Conquer Club

I recently read a blog by Dinesh D'Souza that discussed the arguement that athiests consider themselves more intelligent than theists, because in their opinion they don't rely upon the existence of an intangible. One of the best arguements Mr. D'Souza put forth was that whether you are a theist (one that believes in the divine and the spiritual) or an athiest (one that believes that the sum of existence is exactly what you can see, feel, hear, smell, and taste, and nothing more) or in my opinion even an agnostic (one that is open to the possibility that God exists, or may not) "that both positions were also rooted in metaphysical presumptions that required an element of faith.".

I think that people are going to believe what they believe as a combination of their life experiences, their family background, the friends in their social circles, and their what their own reason and intellect tells them is 'right'. I think that anyone (thiest or athiest) that would claim intelletual superiority because of their spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) is proving that they are intellectually inferior, because a superior intellect can understand the opposing positions even if he/she disagrees with them. You don't have to agree with a person to understand where they are coming from. I feel God in my life, so I believe, but I can also understand the point of view that God isn't real to a person, and I don't consider them 'inferior' in intellect because they can't feel the presence of God.

Personally, I've never had any conflict with scientific discovery and my faith. I believe that evolution, as presented in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, is a logical and resonable explaination for how life has developed and adapted on this world, and it doesn't (in my opinion) contradict a divine origin. I think that the more we learn about the world around us, the better we come to appreciate God's creations. Religion and science are not incompatible, unless someone fears that science will disprove their faith, and if science can disprove it, then it wasn't truth to begin with.

Because, the essence of both science and faith is a search for truth. When either discipline fails to seek the truth, that's when you see the worst.

I think it just depends on the person. There are plenty of stupid atheists and plenty of stupid theists. The stupid theists just tend to have more hot air to let out, partially because there's more of them then there are atheists (I'm not saying percentage wise, I'm saying cold hard actual numbers).

Hey, what are you trying to do?!!! You do realize that Backglass is going to see this eventually and launch himself into leprechaun mode. The only thing that calms him down is a pale ale injection.

Thanks a lot, Brian

Einstein believed in god.

Atheists > Theists > Bists.

My opinion.

brianm, I think your points are very well put. I posted earlier today in the Christian thread about a book I just finished reading that you would probably enjoy, based on your post. The book is called 'Finding Darwin's God', and it is by a molecular biology and biochemistry professor from Brown University, Kenneth Miller, who also happens to be a devout believer in God. In it, he argues very adroitly exactly what you have suggested.

I am a molecular biophysicist, and I have been a firm believer my whole life. I have personally felt the presence of God, and through my scientific study, issues of faith have constantly come into question. My scientific work has greatly enhanced and deepened my faith. See, what most theists and atheists fail to realize is that the latest and greatest scientific theories on the nature of existence include very strong mathematical and experimental evidence demonstrating that science can NEVER fully explain the workings of the universe. Through this change in the way we must scientifically view the nature of nature, we must conclude that science can say nothing ultimately about the existence or non-existence of God. Because science cannot determine the full workings of the universe, science can never disprove the existence of God. Thus, acceptance of God's existence or refusal of that existence are both necessarily equally dependent on faith.

These points are very, very elegantly argued in Kenneth Miller's book.

That being said, the argument over evolution vs. creationism is a very different argument than the argument over the existence or non-existence of God. This is not my opinion, it is a fact based on the scientific evidence. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that anyone can give to demonstrate the non-existence of God, but there is overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution. Again, this is all laid out in 'Finding Darwin's God' far better than I could describe it.

As a believer in God and a scientist, I myself find the indictments on both sides of the argument extremely upsetting because both sides are choosing to place faith in something. I have to say that, though I disagree with strict fundamentalist creationist ideas, I can understand their defensive posture against the scientific establishment, particularly given the obnoxious, insulting arrogance of evolutionists like Steven Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. They and their ilk are complete pricks in my opinion, and their attitude of intellectual superiority is merely a shield for their ignorance. If they truly understood the fullness of our current scientific knowledge and were the brilliant scientific minds that they claim to be, they would recognize that their derision of faith in God has no scientific basis whatsoever. Anyone who purports to believe in the power of science and at the same time argues that science is evidence against God needs to so a lot more studying of science because they are demonstrably wrong.

