Are athiests more intelligent than theists?

[Neoteny]

i would wonder in some ways if we arent bound by some perhaps misguided impressions that a God has to be infinite or be able to explain everything admist other perfect qualities. Since we tend to come from a culture that views any legitamate notion of divinity that way, i think it clouds our expectations of what a deity, should one exist, have capabilities of.

Tonka, how do you manage to convey in one post what I've been intending to convey in nearly every post since I came into the thread. What the hell? Piss off!

You seem perfectly willing to just accept the non-determinism and probability that is inherent in quantum mechanics, Neo. While I respect such acceptance (good for you), science is about finding models to explain data and testing those models with more data. If science is God, then it should be able to offer an explanation for everything, right? How do you reconcile the idea that your god (science) seems to have shown that it is incapable of ever explaining everything?

I'm not saying science is god; this is why I hate using god as a descriptor in any sense (I was referencing our past discussion in that post). I know science won't explain everything, but neither will your god. What's your point?

By the way, I'm beginning to see a circumference in the tracks of both of our arguments...

:]

[Colossus]

Yeah, I think we agree on the points that I've been trying to make, but we still don't agree on the logical conclusion...and we probably won't.

The part about the points you've been making Neo that I don't get is how, as a scientist, you are cool with the answer 'We'll never understand it all' without having some inkling of what it might be that we don't understand. It seems a surprising stance for a scientist. Every scientist I know is driven by what we don't know, so I don't follow how you can accept that we won't know it all in scientific terms without having any suggestions, ideas, concern as to why we won't know it all.

[suggs]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH.
Sorry. But this thread is garbage. Some theists are bright, some dumb and the same goes for atheists.
There is NOTHING more to be said on this, so could everyone shut up

[Colossus]

I guess if we really want to be acceptable to the CC forum masters, we need to work on pithy one-liners, Neo. After all, what good is honest intellectual discourse when you can shoot absolutist viewpoints with no explanation or justification at each other all day. What have we been thinking?

[suggs]

I guess if we really want to be acceptable to the CC forum masters, we need to work on pithy one-liners, Neo. After all, what good is honest intellectual discourse when you can shoot absolutist viewpoints with no explanation or justification at each other all day. What have we been thinking?

Lets clear that one up -you havent been thinking.

[Snorri1234]

I guess if we really want to be acceptable to the CC forum masters, we need to work on pithy one-liners, Neo. After all, what good is honest intellectual discourse when you can shoot absolutist viewpoints with no explanation or justification at each other all day. What have we been thinking?

Finally you understand.

[Neoteny]

Yeah, I think we agree on the points that I've been trying to make, but we still don't agree on the logical conclusion...and we probably won't.

The part about the points you've been making Neo that I don't get is how, as a scientist, you are cool with the answer 'We'll never understand it all' without having some inkling of what it might be that we don't understand. It seems a surprising stance for a scientist. Every scientist I know is driven by what we don't know, so I don't follow how you can accept that we won't know it all in scientific terms without having any suggestions, ideas, concern as to why we won't know it all.

Well, I have an inkling: there is no god. That's my absolutist claim for Suggs. I also suspect that were we given enough time (infinity and whatnot), we might know it all (alas, we have all the things Neutrino enjoys discussing hovering over our head, among other, more pressing things). I suppose the difference is how we perceive the role of science, perhaps? I have respect for what we don't know (not saying you don't) in that I try not to project anything there beyond the very basic hypotheses. I find it somewhat contradictory to define what we don't understand, especially to the point of labeling it "god". Of course I revel in our lack of knowledge, because if it wasn't there, what the hell would I do with my life? And there is nothing like the thrill of unmasking something that has never been understood by anyone in the world, even if it is something as humble as the function of an obscure gene. If there is one emotion that I would associate with my love of the hard sciences, it's that one. That moment where you are alone with understanding. I suppose that comes close to the theist accusation that scientists try to play god. But it's not as superficial as that. It's far to deep.

/end autoerotic babbling

I'm not really sure I answered the question. If not, rephrase it and I'll try again.

[Colossus]

It's funny, Neo. Some of my most profound experiences have come in the moments you describe. For me, they are moments of wonder and awe at God's creation. For you, I suppose they are moments of...what? I agree that I've never experienced anything more exhilarating than the eureka! moments. They are what drive the scientist in me, for sure. Do you view such moments as times of personal triumph alone? They certainly are moments of personal triumph, but for me they are also moments when a little bit more of the awesomeness of what God has made are revealed. There is a definite spiritual quality to them for me. Though my eureka moments are, perhaps, a little different than yours because of our respective scientific disciplines. How would you describe the feeling of that eureka moment? What goes through your head? I'm just curious...feel free to just tell me to mind my own damn business.

(I'm sure that last part will incite funny little tidbits from suggs and his buddies.)

[Dancing Mustard]

(I'm sure that last part will incite funny little tidbits from suggs and his buddies.)

You called?

[unriggable]

It's funny, Neo. Some of my most profound experiences have come in the moments you describe. For me, they are moments of wonder and awe at God's creation. For you, I suppose they are moments of...what? I agree that I've never experienced anything more exhilarating than the eureka! moments. They are what drive the scientist in me, for sure. Do you view such moments as times of personal triumph alone? They certainly are moments of personal triumph, but for me they are also moments when a little bit more of the awesomeness of what God has made are revealed. There is a definite spiritual quality to them for me. Though my eureka moments are, perhaps, a little different than yours because of our respective scientific disciplines. How would you describe the feeling of that eureka moment? What goes through your head? I'm just curious...feel free to just tell me to mind my own damn business.

(I'm sure that last part will incite funny little tidbits from suggs and his buddies.)

