Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
Posted by AnEnglishMaster
on Wed 1 Sep 10, 3:29 PM to the Informed_Debate group.
Intelligence, faith, and atheism
1. Atheists and Believers can both be intelligent.
One of the most frustrating things about “some” atheists is the vitriol they use in opposition to faith. There is no justification for this. I see people saying that Christians must be “stupid” (and much worse). They use ridiculous language (“tooth fairy”, “imaginary friend” etc) as if merely being offensive is a reasonable substitute for rational argument.
Certainly on here (despite assertions to the contrary), I observe far more bile expressed by non-believers against believers than vice-versa. Dawkins and others are just as guilty. He deliberately uses weighted language in talking about people of faith – very far from the “dispassionate” scientific approach he claims to champion. He and his ilk apparently believe that denigration of faith and those who follow it is enough to establish their point. Where then the reasoned, clinical, structured, systematic logic he exalts?
The thing is – it just won't wash. Certainly, throughout history and in the present day, there are men and women of extraordinary intelligence who are atheists. There are also towers of intellect who are believers. It can NEVER be justifiable to dismiss faith as “stupid” – any more than it would be for me to label atheists moronic. However bright the people on this forum, there are countless numbers who are much more accomplished scholars, and who fall into either camp.
So, feel free to try to make a reasoned case against faith. Go ahead with assembling your debating points and your challenges. Ask the difficult questions. Point out the troubling issues. But please, please, please – don't just deride faith. Calling names is not a good alternative to building a reasoned position.
2. It is an intelligent position to consider that God exists
If God exists, then, by definition, He has to be supreme.
That is, no other being can be greater than He is – in any regard – or they would “out-god” Him, making Him a lesser being. God cannot be inferior to another in any area – if He were, He would not be God in the first place.
This must cover any and every aspect of God's attributes. God must be more powerful than all beings. He cannot be “absent” in any place where another is – or they would extend farther than He does. No other being can know more than He knows.
It follows that God must be more intelligent than any other being. He must therefore be the MOST intelligent Being in the Universe (again, if He exists). So, if God exists, He is more intelligent than any other entity. Now, God, being God (if He exists) recognises His own existence, and acknowledges it. He knows Himself.
If God is the most intelligent Being that could exist, any position He adopts must, again by definition, be the most intelligent position it is possible to adopt.
It therefore follows that the most intelligent position that can be held about the existence of God is that He DOES exist.
As a consequence, the contention that God exists is a more intelligent position than that which states that God does not exist.
English
| 1 Sep 10, 4:50 PM Phrixus UK(ST), 4 yrs |
One thing that has amused me with atheism and faith alike is the difficulty people have accepting uncertainty and what they do not and arguable can not possibly know. Conjecture about what lies beyond our lives reminds me of myself when I was a child, deciding that time cannot possibly be anything other than straight forward (something proven incorrect by Einstein many years earlier) and that there's no way you can send a secret to someone when all you have is communication channel anyone can hear (proved incorrect by asymmetric cryptography and the lockbox solution). It's easy to take a simple understanding of something you observe and draw the wrong conclusion. Without full possession or understanding of the facts, what chance does anyone have of being right? I think we all agree that our conscious awareness of the world around us is something that no one has ever made real sense of (certainly not that I've ever heard about), in a scientific context. It's only natural to wonder. I think we have a hard time accepting that we simply don't know. This signature has been left blank intentionally. | |
| 1 Sep 10, 5:56 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs  |
Nah there's no intelligent reason for belief in God, because by definition it is impossible to find God via intelligent reasoning, for the same reason it is impossible to prove God exists. Faith is just something some people can get, and other people just live without. The reverse however is true of atheism. Intelligent scientific or philosophical inquiry can easily lead to atheism, because of the vast number of holes that can be discovered in theism without any real difficulty. It is easy to work out that there is no God in scientific terms, the lack of evidence of his existence and the lack of any evidence of his actions covers that. It's one thing for a supreme being not to be detectable, but when you realise that there's nothing in the universe without a scientific explanation, even if that explanation has yet to be found, then it's easy to write off Gods entirely. Philosophically it's easy too, because you've got the fact that thousands of gods have been created over the years, and each one based on exactly the same amount as evidence as the Christian god. If it is okay to write off Mithras, Baal, Osiris, Odin and all the rest of those also rans then there is no reason not to write of God as well. You've also got the small fact that the Christian God, as presented in the bible, is a spectacularly evil figure. Literally a monster. His narcissism, his demands, and the cruelty he inflicts, and threatens to inflict on those who anger him, are the stuff of Hellraiser movies. The idea of worshipping a being responsible for the flood, for the creation of hell and for all manner of other monstrous acts is, frankly, sickening. If the bible were true then worshipping God would be akin to worshipping Stalin or Mao or some other murderous lunatic. Shit, if God were real we'd have to find a way to kill him to ensure our own survival. So yeah, you can have faith and be intelligent, but the thing with faith is that it's best not to question it because it won't hold up under intelligent scrutiny. And nor should it, the whole point of faith is that it exists without evidence. Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: Why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: Why not marry safe science if you love it so much. | |