Interestingly, quantum mechanics has been described as a tiny window into the mind of God, and I think that's a neat way to look at it. It really is amazing to me that science has proven the existence of a physical mechanism through which God could be active in every bit of existence at every time without us ever being able to really know about it.

Colossus wrote:Interestingly, quantum mechanics has been described as a tiny window into the mind of God, and I think that's a neat way to look at it. It really is amazing to me that science has proven the existence of a physical mechanism through which God could be active in every bit of existence at every time without us ever being able to really know about it.

Colossus you have been missed! Where have you been? I may be a confirmed atheist but quantum physics had me asking the same questions...

A fool in Heaven is smarter than any genius on earth...

Something like that, I don't remember where I picked that up though.

thanks, heavycola. nice to know somebody notice that I'd gone!

Short answer: no.

I try to avoid D'Souza, though.

Yes quite much.

dustn64 wrote:Einstein believed in god.

Before I get into the actual post I'd like to point out that this is, in fact, a myth. He wasn't necessarily an athiest, but his idea of "god" was more along the lines of seeing nature and physics as heavenly. Sort of saying that our universe as it is has some holiness to it. He actually felt that organized religion and the idea of a personal god were childish. Naturally there's the story that he revoked his beliefs on his deathbed, but that's said of a solid majority of famous non-theists.

Man, now that I've said that the rest of my post seems small...anyways, as was mentioned earlier, whoever claims the intellectual high ground is usually a mental midget.

Frigidus wrote:

dustn64 wrote:Einstein believed in god.

Before I get into the actual post I'd like to point out that this is, in fact, a myth. He wasn't necessarily an athiest, but his idea of "god" was more along the lines of seeing nature and physics as heavenly. Sort of saying that our universe as it is has some holiness to it. He actually felt that organized religion and the idea of a personal god were childish. Naturally there's the story that he revoked his beliefs on his deathbed, but that's said of a solid majority of famous non-theists.

Man, now that I've said that the rest of my post seems small...anyways, as was mentioned earlier, whoever claims the intellectual high ground is usually a mental midget.

He was a Deist.

Frigidus wrote:

dustn64 wrote:Einstein believed in god.

Before I get into the actual post I'd like to point out that this is, in fact, a myth. He wasn't necessarily an athiest, but his idea of "god" was more along the lines of seeing nature and physics as heavenly. Sort of saying that our universe as it is has some holiness to it. He actually felt that organized religion and the idea of a personal god were childish. Naturally there's the story that he revoked his beliefs on his deathbed, but that's said of a solid majority of famous non-theists.

Man, now that I've said that the rest of my post seems small...anyways, as was mentioned earlier, whoever claims the intellectual high ground is usually a mental midget.

what you got against midgets

Grooveman2007 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

dustn64 wrote:Einstein believed in god.

Before I get into the actual post I'd like to point out that this is, in fact, a myth. He wasn't necessarily an athiest, but his idea of "god" was more along the lines of seeing nature and physics as heavenly. Sort of saying that our universe as it is has some holiness to it. He actually felt that organized religion and the idea of a personal god were childish. Naturally there's the story that he revoked his beliefs on his deathbed, but that's said of a solid majority of famous non-theists.

Man, now that I've said that the rest of my post seems small...anyways, as was mentioned earlier, whoever claims the intellectual high ground is usually a mental midget.

He was a Deist.

See, that would have been a simple answer. I take the scenic route.

i do agree with neo about the author being perhaps a bit of a crazy person...or to be more fair i suppose perhaps noticably biased, but he does make a fair argument.

For me i have always thought faith didnt really have much of an impact on intelligence either way. I think there are many many different kinds of intelligence and the author is probably refering to a more intellecutal intelligence, but thats certainly not the only kind. While yes, in recent history intellecutals have been more likely to not take up theist stances, it certainly hasnt always been that way, nor have great intellectual theists, had problems having a life of faith while being very intelligent, which suggests there isnt any negative corrleation.

