I'm deliberately not picking on you, but I see this common sentiment of hubris among the vocally atheist crowd who shroud themselves with science to launch claims that a person has to be stupid or ignorant to believe in religion. I get the feeling these statements arise from the frustration of religious political groups stifling our education system and getting involved in our government's politics. While I agree that science can benefit society, I'm not willing to see that as some greater good...or an ends that has a submissive blank check on the means. In my opinion, the most notable viewpoint of arrogance is that scientific progress is synonymous with humanity's progress. Science is only a tool. Like religion, it's potential for good or bad depends on the minds who use it. While religion is on the forefront of negatively questioning scientific practices, sometimes for self-motivated reasons, there should be constant self questioning on whether some discoveries should be made...whether in the form of morality or ethics. We should always question whether we as a civilization are ready to accept a discovery's social consequences. Why should we research into growing incurable diseases which can conveniently weaponize if the need arises? What progress have we as a whole undergone when a billion plus people are still considered below the poverty line, starving and lack a constant supply of fresh water? It's already possible. We don't need a Star Trek utopia to achieve it. The technology already exists. While the good number of charities and hospitals/clinics focused on the poor come from religious groups, those efforts are selectively forgotten or dismissed from vocal atheists because it's a matter that doesn't hamper scientific progress. Where does science tell us to do with that? By definition, it can't. Yet some people are so willing to replace science with religion and consider themselves intelligent when they don't have the sense to see that the two aren't mutually exclusive. A scientist who dives deep into a microscope doesn't automatically have a greater sense of the human world from that stand alone experience. As for stagnant thought in religion, if you look deeper, religion's roots has traditions of thinking and introspection. Many Biblical parables were meant to bend the mind and shatter preconceived notions that existed at that time. It's just that it became so popular and enduring to the point that Western culture is deeply influenced by it's thinking and those parables has stopped to be thought provoking on the surface. After 2000+ years, you expect the social context to be lost. I can call myself a spiritual scientist, and it means nothing but a self inflated title. The ability to have the common sense to understand the physical world and the social world doesn't come from joining camps. It's a red herring to think that science can completely model, understand or perfect the human world. While factions on both sides think religion can serve to dampen that unpredictability by controlling it, I like to think that it's still a tool for an individual to question and try to understand more. It's like the hemispheres in your brain. You can neglect one half because you prefer the skillsets of the others, but it won't feel complete unless you strive to build up both.
lol he's obviously not speaking about intelligence as it relates to the thread topic (religious belief). Saying when it pertains to living a happy life, intelligent people dont always have it figured out for themselves, even though they always speak on how things "should be". If I can speak again for him I think he's saying people it'd help to concentrate more on maintaing good relationships with people, and "intelligence" can make that simple fact more complex than it should. Which I'm seeing is valid more and more...
Back on point, I do think intelligent" people are less likely to believe in God. Thats because they're more likely to question and deconstruct things. That doesnt mean conversely only dumb people believe in God. Sometimes it depends on the person's background, if events in life led them to question their religious faith, if they're secure in themselves, etc... I don't believe in any higher being. But it would be very convenient for myself if I did. And why not, anything to make our experience in this miserable, lonely existence liveable. Outright fear, realizations of an unfair world and the limatations and vulnerability of man is tough for people to accept...We dumb ourselves down because there's a level of bliss in ignorance and obliviousness to "truth".
Yeah - I know myself and I think abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong. Besides, abortion is not just about the moment of conception. Very early on there are crazy things going on with the little guys.
I'd like to see data on divorce rates for Christians versus non-Christians. I have a funny feeling that they are pretty similar. To insinuate that non-Christians can't live lives "full of joy" is insulting. Since I feel I know you as a poster, I'm sure that wasn't the intent. It still got under my skin because there are plenty of non-Christians that are happy, have morals, raise good kids, and live good fulfilling lives. I never became happy with myself until I stopped believing in God. I don't attribute that soley to my happiness because I also changed the way I live as well. Good things started to begat good things. Not feeling guilty for everything I did didn't hurt though.
People are people So why should it be You and I should get along so awfully People are people So why should it be You and I should get along so awfully So were different colours And were different creeds And different people Have different needs Its obvious you hate me Though Ive done nothing wrong Ive never even met you So what could I have done I cant understand What makes a man Hate another man Help me understand People are people So why should it be You and I should get along so awfully People are people So why should it be You and I should get along so awfully Help me understand Help me understand Now youre punching And youre kicking And youre shouting at me And Im relying on your common decency So far it hasnt surfaced But Im sure it exists It just takes a while to travel From your head to your fist (head to your fists) I cant understand what makes a man Hate another man Help me understand People are people So why should it be You and I should get along so awfully People are people So why should it be You and I should get along so awfully I cant understand What makes a man Hate another man Help me understand I cant understand What makes a man Hate another man Help me understand I cant understand What makes a man Hate another man I cant understand (people are people) What makes a man (why should it be) Hate another man Help me understand...