Yep, I know what you mean. We can see a squid for example chasing a fish and me and you, we'd each think two different things. I don't know what goes on in your head, but I imagine in mine is that this squid is doing what his parents and parent's parents have done for thousands, millions of years, and yet here is the squid, not giving a shit about his lineage, only there to get some food. I find it sad but incredibly great at the same time. Here we have an animal that never met its parents and will never meet its offspring, but continues the cycle of life by natural instinct.

[Colossus]

It really is amazing. I mean the fact that life started as some little molecules that had a natural tendency to copy themselves and worked its way up to us who can actually conceptualize and debate the moral and theological implications of that little self-replicating molecule is pretty awe-inspiring.

[Neoteny]

It's funny, Neo. Some of my most profound experiences have come in the moments you describe. For me, they are moments of wonder and awe at God's creation. For you, I suppose they are moments of...what? I agree that I've never experienced anything more exhilarating than the eureka! moments. They are what drive the scientist in me, for sure. Do you view such moments as times of personal triumph alone? They certainly are moments of personal triumph, but for me they are also moments when a little bit more of the awesomeness of what God has made are revealed. There is a definite spiritual quality to them for me. Though my eureka moments are, perhaps, a little different than yours because of our respective scientific disciplines. How would you describe the feeling of that eureka moment? What goes through your head? I'm just curious...feel free to just tell me to mind my own damn business.

(I'm sure that last part will incite funny little tidbits from suggs and his buddies.)

Wonder and awe at the universe for what it is, of course. It's the closest I get to spirituality, other than interaction with the people closest to me. I do see it as a personal triumph (standing on the shoulders of giants, of course). Plus the additional factor of contributing these tidbits to antiquity; there really is no limit to the ramifications of a published article. I can't wait until I finally get one published for that reason.

Something I meant to add to my earlier post: you mentioned that you thought my stance was surprising as a scientist. I say the exact same thing about yours. I just can't comprehend it. It makes me wonder if there is a genetic disposition/environmental determinant for these kinds of things. The whole bicameral mind thing, perhaps. Who knows. I doubt that it's something as simple as how we were raised. But the seemingly total brick wall that I hit seems to occur in the... believer's... (I really dislike that word for some reason) mind as well.

[AlgyTaylor]

Raining fire and global floods, etc. are very probably historical exaggeration brought about by the wonders of oral tradition. If God really rained fire before....why did he stop? Or maybe he didn't stop, and he still rains fire when a volcano erupts and destroys a city (pompeii)? This type of argument is getting into debates over literal reading of the bible...and we sure as hell don't want to open up THAT can.

OK, that's a fair statement. But then which bits of the bible are literal and which not? How do you decide? Is God 'literal' or is he just a pseudonym for the laws of physics (a la Einsteinian way of thinking)?

As before, I'm pretty sure that you could prove the existence of God if he did exist. There's no such evidence outwith of the Bible (in my opinion anyway, I'm sure you'll disagree on that one ). So it's not a total denial of existence, but for any other hypothesis I'd be very sceptical if there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest it to be true.

Which is really why I'm very sceptical about the existence of God. I mean, he could exist but I very much doubt it on the same grounds that I very much doubt the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Although I find the existence of the Loch Ness Monster slightly more believable as there's some evidence to suggest that such a beast has existed at some point in the long & distant past.

[AlgyTaylor]

It really is amazing. I mean the fact that life started as some little molecules that had a natural tendency to copy themselves and worked its way up to us who can actually conceptualize and debate the moral and theological implications of that little self-replicating molecule is pretty awe-inspiring.

Agree totally, it's bloody incredible

[Colossus]

Damn, Neo, I was thinking the exact same thing. I do wonder if there will be discovered a biological predisposition to belief or against it, a faith gene, if you will. I think I mentioned this book already, but if you're really interested in the biology of belief subject, pick up 'Why God Won't Go Away' by Andrew Newburg. Fantastic book, and it lays out a foundation for the potential discovery of such a biological predisposition.

Algy, if you need scientific evidence for a belief in God, then I'm afraid you will never believe. The only evidence that I think can really inspire believe is experience. I've had such experiences, so I believe. I know there are an awful lot of people who have never had such experiences, so I'm not the least bit surprised that they find it hard or impossible to believe. As for which parts of the Bible to read literally vs. figuratively, I think that's a matter of common sense (again, I'm really hesitant to start this discussion). I think a lot of the logistical descriptions in the bible are historically accurate (the Jews exodus from Egypt, for example), but the vast majority of the wisdom in the Bible is conveyed symbolically and figuratively through metaphor.

[Dancing Mustard]

It really is amazing. I mean the fact that life started as some little molecules that had a natural tendency to copy themselves and worked its way up to us who can actually conceptualize and debate the moral and theological implications of that little self-replicating molecule is pretty awe-inspiring.

I agree.

[LYR]

It really is amazing. I mean the fact that life started as some little molecules that had a natural tendency to copy themselves and worked its way up to us who can actually conceptualize and debate the moral and theological implications of that little self-replicating molecule is pretty awe-inspiring.

I agree.

Haha nice bump, but this thread is dead and lost. It was good while it lasted though.

[Skittles!]

Watch out DM, you'll get a warning for necro-bumping.

[jonka]

look at this site http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm.

[Dancing Mustard]

Watch out DM, you'll get a warning for necro-bumping.

Oh... do we have an unwritten rule about that now too?


I wonder why it never got applied before?

[Skittles!]

Watch out DM, you'll get a warning for necro-bumping.

Oh... do we have an unwritten rule about that now too?


I wonder why it never got applied before?

Actually, it's a "minor offence" listed in guidelines, as Clapper happily showed me. So minor, it can warrant a "vacation" if you do it again.

[Ray Rider]

There was some really good discussion in this thread. It's well worth reading.