Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"It was just as I learned more and more, it became more and more obvious that any religions specific precepts had to be a big underdog to be true."

Is that where your research stopped, or did you compare each religion against one another?

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I said you need to believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe IronUnkind summed it up well when he said:

[ QUOTE ]

It is not "pride in unbelief" that is the motivating psychological factor, nor is it "pride in getting it right"; it is more along the lines of "shame of being considered unintelligent."

Existing in a culture such as a university environment where religious belief is widely considered to represent an intellectual flaw or even a psychological defect, one confronts strong social pressure to conform to the community standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Continuing ...

[ QUOTE ]

But the fact is that "pride in getting it right" is a far greater motivater to smart people than "pride in unbelief".

[/ QUOTE ]

So the truly smart people are the ones that keep an open mind and are willing to accept the truth if they meet it, regardless of the consequences?

Even if it means a sudden criticism of their reputation and the potential damaging of the long-standing friendships they have built up over the years with others in academic positions that shared their then belief?

See IronUnkind's quote above.

[ QUOTE ]

(In my case there was never a pride of unbelief or a desire to escape moral commandments. It was just as I learned more and more, it became more and more obvious that any religions specific precepts had to be a big underdog to be true. It was no different than how I decided astrology or rushes were big underdogs to be true. I'm quite sure that most scientists reach their skepticism in about the same way.) And even a nine year old kid is capable of thinking "Wait a second, there are at least ten types of major religions with significant differences. And those who practice them are all sure that the evidence supports them. So even if there is a God, a randomly chosen religion is no more than ten percent to be right. Yet these religious people are all SURE they are right . What's wrong with them"?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is:

Take a child's surface view, add up the numbers, it's not worth investigating each religion as you're probably still a big underdog to be right.

?

Cheers,
SDM

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"it is more along the lines of "shame of being considered unintelligent."

Yikes! That argument would mean that mediocre academics were more likely to disbelieve than world class minds who never have to worry about being considered unintelligent. Similar to how moderately famous or successful people dress nicer than those who don't have to prove themselves. But that is not the case when it comes to believing in a specific religion. The very smartest people, who have no need to protect their reputation are the least likely to believe.

In any other subject but religion when the smartest people in the country strongly believe something, people grant that their smartness greatly increases the probability that it is true. Yet somehow this doesn't apply to specific religious beliefs or even to the belief that the evidence points against any specific religion?

"Existing in a culture such as a university environment where religious belief is widely considered to represent an intellectual flaw or even a psychological defect,"

But if this is true it suggests that the smarter people think these things about religious beliefs. And people who can think better are big favorites to be right when arguing with people who can't think as well.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

DS-
"Yikes! That argument would mean that mediocre academics were more likely to disbelieve than world class minds who never have to worry about being considered unintelligent. Similar to how moderately famous or successful people dress nicer than those who don't have to prove themselves. But that is not the case when it comes to believing in a specific religion. The very smartest people, who have no need to protect their reputation are the least likely to believe."

Can you tell me what studies/surveys compare the liklihood of a scientist believing in God to his IQ score? I'd like to see that as the only survey I've seen was just a general poll of the scientific community.


DS-
"In any other subject but religion when the smartest people in the country strongly believe something, people grant that their smartness greatly increases the probability that it is true. Yet somehow this doesn't apply to specific religious beliefs or even to the belief that the evidence points against any specific religion?"

This is true for scientific matters when the scientists have physical proof. Still, the scientists release their findings for evaluation by other smart minds. Somehow, religion is different. You mentioned recently that physicists have counter-arguments to my thoughts on the creation of the universe, but you didn't know what they were. You said that you just trusted the scientists. Have you ever evaluated these counter-arguments for yourself?


Concerning "a culture such as a university environment where religious belief is widely considered to represent an intellectual flaw or even a psychological defect":

DS-
"But if this is true it suggests that the smarter people think these things about religious beliefs."

Which is exactly why they aren't being objective about the issue.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

My favorite point in any argument is when someone misses a point so badly that the only appropriate response is "you retard, .."

As for academia and it's non-belief front, there are two sides to that. A large portion of that comes from the actual student body, who aren't necessarily all that intelligent. They're just hopping on a college bandwagon, much like socialism and zen budhism. Non-belief does exist among many of the educators, but they don't carry it with that same sense of self-righteousness as the insecure students.