300 years ago . . .the same science told us that black folx didn't feel pain like other people do .. . Science is organic and ever changing. . . . Those things you have listed could be prove false or shown that they exist in a different form . . . . at which point. .. would your opinion change? [is you morality so . . uhm. . . situational and mutable] ALSO Science is moralless Morals are not necessarily logical . . . is what I am talking about Utilitarianism . .which is sort of the Vulcan thing . The needs to the many out weigh the needs of the few it is very logical. . . but imo very immoral A Science teacher was talking about it once He mentioned a genetic disease that was somewhat rare he said basically . . . the logical thing to do would be to take all those that have it . . . isolate them from the rest of society [or sterilized] and Then those that possess the genes for it should not be allow to have kids together . . he said at that point .. .the disease would be wiped out of the human race in a generation or two While logical . . .to eliminate a disease however . . .that is immoral to treat people in such a way Back to the topic I think HUBRIS is the word for this study Rocket River
What you are talking about isn't science. There are things such as theory and laws. Laws have been proven and can be established as fact. Theories aren't proven. With religion anyone can make stuff up without proving squat. Things such as original sin doesn't even make sense if you think about it. I mean if god is all powerful and omnipotent why would he create an elaborate scheme to test people.Doesn't he have something better to do? Of course I am not christian it just seems it doesn't make sense. I think religion is good as it forces people to behave in a productive way, but some of it seems convoluted.
Yeah, the thing about eugenics is that it isn't grounded in the principles of evolution. Eliminating arbitrary "defects or imperfections" reduces genetic diversity. If the first cases of sickle cell were ritualistically destroyed, the effect of malaria in certain populations would be more devastating. In agriculture, scientists and farmers worry about the lack of diversty from their modified crops. They worry about superbugs stretching across the earth unopposed. Because we can't predict the future, it's foolish to assume which handful of quanities and traits are the best in order to discard the rest.. In the case of casually and culturally accepting abortions, the ethical questions are similar. Do the parents have the right to choose their preborn children's physical traits ala carte? Is the quality of human life diminished because of the impression that undesirables can be eliminated even before they take a single breath? It's difficult to relegate embryos as a clump of cells when we can even distinguish and formulate life, intelligent life, and conscious life. Quite frustrating when people use scientific data to legitimize the clump of cells argument because there should be questioning and introspection involved in such a problem. By taking incomplete data for granted, they are using it to legitimize what they already feel, not what they've discovered on their own.
The point is. . . Evolution is the scientific FLAVOR of the day Discoveries and other things could come along an BLOW IT OUT THE WATER til people will look at Evolution the way we look at eugenics Science cannot Define when life starts What you are talking about is Self-Sustaining life? What is the definition of Life? Science has one definition . . Religion another. . . and their are even more out there . . .. Ask a hundred people what is LIFE . .and you will get a whole host of answers You just seem to think Science's answer is the 'better' answer you have a 'zeal' to cling to your particular 'beleive' [faith] could be viewed as irrational as a religious one If a religious person put out their beliefs in why conception starts at birth you would scoff and dismissing it as mumbo jumbo They would think you a simple heretic However .. . if i say you 'lump of cells' argument is crap you would site your bible . .er . . scientific books. . .and probably come to the conclusion that I am an imbicile Where is the middle ground? Rocket River I am a religious/spiritual person I beleive in God . . without question. My ideal and definition of God is not the common one I say that to say this Evolution . .Science .. .etc . . . do NOTHING to disprove the existance of God If a guy is the 1st guy to make an electric light bulb it is fascinating . .It is an incredible accomplishment now we all know how it was done and could do it ourselves . . .IS IT ANY LESS INCREDIBLE?? ANY LESS FASCINATING that he did it? Knowing the mechanisms of God . .. does not diminish nor disprove God
technically, if a scientific hypothesis is labeled as a theory, it's generally accepted to be the closest explanation to what modern scientific understanding is. for example, the theory of gravity. theory of general and special relativity. quantum theory. so you would be incorrect on that count. and science does not deal with proofs, mathematics deals with proofs. science seeks to find a model that explains the observed behavior of the universe as closely as possible. in that sense it is never "proven" because science's inductive logic is foiled by the heisenberg uncertainty principle and because we have a limited set of data to produce these inductions from.
People without Religion are lost. Science is not made to contradict religion and religion is not made to contradict science. Without religion there is no hope. When there is no hope their is no reason to live. I believe there must be a supreme being.
A fantastic post, I really enjoyed reading this professor's vita and his personal beliefs. Thanks for posting.
That is absolutely silly and insulting. No hope? No hope for what? Do you even have any idea what you are talking about? There are tons of people that don't believe in any God that are perfectly happy.
Put rimbaud's response and Batman's response together and you have a very good take. As rimmy put it, if by intelligent people, we mean those with higher degrees in modern academia (who are more likely to have higher IQ's), then you are probably talking about someone who has studied 80% or more enlightenment and post modern thought, of which there are more atheists and agnostics to be studied. That's just the type of education that's out there, and provides a good explanation as to why there would be more agnostics and atheists upon those with higher intelligences. But as Batman put it, the question itself has nothing to do with intelligence. Out of the smartest people I've ever met, some are atheists and others are in monasteries. I think we should all remind ourselves of Socrates, who knew that he didn't know anything at all, and as human we are devoid of the answers and must always be seeking.
First of all, I would say that I think the observations are correct. More people of above average intelligence reject the idea of God than people of average or below average intelligence. But I do think I'm a little smarter than average, and I believe in a Creator who manifest Himself in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and who lives in me today. Friday, I and a friend (who rejects the idea of an involved Creator) were talking to a girl that we met. She showed us an aerial photograph of a family member's house (who she described as a "prayer warrior"). There was a line of destruction from a tornado that approached the house, split in two, missed the house, and recombined on the other side. It was in a rural area in East Texas, and there were plenty of fallen trees to mark the path of the tornado. I personally refuse to believe that is coincidence. I have other experiences that lead me to believe in an active God, that I choose to believe is the God of the Bible. I understand those that refuse to believe in illogical concepts, but I don't mind saying that human logic is incapable of understanding everything.
