# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Study shows that IQ decreases with religiosity

## Maciamo

ScienceDirect - The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans




> The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.


Good summary. It confirms what I have observed since my childhood. I have met a lot of agnostics that were as intelligent as atheists - they just didn't care much about philosophical questions or were less interested in neuroscience than atheists.

I have met some less bright people who didn't believe in god or in anything, but they were not true atheists. They were just people who didn't care and never really reflected on the existence of god. Technically they are implicit atheists (or "atheists by default"), although I wouldn't call them atheists - just lazy minds. This study probably only included explicit atheists.

----------


## Forgot

If that is the case then what do you define then as an atheists.

----------


## Boranidas

I am highly skeptical of such articles which base their arguments on IQ tests while the definition of intelligence is still quite controversial in today's scientific world. Are IQ tests valid and suffice tools to measure intelligence in all it's dimensions and is intelligence defined scientifically? 
The concept of intelligence is only an approximation which corresponds to a semantic comfort use, not an objective reality. In a given situation there are people who will do better than others, so they are called smart, but in another situation they will do worse and we say the elites are null. The meaning of words does not necessarily correspond to a reality and it is not easy to measure what does not exist. IQ is purely a cultural construction (%99) and the current definition of intelligence is a myth.

----------


## himagain

It is a hard life, but a rewarding one, if you are not religious. 
Actually, religion is the easy way to be. No problems for them
from the atheists and agnostics who ARE in the minority

----------


## Theodorik

"Evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation." People with higher IQ's get more brainwashing in liberal educational institutions.
The average IQ of vegans is 116. Does eating a vegan diet raise IQ? Or are smart people more likely to become vegans? The later is the answer.
Some very intelligent people have believed in God. http://forums.delphiforums.com/biops...ges/?msg=964.1
Yes. IQs of 200 are rare, but it does happen. There is me, Netanyahu, Sununu (you would be happy to know that he is a redhead of Palestinian descent), Goebbels, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, and a host of people who never amounted to anything.

http://onemansblog.com/2007/11/08/th...he-highest-iq/


*The Highest IQs On Record*


190 – Sir Isaac Newton (Isaac Newton was a religious fanatic)176 – Emanuel Swedenborg (Founder of the Swedenborgian religion)170 – Martin Luther (The founder of Protestantism( had a higher IQ than Albert Einstein.Rabbi Gerald Schroeder is also an astrophysicist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder"Schroeder received his BSc in 1959, his MSc in 1961, and his PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences in 1965, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT).[2] He worked five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He was a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission.[3]"

----------


## LeBrok

> "Evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation."


Sure, but correlation needs to be taken under consideration and often leads to causation.




> People with higher IQ's get more brainwashing in liberal educational institutions.


 Now you have to explain why you consider liberal education as brainwashing? Doesn't term Liberal stands in contrast with conservative education, meaning everyone learns to think as establishment does?



> The average IQ of vegans is 116. Does eating a vegan diet raise IQ? Or are smart people more likely to become vegans? The later is the answer.


 Are you saying that intelligent people are actually stupid?




> Some very intelligent people have believed in God. http://forums.delphiforums.com/biops...ges/?msg=964.1


 Did you reverse your logic and imply now that intelligence is good.




> Yes. IQs of 200 are rare, but it does happen. There is me, Netanyahu, Sununu (you would be happy to know that he is a redhead of Palestinian descent), Goebbels, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, and a host of people who never amounted to anything.


 I didn't know they've tested Leonardo da Vinci's IQ, not mentioning Newton.






> *The Highest IQs On Record*
> 
> 
> 190 – Sir Isaac Newton (Isaac Newton was a religious fanatic)


Oh, wait a minute, I'd swear you said he was 200! Please, define fanatic.



> 176 – Emanuel Swedenborg (Founder of the Swedenborgian religion)170 – Martin Luther (The founder of Protestantism( had a higher IQ than Albert Einstein.Rabbi Gerald Schroeder is also an astrophysicist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder"Schroeder received his BSc in 1959, his MSc in 1961, and his PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences in 1965, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT).[2] He worked five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He was a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission.[3]"





> 


 Again, who tested them? I thought IQ test was invented at beginning of 20th century?

----------


## gyms

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/...-9780199543656


Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus,[5] Galileo,[6] Kepler,[7] Newton[1] and Boyle.[8]
According to _100 Years of Nobel Prizes_ a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[9] Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,[10] 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics,[10] 62% in Medicine,[10] 54% in Economics[10] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ers_in_science

----------


## LeBrok

> Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus,[5] Galileo,[6] Kepler,[7] Newton[1] and Boyle.[8]


It was hard not to be a christian during age of Holy Inquisition. For atheists and heretics the way to salvation was through bone fire. 
Furthermore it is hard not to believe when 100% people are christians or muslims around you. You constantly ask yourself a question " Can everyone be wrong?", with lack of other evidence a faulty logic kicks in "Of course it is impossible or extremely unlikely for all these people to be wrong. 
At this time and age we know much better how societies work, and we know that actually it happens very often that whole nations could be wrong on many issues.





> According to _100 Years of Nobel Prizes_ a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[9] Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,[10] 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics,[10] 62% in Medicine,[10] 54% in Economics[10] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.[10]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ers_in_science


It still doesn't change a fact that there are more atheists among intelligent people, and more religious people among people with lower IQ.

----------


## gyms

> It was hard not to be a christian during age of Holy Inquisition. For atheists and heretics the way to salvation was through bone fire. 
> 
> 
> It still doesn't change a fact that there are more atheists among intelligent people, and more religious people among people with lower IQ.


What about Lenin,Stalin,Hitler?Intelligent people...

----------


## LeBrok

> What about Lenin,Stalin,Hitler?Intelligent people...


This thread is about statistics that correlates IQ with religiosity, not few individuals famous or infamous.

----------


## gyms

> This thread is about statistics that correlates IQ with religiosity, not few individuals famous or infamous.


“I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself” (Winston Churchill)

----------


## Aberdeen

> What about Lenin,Stalin,Hitler?Intelligent people...


Hitler saw himself as a devout christian, whereas Lenin and Stalin were atheists. So it appears that religious belief or lack thereof is not a predictor of who acquires political power. However, as LeBrok has already pointed out, statistical averages don't apply to individuals.

----------


## Aberdeen

> "Evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation." People with higher IQ's get more brainwashing in liberal educational institutions.
> The average IQ of vegans is 116. Does eating a vegan diet raise IQ? Or are smart people more likely to become vegans? The later is the answer.
> Some very intelligent people have believed in God. http://forums.delphiforums.com/biops...ges/?msg=964.1
> Yes. IQs of 200 are rare, but it does happen. There is me, Netanyahu, Sununu (you would be happy to know that he is a redhead of Palestinian descent), Goebbels, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, and a host of people who never amounted to anything.
> 
> http://onemansblog.com/2007/11/08/th...he-highest-iq/
> 
> 
> *The Highest IQs On Record*
> ...



Are you saying that Newton, Swedenborg and Luther were time travellers? Alfred Binet developed the first IQ tests in the early 20th century.

----------


## gyms

> Hitler saw himself as a devout christian, whereas Lenin and Stalin were atheists. So it appears that religious belief or lack thereof is not a predictor of who acquires political power. However, as LeBrok has already pointed out, statistical averages don't apply to individuals.


 The biographer John Toland noted Hitler's anticlericalism, but considered him still in "good standing" with the Church by 1941, while historians such as Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian - a view evidenced by sources such as the _Goebbels Diaries_, the memoirs of Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann contained within _Hitler's Table Talk_.[4


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...f_Adolf_Hitler

----------


## gyms

“Intelligence is a hypothetical idea which we have defined as being reflected by certain types of behavior.”

*What is intelligence?*Intelligence is defined as general cognitive problem-solving skills. A mental ability involved in reasoning, perceiving relationships and analogies, calculating, learning quickly… etc. Earlier it was believed that there was one underlying general factor at the intelligence base (the *g-factor*), but later psychologists maintained that it is more complicated and could not be determined by such a simplistic method. Some psychologists have divided intelligence into subcategories. For example Howard Gardner maintained that it is comprised of seven components: *musical, bodily-kinesthetic,* *logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal*. Other definitions are: “Intelligence is what you do when you don’t know what to do.” 

http://www.brainmetrix.com/intelligence-definition/

Reason and Racism in the New Atheist Movement
"Perhaps one of the most widespread claims by the New Atheists is that religion is harmful. For Richard Dawkins it is a virus that spreads and infects the mind and is comparable to child abuse. For the late Christopher Hitchens religion “poisons everything” and is a “menace to society.” Greta Christina claims that the belief in supernatural entities makes people “more vulnerable to oppression, fraud and abuse.” Sam Harris likens religion to mental illness. One could go on and on with examples like these."
http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/20...eist-movement/

This is quite communistic and racistic.

----------


## gyms

> Are you saying that Newton, Swedenborg and Luther were time travellers? Alfred Binet developed the first IQ tests in the early 20th century.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...elligence.html

IQ tests have been controversial for years. Many argue that they are biased; others say that they give an incomplete view of intelligence. Indeed, a study published in an upcoming issue of the journal Neuron confirms that IQ tests are not an accurate predictor of intelligence. In fact, the researchers say that no single test - at least none that has been devised already - can give an accurate assessment of all types of intelligence.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-co...ligence-243971

----------


## LeBrok

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...elligence.html
> 
> IQ tests have been controversial for years. Many argue that they are biased; others say that they give an incomplete view of intelligence. Indeed, a study published in an upcoming issue of the journal Neuron confirms that IQ tests are not an accurate predictor of intelligence. In fact, the researchers say that no single test - at least none that has been devised already - can give an accurate assessment of all types of intelligence.
> http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-co...ligence-243971


So what if the test is not perfect. It still can predict a success in life pretty well. Many studies say that higher IQ score predicts better jobs and more money made in life. Likewise it can predict probability of being religious or not. And no matter how hard you hit your head into the wall, you won't change it.

----------


## gyms

LeBrok:So what if the test is not perfect.

If the test is erroneous,how accurate is the result?But!I don`t really care about the test.Its the statement that is prejudiced,really morbid and fascistic.

----------


## LeBrok

> LeBrok:So what if the test is not perfect.
> 
> If the test is erroneous,how accurate is the result?But!I don`t really care about the test.Its the statement that is prejudiced,really morbid and fascistic.


You'd better learn definition of the words you're using. Just a warning this time.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> You'd better learn definition of the words you're using. *Just a warning this time*.


What do you mean by warning? Are you going to give him an infraction because he's aggressively against something you agree with?

----------


## gyms

*Freedom of thought* (also called the *freedom of conscience* or *ideas*) is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints. It is different from and not to be confused with the concept of freedom of speech or expression.
Freedom of thought is the precursor and progenitor of—and thus is closely linked to—other liberties including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression.
*Tolerance* or *toleration* to tolerate, or put up with, conditionally, also to suggest a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

----------


## LeBrok

> *Freedom of thought* (also called the *freedom of conscience* or *ideas*) is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints. It is different from and not to be confused with the concept of freedom of speech or expression.
> Freedom of thought is the precursor and progenitor of—and thus is closely linked to—other liberties including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression.
> *Tolerance* or *toleration* to tolerate, or put up with, conditionally, also to suggest a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.


Freedom of thought and expression is welcome as long as it doesn't violate Eupedia rules, and basic civility.

Did you think you showed your tolerance when you branded my opinion "morbid and fascist"?

----------


## gyms

> Freedom of thought and expression is welcome as long as it doesn't violate Eupedia rules, and basic civility.
> 
> Did you think you showed your tolerance when you branded my opinion "morbid and fascist"?


Please do not misunderstand me.My comment is not about You!What I meant is that the statement "IQ decreases with religiosity" is totally unacceptable because its clearly tendentious.

----------


## Aberdeen

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...elligence.html
> 
> IQ tests have been controversial for years. Many argue that they are biased; others say that they give an incomplete view of intelligence. Indeed, a study published in an upcoming issue of the journal Neuron confirms that IQ tests are not an accurate predictor of intelligence. In fact, the researchers say that no single test - at least none that has been devised already - can give an accurate assessment of all types of intelligence.
> http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-co...ligence-243971


If IQ tests are controversial, and you seem to believe they may not be valid, how can you say what kind of IQ certain people may have had if they lived before the IQ test was created? Your arguments do not seem very logical to me.

----------


## Aberdeen

> “Intelligence is a hypothetical idea which we have defined as being reflected by certain types of behavior.”
> 
> *What is intelligence?*
> 
> Intelligence is defined as general cognitive problem-solving skills. A mental ability involved in reasoning, perceiving relationships and analogies, calculating, learning quickly… etc. Earlier it was believed that there was one underlying general factor at the intelligence base (the *g-factor*), but later psychologists maintained that it is more complicated and could not be determined by such a simplistic method. Some psychologists have divided intelligence into subcategories. For example Howard Gardner maintained that it is comprised of seven components: *musical, bodily-kinesthetic,* *logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal*. Other definitions are: “Intelligence is what you do when you don’t know what to do.” 
> 
> http://www.brainmetrix.com/intelligence-definition/
> 
> Reason and Racism in the New Atheist Movement
> ...


The first website you link to suggests that IQ tests may not be a completely perfect way to test intelligence, but also says that different types of IQ tests, when applied to the same individual, generally produce very similar results. That would suggest that the creator of the website believes that IQ tests, when properly administered, have considerable validity, despite not being perfect. 

The second website you linked to shows an article that displays very poor reasoning, and I would assume that the individual who wrote it has a fairly low IQ. His argument seems to be "Different people of different races often have different religions, so anyone who's an atheist and who wants people to give up religion must be a racist." That is an obviously fallacious argument. And there's nothing inherently communistic about atheism, just as there's nothing inherently religious about monarchy. The modern communist movement promoted atheism at a time when the power of the capitalist structure in Europe was propped up by established churches, but that does not make atheism itself inherently communistic. Someone appears to have failed Logic 101.

----------


## Aberdeen

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...elligence.html
> 
> IQ tests have been controversial for years. Many argue that they are biased; others say that they give an incomplete view of intelligence. Indeed, a study published in an upcoming issue of the journal Neuron confirms that IQ tests are not an accurate predictor of intelligence. In fact, the researchers say that no single test - at least none that has been devised already - can give an accurate assessment of all types of intelligence.
> http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-co...ligence-243971


I assume you're saying that Newton wasted his efforts in time travelling to the 20th century in order to take an IQ test. How do you know what Newton's IQ was and why do you think the results are relevant if you believe that IQ tests are invalid because they may not be 100.0% perfect in all respects?

Would you mind telling us what your own IQ is? I'm curious.

----------


## LeBrok

> I assume you're saying that Newton wasted his efforts in time travelling to the 20th century in order to take an IQ test. How do you know what Newton's IQ was and why do you think the results are relevant if you believe that IQ tests are invalid because they may not be 100.0% perfect in all respects?
> 
> Would you mind telling us what your own IQ is? I'm curious.


The inconsistency of his argument told me that he only wants to discredit IQ test with any means possible, because he doesn't agree with conclusion of the research.

----------


## gyms

Aberdeen: "And there's nothing inherently communistic about atheism,"

I never said that!Once again:the statement that IQ decreases with religiosity is Stalinistic,Hitleristic,Intolerant,its simply bullshit.

----------


## gyms

Aberdeen:"Would you mind telling us what your own IQ is? I'm curious. "

I see...you are The Übermensch.

----------


## gyms

> The inconsistency of his argument told me that he only wants to discredit IQ test with any means possible, because he doesn't agree with conclusion of the research.