| 1 Sep 10, 6:02 PM camdencouple UK(NW), 6 yrs |
As an atheist the problem I have with god/religion is that; We live in a world in which science had done a pretty good job of providing a model that explains almost every aspect of our universe without the need for magic. I accept that given the definition of god I cannot prove he does not exist but equally I see no evidence to suggest he does exist. When I look at the religions of the world I see structures that have been created by man whose purpose is to provide social cohesion and control. The god of the Old Testament is a fairly unpleasant character, it could be argued that as society has advanced so has our understanding of god. An alternative view(mine), however, is that we have just modified god to suit our changing needs. To me it looks like man had created god in his own image and religion as a tool to serve society. There has been a lot of work done which suggests that humans have an innate desire to assign purpose to natural events that take place around them. This coupled with a real need to feel that there is more to life than pain, suffering, and death makes the need to have a god a very powerful one. But just because we need something to give reason to our life it does not make it true. I am not against religion, everyone needs a system of beliefs that gives meaning and focus to their lives, it is just a shame it also needs to carry the burden of a god that seems to take no interest in the affairs of the world it created. That would be a fair summary of why I am an atheist. balzac
Edited 1 Sep 10, 6:03 PM by camdencouple | |
| 1 Sep 10, 6:05 PM PapaSmurf UK(CF), 19 mths |
Logical fallacy. I see no direct assertion by God that he exists, therefore by your own argument "the most intelligent position it is possible to adopt" must actually be a refusal to assert that God exists. _______________ | |
| 1 Sep 10, 6:14 PM othyim NL, 2 yrs |
The Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscene, Vol 5 – 2010 describes an experiment in which 20 members of a strict Christian community and 20 atheists were observed with a brain scan device, whilst they were listening to prayers. They were told that 6 of the prayers were read by someone not Christian, 6 by a Christian, and 6 by a nationally known faith healer. In the brain of the believers, something significant happened, that was NOT seen in the other recipients, when they were under the influence of the faith healer. The parts of their prefrontal and antherior cingulate cortex (or something), that are responsible for alertness and scepticism, or in other words common sense, simply went into an non-active state. Brainfreeze. Thus, one of the conclusions of this experiment was, that some people are more likely to react to the influence of charismatic figures, for their reactions are influenced by a lacking protection mechanism in the brain. In stead, they simply believe. They trust in something that cant be proven. They have faith (not necessarily in the religious sense). Likewise, the abilaty to believe, to have faith, in anything, is very much depending on the working of some parts of the cortex, as mentioned above. In short, some poeple are born to believe. Power is about what you can control. Freedom is about what you can unleash. (Harriet Rubin) Edited 1 Sep 10, 6:19 PM by othyim | |
| 1 Sep 10, 6:17 PM MaxFaust NO, 19 mths |
I think of religious faith as a perversion which ought to be subject to the code of perversions: If practised between consenting adults in their own private time and not proselytised towards those who want no part of it, it's fine by me. Go for it. Whatever gets you through the night. As for how intelligent it is, however, allow me to put it this way: Belief in excess of what's necessary is not only stupid, it's dangerous. It's certainly possible that there is a God, but if so he's both incompetent and callous. Or maybe he just doesn't give a damn. Either way, it seems more "intelligent" to check the ice in mechanical ways before you attempt to cross a frozen pond during winter (and even call it off if you're not sure) than pray for the ice to hold and then brazenly stride forward. By extension, this principle works in all situations that call for "faith". Edited 1 Sep 10, 6:23 PM by MaxFaust | |
| 1 Sep 10, 6:17 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
At a rate of one every minute, so they say. Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: Why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: Why not marry safe science if you love it so much. | |
| 1 Sep 10, 7:07 PM overlap UK(CF), 7 yrs |
So Jesus isn't as intelligent as god? So it's no to swine flesh and I need a foreskin removal, whether it's the Holy Quran that's right or the Torah? This is worrying for me, as I've been taking Glenn Beck very seriously, and you're saying that he's wrong? Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. | |
| 1 Sep 10, 7:43 PM Sissy_girl UK(M), 3 yrs    |
If God exists ????? . Pure speculation . End of story Politeness privacy & discretion are my middle names | |
| 1 Sep 10, 9:05 PM Aumentou UK(S), 2 yrs |
1) is kind of fair. Except there's no need to get personal about other people getting personal. Especially when you're the acting agent (here) of a faith that has murdered people for their beliefs before now. But the logic bit is fair. 2) contains a logical flaw:
The second paragraph here is made under the same assumptions as the first pragraph, and hence is only true under those same assumptions. Therefore it only follows from the first under the assumption god exists. If god doesn't exist, then the whole argument falls apart, because god is not the most intelligent being in the universe. So the conclusion is that if god exists then it's clever to believe god exists, and if god doesn't exist then it's not. Next? ETA: it's also fair to say we can't disprove the existence of an omnipotent being. After all, if an omnipotent being was hiding, how would you know? God could be the ultimate ninja. What we can do is demonstrate logical inconsistancies in a specific faith and its orthodoxy, if indeed such inconsistancies exist. Fascinating Aida. Look them up (NSFW). Thank me later. Edited 1 Sep 10, 9:09 PM by Aumentou |
