Sklansky's Intelligence Weighting as it Relates to God

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
anyway, i don't buy it until i can see some evidence of this assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was careful to say 'if' so that it wouldn't matter if the assumption was true or not.

Out of interest, if it were the case that the most intelligent people weren't convinced of the existence of god then would you become unconvinced (assuming you currently are convinced).

chez

[baggins]

no, i would hold to my faith.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
no, i would hold to my faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like we are going to agree that its a matter of faith.

chez

You need to make a distinction between "religious people" and "specific religious" people. Most smart people do not state that there is no God, but rather, no specific religion is correct.

[Lestat]

Uh, I'm pretty sure Sklansky has stated outright that the majority of intelligent people (physicists, etc.), are not convinced there is a God, so neither should we be.

[David Sklansky]

The key word is "convinced".

[Lestat]

Going back to something you said earlier.. You seem to want those who believe in God to admit it's pure faith and nothing more. I think you also said this faith was fine by you as long as they are willing to admit that since they cannot be convinced that they now have an irrational belief (I'm paraphrasing). Now who is ever going to admit to THAT?

The way I see it, it comes down to philosphy. You can make a case that string theory is nothing more than a philosophy at this point. So my question to you is:

What's wrong with arriving at the conclusion of God's existence through philosophical means?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Going back to something you said earlier.. You seem to want those who believe in God to admit it's pure faith and nothing more. I think you also said this faith was fine by you as long as they are willing to admit that since they cannot be convinced that they now have an irrational belief (I'm paraphrasing). Now who is ever going to admit to THAT?

[/ QUOTE ]
Language is tough but when I say 'not rational' I don't mean 'irrational'. Faith cannot be a product of reason (i.e. rational) or its not faith. Everyone has beliefs that are not rational, even me and I believe almost nothing [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].


[ QUOTE ]
So my question to you is: What's wrong with arriving at the conclusion of God's existence through philosophical means?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing at all but it doesn't take much philosophical study to realise that if such a conclusion is possible its not via the simplistic arguments usually presented (first cause, pascals wager etc) and the sophisticated arguments are way beyond anyone who hasn't studied philosophy very seriously and can't possibly be the basis for most peoples belief.



chez

[ QUOTE ]

Btw- Does anyone know if Einstein's comment, "God does not throw dice" was made tongue-in-cheek? Or did he in fact acknowledge the possible existence of God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Einstein's dice comment was meant to show his discomfort with emerging quantum theory, it had no religious meaning at all. Many people use this quote to show that Einstein was religious. Here is his response to them:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Einstein was realy a smart guy on many levels. Heres a couple more quotes.

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress .... If it is one of the goals of religions to liberate maknind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover (the) rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusion. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain, is moved by the profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason, incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious imulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contibutes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life."

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."