I don´t care about the test!!!I am talking about te conclusion of the "research".Its DISCRIMINATIVE!

How can any of these New Atheists claim that the Dinka religious tradition of Africa is harmful? They’ve probably never heard of it, let alone conducted any sort of anthropological or sociological studies to determine the degree of harmfulness it poses to its members or others. Dawkins claims “I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence.” I’d love to see the data and research he’s gathered to reach such sweeping conclusions about religion. Has he investigated the Japanese religion Tenrikyo? The Korean tradition Wonbulgyo? Have any of these atheists been to Iraq or Iran to interview any Mandeans? Do these atheists ‘know’ in some scientific way that the traditional mythological beliefs of the Inuit of the polar regions were harmful or led to more harm? Are Native American religious traditions really child abuse?"

----------


## gyms

Criticism of the New Atheists
A number of essays and books have been written in response to the New Atheists (see the “References and Further Reading” section below for some titles). Some of these works are supportive of them and some of them are critical. Other works include both positive and negative evaluations of the New Atheism. Clearly, the range of philosophical issues raised by the New Atheists’ claims and arguments is broad. As might be expected, attention has been focused on their epistemological views, their metaphysical assumptions, and their axiological positions. Their presuppositions should prompt more discussion in the fields of philosophical theology, philosophy of science, philosophical hermeneutics, the relation between science and religion, and historiography. Conversations about the New Atheists’ stances and rationales have also taken place in the form of debates between Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett and defenders of religious belief and religion such as Dinesh D’Souza, who has published his own defense of Christianity in response to the New Atheists’ arguments. These debates are accessible in a number of places on the Internet. Finally, the challenges to religion posed by the New Atheists have also prompted a number of seminars and conferences. One of these is a conference presented by the Center for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre Dame, entitled, “My Ways Are Not Your Ways: The Character of the God of the Hebrew Bible” 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/

Is Atheism a Religion?

http://www.strangenotions.com/is-atheism-a-religion/


At first, the claim that atheism is a religion might sound ridiculous.
It certainly can be a surprising claim.
And it’s one that many people, including western atheists, might initially dismiss out of hand.
But there’s more to the story here.
There is a case to be made that, in a very real sense, atheism is a religion.

----------


## epoch

> Hitler saw himself as a devout christian, whereas Lenin and Stalin were atheists. So it appears that religious belief or lack thereof is not a predictor of who acquires political power. However, as LeBrok has already pointed out, statistical averages don't apply to individuals.


No, Hitler did not see himself as that. He sometimes tried to sell himself as devout Christian to the Germans. He did so because of his colossal troubles with the Catholic church, which was the NSDAP's archenemy. 

In his table talk he shows nothing but deep contempt for Christianity, a religion that turns the other cheek and promotes not stoning women for sentimental reasons (sorry for the bad joke). All very weak behaviour in the eyes of National-Socialists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_Talk

----------


## epoch

> Is Atheism a Religion?


Atheism may or may not be a religion. But it most certainly is a Christian heresy: The idea that there is blessing in denouncing one's God mirrors the ideas of the early converts to Christianity.

----------


## Aberdeen

> No, Hitler did not see himself as that. He sometimes tried to sell himself as devout Christian to the Germans. He did so because of his colossal troubles with the Catholic church, which was the NSDAP's archenemy. 
> 
> In his table talk he shows nothing but deep contempt for Christianity, a religion that turns the other cheek and promotes not stoning women for sentimental reasons (sorry for the bad joke). All very weak behaviour in the eyes of National-Socialists.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_Talk


So a Swiss financier who had been deeply involved with the Nazis altered Bormann's notes after WWII in order to make the record suggest that Hitler may have abandoned his christian roots, but there's nothing that Hitler himself ever wrote or said publicly to support that idea. And the Catholic Church was a strong supporter of the Nazis. I know that a lot of people would like to change the historical record, but many members of the Catholic hierarchy in Bavaria should probably have been tried as war criminals. 

In any case, references to specific individuals is irrelevant with respect to Maciamo's point - some people believe they can show that, on average, religious persons seem to be less intelligent than atheists. Even if that could be or has been proven true, it wouldn't mean that all religious people are stupid or that all atheists are intelligent. And even intelligent people can be very wrong about some things. Richard Dawkins appears to be very intelligent, but he's definitely said a lot of things that I strongly disagree with.

----------


## LeBrok

> At first, the claim that atheism is a religion might sound ridiculous.
> It certainly can be a surprising claim.
> And it’s one that many people, including western atheists, might initially dismiss out of hand.
> But there’s more to the story here.
> There is a case to be made that, in a very real sense, atheism is a religion.


No, not a religion, but a belief. By definition religion needs a deity, a spirit or afterlife, so we can exclude religion from equation. Some atheists might need some help in this department to belief that supernatural world doesn't exist, especially if something freaky-improbable happens.
Generally speaking atheism is not believing in supernatural. A clean slate of mind in department of religion with nothing written on this slate, state 0. Atheism is not believing, in lack of evidence for existence of any supernatural, gods or spirits. As we know proof of god existence lies on a claimant.
In my case, I used to believe in god, then I lost my faith, therefore I became an atheist. I didn't change one believe for an other, just lost a belief in god.

----------


## LeBrok

Let's put it this way. Intelligent people need scientific, statistical, empirical evidence to believe, or rather to know that something is true or very likely, that supernatural exists. Less intelligent people lack ability to analyze data, experiences, statistics and need to rely on beliefs of others. They rely on beliefs of others like authorities and their parents in understanding of the world, and if they were taught in young age that god exists, they tend to stick to this belief for the rest of their lives.
Besides there is genetic factor in spirituality of humans that makes us want to believe in supernatural. I was writing about this here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28375-*Beliefs-Spirituality-and-why-we-believe*
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28441-*Beliefs-Explained*?p=405173#post405173

----------


## gyms

> No, not a religion, but a belief. By definition religion needs a deity, a spirit or afterlife, so we can exclude religion from equation. Some atheists might need some help in this department to belief that supernatural world doesn't exist, especially if something freaky-improbable happens.
> Generally speaking atheism is not believing in supernatural. A clean slate of mind in department of religion with nothing written on this slate, state 0. Atheism is not believing, in lack of evidence for existence of any supernatural, gods or spirits. As we know proof of god existence lies on a claimant.
> In my case, I used to believe in god, then I lost my faith, therefore I became an atheist. I didn't change one believe for an other, just lost a belief in god.


 By definition religion needs a deity, a spirit or afterlife, so we can exclude religion from equation. 

Hmmm...

The Big Religion Chart

http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

----------


## epoch

> So a Swiss financier who had been deeply involved with the Nazis altered Bormann's notes after WWII in order to make the record suggest that Hitler may have abandoned his christian roots, but there's nothing that Hitler himself ever wrote or said publicly to support that idea.


That was a load of poppycock. No serious historian accepted that, not even Ian Kershaw who was sceptical on the reliability of the Table Talk books. Mind you, the proponent of the idea that it has been altered is an ardent atheist, one of these modern atheists. It goes to show that one should always deeply distrust idealists, even more in the case of science and scientists, and that not all people deserve an audience. 




> And the Catholic Church was a strong supporter of the Nazis.


The penalty on membership of the NSDAP was excommunication. The fight between the Catholic church and Hitler has been described extensively in Ian Kershaw's epic book "Hitler". 




> I know that a lot of people would like to change the historical record


Yes. Atheists, apparently.




> but many members of the Catholic hierarchy in Bavaria should probably have been tried as war criminals.


Have you ever seen a map of the popularity of the NSDAP in the 1932 election of Germany? Please lay it alongside a map of the religious diversity of Germany at the time. 

http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity...vote-1932.html

----------


## Angela

> Let's put it this way. Intelligent people need scientific, statistical, empirical evidence to believe, or rather to know that something is true or very likely, that supernatural exists. Less intelligent people lack ability to analyze data, experiences, statistics and need to rely on beliefs of others. They rely on beliefs of others like authorities and their parents in understanding of the world, and if they were taught in young age that god exists, they tend to stick to this belief for the rest of their lives.
> Besides there is genetic factor in spirituality of humans that makes us want to believe in supernatural. I was writing about this here:
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28375-*Beliefs-Spirituality-and-why-we-believe*
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28441-*Beliefs-Explained*?p=405173#post405173


Sorry, there are too many other factors at play. I know a lot of *highly* intelligent and accomplished Orthodox Jews who are, by definition, devout believers in God.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> No, not a religion, but a belief. By definition religion needs a deity, a spirit or afterlife, so we can exclude religion from equation. Some atheists might need some help in this department to belief that supernatural world doesn't exist, especially if something freaky-improbable happens.
> Generally speaking atheism is not believing in supernatural. A clean slate of mind in department of religion with nothing written on this slate, state 0. Atheism is not believing, in lack of evidence for existence of any supernatural, gods or spirits. As we know proof of god existence lies on a claimant.
> In my case, I used to believe in god, then I lost my faith, therefore I became an atheist. I didn't change one believe for an other, just lost a belief in god.


The question: Is there a creator and is the universe constructed in an organized manner, is answered through the scientific method. The creator could be the energy holding things together in space, creating and maintaining equilibrium. Whether we personify God or view God as a scientific construct makes no difference. In essence, my existence depends on IT to survive and so does every other living entity. 

There is method in everything we observe whether we believe it is created or because of natural occurrences is a matter of world view. Personally, I believe things make sense in the world because of the existence of a creator. I cannot accept the belief that nature works the way it does simply because of natural processes were it not for the existence of a creator exercising control over such processes.

The argument that we have no scientific proof for the existence of God or a creator is in my opinion one of the greatest fallacies in 'scientific' reasoning. The question however of whether a creator exists in man's image, whatever that means, is another question altogether. I believe that suffering and disaster is part of nature's process. To lose faith in God because of the disaster and suffering in the world is blaming the creator for our irresponsible actions and the consequences of our past actions on the planet. If intelligence and assuming responsibility for one's own actions were commensurate then I would have said that you have a point however it is my personal experience that levels of narcissism increase in more intelligent individuals as they work much harder to achieve positive regard from others, seeking recognition and affirmation by their peers. In essence, a high IQ suggests that an individual spends the requisite amount of time studying and developing themselves in the belief that they would be able to make a difference in the world, hopefully a difference for the better. 

What you are saying is that less intelligent persons need to believe in a creator whereas I am saying that more intelligent persons need the existence of a creator to avoid personal responsibility for the suffering they have caused. This however becomes too 'painful' for some individuals to bare, the elite or exceptional among us have come to the realization that belief in a creator does not negate their responsibility and in an effort to free themselves from the burden they rely on themselves for 'salvation' ... the theme here is CONTROL. 

Intelligence is correlated strongly with a belief in an individual's ability to exercise control. This in turn correlates with self-aggrandizement or narcissism. The belief that there can be no creator is found among the most narcissistic individuals, those of us who refuse responsibility and rationalize that the proverbial creator would never allow the holocaust to happen and yet they believe that man would somehow stop the suffering he has imposed on his fellow man. This circular reasoning ends at the feet of the individual narcissist ... for lacking the necessary empathy and insight to perceive their own inability to comprehend that it is man's own responsibility to behave in a manner that is in alignment with their own 'ideas' befitting the existence of a creator. 

If we as man behave poorly and expect somebody other than ourselves to clean up our mess, does that not say more about our lack of morality and misguided self-importance than the existence or non-existence of a creator??? 

What if a creator had no reason to save such a man as ourselves, does that mean the creator does not exist, or that man is riddled with vice and self-love?

----------


## Yetos

I decide to read the article,

the thing we do not see is not our IQ with religion,
*BUT THE IQ OF THOSE WHO TEACH THE RELIGION.*
it has nothing to do with the faith of some, but in the methods that some teach as result of the faith,
2 good examples.
1 in the Christians, the 'witch hunt' and 'holy inquision'
2 in the muslims, the late teach of an imam that driving harms the woman's matrix, etc etc.

as you it is not the IQ of the faithfull, but the IQ of the 'teachers'
Now if that 'teacher' has high position, then we can not deny his 'divine words' cause al these 'teach us the words of Gods'
*so as a faithfull I must follow and drop my IQ to their level


the problem is not our IQ, as faithfull
the problem the decrease of our IQ when follow people with low IQ simply cause they 'speak the words of Gods' or transfer to us 'God's will'

*for those who study mathematics and physicsa good example the late *Heisenberg* quantum mechanics theory of *'uncertainty principle'*
that raise many scientists against it, for what? for the believe that our god is a 'GOD OF LAW AND ORDER' so "God does not play with lucky cubes'
those who know the case realise how the IQ of some scientists was effected by the IQ of the 'God's teachers' until that day.

----------


## LeBrok

> The question: Is there a creator and is the universe constructed in an organized manner, is answered through the scientific method. The creator could be the energy holding things together in space, creating and maintaining equilibrium. Whether we personify God or view God as a scientific construct makes no difference. In essence, my existence depends on IT to survive and so does every other living entity.


 I'm fine with playing with semantics, god is the universe or energy in it, however if we talk about god the creator it would imply conscious effort in creating universe, some purpose and sense, and not just its mindless existence. If it just a form of flowing energy, it is losing the conscious god status, the God people are looking for. We might call it just universe instead for simplicity.




> There is method in everything we observe whether we believe it is created or because of natural occurrences is a matter of world view. Personally, I believe things make sense in the world because of the existence of a creator. I cannot accept the belief that nature works the way it does simply because of natural processes were it not for the existence of a creator exercising control over such processes. The argument that we have no scientific proof for the existence of God or a creator is in my opinion one of the greatest fallacies in 'scientific' reasoning. The question however of whether a creator exists in man's image, whatever that means, is another question altogether


 Hypothesis of Multi Universe, might explain order by chance and probability without invoking god to keep world orderly.
If we consider your belief in god-universe, and however elegant you make your belief, it stands in strong contrast with all existing religions. Religions which personalised god (and spirits) and made it essential for everydays' live, the participating god. It brings morality to people, justice, fortune, punishment, love, law and order, social structure, and what's not. Very importantly, in all religions gods and spirits secure life after death, where better and eternal life begins. 
These gods and spirits are taking care of people and participate in their lives. This is the god(s) people want and are looking for. I'm not sure how you can consolidate your energy-universe-creator with the one based on human nature, the participating god? Just for the purpose of not inventing your own beliefs and explaining the god billions of people believe in.




> . I believe that suffering and disaster is part of nature's process. To lose faith in God because of the disaster and suffering in the world is blaming the creator for our irresponsible actions and the consequences of our past actions on the planet. If intelligence and assuming responsibility for one's own actions were commensurate then


 I'm not sure how someone can be responsible for a little child dying from rare genetic disorder? Suffering of this child and parents is not a consequence of actions of ancestors. Just a stupid mutation caused by cosmic rays or bad combination of genes. 
If creator is participating one it should be blamed for this senseless cruelty. The nonparticipating universe-god can't be blamed for this but in this case why should we care for it, it might not exist for us at all?




> I would have said that you have a point however it is my personal experience that levels of narcissism increase in more intelligent individuals as they work much harder to achieve positive regard from others, seeking recognition and affirmation by their peers. In essence, a high IQ suggests that an individual spends the requisite amount of time studying and developing themselves in the belief that they would be able to make a difference in the world, hopefully a difference for the better.


 I would hope so, although I'm not sure if I would define the quest for self improvement as narcissism.




> What you are saying is that less intelligent persons need to believe in a creator whereas I am saying that more intelligent persons need the existence of a creator to avoid personal responsibility for the suffering they have caused. This however becomes too 'painful' for some individuals to bare, the elite or exceptional among us have come to the realization that belief in a creator does not negate their responsibility and in an effort to free themselves from the burden they rely on themselves for 'salvation' ... the theme here is CONTROL.