On the other side, as far as a belief in God, or a higher-being, a decent amount of astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, philosophers, etc., come to believe in the existence of such a being. It doesn't mean they worship it, or think it is in charge of his or her destiny. Instead, since their studies have brought them to the boundaries of the universe and have unravelled many mysteries, and uncovered many new ones, they at least consider the possibility that something (or someone) started all of this. Something put these laws in place. i.e., they believe the existence of a greater being COULD be a logical explanation to WHY relativity (or gravity, etc. etc.) exist.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"On the other side, as far as a belief in God, or a higher-being, a decent amount of astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, philosophers, etc., come to believe in the existence of such a being. It doesn't mean they worship it, or think it is in charge of his or her destiny. Instead, since their studies have brought them to the boundaries of the universe and have unravelled many mysteries, and uncovered many new ones, they at least consider the possibility that something (or someone) started all of this. Something put these laws in place. i.e., they believe the existence of a greater being COULD be a logical explanation to WHY relativity (or gravity, etc. etc.) exist"

That type of belief is on MY side of this argument.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Agreed.. after I read that I meant to edit it to make that clear. i.e., non-belief usually pertains to religion, not blindly ruling out the existence of (a) God(s).

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yikes! That argument would mean that mediocre academics were more likely to disbelieve than world class minds who never have to worry about being considered unintelligent. Similar to how moderately famous or successful people dress nicer than those who don't have to prove themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

It only means that if one begins, as you have, with the flawed premise that the very smartest people have nothing to prove. It is true that mediocre academics tend to voice their opposition to religion more strongly than brilliant minds (Bertrand Russell being a notable exception).

[ QUOTE ]
The very smartest people, who have no need to protect their reputation are the least likely to believe

[/ QUOTE ]

I would imagine that if Kip Thorne suddenly began telling his colleagues that he'd "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior," we'd quickly see an intervention at Caltech.

[ QUOTE ]
But if this is true it suggests that the smarter people think these things about religious beliefs. And people who can think better are big favorites to be right when arguing with people who can't think as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no doubt that smarter people tend to think these things. But most of them think this way for non-smart reasons. You ask too much of science or mathematics when you begin using them to answer metaphysical questions.

It is correct that when very smart people think that something is false that it is more likely that it is false. But the relevance of this statistic diminishes as the topic departs from their areas of expertise.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]


But if this is true it suggests that the smarter people think these things about religious beliefs. And people who can think better are big favorites to be right when arguing with people who can't think as well.




[/ QUOTE ]



There is no doubt that smarter people tend to think these things. But most of them think this way for non-smart reasons. You ask too much of science or mathematics when you begin using them to answer metaphysical questions.

It is correct that when very smart people think that something is false that it is more likely that it is false. But the relevance of this statistic diminishes as the topic departs from their areas of expertise.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're dangerously close to mistaking knowledge possessed and thinking ability are one in the same. Also, saying "they think these things for non-smart reasons" isn't supporting any argument one way or the other. All it is saying is that the group of people David is talking about isn't actually smart.

i.e., David is implying that strong thinking minds have put some thought into this and reached this conclusion, not that people with reputations for being smart are just saying "religion is dumb" and not backing it up properly.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're dangerously close to mistaking knowledge possessed and thinking ability are one in the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they are, but I can see how you might draw that conclusion. Allow me to clarify. A very intelligent person may form an opinion on a subject which represents a flawless thought process; yet this opinion may still be false because there are some factors which he failed to take into account.

Smart people may believe or disbelieve in god for a lot of reasons which have little to do with "the evidence." Even Bertrand Russell agrees with me, saying:

You all know, of course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee

[ QUOTE ]
Also, saying "they think these things for non-smart reasons" isn't supporting any argument one way or the other. All it is saying is that the group of people David is talking about isn't actually smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that anymore than Russell is saying that Kant was actually dull. Human beings, regardless of their IQ scores, are quite capable of inconsistency, especially in political and religious matters.

[ QUOTE ]
David is implying that strong thinking minds have put some thought into this and reached this conclusion, not that people with reputations for being smart are just saying "religion is dumb" and not backing it up properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not entirely clear what David is implying. The only thing he's said which is demonstrably true is that intelligence and religiousness tend to be negatively correlated. But the studies that present this evidence fail to demonstrate the degree of thought which has gone into the conclusions. I am suggesting that certain environments make it easier for one to uncritically reject religion -- university physics departments, for instance.