. Historical context blah blah blah, and it's hihgly unlikely that you actually have read it. But if you'd like to pretend that you knowledge of the bible is equal to epople who spend their lives reading it (even though you heartily contradicted yourself in that thread) , then go ahead.

And, if you read the bible with the pre-existing supposition that it is all wrong, or all literal, then you haven't read it properly. But It's not necessary for it to be restricted to the bible, as I've said. There are lots of theological writings etc.

You must really be ignorant of process in the arts, people are still studying the republic and things like that, there's lots to be taken into account.

MagicMarker · 22-09-2010 12:27PM

Does this mean if I watch Star Trek religiously it will eventually become fact?

Do I also need to read Lord of the Rings to conclude that it is a work of fiction?

Dades · 22-09-2010 12:36PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes its the conclusion that there is something more to the universe, something more to life rather than just plain living, dieing and then thats it.

(This is what I mean when I say "God")

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

The fact that most every culture there has ever been has come up with a different deity, providing a different explanation for existence and a different idea as to what happens when we die, shows us nothing more than that people are wont to make up deities.

Zombrex · 22-09-2010 12:50PM

raah! wrote: »

And would we be better to listen to you, or a star-trek ologist when it comes to the internal dynamics of star trek?

Depends on your priorities. If you really like the idea of Star Trek being true (and perhaps are looking to dress up in a Star Trek uniform for jury duty), and you want to indulge this delusion, the Star Trek people I imagine.

If you are a theist and want to indulge in that delusion then obvious you are going to embrace theology and all the nonsense it holds. But that is your issue rather than mine.

raah! wrote: »

What's more, the bible is far more complicated than star trek.

That isn't the point. The complicated nature of the Bible doesn't eventually reveal some hidden secret that demonstrates it is not all nonsense.

If it did then one theologian could study it for years and then tell everyone else and we would go "Wow, never noticed that before but now you mention it..."

That, needless to say, hasn't happened.

The idea that to discover this truth you have to dedicate your life to studying theology and then it will be clear just smacks of cult tactics. Sign over all you own and come live on our commuine in South America and then you will realize our leader is telling the truth :rolleyes:

raah! wrote: »

Historical context blah blah blah, and it's hihgly unlikely that you actually have read it.

For someone who states they know nothing about theology you certainly don't mind assuming that others know nothing about theology.

I wonder would you say the same to someone who agreed with you? Or if one agrees with you do you assume they are well versed in all matters of theology but if they don't you assume they are talking out their ass?

Little bias don't you think?

raah! wrote: »

You must really be ignorant of process in the arts, people are still studying the republic and things like that, there's lots to be taken into account.

That's right, I haven't drunk the Kool Aid yet, so I must not know what I'm talking about :rolleyes:

Man with so many people out there like you I don't know why I haven't chucked in this computer software thing and done an L. Ron Hubbard, start a cult and make millions. It would seem to be so easy.

Zombrex · 22-09-2010 12:51PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Do I also need to read Lord of the Rings to conclude that it is a work of fiction?

Apparently if you spend your life reading Lord of the Rings it becomes a work of fact :P

raah! · 22-09-2010 01:03PM

Well my post was deleted there. But there wasn't much to reply to. You aren't understanding my points, and your own ones seem a bit contradictory.

If you'd really like to think you know as much about theology as people who've spent their lives studying it then go ahead.

Note I haven't said anything about it's (theology) being true.

22-09-2010 01:47PM

raah! wrote: »

Well my post was deleted there. But there wasn't much to reply to. You aren't understanding my points, and your own ones seem a bit contradictory.

If you'd really like to think you know as much about theology as people who've spent their lives studying it then go ahead.

Note I haven't said anything about it's (theology) being true.

Most people here like to think they don't know as much about theology as people who've spent their lives studying it.

I'm quite proud of the fact that I don't.

22-09-2010 02:42PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Are you saying that you wouldnt believe in science if you didnt have a background in physics? - a genuine question.

I wouldnt say its the WHOLE POINT as I believe in a God yet still admit I may be wrong.

I think a simple "what is this i don't even" will suffice as my reply.

Zombrex · 22-09-2010 03:13PM

raah! wrote: »

If you'd really like to think you know as much about theology as people who've spent their lives studying it then go ahead.

Please point out where I made that claim?

Some what ironic to say I'm not listening to you and then completely misrepresent my point. :rolleyes:

I don't know as much about Star Trek as people who spend their entire lives studying the TV show. I do know Star Trek is nothing to do with reality, so if any of these people actual think it is real then I know something about Star Trek they don't.

Theology has nothing to do with reality. If there is something you learn after spending 50 years studying theology that suddenly shows it does in fact have a baring on reality can the theologians who have studied that long and discovered that secret please share it with us.

Des Carter · 22-09-2010 03:18PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I think a simple "what is this i don't even" will suffice as my reply.

Can you rephrase that as I dont get what your trying to say.

Winters · 22-09-2010 03:23PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Can you rephrase that as I dont get what your trying to say.

"i don't this even what is" simple think her reply.

raah! · 22-09-2010 03:26PM

Well I think that came about from our talking about theology surprising people. Then you made your analogy about star trek, in which you stated that you had seen all the episodes (which could be compared to having read all the bible), and you said that people on this forum knew quite a bit about theology.

But it doesn't matter, it's quite obvious that for someone in the atheism forum theology does not study real things. And I've never suggested that studying theology, which assumes immaterial this or that, will constitute an argument against materialism, or an argument for the immaterial. I said that in one of my posts. Or something to that tune. It would be logically absurd to suggest otherwise.

So I've never once suggested what your post there presumes I have.

What's more, I actually wanted to discuss morality. The path the discussion has gone down is not one which I think we will benefit from pursuing. Perhaps we can take a break from senseless ad hominems and return to things of substance.

Nemi · 22-09-2010 03:27PM

Wicknight wrote: »

If there is something you learn after spending 50 years studying theology that suddenly shows it does in fact have a baring on reality can the theologians who have studied that long and discovered that secret please share it with us.

Isn't this the essential point. If Trekkies want you to believe their universe is real, or contains something that you need to take notice of, they have to make a case. Becuase its not as if we've an endless amount of time to devote on the off-chance that the Ulitmate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is revealed in the third episode of Series 2, starting at 20 minutes and 13 Seconds.

Turtwig · 22-09-2010 03:30PM

Winters wrote: »

"i don't this even what is" simple think her reply.

Confusing isn't it.:pac: Still even amid this confusion I won't be falling into the trap of referring to bluewolf as a he from now on.:o

Zombrex · 22-09-2010 04:04PM

raah! wrote: »

What's more, I actually wanted to discuss morality. The path the discussion has gone down is not one which I think we will benefit from pursuing. Perhaps we can take a break from senseless ad hominems and return to things of substance.

Fair enough, back to morality.

Do you accept that what I was saying about morality was not as simple as "this feels good I'll do it" and "this feels bad I won't do it"

More a case of this feels wrong, I shouldn't do it

That is where we had left off back on page 8

How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

Comments