I wouldn't go that far, however, I've seen on many instances people cleaning their soles, or avoid looking for answers, with short statement: "It was god's will". 
I didn't say less intelligent person *needs* to believe in creator (the need, possibly genetic) affects intelligent people or not same way. I was saying that some less intelligent people will give up analyzing world by themselves looking for answers and rely on knowledge and beliefs of others, like parents and teachers. Plus, I believe that spirituality (the feeling supernatural forces, antropomorfism, feeling of uniqueness) might be genetic, and as such is stronger than logic in most circumstances. Simple conservativism is to blame too. People tend to romanticise things from their childhood and youth and consider them superior (religion included) over things that come with new generations. Not mentioning that many people are simply afraid of any new changes. 
Well, it is not that easy to become atheist, when one used to be a believer.
I would like to mention that many religions have fall back safety if it comes to analytical reasoning of god's existence. It is a blasphemy and a sin to even consider that god might not exist.




> Intelligence is correlated strongly with a belief in an individual's ability to exercise control. This in turn correlates with self-aggrandizement or narcissism. *The belief that there can be no creator is found among the most narcissistic individuals*, those of us who refuse responsibility and rationalize that the proverbial creator would never allow the holocaust to happen and yet they believe that man would somehow stop the suffering he has imposed on his fellow man. This circular reasoning ends at the feet of the individual narcissist ... for lacking the necessary empathy and insight to perceive their own inability to comprehend that it is man's own responsibility to behave in a manner that is in alignment with their own 'ideas' befitting the existence of a creator.


 Not to my observations. Narcissism will correlate with believe of one's special status, look, destiny, egocentrism. Even if this person doesn't belong to mainstream religions, this person is spiritual in nature. Is he a product of random events and blind genetic combinations? Off course not, someone in the universe made him this very special specimen.




> If we as man behave poorly and expect somebody other than ourselves to clean up our mess, does that not say more about our lack of morality and misguided self-importance than the existence or non-existence of a creator???


 I agree with this.




> What if a creator had no reason to save such a man as ourselves, does that mean the creator does not exist, or that man is riddled with vice and self-love?


 One can ask couple of questions. Did creator know what he was doing?
If people are to blame for their actions, maybe god should be too? 
I hope we can put god to the same or even higher standards we put imperfect people to.

----------


## Theodorik

Psychologists who specialize in this have estimated the IQs of people who lived long ago. For example, when a seven year old can read eight languages and has mastered calculus, this would give a rough estimate of IQ. We simply look at high IQ children today and see what they can do.

Martin Luther was a brilliant university student who received higher marks than all the other students. This would be the equivalent of a student on the Dean's List at Yale or M.I.T. today.

----------


## Theodorik

Hitler was not a devout Christian. He planned to eventually abolish Christianity and replace it with a new paganism. The most intelligent Nazis were propaganda minister Goebbels (200) and Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, architect of the German economic miracle (167). Hitler was intelligent, but not that intelligent. IQ was probably around 140.
Incidentally, like you, he didn't believe in IQ tests and banned them. Jews scored higher than Germans. "This is proof that Jews are sneaky and know how to fool intelligence tests."

Incidentally, religiosity itself is partly genetic. One could breed a race of religious geniuses, or a race of retarded atheists. It's all in the genes.

At present, people in the upper middle class and people who with more education tend to be liberal atheists. This has not always been the case. During the Middle Ages, the intelligentsia were the Christians and had stronger faith than the uneducated peasants. 

In Germany, between 1800 and 1945, the most educated and intelligent non-Jewish Germans were the most likely to be Nazis and atheists. The highest rate of Nazi Party membership was among non-Jewish medical doctors. Half the doctors in Berlin were Jewish. They were banned from treating Aryan patients. This opened up a lot of business for Aryan doctors. 
It might sound hard to believe, but in the 1920's German universities were hotbeds of right-wing activism. The hero was Nietzsche, who wrote that "God is dead."
They opposed Christian morality and wanted Darwinism, a "survival of the fittest." They believed it was the duty of Aryans to exterminate or enslave inferior races.
This is not the belief of Christians.

In the United States, many hillbillies, poor whites, and blacks are uneducated and believe in God. This is because they were raised that way. There are many intelligent people who believe in God and many stupid people who are atheists.

You keep confusing correlation with causation. Many people with very high IQ's find atheism hard to accept. If there is no God, then who or what created the Universe? Astrophysicists don't really know.

----------


## LeBrok

> Hitler was not a devout Christian. He planned to eventually abolish Christianity and replace it with a new paganism. The most intelligent Nazis were propaganda minister Goebbels (200) and Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, architect of the German economic miracle (167). Hitler was intelligent, but not that intelligent. IQ was probably around 140.


 This is fine, we were just shocked they were estimated so precisely, and a note that it was estimated by specialists would have been appropriate. Nobody doubts that these individuals were very intelligent people.






> Incidentally, religiosity itself is *partly genetic*. One could breed a race of religious geniuses, or a race of retarded atheists.


 


> It's *all* in the genes.


 Both statements can't be right. I agree that human spirituality is genetic. Religiosity has more of cultural vibe, though in some cases would have exact meaning as spirituality.




> At present, people in the upper middle class and people who with more education tend to be liberal atheists. This has not always been the case. During the Middle Ages, the intelligentsia were the Christians and had stronger faith than the uneducated peasants.


 In middle ages religious tolerance was very low for atheists or other religions. Atheists were in closets like gays.





> You keep confusing correlation with causation. Many people with very high IQ's find atheism hard to accept. If there is no God, then who or what created the Universe? Astrophysicists don't really know.


 Try quoting someone, so we know who you are addressing.
There is no confusion. Correlation is obvious in this case, causation or partial causation possible.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> I'm fine with playing with semantics, god is the universe or energy in it, however if we talk about god the creator it would imply conscious effort in creating universe, some purpose and sense, and not just its mindless existence. If it just a form of flowing energy, it is losing the conscious god status, the God people are looking for. We might call it just universe instead for simplicity.


Your comment suggests that you believe that I have an understanding similar to the teaching of Aristotle & Pagan philosophy which states that God is the underlying substance, nature, being, essence of all things. This teaching makes it easy for you to comprehend God as both uncreated, incomprehensible and at the same time as God's created world and created beings. God's essence then becomes detectable and experienced as a substance, an essence, a being or nature. Rather than God's hyper-being (ousia) as, infinite and never comprehensible to a finite mind or consciousness. This is not the accepted understanding in Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Christianity however. I would also be an Atheist if this (Pagan philosophy) was my understanding of God. 

The distinction as the tradition and perspective behind my understanding (.. as an Orthodox Christian), is that creation is the task of energy. If we deny the real difference between the essence of God and the acts of God, we cannot determine a clear borderline between the existence and/or reality of God (uncreated creator) and the creation. 

It is necessary to make the distinction between God's nature and manifestation of things about God's nature. The two are very different, the one being the energy (uncreated essence) of God that acts on the cosmos, the other the result of God's actions on the cosmos (created). The one is God's essence (uncreated) and the other God's creation. 


If one fails or is incapable of distinguishing between God's essence and His works, acts (i.e. the cosmos) then there is no distinction between God and the material or created world, cosmos. Uncreated as that which has no first cause and is not caused, in Orthodoxy is the basis for understanding outside the realm of science. Atheism here being a denial of the uncreated. Pagan philosophical metaphysics being an attempt to rationalize the uncreated. 





> Religions which personalised god (and spirits) and made it essential for everydays' live, the participating god. It brings morality to people, justice, fortune, punishment, love, law and order, social structure, and what's not. Very importantly, in all religions gods and spirits secure life after death, where better and eternal life begins. 
> These gods and spirits are taking care of people and participate in their lives. This is the god(s) people want and are looking for. I'm not sure how you can consolidate your energy-universe-creator with the one based on human nature, the participating god? Just for the purpose of not inventing your own beliefs and explaining the god billions of people believe in.


Your Paganistic or Aristotelian understanding of God brings you to the above conclusion that God and creation would 'naturally' be engaging and man would source his morality and laws from God. Evangelical teachings are problematic and Western Christianity is riddled with the inventions of sola scriptura. 

The mainstream churches and Orthodox understanding in both Judaism and Christianity are and have been unified on the core principle of God as infinite and incorruptable. The heresy of personifying God is a new invention dating from the 20th century.

Evangelical Protestantism has this Pagan understanding that may be prohibiting you from engaging with me and creates this false dilemma you appear to be having. My understanding is Christian Orthodox, God is not finite, cannot be rationalized and all that is knowable to man are the actions of God (creation), the essence being the source of creation, energy. Science is the study of creation. The scientific principles are used to understand and make sense of God's creation, the cosmos.

I find that my Atheist friends have a limited or misguided understanding of the principles with Christianity. Most of my Atheist friends come from an Evangelical background or have been exposed as children to a person-centered (ego-centric) philosophy of being. This understanding naturally appeals to individuals who have a lack of self-worth and need to feel valued by a false doctrine incorporating psychology and entertainment to draw large crowds of people in need of narcissistic supply. 

Atheism is not about increased intelligence. The correlation between Atheism and personality type or even a particular experience would be more probable IMHO. The essence of this discussion is about the value of IQ tests and their interpretation. Intelligence should correlate positively with better decision making and it does for the most part. The problem with intelligence as a construct is that it is not the only variable exercising an influence on a individual's decision to follow a particular belief system. Similarly, psychometric tests such as the Wechsler IQ test are not very reliable. A test taker's ability or test-giver's ability to work quickly without making an error determine to a greater extent the success of an IQ test than intelligence or general knowledge. If an individual is brilliant but is not motivated to excel and lacks interest at the time of testing, the scores will not reflect that individual's true ability. 

Whether an individual is religious or intelligent is not as relevant as whether an individual was traumatized as a child or lacked the love and affection of a primary caregiver. Psychometric testing should only be interpreted by a trained professional. Any psychometric test scores become void following 6months after testing and the use of test scores should only be used for the purpose the test was originally intended for.

Fact: Atheism as a belief-system cannot be proven using the scientific methods.
Fallacy: Atheism is a scientifically verifiable theory.

----------


## Yetos

> Psychologists who specialize in this have estimated the IQs of people who lived long ago. For example, when a seven year old can read eight languages and has mastered calculus, this would give a rough estimate of IQ. We simply look at high IQ children today and see what they can do.
> 
> Martin Luther was a brilliant university student who received higher marks than all the other students. This would be the equivalent of a student on the Dean's List at Yale or M.I.T. today.



i am speaking to the dogmatic priest of the neighborhhod, who's power sometimes is big,
or those who believe in what ever they say to them, cause they are priests,


i am talking about the Salem witch hunt, 
I am talking about holy inquision minds, *at their times they were consider brilliant minds*
somewhere in USA few decades a massacre happened cause some followed a god-send priest.

----------


## Maleth

Its funny when people say they are religions because they think its only about doing good. Religions are based on text and scriptures. These texts and scriptures are pretty disturbing in my opinion and install a sense of hate, prejudice and supremacy, ideologies that can be more compared to Fascist and Nazi and totalitarian mind sets. They are nothing but MEN MADE. Who has an honest heart and read WELL should know what I mean.

----------


## Aberdeen

> ..................
> Fact: Atheism as a belief-system cannot be proven using the scientific methods.
> Fallacy: Atheism is a scientifically verifiable theory.


Atheism consists of the position that one does not believe in something (the existence of a supreme being) because there is no evidence that such a being exists. If you're going to claim that a god or a unicorn or whatever exists, it is up to you to prove it. Saying "I don't see the proof" isn't a belief system unless it involves disregarding evidence. Nobody needs to prove that a god or a unicorn or elves don't exist.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Hitler was not a devout Christian. He planned to eventually abolish Christianity and replace it with a new paganism. The most intelligent Nazis were propaganda minister Goebbels (200) and Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, architect of the German economic miracle (167). Hitler was intelligent, but not that intelligent. IQ was probably around 140.
> Incidentally, like you, he didn't believe in IQ tests and banned them. Jews scored higher than Germans. "This is proof that Jews are sneaky and know how to fool intelligence tests."
> 
> Incidentally, religiosity itself is partly genetic. One could breed a race of religious geniuses, or a race of retarded atheists. It's all in the genes.
> 
> At present, people in the upper middle class and people who with more education tend to be liberal atheists. This has not always been the case. During the Middle Ages, the intelligentsia were the Christians and had stronger faith than the uneducated peasants. 
> 
> In Germany, between 1800 and 1945, the most educated and intelligent non-Jewish Germans were the most likely to be Nazis and atheists. The highest rate of Nazi Party membership was among non-Jewish medical doctors. Half the doctors in Berlin were Jewish. They were banned from treating Aryan patients. This opened up a lot of business for Aryan doctors. 
> It might sound hard to believe, but in the 1920's German universities were hotbeds of right-wing activism. The hero was Nietzsche, who wrote that "God is dead."
> ...


So, you're just going to make stuff up? I see no point in arguing with you.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Atheism consists of the position that one does not believe in something (the existence of a supreme being) because there is no evidence that such a being exists. If you're going to claim that a god or a unicorn or whatever exists, it is up to you to prove it. Saying "I don't see the proof" isn't a belief system unless it involves disregarding evidence. Nobody needs to prove that a god or a unicorn or elves don't exist.


My point exactly, the belief that there is no scientific evidence of God is one of the beliefs in Atheism. Atheists need to have faith that what they believe is the truth despite the very real chance that they may actually be wrong. And both sides cannot prove that they are right using scientific methods.

The universe was formed or created whether we like it or not. Similarly, something created the universe. Now to say that you don't believe in unicorns is testable as unicorns, if they did exist, would be visible to the human eye, audible to the human ear, recognizable to us in a way that we could verify its existence using scientific measurement. This analogy however is false when comparing the quest for unicorns with the quest for the creator or god(s). 

How are we suppose to verify the existence of God if we cannot comprehend or know what we are looking for. The existence of verifiable creation does not prove the existence of a verifiable creator in much the same way as the existence of verifiable Atheists that live and breathe does not prove the non-existence of God. 

Atheism relies on science for its argument against theism whereas the existence of God cannot be tested or falsified using scientific measurement. To say that the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God using science when science is the study of creation Not the creator, suggests a lack of willingness on the part of the Atheist, the onus is therefore on the Atheist to prove that the scientific measure put forth as necessary for the verification of God is in fact a reliable measurement. This is another belief of Atheists, namely that scientific measurements can be used to tests the existence of God. 

When I state that Atheism is not falsifiable I am merely stating it to prove the point that the measure or ruler or canon used by Atheists to discount the existence of God is in fact not the right tool for the job, whether one is testing the hypothesis one way or the other is irrelevant really. The onus is on the Atheist to prove that his/her canon of what constitutes the non-existence of God is in fact a reliable measure in that it is a measure of whether God does or does not exist. Therefore it can be said that both believers and Atheists rely on their experiences rather than verifiable measurements and as a consequence are reliant on their faith in God or the non-existence of God. Atheists have a unicorn too!

----------


## LeBrok

> The distinction as the tradition and perspective behind my understanding (.. as an Orthodox Christian), is that creation is the task of energy. If we deny the real difference between the essence of God and the acts of God, we cannot determine a clear borderline between the existence and/or reality of God (uncreated creator) and the creation. 
> 
> It is necessary to make the distinction between God's nature and manifestation of things about God's nature. The two are very different, the one being the energy (uncreated essence) of God that acts on the cosmos, the other the result of God's actions on the cosmos (created). The one is God's essence (uncreated) and the other God's creation. 
> 
> 
> If one fails or is incapable of distinguishing between God's essence and His works, acts (i.e. the cosmos) then there is no distinction between God and the material or created world, cosmos. Uncreated as that which has no first cause and is not caused, in Orthodoxy is the basis for understanding outside the realm of science. Atheism here being a denial of the uncreated. Pagan philosophical metaphysics being an attempt to rationalize the uncreated.