Heres where i think the non-theists have lately maybe looked a little smarter (if perhaps not also more condescending and spiteful) than theist. Recent conservative christian belief, especially in America, has made people in order to explain or justify some of their beliefs, look sometimes not very bright or silly. I think this has less to do with a person being dumb, but rather is a consequence of an increasingly narrow system of beliefs which is easier to pick at with exceptions and counterarugments.

In short, are the fundies dumber than the athiests...no quite probably not. If they hold a more narrowly concieved version of their beliefs (im not going to say its wrong for them to do so) is it possible they will look less bright at times defending themselves...possibly.

Colossus wrote:brianm, I think your points are very well put. I posted earlier today in the Christian thread about a book I just finished reading that you would probably enjoy, based on your post. The book is called 'Finding Darwin's God', and it is by a molecular biology and biochemistry professor from Brown University, Kenneth Miller, who also happens to be a devout believer in God. In it, he argues very adroitly exactly what you have suggested.

I am a molecular biophysicist, and I have been a firm believer my whole life. I have personally felt the presence of God, and through my scientific study, issues of faith have constantly come into question. My scientific work has greatly enhanced and deepened my faith. See, what most theists and atheists fail to realize is that the latest and greatest scientific theories on the nature of existence include very strong mathematical and experimental evidence demonstrating that science can NEVER fully explain the workings of the universe. Through this change in the way we must scientifically view the nature of nature, we must conclude that science can say nothing ultimately about the existence or non-existence of God. Because science cannot determine the full workings of the universe, science can never disprove the existence of God. Thus, acceptance of God's existence or refusal of that existence are both necessarily equally dependent on faith.

These points are very, very elegantly argued in Kenneth Miller's book.

That being said, the argument over evolution vs. creationism is a very different argument than the argument over the existence or non-existence of God. This is not my opinion, it is a fact based on the scientific evidence. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that anyone can give to demonstrate the non-existence of God, but there is overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution. Again, this is all laid out in 'Finding Darwin's God' far better than I could describe it.

As a believer in God and a scientist, I myself find the indictments on both sides of the argument extremely upsetting because both sides are choosing to place faith in something. I have to say that, though I disagree with strict fundamentalist creationist ideas, I can understand their defensive posture against the scientific establishment, particularly given the obnoxious, insulting arrogance of evolutionists like Steven Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. They and their ilk are complete pricks in my opinion, and their attitude of intellectual superiority is merely a shield for their ignorance. If they truly understood the fullness of our current scientific knowledge and were the brilliant scientific minds that they claim to be, they would recognize that their derision of faith in God has no scientific basis whatsoever. Anyone who purports to believe in the power of science and at the same time argues that science is evidence against God needs to so a lot more studying of science because they are demonstrably wrong.

I have much more respect for Collins than I have for D'Souza, for damn sure. I tend to agree with the pricks, however. Not so much in that science can ever disprove a god, but in the philosophical reasonings against a god. I don't see any reason to even propose a god, science or not, though science has repeatedly taken the place of where gods would reign in the past. Gould was the NOMA guy, so I think that would make him less prickish than Dawkins. I wouldn't lump the two together.

Nice to meet you, by the way. Where do you do your work? Any notable publishings I can get ahold of?

Isn't Gould pretty much arrogant towards everyone? I recall a rather scathing essay arguing against adaptationism.

MeDeFe wrote:Wasn't Gould pretty much arrogant towards everyone? I recall a rather scathing essay arguing against adaptationism.

Not to nitpick or anything... but he's in hell now.

my current work is on the role of water in biological systems. not too much published of great note at the moment. just finishing up the 'ol Ph.D. in the next couple months at the University of Pennsylvania. Are you a scientist of some sort as well?

Grooveman is exactly right that Einstein was a deist, thus he believed that God set the Universe in motion and stepped back and let it all run. Quantum mechanics was the real dagger in the back of the deist viewpoint because it definitively ruled out a deterministic physics of the universe. Quantum mechanics left very definite room for God, and Einstein didn't like that, hence his famous quote 'God does not play dice.' People thought this was a statement of faith, but it was in fact a statement against quantum mechanics. Schroedinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics quipped in reply, 'Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?'