 If we go by Christian scriptures there is no mentioning of energy as personalization of god. Actually there is a lot of created thinking done by you in giving god some form of existence. It feels that you need to embrace scientific language and concepts, like energy, to find god according to current scientific discoveries. There is nothing really comparable in bible, which should be your "manual" in understanding god. You might be creating a new heresy.
Your writing reminds me times when I was a devoted Catholic, and had to go into very creative explanation to consolidate my beliefs with scientific observation of nature. Once I've departed from my beliefs everything became much simpler and makes more sense.

Let's assume for a moment that you are right and god is energy. How can you be sure that god is only one and not many gods or spirits exist? After all we know that there are few forms of energy, therefore why only one creator? Two or more cooperating gods could have pulled this off too.





> Your Paganistic or Aristotelian understanding of God brings you to the above conclusion that God and creation would 'naturally' be engaging and man would source his morality and laws from God. Evangelical teachings are problematic and Western Christianity is riddled with the inventions of sola scriptura.


 As atheist I don't need to understand God or spirits. I'm more fascinated by spirituality and religion that make people belief in supernatural, me included.




> The mainstream churches and Orthodox understanding in both Judaism and Christianity are and have been unified on the core principle of God as infinite and incorruptable. The heresy of personifying God is a new invention dating from the 20th century.


 When I said personalized, I meant it in more general term of giving god a function, character, voice/thought and purpose as an existing entity. I didn't mean to present god or gods in human form on a picture.




> Evangelical Protestantism has this Pagan understanding that may be prohibiting you from engaging with me and creates this false dilemma you appear to be having.


 I have no dilemma. I rather sense dual personality in your beliefs. On one hand you are committed Orthodox Christian and should be looking for loving and caring god, on other hand you ignored biblical teaching and "created" god out of energy.






> My understanding is Christian Orthodox, God is not finite, cannot be rationalized


 And yet you rationalized it as form of energy and need for existence.






> I find that my Atheist friends have a limited or misguided understanding of the principles with Christianity. Most of my Atheist friends come from an Evangelical background or have been exposed as children to a person-centered (ego-centric) philosophy of being. This understanding naturally appeals to individuals who have a lack of self-worth and need to feel valued by a false doctrine incorporating psychology and entertainment to draw large crowds of people in need of narcissistic supply.


 I don't think you have met many Atheists.

Egocentric? Perhaps is the person who sees other Christians as pagans? Who claims the only right understanding of universe? Who says that he believes in only true religion and god. Who calls people of different understanding of world confused, misguided, egocentric, narcissistic, incapable, heretics. Doesn't it make you special, chosen by God, born in right place and the only true religion, and skills to point others the Creator.





> Atheism is not about increased intelligence. The correlation between Atheism and personality type or even a particular experience would be more probable IMHO. The essence of this discussion is about the value of IQ tests and their interpretation. Intelligence should correlate positively with better decision making and it does for the most part. The problem with intelligence as a construct is that it is not the only variable exercising an influence on a individual's decision to follow a particular belief system. Similarly, psychometric tests such as the Wechsler IQ test are not very reliable. A test taker's ability or test-giver's ability to work quickly without making an error determine to a greater extent the success of an IQ test than intelligence or general knowledge. If an individual is brilliant but is not motivated to excel and lacks interest at the time of testing, the scores will not reflect that individual's true ability.


 It's ok, we see a correlation between IQ and religiosity, or income, or choices of occupation, and having a nice talk to see if one causes the other of not. No harm in it.




> Fact: Atheism as a belief-system cannot be proven using the scientific methods.


For some people could be a belief, but for me it is a state 0 of religiosity. 0 in spectrum from 0 to 10 being maximum. State of non existent god, gods, spirits, UFO, Santa Claus, etc. Whatever science can't prove, or I can't see or touch, doesn't exist for me. A state of disbelief in anything supernatural or too small or too far. 
I could be mistaken and some of this might exist, but I don't believe in it. My mind is in state 0 regarding these things. It hardly constitutes a belief, even less a system.
600 years ago we believed in heliocentric universe, hell in center of Earth and Saints killing dragons. Now thanks to science we stopped believing in these things. Would you call this lack of faith, in things people used to believe, a belief-system? It doesn't make sense, does it?

----------


## LeBrok

If I may...




> My point exactly, the belief that there is no scientific evidence of God is one of the beliefs in Atheism.


 There is no scientific proof of god's existence, therefore no need to believe.
You don't need to believe in god's nonexistence. You just need to lose a belief in god and supernatural to become Atheist. You don't need to start believing in god's nonexistence. The state of god's non existence is granted after losing a belief. It comes automatically. It is not a belief. 
Take a word of someone who went through this process, which is only a theory for you.
If you love someone and you stop loving this person, does it mean that you necessarily need to love someone else? You just lose love and you lose a belief, and you back to state 0.

----------


## Aberdeen

> My point exactly, the belief that there is no scientific evidence of God is one of the beliefs in Atheism. Atheists need to have faith that what they believe is the truth despite the very real chance that they may actually be wrong. And both sides cannot prove that they are right using scientific methods.
> 
> The universe was formed or created whether we like it or not. Similarly, something created the universe. Now to say that you don't believe in unicorns is testable as unicorns, if they did exist, would be visible to the human eye, audible to the human ear, recognizable to us in a way that we could verify its existence using scientific measurement. This analogy however is false when comparing the quest for unicorns with the quest for the creator or god(s). 
> 
> How are we suppose to verify the existence of God if we cannot comprehend or know what we are looking for. The existence of verifiable creation does not prove the existence of a verifiable creator in much the same way as the existence of verifiable Atheists that live and breathe does not prove the non-existence of God. 
> 
> Atheism relies on science for its argument against theism whereas the existence of God cannot be tested or falsified using scientific measurement. To say that the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God using science when science is the study of creation Not the creator, suggests a lack of willingness on the part of the Atheist, the onus is therefore on the Atheist to prove that the scientific measure put forth as necessary for the verification of God is in fact a reliable measurement. This is another belief of Atheists, namely that scientific measurements can be used to tests the existence of God. 
> 
> When I state that Atheism is not falsifiable I am merely stating it to prove the point that the measure or ruler or canon used by Atheists to discount the existence of God is in fact not the right tool for the job, whether one is testing the hypothesis one way or the other is irrelevant really. The onus is on the Atheist to prove that his/her canon of what constitutes the non-existence of God is in fact a reliable measure in that it is a measure of whether God does or does not exist. Therefore it can be said that both believers and Atheists rely on their experiences rather than verifiable measurements and as a consequence are reliant on their faith in God or the non-existence of God. Atheists have a unicorn too!


If someone says "I don't believe in things that cannot be shown to exist", some would say that is not a statement of belief but merely proof of sanity. And the scientific idea that there is no evidence of a supreme creator is in fact "falsifiable" in the sense that one could disprove it by presenting proof of a supreme creator.

If you want to argue that the existence of the universe is evidence of a creator, and if you personally find that convincing, it still doesn't provide you with any evidence to support any one particular deity. According to your argument, I could take the view that the universe was created by a purple dragon named Albert. That can't be disproven, so if someone disagrees with me, they merely have a belief system that they cannot support with evidence.

----------


## Dorianfinder

Both Judaism and Christianity are revelation-based models. God has certain attributes positively ascribed to Himself. The text is said to be inspired. Another way to say this is God represents Himself through the text. This type of reasoning is known as cataphatic theology. Orthodoxy however holds an apophatic view of God.

Examples of apophatic theology are: 

The theophany to Elijah, where God reveals Himself in a "still, small voice" (1 Kings 19:11–13). And St. Paul's reference to the "Unknown God" in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 17:23) is sometimes pointed to as an apophatic statement.

The Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th century said that they believed in God, but they did not believe that God exists in the same sense that everything else exists. That is to say, everything else that exists was created, but the Creator transcends even existence. The essence of God is completely unknowable; mankind can know God only through His energies.

Maimonides was perhaps the first Jewish Thinker to explicitly articulate this doctrine (see also _Tanya_ _Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah Ch. 8_): “
God's existence is absolute and it includes no composition and we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute... still less has He accidents (מקרה), which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute however , the negative attributes are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe... When we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible; it is living — it is not dead; ...it is the first — its existence is not due to any cause; it has power, wisdom, and will — it is not feeble or ignorant; He is One — there are not more Gods than one… Every attribute predicated of God denotes either the quality of an action, or, when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself — and not of His actions — the negation of the opposite. (_The Guide for the Perplexed_, 1:58)



Eastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, and especially the traditional scholastic claim that God is _actus purus_, for its alleged incompatibility with the essence-energies distinction. 

Atheism does not engage with Eastern Orthodoxy. http://www.asna.ca/resources/dawkins-delusion.pdf

----------


## Dorianfinder

> If we go by Christian scriptures there is no mentioning of energy as personalization of god. Actually there is a lot of created thinking done by you in giving god some form of existence. It feels that you need to embrace scientific language and concepts, like energy, to find god according to current scientific discoveries. There is nothing really comparable in bible, which should be your "manual" in understanding god. You might be creating a new heresy.
> Your writing reminds me times when I was a devoted Catholic, and had to go into very creative explanation to consolidate my beliefs with scientific observation of nature. Once I've departed from my beliefs everything became much simpler and makes more sense.
> 
> Let's assume for a moment that you are right and god is energy. How can you be sure that god is only one and not many gods or spirits exist? After all we know that there are few forms of energy, therefore why only one creator? Two or more cooperating gods could have pulled this off too.
> 
> As atheist I don't need to understand God or spirits. I'm more fascinated by spirituality and religion that make people belief in supernatural, me included.
> 
> When I said personalized, I meant it in more general term of giving god a function, character, voice/thought and purpose as an existing entity. I didn't mean to present god or gods in human form on a picture.
> 
> ...


The concept of God's essence in Eastern Orthodox theology is called (ousia) and is distinct from his energies (energeia in Greek, actus in Latin) or activities as actualized in the world.The ousia of God is God as God is. It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine, at first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or noetically. The essence, being, nature and substance (ousia) of God is taught in Eastern Christianity as uncreated and incomprehensible. God's ousia is defined as "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing".God's ousia is beyond all states of (nous) consciousness and unconsciousness, being and non-being (like being dead or anesthetized), beyond something and beyond nothing beyond existence and non-existence. The God's ousia has not in necessity or subsistence needing or having dependence on anything other than itself. God's ousia as uncreated is therefore incomprehensible to created beings such as human beings. Therefore God in essence is superior to all forms of ontology (metaphysics).The source, origin of God's ousia or incomprehensibliness is the Father hypostasis of the Trinity, One God in One Father.The God's energies are "unbegotten" or "uncreated" just like the existences of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) both God's existences and energies are experience-able. God's ousia is uncreatediness, beyond existence, beyond no existence, God's hyper-being is not something comprehensible to created beings.As St John Damascene states "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."

With respect to the Eastern and Western theological traditions, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, at times, one tradition may "come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or [express] it to better advantage." In these situations, the Church views the various theological expressions "often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting."

The _Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum_ (Handbook of Creeds and Definitions), the collection of Roman Catholic teachings originally compiled by Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger, has no mention of the words "energies", "hesychasm" or "Palamas". The later twentieth century saw a remarkable change in the attitude of Roman Catholic theologians to Palamas, a "rehabilitation" of him that has led to increasing parts of the Western Church considering him a saint, even if uncanonized. Some Western scholars maintain that there is no conflict between the teaching of Palamas and Roman Catholic thought on the distinction.According to G. Philips, the essence-energies distinction of Palamas is "a typical example of a perfectly admissible theological pluralism" that is compatible with the Roman Catholic magisterium. Jeffrey D. Finch claims that "the future of East-West rapprochement appears to be overcoming the modern polemics of neo-scholasticism".Some Western theologians have incorporated the essence-energies distinction into their own thinking.

----------


## FBS

@Dorinafinder. Thanks for these lengthy explantions. So, if we simplify and use the quantum jargon, God is actually both the superposition (the unknown) and (I might add) the Higgs Boson particle. Right?

----------


## LeBrok

> The concept of God's essence in Eastern Orthodox theology is called (ousia) and is distinct from his energies (energeia in Greek, actus in Latin) or activities as actualized in the world.The ousia of God is God as God is. It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine, at first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or noetically. The essence, being, nature and substance (ousia) of God is taught in Eastern Christianity as uncreated and incomprehensible. God's ousia is defined as "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing".God's ousia is beyond all states of (nous) consciousness and unconsciousness, being and non-being (like being dead or anesthetized), beyond something and beyond nothing beyond existence and non-existence. The God's ousia has not in necessity or subsistence needing or having dependence on anything other than itself. God's ousia as uncreated is therefore incomprehensible to created beings such as human beings. Therefore God in essence is superior to all forms of ontology (metaphysics).The source, origin of God's ousia or incomprehensibliness is the Father hypostasis of the Trinity, One God in One Father.The God's energies are "unbegotten" or "uncreated" just like the existences of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) both God's existences and energies are experience-able. God's ousia is uncreatediness, beyond existence, beyond no existence, God's hyper-being is not something comprehensible to created beings.As St John Damascene states "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."
> 
> With respect to the Eastern and Western theological traditions, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, at times, one tradition may "come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or [express] it to better advantage." In these situations, the Church views the various theological expressions "often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting."
> 
> The _Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum_ (Handbook of Creeds and Definitions), the collection of Roman Catholic teachings originally compiled by Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger, has no mention of the words "energies", "hesychasm" or "Palamas". The later twentieth century saw a remarkable change in the attitude of Roman Catholic theologians to Palamas, a "rehabilitation" of him that has led to increasing parts of the Western Church considering him a saint, even if uncanonized. Some Western scholars maintain that there is no conflict between the teaching of Palamas and Roman Catholic thought on the distinction.According to G. Philips, the essence-energies distinction of Palamas is "a typical example of a perfectly admissible theological pluralism" that is compatible with the Roman Catholic magisterium. Jeffrey D. Finch claims that "the future of East-West rapprochement appears to be overcoming the modern polemics of neo-scholasticism".Some Western theologians have incorporated the essence-energies distinction into their own thinking.


Thanks for Wiki articles. Links would be nice, as you see you misled FBS, who thought it was your "lengthy explanation". I was hoping you would love to exercise your brain and engage in conversation, answering few questions and contemplating dilemmas.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Both Judaism and Christianity are revelation-based models. God has certain attributes positively ascribed to Himself. The text is said to be inspired. Another way to say this is God represents Himself through the text. This type of reasoning is known as cataphatic theology. Orthodoxy however holds an apophatic view of God.
> 
> Examples of apophatic theology are: 
> 
> The theophany to Elijah, where God reveals Himself in a "still, small voice" (1 Kings 19:11–13). And St. Paul's reference to the "Unknown God" in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 17:23) is sometimes pointed to as an apophatic statement.
> 
> The Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th century said that they believed in God, but they did not believe that God exists in the same sense that everything else exists. That is to say, everything else that exists was created, but the Creator transcends even existence. The essence of God is completely unknowable; mankind can know God only through His energies.
> 
> Maimonides was perhaps the first Jewish Thinker to explicitly articulate this doctrine (see also _Tanya_ _Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah Ch. 8_): “
> ...