In response to tonka's assertions that 'in recent history intellectuals have been more likely to not take up theist stances'...that's not entirely true. The list of renowned chemists and physicists who have eventually developed some kind of faith through their study is long. Hawkings, Penrose, Heisenberg, and many others are known to have made regular references to God in their writings. The principle area of science where God has been rejected (and where it is a professional liability to openly be a person of faith) is biology. As Miller discusses in his book, this is largely because the majority of biologists never learn more physics than classical Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is the deterministic physics that formed the foundation of the deist, silent watchmaker view of God. Physicists and chemists learn that there is much more to physics than the deterministic Newtonian view, so they actually tend to be much more open-minded about the existence of a God, at least in my experience and readings.

While Gould did argue that science and religion really didn't speak to each other, but his arguments were universally scathing and sarcastic when referring to religion. If you read his writings on the subject, his attitude toward religion is clearly one of contempt. Dawkins has certainly been more direct in his condemnations of theism, but Gould was no less judgemental and derogatory...just more of a politician.

Not to mention that punctuated equilibrium for which Gould earned his fame was a trumped up BS 'revolution' of evolutionary theory. Gould was a master of manipulating public opinion toward his own benefit and fame.

my apologies...i meant more likely to than perhaps in the period prior to it, basically harkening back to a notion that since the scientific revolution occured, its more possibly at least socially for an intellectual to be non-theistic.

ah, right on. as evidence by the fact that atheists are not publicly persecuted as they were in the past

Colossus wrote:my current work is on the role of water in biological systems. not too much published of great note at the moment. just finishing up the 'ol Ph.D. in the next couple months at the University of Pennsylvania. Are you a scientist of some sort as well?

Grooveman is exactly right that Einstein was a deist, thus he believed that God set the Universe in motion and stepped back and let it all run. Quantum mechanics was the real dagger in the back of the deist viewpoint because it definitively ruled out a deterministic physics of the universe. Quantum mechanics left very definite room for God, and Einstein didn't like that, hence his famous quote 'God does not play dice.' People thought this was a statement of faith, but it was in fact a statement against quantum mechanics. Schroedinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics quipped in reply, 'Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?'

In response to tonka's assertions that 'in recent history intellectuals have been more likely to not take up theist stances'...that's not entirely true. The list of renowned chemists and physicists who have eventually developed some kind of faith through their study is long. Hawkings, Penrose, Heisenberg, and many others are known to have made regular references to God in their writings. The principle area of science where God has been rejected (and where it is a professional liability to openly be a person of faith) is biology. As Miller discusses in his book, this is largely because the majority of biologists never learn more physics than classical Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is the deterministic physics that formed the foundation of the deist, silent watchmaker view of God. Physicists and chemists learn that there is much more to physics than the deterministic Newtonian view, so they actually tend to be much more open-minded about the existence of a God, at least in my experience and readings.

While Gould did argue that science and religion really didn't speak to each other, but his arguments were universally scathing and sarcastic when referring to religion. If you read his writings on the subject, his attitude toward religion is clearly one of contempt. Dawkins has certainly been more direct in his condemnations of theism, but Gould was no less judgemental and derogatory...just more of a politician.

Not to mention that punctuated equilibrium for which Gould earned his fame was a trumped up BS 'revolution' of evolutionary theory. Gould was a master of manipulating public opinion toward his own benefit and fame.

I'm a scientist in the respect that I have done science, but I'm not quite accredited yet. I'm working on it. I'm finishing up my BS this semester; almost finished with my senior research. I'm expecting to hit up either microbiology or molecular biology as a graduate, or some field in between.

I'm not as well-versed in quantum physics as I'd like to be, but I just can't bring myself to agree with the idea that a probabilistic view of physics really leaves any more room for a deity. I'll be the first to admit that I'm definitely in no place to disagree with the giants of Hawking or Einstein as far as the possibilities of the universe, but I can't see a purpose for any god philisophically, so I'm on the atheist side of the scientifically agnostic spectrum. Perhaps that's still a reflection of my closed-minded determinism.

:]

Neoteny wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Wasn't Gould pretty much arrogant towards everyone? I recall a rather scathing essay arguing against adaptationism.

Not to nitpick or anything... but he's in hell now.

Oh well, but his essays remain.