So what you're saying is that your god exists because the bible says so. And why should we care what the bible says? Because it's the word of your god, apparently. Even a young child could see that's a circular argument. And it does nothing to address my position. I say the universe was created by a purple dragon named Albert. If you can't disprove that, it must be true, according to your earlier position.

----------


## Aberdeen

I hope my point is clear - we could debate whether the existence of the universe "proves" that it must have had a creator, but even if we accept such an assumption, it only gets us an abstract deity, not the god of the Isrealites. And it doesn't "prove" that Attis, Dionysus, Orpheus or Jesus was a demi-god who died in order to be resurrected as a true god. Those sorts of beliefs are entirely dependent on faith, and not having faith in the christian deities is not a belief, just the absence of faith in unproveable deities.

----------


## mihaitzateo

I do not agree with this idea.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I do not agree with this idea.


That was a very clear and coherent argument, but perhaps you could flesh it out a bit.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> @Dorinafinder. Thanks for these lengthy explantions. So, if we simplify and use the quantum jargon, God is actually both the superposition (the unknown) and (I might add) the Higgs Boson particle. Right?


Hi FBS, I am not a physicist unfortunately but I can put it differently for you using the example of a universal quantum experiment. The experiment has an observer and an unknown which the observer is looking for. The unknown will be influenced by the observer's 'needs'. This in turn affects the experiment's outcome so that it appears to have no reliable variables that effect the outcome ... making it an experiment that expresses a 'quantum' or unreality. This proves only that the observer's 'hoped outcome' has the desired effect on the experiment. 

If we change the experiment to a non-quantum experiment but a conventional scientific experiment, we get a controlled environment that allows for a reliable outcome each time, hence a reality that various people can agree on. 

The quantum experiment is dependent on a variable that changes constantly (observer). Similarly, the way in which we experience God changes constantly.

----------


## Diocletian

> Hi FBS, I am not a physicist unfortunately but I can put it differently for you using the example of a universal quantum experiment. The experiment has an observer and an unknown which the observer is looking for. The unknown will be influenced by the observer's 'needs'. This in turn affects the experiment's outcome so that it appears to have no reliable variables that effect the outcome ... making it an experiment that expresses a 'quantum' or unreality. This proves only that the observer's 'hoped outcome' has the desired effect on the experiment. 
> 
> If we change the experiment to a non-quantum experiment but a conventional scientific experiment, we get a controlled environment that allows for a reliable outcome each time, hence a reality that various people can agree on. 
> 
> The quantum experiment is dependent on a variable that changes constantly (observer). Similarly, the way in which we experience God changes constantly.


Are you referring to the Measurement Problem?

----------


## Dorianfinder

> So what you're saying is that your god exists because the bible says so. And why should we care what the bible says? Because it's the word of your god, apparently. Even a young child could see that's a circular argument. And it does nothing to address my position. I say the universe was created by a purple dragon named Albert. If you can't disprove that, it must be true, according to your earlier position.


Hi Aberdeen, the Bible is not an individual or person with a single opinion. Rather, it is a collection of writings/experiences that individuals have had concerning their relationship with God over many centuries. You cannot disprove an experience, it is a deeply personal thing that is unique to the individual who is experiencing it. The existence of God is not testable using conventional science but God's 'energies' can be experienced. 

You may say that a purple dragon named Albert created the universe. Who else agrees with you and how long have people believed this? This is an experiential measure ... expressed in a quantitative form.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Are you referring to the Measurement Problem?


Thanks. I was referring to the Measurement Problem.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Hi Aberdeen, the Bible is not an individual or person with a single opinion. Rather, it is a collection of writings/experiences that individuals have had concerning their relationship with God over many centuries. You cannot disprove an experience, it is a deeply personal thing that is unique to the individual who is experiencing it. The existence of God is not testable using conventional science but God's 'energies' can be experienced. 
> 
> You may say that a purple dragon named Albert created the universe. Who else agrees with you and how long have people believed this? This is an experiential measure ... expressed in a quantitative form.


So you're saying that if a lot of people believe something that isn't supported by any scientific data, it's more likely to be true than something that one or a few people believe is true and isn't supported by any scientific data? If numbers of believers is the important thing, the universe really does have a creator and it's almost as likely to be Vishnu as Jehovah, although Jehovah is still in the lead at the moment. But if the day ever comes when Hindus outnumber Christians, will that mean it would then be more likely that Vishnu created the universe? Just wondering.

----------


## Aberdeen

I should add that I have actually experienced the presence of purple dragons, but that was when I was much younger, and I may have been under the influence of a certain energy, although whether it was sunshine or a window pane I can't remember at the moment. If the subjective experiences of other people have validity, so do mine.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Thanks. I was referring to the Measurement Problem.


If your god is so malleable that attempting to locate him causes him to vanish, he's not much of a god, in my opinion. If you want to be a religious believer, my suggestion is that you man up and get yourself some faith.

----------


## Angela

> If your god is so malleable that attempting to locate him causes him to vanish, he's not much of a god, in my opinion. If you want to be a religious believer, my suggestion is that you man up and get yourself some faith.



It seems as if you have a passing acquaintance, at least, with Kierkegaard...:) People call it "the leap of faith",although Kierkegaard actually used the phrase "the leap _to_ faith". 

It's the *decision* to believe in or accept something intangible or improvable. It grows out of the rather conservative Christian belief (Kierkegaard came from the Lutheran tradition) that faith is a _gift_ which one must choose to accept.

At any rate, his theology was in opposition to that of many others, including some modern Christians like C.S. Lewis, who believed that supernaturalism can be logically inferred based on a teological argument regarding the source of human reason. 

From Kierkegaard:
"... naked dialectical deliberation shows that there is no approximation, that wanting to quantify oneself into faith along this path is a misunderstanding, a delusion, that wanting to concern oneself with such deliberations is a temptation for the believer, a temptation that he, keeping himself in the passion of faith, must resist with all his strength, lest it end with his succeeding in changing faith into something else, into another kind of certainty, in substituting probabilities and guarantees, which were rejected when he, himself beginning, made the qualitative transition of the leap from unbeliever to believer...When someone is to leap he must certainly do it alone and also be alone in properly understanding that it is an impossibility. … the leap is the decision ...." 

Sorry, these guys were all required reading at a certain point in my life...

Of course, sometimes people who make the leap fall flat on their faces, or make the decision and then recant it...

----------


## Aberdeen

Yes, I'm quite familiar with Kierkegaard, although I don't share his views. But you seemed to be taking the C.S. Lewis approach, and that's an easy target, IMO.

----------


## Angela

> Yes, I'm quite familiar with Kierkegaard, although I don't agree with his views. But you seemed to be taking the C.S. Lewis approach, and that's an easy target, IMO.


There's something to be said for C.S. Lewis' arguments, in my opinion. I don't agree with Kierkegaard when he says things like this:

"The world has perhaps always had a lack of what could be called authentic individualities, decisive subjectivities, those artistically permeated with reflection, the independent thinkers who differ from the bellowers and the didacticizers. The more objective the world and individual subjectivities become, the more difficult it becomes with the religious categories, which are precisely in the sphere of subjectivity. That is why it is almost an irreligious exaggeration to want to be world-historical, scholarly-scientific, and objective with regard to the religious...even wanting to be subjective enough to appeal to another subjectivity is already an attempt to become objective, is a first step toward getting the majority vote on one’s side and one’s God-relationship transformed into a speculative enterprise on the basis of probability and partnership and fellow shareholders is the first step toward becoming objective. _Concluding Unscientific Postscript_ 

However, at the end of the day, I think Kierkegaard has it right. Reason only takes you so far. Then, you must *decide* whether, no longer relying only on yourself, you will take the leap into the loving arms of God, or not.

Anyway, as I said, he was required reading. The good Sisters who taught me were very fond of the Lutheran theologians like Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich and Bonhoeffer. They were fond of Hans Kung too. Now there's a case for you...I guess they don't formally excommunicate anyone nowadays.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> If your god is so malleable that attempting to locate him causes him to vanish, he's not much of a god, in my opinion. If you want to be a religious believer, my suggestion is that you man up and get yourself some faith.


If my lack of faith or inability to man up somehow makes God less visible to you then maybe it's me that is not much of a believer. I forgive myself for my lack of faith, your lack of faith is not my responsibility, nor is it God's. It's a choice. There is nothing to be afraid of or threatened by if one finds it hard to believe, it is difficult to forgive and often more difficult to accept that man has no control over God. This inability to understand and control God is not God's inability, it's ours. We need faith, I need faith. God is not responsible whether we have faith or not. It's the nature of man to resist that which limits him. Man wants to have control and freedom above all else.

----------


## LeBrok

> If my lack of faith or inability to man up somehow makes God less visible to you then maybe it's me that is not much of a believer. I forgive myself for my lack of faith, your lack of faith is not my responsibility, nor is it God's. It's a choice. There is nothing to be afraid of or threatened by if one finds it hard to believe, it is difficult to forgive and often more difficult to accept that man has no control over God. This inability to understand and control God is not God's inability, it's ours. We need faith, I need faith. God is not responsible whether we have faith or not. It's the nature of man to resist that which limits him. Man wants to have control and freedom above all else.


Alow me. Isn't the faith (and anything else in this word) god's creation? Therefore why God gives some people more faith than he gives to others?

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Alow me. Isn't the faith (and anything else in this word) god's creation? Therefore why God gives some people more faith than he gives to others?


God affords man free will to choose. If man has no free will then there can be no faith, for to have faith man must have the choice to believe. Similarly, sin is only possible if man has the freedom to choose right from wrong and chooses wrong. However, God's love affords Grace, forgiveness is deserved. Some people, me included, are too proud at times to love unconditionally. Others, myself included, have difficulty due to lack of knowledge. God affords Grace based on each individual's circumstances. 

Equality in terms of faith is necessary for man to relieve man of the choices and consequences resulting from the responsibilities afforded him.

----------


## Aberdeen

> There's something to be said for C.S. Lewis' arguments, in my opinion. I don't agree with Kierkegaard when he says things like this:
> 
> "The world has perhaps always had a lack of what could be called authentic individualities, decisive subjectivities, those artistically permeated with reflection, the independent thinkers who differ from the bellowers and the didacticizers. The more objective the world and individual subjectivities become, the more difficult it becomes with the religious categories, which are precisely in the sphere of subjectivity. That is why it is almost an irreligious exaggeration to want to be world-historical, scholarly-scientific, and objective with regard to the religious...even wanting to be subjective enough to appeal to another subjectivity is already an attempt to become objective, is a first step toward getting the majority vote on one’s side and one’s God-relationship transformed into a speculative enterprise on the basis of probability and partnership and fellow shareholders is the first step toward becoming objective. _Concluding Unscientific Postscript_ 
> 
> However, at the end of the day, I think Kierkegaard has it right. Reason only takes you so far. Then, you must *decide* whether, no longer relying only on yourself, you will take the leap into the loving arms of God, or not.
> 
> Anyway, as I said, he was required reading. The good Sisters who taught me were very fond of the Lutheran theologians like Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich and Bonhoeffer. They were fond of Hans Kung too. Now there's a case for you...I guess they don't formally excommunicate anyone nowadays.


Okay, you seem to really know this stuff, so I'm going to ask you a question that, AFAIK, an insular European such as Kierkegaard didn't feel the need to address. After one ponders spiritual issues, if one decides to make a leap of faith and believe in a god, why should one decide to believe in the christian god rather than some other deity? Is it simply a cultural issue? It seems to me that, just as with positing the idea that the existence of a universe necessitates some unspecified creator, deciding on the need to believe in some kind of creator does not get you to a justification for believing in a specific creator.

----------


## Angela

> Okay, you seem to really know this stuff, so I'm going to ask you a question that, AFAIK, an insular European such as Kierkegaard didn't feel the need to address. After one ponders spiritual issues, if one decides to make a leap of faith and believe in a god, why should one decide to believe in the christian god rather than some other deity? Is it simply a cultural issue? It seems to me that, just as with positing the idea that the existence of a universe necessitates some unspecified creator, deciding on the need to believe in some kind of creator does not get you to a justification for believing in a specific creator.


 It’s been a long time since I’ve read any of these theological works. Most of my copies of their books are in a box in the attic. (You can see how far I have fallen away.) All I have on my computer are quotes from them that I’ve kept.


Here is a very Kierkegaard like one from Hans Kung:
“historical arguments; traditional apologetics breaks down here. Since man is here dealing with God and this by definition means with the invisible, impalpable, uncontrollable, only one attitude is appropriate and required : believing trust, trusting faith.”

FWIW, I don’t remember Kierkegaard ever addressing even the question of Judaism. For him, Christianity is an absolute.

A few of their books _are_ still in my bookcases, and I’ll see if I can find some pertinent quotes.


I _can_ say that personally, if I were to be a believer, I would be a Christian. 


Christianity, and Judaism before it are totally different from paganism and the eastern religions-Hindusim, Buddhism, Tao.


My reason leads me to believe in a transcendent God, the creator of the universe, not a god(s) who is part of the universe. The pagan gods were just immortal men, subject to all the vices and sins of ordinary men. Buddhism and Hinduism, while they are profound religions which exhibit deep reflection on the nature of reality, the divine, and the meaning of life and suffering, are really pantheistic religions in which, reduced to their essence, the godhead is basically the universe itself. 


It’s only in the monotheistic religions of the Near East that we have an individual transcendent God who _creates_ the universe. That makes more sense to me.


Moreover, he is a God who manifests himself in history and with whom we can communicate. He is a _personal_ God.


Also, the eastern religions do not, in my opinion, satisfactorily address the question of human suffering. The “solution” to suffering in the eastern religions is to stop existing. That is the goal. When, after multiple reincarnations you have learned the necessary “lessons”, you will be rewarded by never being incarnated again, and merging into the formless universe. In Christianity, suffering is the _means…_it’s through the redemptive suffering of Christ and our participation _in_ that _suffering_, that we and the world are redeemed. That redemption leads to an afterlife in which the individual identity remains intact.


To use the old formulation, death will be no more, not because we will be blessed by non-existence, but because we will have a different, but still unique_, individual_ existence. 


Also, in Christianity there is, contrary to the eastern religions, a definition of the godhead as a _loving_ God. A God, moreover, who, to quote Kierkegaard again, became man and suffered _because_ of that love for mankind, and in the process could say to mankind, "See, here is what it is to be a human being."

The differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam would be a whole other long post, but I think some of the differences can be inferred just from what I have written.


Of course, I’m aware that the form my logic, my reasoning takes, even my _preference,_  perhaps, if you will, for this definition of God, for this theology, is grounded in a very “western” oriented, “humanistic” philosophical and theological view of the world, God, and man.

----------


## LeBrok

> God affords man free will to choose. If man has no free will then there can be no faith, for to have faith man must have the choice to believe. Similarly, sin is only possible if man has the freedom to choose right from wrong and chooses wrong. However, God's love affords Grace, forgiveness is deserved. Some people, me included, are too proud at times to love unconditionally. Others, myself included, have difficulty due to lack of knowledge. God affords Grace based on each individual's circumstances. 
> 
> Equality in terms of faith is necessary for man to relieve man of the choices and consequences resulting from the responsibilities afforded him.


Ok then, let me ask you this. Why god creates people with mental disabilities, like down syndrome or others due to improper brain development and function. Such people lack understanding of good and evil concepts, therefore cannot sin or be fully responsible for making bad choices in life. It also means they can't be judged by god and go to heaven or hell. Their lives make no sense when viewed through christian understanding of the world. On other hand easily explainable by genetics and natural selection.

----------


## sparkey

> My reason leads me to believe in a transcendent God, the creator of the universe, not a god(s) who is part of the universe.


 


> It’s only in the monotheistic religions of the Near East that we have an individual transcendent God who _creates_ the universe. That makes more sense to me.


 


> Moreover, he is a God who manifests himself in history and with whom we can communicate. He is a _personal_ God.





> Also, in Christianity there is, contrary to the eastern religions, a definition of the godhead as a _loving_ God.


Could you elaborate on why you find a personal and loving god of creation more likely to exist, by your "reason" as you put it? (As long as I am understanding you correctly?) I assume that you see properties of the universe or human nature that point toward this, rather than simply seeing these god properties as products of different types of stories from different cultures?

----------


## Angela

> Could you elaborate on why you find a personal and loving god of creation more likely to exist, by your "reason" as you put it? (As long as I am understanding you correctly?) I assume that you see properties of the universe or human nature that point toward this, rather than simply seeing these god properties as products of different types of stories from different cultures?


To do an adequate job is probably beyond me for reasons of time, space, and ability( I am not qualified to provide the most learned exposition of each and every philosophical and/or theological point. It's been a long time since I read and had to write papers on these works.) Also, it's a given from my point of view that someone could find flaws in each and every reasoned argument. For every argument based on reason, a counter-argument has been presented.

Each person has to contemplate these arguments and decide individually what weight to give to them. I personally think, as I said, that reason only takes you so far.

What I can say with regard to philosophy/theology and culture is that I think it's sort of a which came first argument, the chicken or the egg. Is western philosophy the product or the creator of western culture?

----------


## Aberdeen

You've presented quite a stirring defense of christian humanism, Angela, but a god that is both personal and transcendental is not something I could believe in. IMO, a deity powerful enough to create whole galaxies simply wouldn't care about the foibles of individuals. In any case, I think it quite likely that the universe is both the dreamer and the dream, so needs no creator. I can imagine deities of this universe interceding on our behalf, and I don't think we need to follow the absurdities of the Greeks who attributed human failings to them. But perhaps on the issue of whether a belief in a transcendent deity is a positive or negative we will have to agree to disagree.

----------


## joeyc

> You've presented quite a stirring defense of christian humanism, Angela, but a god that is both personal and transcendental is not something I could believe in. IMO, a deity powerful enough to create whole galaxies simply wouldn't care about the foibles of individuals. In any case, I think it quite likely that the universe is both the dreamer and the dream, so needs no creator. I can imagine deities of this universe interceding on our behalf, and I don't think we need to follow the absurdities of the Greeks who attributed human failings to them. But perhaps on the issue of whether a belief in a transcendent deity is a positive or negative we will have to agree to disagree.


Humans and any other Intelligent Beings of this Universe are the ultimate state of the Universal evolution and the real goal of the Creation. Only a fool would negate the Divine design.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Humans and any other Intelligent Beings of this Universe are the ultimate state of the Universal evolution and the real goal of the Creation. Only a fool would negate the Divine design.


I think that's the silliest comment I've ever read. You're asking us to believe that Brahma (or Odin or Jehovah or some other deity) created the universe just because you assume you know "the real goal of Creation"?

----------


## Angela

> You've presented quite a stirring defense of christian humanism, Angela, but a god that is both personal and transcendental is not something I could believe in. IMO, a deity powerful enough to create whole galaxies simply wouldn't care about the foibles of individuals. In any case, I think it quite likely that the universe is both the dreamer and the dream, so needs no creator. I can imagine deities of this universe interceding on our behalf, and I don't think we need to follow the absurdities of the Greeks who attributed human failings to them. But perhaps on the issue of whether a belief in a transcendent deity is a positive or negative we will have to agree to disagree.


If I were ever to "take the Leap", it would be to a _Christ_ centered Humanism, though, not to Marxist theology or to the Jesus as neighborhood social worker theology. 

It's certainly true that a creator who is both a transcendent and a personal loving God is a paradox, and the human mind doesn't normally like paradox. It, or duality at least, is also in a lot of other things, however, like faith and reason, justice and mercy, flesh and spirit. The central symbols of Christianity are all about paradox, and not letting the paradox collapse: the Incarnation and the Resurrection; transcendence and imminence; life through death.

Imagination can sometimes bridge the gap...writers like T.S.Eliot, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Flannery O'Connor, or even Dostoyevsky, another one of my old favorites. 

At any rate, none of this is the stumbling block for me. The stumbling block is the problem of evil, and the suffering of the innocents that LeBrok mentioned. I know all the intellectual and theological rationales, and I might even find them intellectually persuasive. I just can't accept it _emotionally._ I was told it was because I lack humility and trust That's certainly more than possible. :)

Anyway, this is all personal stuff.

As to the writers on these subjects, of course much of it starts with Thomas Aquinas. Then there's the Renaissance Christian Humanists. There are others in addition to the ones I already mentioned upthread. I would add Immanuel Kant. Also, the list wouldn't be complete without Pascal's Pensees.

Oh, and Niebur and Barth. I found it amusing that McCain and Obama both claimed during the election that Niebur was their favorite theologian. Not _my_ favorite, although a brilliant and highly influential man. I also doubt either one of them actually understands the basis for all his beliefs.

Anyway, I will now leave you gentlemen to it; I've said about all I know about the subject. :)

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Ok then, let me ask you this. Why god creates people with mental disabilities, like down syndrome or others due to improper brain development and function. Such people lack understanding of good and evil concepts, therefore cannot sin or be fully responsible for making bad choices in life. It also means they can't be judged by god and go to heaven or hell. Their lives make no sense when viewed through christian understanding of the world. On other hand easily explainable by genetics and natural selection.


Here is a question for you: Why do so many people turn to God when they reach their limit. What is it about man that it is easier to believe in something greater than himself after he has failed to find happiness?

The simple answer is 'I don't know why God does things that to me and you seem strange or cruel.' I can only guess as to the reason and say that God creates a perfect universe according to those of us who feel privileged and loved ... and a cruel and unforgiving universe to those of us who feel abandoned and unloved in the world. The sentiment is really ours to bare. 

Victor Frankel was stuck in a Nazi labour camp during WWII and studied why, among the most unfortunate individuals, there appeared to be those who remained upbeat and helped others whereas others gave up. He found that those most resilient had found meaning in their suffering and those who wanted to die had no purpose for going on...

Your question seems to assume that people with Down's syndrome or any other form of congenital condition lead meaningless lives. Are you sure about this? If there is anything I've learned from my life experience it's that misfortune is a part of life. The transient nature of things and fickleness of life is why purpose is so important to our existence. If man was immortal and perfect there would be no sin, no death ... no need for resurrection, evolution, growth and with these things, pain and suffering. 

I have seen people live an empty self-serving existence only to die of a drug overdose from partying too much. Then I have engaged with people who have suffered much more than I and they make it their life's work to help others. From the ashes ... Christ has truly risen as the saying goes.

----------


## Angela

> Here is a question for you: Why do so many people turn to God when they reach their limit. What is it about man that it is easier to believe in something greater than himself after he has failed to find happiness?
> 
> The simple answer is 'I don't know why God does things that to me and you seem strange or cruel.' I can only guess as to the reason and say that God creates a perfect universe according to those of us who feel privileged and loved ... and a cruel and unforgiving universe to those of us who feel abandoned and unloved in the world. The sentiment is really ours to bare. 
> 
> Victor Frankel was stuck in a Nazi labour camp during WWII and studied why, among the most unfortunate individuals, there appeared to be those who remained upbeat and helped others whereas others gave up. He found that those most resilient had found meaning in their suffering and those who wanted to die had no purpose for going on...
> 
> Your question seems to assume that people with Down's syndrome or any other form of congenital condition lead meaningless lives. Are you sure about this? If there is anything I've learned from my life experience it's that misfortune is a part of life. The transient nature of things and fickleness of life is why purpose is so important to our existence. If man was immortal and perfect there would be no sin, no death ... no need for resurrection, evolution, growth and with these things, pain and suffering. 
> 
> I have seen people live an empty self-serving existence only to die of a drug overdose from partying too much. Then I have engaged with people who have suffered much more than I and they make it their life's work to help others. From the ashes ... Christ has truly risen as the saying goes.


I said I wouldn't participate any more, (and now I won't!) but I just had to respond to this...how beautifully said. I wish I still had your acceptance and belief. 

How nice also to see someone refer to Frankel's Man's Search For Meaning.

----------


## joeyc

> I think that's the silliest comment I've ever read. You're asking us to believe that Brahma (or Odin or Jehovah or some other deity) created the universe just because you assume you know "the real goal of Creation"?


The human being (and any other intelligent life form) is the closest creature to the Divine Creator: a intelligent being with a soul and self coscience.Some humans are evil, either because they don't respect the Creator and his creations, or they oppose the universal evolution.

----------


## gyms

religion is not restricted to theism just as a matter of what words mean. But the phrase might still be thought confusing. Would it not be better, for the sake of clarity, to reserve “religion” for theism and then to say that Einstein, Shelley, and the others are “sensitive” or “spiritual” atheists? But on a second look, expanding the territory of religion improves clarity by making plain the importance of what is shared across that territory. Richard Dawkins says that Einstein’s language is “destructively misleading” because clarity demands a sharp distinction between a belief that the universe is governed by fundamental physical laws, which Dawkins thought Einstein meant, and a belief that it is governed by something “supernatural,” which Dawkins thinks the word “religion” suggests.But Einstein meant much more than that the universe is organized around fundamental physical laws; indeed his view I quoted is, in one important sense, an endorsement of the supernatural. 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...n-without-god/

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...dworkin-review

----------


## joeyc

Regarding the OP, it depends on the country and the religion.

For example Jews and Anglicans have a higher mean IQ than Atheists/Agnostics. 95% of Catholics in US are Mexicans with a mean IQ of 85.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn.../#.VD092nJ1RKo

While in Europe and East Asia, more religious countries (Poland, Italy, Japan,...) have often a higher mean IQ than Atheists/Agnostics.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...s-religiosity/

----------


## Aberdeen

> The human being (and any other intelligent life form) is the closest creature to the Divine Creator: a intelligent being with a soul and self coscience.Some humans are evil, either because they don't respect the Creator and his creations, or they oppose the universal evolution.


Again, you've expressed an opinion without providing any argument to support it.

----------


## joeyc

> Again, you've expressed an opinion without providing any argument to support it.


There is no need for arguments. The faith is something you are born with. That's all.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Regarding the OP, it depends on the country and the religion.
> 
> For example Jews and Anglicans have a higher mean IQ than Atheists/Agnostics. 95% of Catholics in US are Mexicans with a mean IQ of 85.
> 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn.../#.VD092nJ1RKo
> 
> While in Europe and East Asia, more religious countries (Poland, Italy, Japan,...) have often a higher mean IQ than Atheists/Agnostics.
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...s-religiosity/


You clearly haven't understood what you read. The only part you got right is that American Episcopalians and Jews (both of which groups tend to contain large numbers of people from an educated elite background) have a marginally higher IQ average than atheists and agnostics, who tend to have a noticeably higher IQ than other believers. And no, it is not true that 95% of American Catholics are of Mexican descent.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Here is a question for you: Why do so many people turn to God when they reach their limit. What is it about man that it is easier to believe in something greater than himself after he has failed to find happiness?
> 
> The simple answer is 'I don't know why God does things that to me and you seem strange or cruel.' I can only guess as to the reason and say that God creates a perfect universe according to those of us who feel privileged and loved ... and a cruel and unforgiving universe to those of us who feel abandoned and unloved in the world. The sentiment is really ours to bare. 
> 
> Victor Frankel was stuck in a Nazi labour camp during WWII and studied why, among the most unfortunate individuals, there appeared to be those who remained upbeat and helped others whereas others gave up. He found that those most resilient had found meaning in their suffering and those who wanted to die had no purpose for going on...
> 
> Your question seems to assume that people with Down's syndrome or any other form of congenital condition lead meaningless lives. Are you sure about this? If there is anything I've learned from my life experience it's that misfortune is a part of life. The transient nature of things and fickleness of life is why purpose is so important to our existence. If man was immortal and perfect there would be no sin, no death ... no need for resurrection, evolution, growth and with these things, pain and suffering. 
> 
> I have seen people live an empty self-serving existence only to die of a drug overdose from partying too much. Then I have engaged with people who have suffered much more than I and they make it their life's work to help others. From the ashes ... Christ has truly risen as the saying goes.


It's not surprising to me that people who find themselves in a state of anguish turn to hope for supernatural aid, and sometimes believe they've found it if their belief system helps them to better bear their anguish and/or their life starts to improve for other reasons after their renewal of faith. I used to know a not very devout Hindu immigrant who turned to his faith in a serious way for the first time after encountering some serious problems. He became convinced that the Vedas and Hindu spiritual practice provided all the answers one needs in life. He very much wanted to share this insight with others but because only people who are born Hindu can be Hindus, he suggested to me and my then wife that we embrace Hari Krishna teachings. We decided against that.

----------


## Aberdeen

> If I were ever to "take the Leap", it would be to a _Christ_ centered Humanism, though, not to Marxist theology or to the Jesus as neighborhood social worker theology. 
> 
> It's certainly true that a creator who is both a transcendent and a personal loving God is a paradox, and the human mind doesn't normally like paradox. It, or duality at least, is also in a lot of other things, however, like faith and reason, justice and mercy, flesh and spirit. The central symbols of Christianity are all about paradox, and not letting the paradox collapse: the Incarnation and the Resurrection; transcendence and imminence; life through death.
> 
> Imagination can sometimes bridge the gap...writers like T.S.Eliot, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Flannery O'Connor, or even Dostoyevsky, another one of my old favorites. 
> 
> At any rate, none of this is the stumbling block for me. The stumbling block is the problem of evil, and the suffering of the innocents that LeBrok mentioned. I know all the intellectual and theological rationales, and I might even find them intellectually persuasive. I just can't accept it _emotionally._ I was told it was because I lack humility and trust That's certainly more than possible. :)
> 
> Anyway, this is all personal stuff.
> ...


I'm not quite sure why Americans always seem to assume that the only political choices are doctrinaire Marxism, utopian socialism or laisse faire capitalism. I've always found the social democratic ideals of modern western Europe to be appealing. However, despite my sympathies for South American priests who preach liberation theology as an antidote to submission theology and American ministers who preach social gospel as an antidote to prosperity theology, I think it's a mistake to mix religion and politics. I think the job of a minister or priest is to help people have meaningful spiritual experiences. But my own experiences as a person living in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society have made me skeptical of any particular theology.

----------


## joeyc

> You clearly haven't understood what you read. The only part you got right is that American Episcopalians and Jews (both of which groups tend to contain large numbers of people from an educated elite background) have a marginally higher IQ average than atheists and agnostics, who tend to have a noticeably higher IQ than other believers. And no, it is not true that 95% of American Catholics are of Mexican descent.


And how does this contradict my assertion that different faiths lead to different mean IQs?

----------


## Maleth

As a child we were always fed the good side of religion. That is doing good, being generous and loving, forgiveness and so on. So far so good and as a child you don't ask and you associate with this loving caring God. 

My dilemma started when these off shoots started cropping up such as Jehovas and Evangelists who for some reason accentuated on the old testament (we were often told to ignore) much more then the gospels. Thats when i got interested in the old testament (which is similar to the Jewish torah and transcends on the Koran) This god that is always angry, permits genocides (such as the great flood). 

I had a good number of conversation with people who claim to be religious and approves of these atrocities as stated in the old testament with excuses that People were bad they sinned and sort of deserve the wrath of god. With excuses like we live at our free will and a few classical excused that bear no weight. They also say that god is perfect (!!!) How can a perfect god create such an imperfect system. Have you ever heard of a father who has children then condemns to eternal hell? The arguments just become so ridiculous and a real waste of time in my opinion. The most classical is that religious people react offensively to any argument made or questions asked, but they can insult and hurt anyone as long as they do it in the name of some god. - No thank you, Im not part of this

PS:- and if I had any kids of my own I would keep them miles away from these scandalous stories and examples, especially when this savagery is narrated in some kind of fictional divinity - scary to say the least!

----------


## MtDNA

> “I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself” (Winston Churchill)


What has science become? People with one set of beliefs claiming they are 'smarter' than those with other sets of beliefs. Their sampling methods themselves show an extreme bias.

----------


## John Doe

> What has science become? People with one set of beliefs claiming they are 'smarter' than those with other sets of beliefs. Their sampling methods themselves show an extreme bias.


This isn't about being smarter, it's about putting evidence before faith.

----------


## firetown

> What about Lenin,Stalin,Hitler?Intelligent people...


Why do we assume that Hitler was intelligent? Wasn't he a terrible student who later in life failed at pretty much everything?
It seems that aside from his IQ, his EQ wasn't that great either until he found likeminded people and his dedication enabled him to accomplish a few things, if you want to call it that, before finding the end he deserved.
(Not only that he deserved, but a cold hearted society unwilling to take a stand against him needed to shake them up)

----------


## ihype02

It really depends. I don't think IQ is highly influenced by genes.

----------


## ihype02

It really depends. I don't think IQ is highly influenced by genes.

----------


## LeBrok

> It really depends. I don't think IQ is highly influenced by genes.


No?! What is IQ of monkey or a mouse?

----------


## castelleone

> Why do we assume that Hitler was intelligent? Wasn't he a terrible student who later in life failed at pretty much everything?
> It seems that aside from his IQ, his EQ wasn't that great either until he found likeminded people and his dedication enabled him to accomplish a few things, if you want to call it that, before finding the end he deserved.
> (Not only that he deserved, but a cold hearted society unwilling to take a stand against him needed to shake them up)


Perhaps the explanation is that some people observe an effect and have the illusion of observing the cause as well, 
i.e. one observes a prowess and assumes it is (only) due to higher intelligence.

One way to look at such issues is to think about how often people are misled about certain correlations. 

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

In the master-puppet relationship, who do you think is the intelligent one?
Was Hitler a master or a puppet?

----------


## castelleone

> No?! What is IQ of monkey or a mouse?


I am not sure if your question is meaningless or if you are begging the question (i.e. assuming the answer)...

"...testing IQ of animals is a nonsensical concept..."

----------


## LeBrok

> I am not sure if your question is meaningless or if you are begging the question (i.e. assuming the answer)...
> 
> "...testing IQ of animals is a nonsensical concept..."


What makes monkey not understand IQ test, nurture or nature?

----------


## castelleone

> What makes monkey not understand IQ test, nurture or nature?


They are not humans.

----------


## castelleone

> "Evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation." People with higher IQ's get more brainwashing in liberal educational institutions.
> The average IQ of vegans is 116. Does eating a vegan diet raise IQ? Or are smart people more likely to become vegans? The later is the answer.
> Some very intelligent people have believed in God. http://forums.delphiforums.com/biops...ges/?msg=964.1
> Yes. IQs of 200 are rare, but it does happen. There is me, Netanyahu, Sununu (you would be happy to know that he is a redhead of Palestinian descent), Goebbels, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, and a host of people who never amounted to anything.
> 
> http://onemansblog.com/2007/11/08/th...he-highest-iq/
> 
> 
> *The Highest IQs On Record*
> ...


You forgot Leonhard Euler, who was a ... a committed Christian and, apparently, a biblical literalist as well as being (arguably) one of the greatest mathematicians ever.

https://godandmath.com/2012/01/15/ch...ticians-euler/

----------


## LeBrok

> They are not humans.


 Very sharp. What makes people different from monkeys, perhaps DNA?

----------


## castelleone

> Very sharp. What makes people different from monkeys, perhaps DNA?


Thank you,
now I am sure you are begging the question... again.

But since you didn't get the point yet,
I will make the argument simpler for you.

Testing the 'IQ' of monkeys, octopuses or rain-worms with IQ tests conceived for humans 
is equivalent of, say, measuring temperature with a ruler.

You should study more about nonsense correlations and spurious correlations,
if you dont want to get stuck with illusions.

----------


## castelleone

> ... I think it's a mistake to mix religion and politics.


I think you can't really separate religion from politics.




> I think the job of a minister or priest is to help people have meaningful spiritual experiences.


And that usually happens when people are willing to subject themselves to the views of a certain 'political party', i.e. religion.

----------


## davef

> Thank you,
> now I am sure you are begging the question... again.
> 
> But since you didn't get the point yet,
> I will make the argument simpler for you.
> 
> Testing the 'IQ' of monkeys, octopuses or rain-worms with IQ tests conceived for humans 
> is equivalent of, say, measuring temperature with a ruler.
> 
> ...


Just a question: is it possible to train the world's smartest goat to become a theoretical physicist? Should we expect a duck to beat Magnus Carlsen at chess, even after countless hours of training by the world's best animal psychologists?

----------


## castelleone

> Just a question: is it possible to train the world's smartest goat to become a theoretical physicist? Should we expect a duck to beat Magnus Carlsen at chess, even after countless hours of training by the world's best animal psychologists?


Fallacy detected, meaningless questionS (not just a question, by the way).
Answer the questions yourself and draw any correlation you want.

----------


## LeBrok

> Thank you,
> now I am sure you are begging the question... again.
> 
> But since you didn't get the point yet,
> I will make the argument simpler for you.
> 
> Testing the 'IQ' of monkeys, octopuses or rain-worms with IQ tests conceived for humans 
> is equivalent of, say, measuring temperature with a ruler.
> 
> ...


To make it very easy for you, I'd say that they are so stupid that we can't even run IQ test on them. This is because they don't have human DNA, which make our brain of certain size and architecture. Likewise, there are examples of people born with mutations in DNA, which cause brain to underdeveloped, and render IQ test useless.

----------


## castelleone

> To make it very easy for you, I'd say that they are so stupid that we can't even run IQ test on them. This is because they don't have human DNA, which make our brain of certain size and architecture. Likewise, there are examples of people born with mutations in DNA, which cause brain to underdeveloped, and render IQ test useless.


Lol... 

Are you sure you got my point, in the first place, to even think you are making things easier for me?

----------


## LeBrok

> Lol... 
> 
> Are you sure you got my point, in the first place, to even think you are making things easier for me?


If you don't get this point, nothing else I can do. It must be your genetic predisposition. ;)

PS. Don't start downvoting game with me. Your downvoting carries -1 point, mine -30 points. I suggest you concentrate on giving positive reputation for posts that you like.

----------


## castelleone

> If you don't get this point, nothing else I can do. It must be your genetic predisposition. ;)
> 
> PS. Don't start downvoting game with me. Your downvoting carries -1 point, mine -30 points. I suggest you concentrate on giving positive reputation for posts that you like.


Ad hominem reply coupled with a threat, Mr. Reputation? 

Lol...

Again,

The question is not about the genetic difference between humans and other animals! 
but it is about if you can apply such concept (IQ) to other animals and draw conclusions about their intelligence.

Again,

_Testing the 'IQ' of monkeys, octopuses or rain-worms with IQ tests conceived for humans 
is equivalent of, say, measuring temperature with a ruler._

And assuming you can apply it, 
that still does not prove the IQ is highly dependent on genes.

That takes us to the original problem, stated for humans, 
and thus leaves us with the same problem, but now stated for other animals as well.

Got it?

Decades of research could not prove this correlation,
and you are bringing up outdated theories from the 1800...

If you have the answer to IQ and genetics that deserves the Nobel prize,
go get it.

Lol...

PS: -30 for some people is like -1 for others  :Smiling:

----------


## LeBrok

> Ad hominem reply coupled with a threat, Mr. Reputation?


Wink means it is a joke.






> The question is not about the genetic difference between humans and other animals! 
> but it is about if you can apply such concept (IQ) to other animals and draw conclusions about their intelligence.


Not exact analogies. You can't measure human IQ, because they are not humans! And this is foremost *DNA problem*.





> _Testing the 'IQ' of monkeys, octopuses or rain-worms with IQ tests conceived for humans 
> is equivalent of, say, measuring temperature with a ruler._


Did I mention something about DNA and brain architecture?




> And assuming you *can* apply it, 
> that still does not prove the IQ is highly dependent on genes.


No you can't, no matter how long you try. Exactly because of "wrong" DNA. You can try educating and train monkey for 20 years or longer in human languages and math and logical thinking and human culture, and still can't conduct human IQ test. It takes a specialized brain to grasp language and higher logic. This comes with special DNA. But once you have this special brain, you can teach it anything and conduct IQ test. DNA, DNA, DNA before nurture!

----------


## castelleone

> Not exact analogies.


It does not need to be exact,
as much as hyperboles are never real... but still out there proving the f... point  :Wink: 




> You can't measure human IQ, because they are not humans! And this is foremost *DNA problem*.


LMFAO...

Do you remember who wrote this a few posts ago?
_"They are not humans."_

Again,

_Testing the 'IQ' of monkeys, octopuses or rain-worms with IQ tests conceived for humans 
is equivalent of, say, measuring temperature with a ruler._

First you need to meditate over the implicit meanings of my analogy,
then you can regret having written the sentence above.




> No you can't, no matter how long you try. *Exactly because of "wrong" DNA.* You can try educating and train monkey for 20 years or longer in human languages and math and logical thinking and human culture, and still can't conduct human IQ test. It takes a specialized brain to grasp language and higher logic.


Again,

_Testing the 'IQ' of monkeys, octopuses or rain-worms with IQ tests conceived for humans 
is equivalent of, say, measuring temperature with a ruler._

First you need to meditate over the implicit meanings of my analogy... once more,
then you can regret having written *yet another* sentence above.




> This comes with special DNA. But once you have this special brain, you can teach it anything and conduct IQ test. DNA, DNA, DNA before nurture!


Lol...

Bravo! 

While so many unconclusive studies have been carried out to prove that IQ is highly dependent on genes,
you not only assume it as a true premise, you use it as argument to prove itself...

Be humble, 
nobody knows where intelligence comes from... 
and we are not even intelligent enough to even know how to define it.

I rest my case.

----------


## LeBrok

> It does not need to be exact,
> as much as hyperboles are never real... but still out there proving the f... point 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO...
> 
> Do you remember who wrote this a few posts ago?
> _"They are not humans."_
> ...


As long as you can't see that the main difference between species is genetics we can't continue.



> Be humble, 
> nobody knows where intelligence comes from...


Really, we don't know that yet? Now I understand your confusion. Perhaps I could suggest few books about brain.




> and we are not even intelligent enough to even know how to define it.


Wow, let's stop science. We are not intelligent enough to figure the world out. With such attitude we would have never invented computer and internet for you to discourage others from science.

You are confusing inability of understanding with inability to agree on one definition. That's normal for young sciences and sciences with big complexity of problems. It takes time to discover all and fully define everything. It is a process, you know. And it doesn't mean we don't know a lot already and we can't figure everything out. Not having complete knowledge on a subject doesn't defy knowing a lot already or having correct partial knowledge. It is not black and white issue. We know a lot already, and there is ongoing steady process of new discoveries and understanding.

----------


## Runofmillsukrainian

I dont think being religous and IQ has correlation. It depends rather on two factors. How blinding from reality the specific religion can be perceived as, whether or not the individual has ability or want to compensate mind effectively to replace an outdated religous rule with a correct scientific proven fact

----------


## castelleone

> As long as you can't see that the main difference between species is genetics we can't continue.
> Really, we don't know that yet? Now I understand your confusion. Perhaps I could suggest few books about brain.
> 
> Wow, let's stop science. We are not intelligent enough to figure the world out. With such attitude we would have never invented computer and internet for you to discourage others from science.
> 
> You are confusing inability of understanding with inability to agree on one definition. That's normal for young sciences and sciences with big complexity of problems. It takes time to discover all and fully define everything. It is a process, you know. And it doesn't mean we don't know a lot already and we can't figure everything out. Not having complete knowledge on a subject doesn't defy knowing a lot already or having correct partial knowledge. It is not black and white issue. We know a lot already, and there is ongoing steady process of new discoveries and understanding.


Lol...

Fantastic!

----------


## castelleone

> I dont think being religous and IQ has correlation. It depends rather on two factors. How blinding from reality the specific religion can be perceived as, whether or not the individual has ability or want to compensate mind effectively to replace an outdated religous rule with a correct scientific proven fact


There is a correlation,
a nonsense or spurious correlation, 
nothing more...

But, as somebody else has written before,
that is not evidence of the cause - yet.

You see a lot of confused people,
who correlate genes with intelligence and, besides a sh*t load of bias, 
the only thing they have as proof is... circular logic.

In the same group of people,
you find those who insist on seeing a correlation as proof of causation (right genes : high IQ).

They are usually "champions of science",
who recommend books on brain and intelligence...

They are often "paladins of truth",
who violate the method they defend so much...

But long story short,
ask them to show you exact which genes are responsible for intelligence,
and recommend them to take a DNA test instead of a IQ test...

The irony is,
they wouldn't really pass any of them.

----------


## Runofmillsukrainian

> There is a correlation,
> a nonsense or spurious correlation, 
> nothing more...
> 
> But, as somebody else has written before,
> that is not evidence of the cause - yet.
> 
> You see a lot of confused people,
> who correlate genes with intelligence and, besides a sh*t load of bias, 
> ...


Religion and IQ is not related, this is your opinion statement, it doesnt mean every Atheist has higher IQ than Catholic there is no correlation

----------


## LeBrok

http://www.humanreligions.info/intelligence.html

----------


## castelleone

> Religion and IQ is not related, this is your opinion statement, it doesnt mean every Atheist has higher IQ than Catholic there is no correlation



You missed the point... completely.

The fact that religion and IQ are correlated does not mean a cause and effect relationship...

Visit the site http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

You will see a lot more of funny things that correlate.

----------


## murad1234

I would have to disagree many times religion started an enlightenment period in many civilizations.

----------


## castelleone

> ScienceDirect - The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans
> 
> 
> 
> Good summary. It confirms what I have observed since my childhood. I have met a lot of agnostics that were as intelligent as atheists - they just didn't care much about philosophical questions or were less interested in neuroscience than atheists.
> 
> I have met some less bright people who didn't believe in god or in anything, but they were not true atheists. They were just people who didn't care and never really reflected on the existence of god. Technically they are implicit atheists (or "atheists by default"), although I wouldn't call them atheists - just lazy minds. This study probably only included explicit atheists.


And probably guy with the highest IQ on Earth has a Theory exactly about... God's existence.

http://www.ctmu.org/
Whereas standard theology takes the existence of God as axiomatic and then attempts, often naively, to characterize the relationship between its assumed definition and a more or less concrete model of reality, logical theology explores a logical formulation of ultimate reality for any divine properties that might naturally reveal themselves; given that divine law (if it exists) would necessarily incorporate the laws of logic and mathematics on a basic level, it seeks evidence of divinity in the context of a reality-theoretic extension of logic, the CTMU. The implied convergence of theology, mathematics and science yields a reality-based theological framework with the strength and capacity to support realistic solutions to various real-world problems.


Ah the irony... :Laughing:

----------


## firetown

I can definitely see intellectual curiosity dropping when you design your life and thought process around religious sets of rules. Not talking about a belief here, but the feeling that everything will be ok as long as you stay within a certain box.

----------


## berun

how about atheist people becoming religious as me or religious people becoming atheist? I don't feel any change in intelligence (WTF!), instead, research attitudes were widened.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Not true, religiosity decreases with openness, and openness tends to increase with IQ.

----------


## martinmkp

The question is: Does IQ really matter for nature? And, what the IQ really is? Or, mankind: what is more important for development of societies, what is the engine of successful development? Believe in something, or have (presumably, statistically and subjectively) high IQ?
And - does this study or sentence "IQ decreases with religiosity" have any sense? Any added value to evolution of species including humans?

----------


## SYNCHRONIC

Show me an atheist who is a genuine genius and I will eat my hat.

Every single one of the most brilliant minds in the history of the Earth have been the most spiritually connected or religious persons; Pythagoras, Leonardo Da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla etc... Even modern individuals who I'd not quite class as genius's, but people of very high intelligence and accomplishment in limited fields such as Einstein and Max Plank, and Professor Yan Xin, were very spiritual.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> Show me an atheist who is a genuine genius and I will eat my hat.
> 
> Every single one of the most brilliant minds in the history of the Earth have been the most spiritually connected or religious persons; Pythagoras, Leonardo Da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla etc... Even modern individuals who I'd not quite class as genius's, but people of very high intelligence and accomplishment in limited fields such as Einstein and Max Plank, and Professor Yan Xin, were very spiritual.


What about DARWIN? For him must have been hard ?

----------


## SYNCHRONIC

> What about DARWIN? For him must have been hard ?


I don't see the genius in Charles Darwin personally, not to mention that the farther we come along, the more of his theory is put in question, and the more proof that a lot of the early "evidence" for his theories were forgeries. Also he took his ideas from others work/research, not something I consider synonymous with genius.

----------


## Ygorcs

I think these studies (not the first one I have come across with this very same claim) are pretty lazy. What if lower religiosity and higher IQ are both not correlated to each other but instead strongly correlated to something else which broadens one's individualistic thinking and freedom of conscience, thus simply allowing many people who followed a religious belief just because it's the "thing that people do here", i.e. because of social conformity and collectivism in an environment without much freedom to exercise and express one's own thoughts and freely examined conclusions. Not too many people are firm and rationally convinced believers, most just follow what they were taught without much reflection about it. Some great minds who were also believers had that very different attitude, including some cases of former atheists who became religious: they were believers because they made a completely personal investigation about it and reached their own conclusions independently. That's why most of them are hardly the most orthodox and simple-minded believers you may find. 

Then, the social and economic conditions that create that situation I described above may also allow people to increase their average IQ. In a traditionally and historically atheist society with strong social cues to have no spiritual or transcendental belief at all I wouldn't be surprised if more people with high IQ would in fact be religious or at least "spiritual", because the real correlation would be "people who are not conformists and are free-minded, thus more prone to oppose the social traditions and the usual way of thinking". I think that explanation is much, much more likely than simply saying that "IQ decreases with religiosity" without any remotely logical explanation to why one thing would cause the other.

----------


## LeBrok

> I think these studies (not the first one I have come across with this very same claim) are pretty lazy. What if lower religiosity and higher IQ are both not correlated to each other but instead strongly correlated to something else which broadens one's individualistic thinking and freedom of conscience, thus simply allowing many people who followed a religious belief just because it's the "thing that people do here", i.e. because of social conformity and collectivism in an environment without much freedom to exercise and express one's own thoughts and freely examined conclusions. Not too many people are firm and rationally convinced believers, most just follow what they were taught without much reflection about it. Some great minds who were also believers had that very different attitude, including some cases of former atheists who became religious: they were believers because they made a completely personal investigation about it and reached their own conclusions independently. That's why most of them are hardly the most orthodox and simple-minded believers you may find. 
> 
> Then, the social and economic conditions that create that situation I described above may also allow people to increase their average IQ. In a traditionally and historically atheist society with strong social cues to have no spiritual or transcendental belief at all I wouldn't be surprised if more people with high IQ would in fact be religious or at least "spiritual", because the real correlation would be "people who are not conformists and are free-minded, thus more prone to oppose the social traditions and the usual way of thinking". I think that explanation is much, much more likely than simply saying that "IQ decreases with religiosity" without any remotely logical explanation to why one thing would cause the other.


 Hope and hope and more hope here. Let emotions go and follow the clues...

Just a simple fact that 99% of people follow religion of their parents, makes fallacy of their religion and mockery of spirituality. Same phenomenon as learning a language, or other traditions. Doesn't make anything true, special, right or exist. Just helps people to communicate, coexist, believe that their are special and having spirits on their side, which all of this makes their group stronger. The "end game" of human spirituality.

----------


## Salento

> Hope and hope and more hope here. Let emotions go and follow the clues...
> 
> Just a simple fact that 99% of people follow religion of their parents, makes fallacy of their religion and mockery of spirituality. Same phenomenon as learning a language, or other traditions. Doesn't make anything true, special, right or exist. Just helps people to communicate, coexist, believe that their are special and having spirits on their side, which all of this makes their group stronger. The "end game" of human spirituality.


 :Petrified:  Merry Christmas to you Too!

fyi we’re not all a bunch of hypocrites.

----------


## SYNCHRONIC

> Hope and hope and more hope here. Let emotions go and follow the clues...
> 
> Just a simple fact that 99% of people follow religion of their parents, makes fallacy of their religion and mockery of spirituality. Same phenomenon as learning a language, or other traditions. Doesn't make anything true, special, right or exist. Just helps people to communicate, coexist, believe that their are special and having spirits on their side, which all of this makes their group stronger. The "end game" of human spirituality.



True spirituality is the seeking of knowledge of this reality and beyond, and the advancement throughout the layers of existence, beginning with the development and nurturing of the soul/spirit. Most mainstream "religions" are nothing more than social clubs rather than anything resembling spiritual development. Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism might be the only major/widely practise religious systems that offer any real techniques or foundations for spiritual mastery.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Hope and hope and more hope here. Let emotions go and follow the clues...
> 
> Just a simple fact that 99% of people follow religion of their parents, makes fallacy of their religion and mockery of spirituality. Same phenomenon as learning a language, or other traditions. Doesn't make anything true, special, right or exist. Just helps people to communicate, coexist, believe that their are special and having spirits on their side, which all of this makes their group stronger. The "end game" of human spirituality.


Well, regardless of that, you basically confirmed my point and hypothesis laid out above: the true correlation may be between higher IQ and much lower propensity to simply accept uncritically and unthoughtfully the usual worldview, mainstream thinking and socially enforced beliefs of the society an individual belongs to. The correlation may be simply with less social conformism and therefore more individual reasoning. A more critical, free-minded, inquisitive and curious person may naturally tend to question traditional religious beliefs more often and even get rid of spirituality as a whole if and when the inconsistencies and uncertainties of religious systems are found. Thanks for proving my point, even if you clearly let your personal feelings and opinions get in the way a bit (non-spiritual people aren't immune to that, as you must know).  :Wink:

----------


## halfalp

I'm not sure about this study or idea in general. I'm Atheist but i come from a very religious family, god just never appealed to me. I also happened to have an IQ wich makes me " gifted ". But a part my mom, a lot of people just call me Dumb. Never mind, why is this old topic up in Christmas ;D.

----------


## Angela

> I think these studies (not the first one I have come across with this very same claim) are pretty lazy. What if lower religiosity and higher IQ are both not correlated to each other but instead strongly correlated to something else which broadens one's individualistic thinking and freedom of conscience, thus simply allowing many people who followed a religious belief just because it's the "thing that people do here", i.e. because of social conformity and collectivism in an environment without much freedom to exercise and express one's own thoughts and freely examined conclusions. Not too many people are firm and rationally convinced believers, most just follow what they were taught without much reflection about it. Some great minds who were also believers had that very different attitude, including some cases of former atheists who became religious: they were believers because they made a completely personal investigation about it and reached their own conclusions independently. That's why most of them are hardly the most orthodox and simple-minded believers you may find. 
> 
> Then, the social and economic conditions that create that situation I described above may also allow people to increase their average IQ. In a traditionally and historically atheist society with strong social cues to have no spiritual or transcendental belief at all I wouldn't be surprised if more people with high IQ would in fact be religious or at least "spiritual", because the real correlation would be "people who are not conformists and are free-minded, thus more prone to oppose the social traditions and the usual way of thinking". I think that explanation is much, much more likely than simply saying that "IQ decreases with religiosity" without any remotely logical explanation to why one thing would cause the other.


It's also a function of the intersection of two things: lack of knowledge of Christian theology, and indoctrination by modern media and particularly in modern secular universities.

A higher IQ means you're more likely to go to university. If you don't have an "intellectual" understanding of religion, aren't familiar with theology and philosophy, the often specious and not very intellectual arguments of atheists can be overwhelming. 

Of course, even a faith supported by knowledge can fail, not through the arguments of people, but through life lessons, or perhaps resentments.

In the end, it's about a "leap of faith". You're either comfortable making it or you're not. Or you made it, and then change your mind. :)

Or maybe it has to do with whether or not one genetically has a "spiritual" faculty. Trying to explain to someone who doesn't have it why it's important is like trying to explain to someone who can't smell why the scent of a rose is intoxicating (not modern tea bud roses, obviously).

East Asians like the Chinese, for example, who can be very smart, completely lack it. Jews, also very smart, can often be God-obsessed. It has nothing to do with IQ.

----------


## Ygorcs

> It's also a function of the intersection of two things: lack of knowledge of Christian theology, and indoctrination by modern media and particularly in modern secular universities.
> 
> A higher IQ means you're more likely to go to university. If you don't have an "intellectual" understanding of religion, aren't familiar with theology and philosophy, the often specious and not very intellectual arguments of atheists can be overwhelming. 
> 
> Of course, even a faith supported by knowledge can fail, not through the arguments of people, but through life lessons, or perhaps resentments.
> 
> In the end, it's about a "leap of faith". You're either comfortable making it or you're not. Or you made it, and then change your mind. :)
> 
> Or maybe it has to do with whether or not one genetically has a "spiritual" faculty. Trying to explain to someone who doesn't have it why it's important is like trying to explain to someone who can't smell why the scent of a rose is intoxicating (not modern tea bud roses, obviously).
> ...


Nice points, I hadn't thought about that, but I completely agree that also must be considered. It's not like people with high IQ are totally devoid of subjectivity and of social influences. There is definitely a correlation (at least in the modern era), but it's not as simple as some people want to think. Sometimes I just think there is a bit of wishful thinking and perhaps not too rational clannish mentality behind all these claims that can be summed up as "hey, we are more intelligent and rational because we have no religiosity, we're not like them, we're special". They just don't want to investigate the actual deep causes of the perceived correlation because it's so comfortable to believe that if you're very smart you'll then be totally non-religious (and hopefully, who knows, the reverse too, so that people who are atheist and non-spiritual may think they're oh so much smarter and more rational than those uncritical, sheep believers).

----------


## LeBrok

> Well, regardless of that, you basically confirmed my point and hypothesis laid out above: the true correlation may be between higher IQ and much lower propensity to simply accept uncritically and unthoughtfully the usual worldview, mainstream thinking and socially enforced beliefs of the society an individual belongs to. The correlation may be simply with less social conformism and therefore more individual reasoning. A more critical, free-minded, inquisitive and curious person may naturally tend to question traditional religious beliefs more often and even get rid of spirituality as a whole if and when the inconsistencies and uncertainties of religious systems are found. Thanks for proving my point, even if you clearly let your personal feelings and opinions get in the way a bit (non-spiritual people aren't immune to that, as you must know).


 I agree with this completely, what I noticed, from your previous post, was that you used this argument almost as a proof to validate religions or existence of God, or rather not being an argument against these.
But as a matter of fact it is, the same way as people with higher IQ are having a better logic, making fewer mistakes, understand sciences better, making better life choices, perform jobs better, make more money, understand economy and financial markets, understanding human psychology, etc. Therefore in general, with better functioning logic, they will figure out more precisely if religions make sense or if spiritual world exists, or is it just a phenomenon of human brain "making tricks" on us. Statistically speaking people with higher IQ have a better chance making right conclusions about everything in life, religion including.

----------


## Pilotnok

There must be a reasonable body of evidence for charts where the birth time was not known and for which the birth time was rectified - and then the true birth time came to light.Someone must have done a study of this....?

----------


## Questions

Religion is man made. It is bound up in man-made canon and memorization of philosophical sayings. Memorization isn't the mark of an intelligent person. It's good for teaching children who cannot think for themselves. Taken to its extreme, memorization kills. Having depended upon those who are standing upon the shoulders of other people, it ends the possibility of independent thought... which would, of itself, find the Creator. Putting away childish things leads to dependence upon those who consider themselves our teachers. Who among us deserves this rank?

----------


## Joanne

I.Q. tests only measure logical-mathematical and spatial - emotional intelligence is probably more important to success in living. Musicians and athletes have another kind of intelligence that is very valuable. Adolescents often go through a stage of questioning all the values they have been brought up with and many adolescents reject religion but come back to religious beliefs later in life.

----------


## Angela

> I.Q. tests only measure logical-mathematical and spatial - emotional intelligence is probably more important to success in living. Musicians and athletes have another kind of intelligence that is very valuable. Adolescents often go through a stage of questioning all the values they have been brought up with and many adolescents reject religion but come back to religious beliefs later in life.


It's also a question of environment and training: what is promoted in the schools and the wider culture. The more education you have, the more you will be exposed to professors who tell you it's nonsense. Certainly, movies and tv mostly promote that point of view. Unless the belief was strongly instilled in the home and/or religious schools, religious teachings won't survive the assault. 

I know a lot of brilliant, extremely accomplished, extremely devout Orthodox Jews, for example, including my mother's neurosurgeon, who became a close friend.

That's not to say that you can't still lose your faith, because you can. 

I also think there might be a genetic component involved in terms of a tendency toward "spirituality" for lack of a better word, versus just a "legalistic" or a "rationale" based one.

----------


## firetown

One component I can think of is natural curiosity and it differs people. There are people who have very little curiosity and seek quick answers that satisfy them immediately. Then there are natural doubters who cannot rest until things make sense. When you are in a state where you believe rather than question, certain parts of your brain are no longer being used.

----------


## real expert

I wonder whether atheists funded this study. :Grin:  Don't forget secular people or atheists can BE VERY RELIGIOUS and blinded by their "faith", too. Just take a look at social media, university/college campuses and the SJW cult there. Then you'll get what I mean. Besides, when looking at history it can be observed that many highly intelligent people, the leaders of all kinds of revolutions were fanatics. Therefore, there is no correlation between Fanaticism, Extremism and a low IQ. One can rather argue that the blind followers of extremists and fanatics have a low IQ while the leaders are the smart ones. In my opinion, people often conflate wisdom with high intelligence. You can have a high IQ without being smart, in fact be and act foolish. Never underestimate a weak character, the lack of spine, the lack of real virtues and values that undermine a high intellect. Anyway, we have to distinguish between formalism, and being religious in the sense of being very spiritual and connected with God, which means having a living faith.

----------


## Ozzie

I don't agree. Atheists do not have a religion, that is nothing that can equate to a faith or religion. Most people have some sort of religious beliefs even the dreaded, and dreadful SJW folk, it is just nominal or wishy-washy, it is still religious.

I can only speak for myself, every religious person I have known, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu... were assholes and stupid. All I care about is that they and I, live and let live. If they want to carry a statue around the town as they do in Malta, or put tea lights into tiny boats as they do in other places, let them. It won't improve their I.Q one bit but may stop them running Amok.

----------


## leperrine

Well it's quite simple. When you sacrifice your analytical mind to believe things you can't realize on your own it sets a dangerous precedent. This isn't just for those that are religious. This is rampant in the Scientific community too.

Realization > Revelation

----------

