Intelligence Vs. Religion?

[Augustus]

No, just in the US.

Do you consider America to be part of the developing world?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you consider America to be part of the developing world?

Sometimes I wonder. Have you seen our health care system?

 

[Skwim]

The chart seems bogus, do you have a source?

Maybe its only a sample of american opinion

In fact, I do. Scientists and Belief

And I would expect it is only a sample of American opinion. I can't see a poll any larger than that about such a relatively minor subject.

.

 

[Skwim]

The probability, that a human is saint is p=0.000001 or less. The probability, that a human is genius is P=0.000001 or less. Thus, the probability, that a human is both saint and genius is near zero:
p*P=0.000001*0.000001=0.000000000001. The University professors of Steven Hawking level are highly intelligent. Therefore, it is highly unlikely, that they are saints as well. Being not a saint means to be more or less evil.

So because the chance that a scientist is an atheist is 59% means that the "scientific community is hostile place: the highly good people are very few."

Gotta say this is some of screwiest reasoning I've seen in a very long time.

Have a good day.

.

 

[ChristineM]

In fact, I do. Scientists and Belief

And I would expect it is only a sample of American opinion. I can't see a poll any larger than that about such a relatively minor subject.

.

Thanks, yes, very interesting

A limited data set of aaas members. I asked because the american national academy of science member survey shows completely different data with 93% are either atheist or agnostic.

 

[Vinayaka]

There are very few highly intelligent people.
There are very few highly religious people.
Therefore, is expected, that Scientific Community consists almost entirely of atheists: the advance in intelligence reduces the advance in religion. The same reasoning says, that Scientific community is hostile place: the highly good people are very few.

Are you suggesting that the scientific community is the most intelligent, or worse the only intelligent community? What about specialist doctors, highly trained computer programmers. engineers, and the like?

I personally don't view it as a 'versus' argument.

 

[lukethethird]

Do you consider America to be part of the developing world?

Ever since it has been colonized by Russia, yes.

 

[Windwalker]

There are very few highly intelligent people.
There are very few highly religious people.
Therefore, is expected, that Scientific Community consists almost entirely of atheists: the advance in intelligence reduces the advance in religion. The same reasoning says, that Scientific community is hostile place: the highly good people are very few.

Or you could be looking at this all wrong. There are very few highly intelligent people. There are very few who are mystics. Therefore, fold the edges together, instead of trying to see a divide. Conclusion: Those very few people who are so highly intelligent, being a mystic becomes their natural state. It is the natural conclusion of that intelligence.

The rest is for the masses, believing in religion, be those theistic or scientitistic in nature. Makes no matter as it's both the same thing.

 

[questfortruth]

The probability, that a human is saint is p=0.000001 or less. The probability, that a human is genius is P=0.000001 or less. Thus, the probability, that a human is both saint and genius is near zero:
p*P=0.000001*0.000001=0.000000000001. The University professors of Steven Hawking level are highly intelligent. Therefore, it is highly unlikely, that they are saints as well. Being not a saint means to be more or less evil.

It is not correlations I am talking about. I talk about concentrations: in Universities are more of atheism. Just recall the Darwinism in School.

 

[LuisDantas]

There are very few highly intelligent people.
There are very few highly religious people.

You will want to establish some parameters and means of measuring those attributes before you attempt to reach some form of reliable conclusion.

Religiosity, particularly, can be difficult to measure objectively. Many ways of measuring it would conclude that there are in fact quite a few highly religious people, although that is very disputable indeed.

Therefore, is expected, that Scientific Community consists almost entirely of atheists: the advance in intelligence reduces the advance in religion.

I honestly do not understand why you would say such a thing right after the previous sentences. And I am not sure that "almost entirely atheistic" is a fair description, either.

The same reasoning says, that Scientific community is hostile place: the highly good people are very few.

Uh... what?

That is not even a reasoning. It might be the expression of a fear, perhaps. But it is no reasoning.

The probability, that a human is saint is p=0.000001 or less. The probability, that a human is genius is P=0.000001 or less. Thus, the probability, that a human is both saint and genius is near zero:
p*P=0.000001*0.000001=0.000000000001. The University professors of Steven Hawking level are highly intelligent. Therefore, it is highly unlikely, that they are saints as well. Being not a saint means to be more or less evil.

Friend, you are commiting some very serious mistakes here. For starters, you are not even attempting to establish or even guess whether there is any form of correlation between the two attributes that you propose. And that is without considering how shabby the model that you propose is by its own terms.

"Austin Powers - Sharks with lasers"

It is not correlations I am talking about. I talk about concentrations: in Universities are more of atheism. Just recall the Darwinism in School.

Uh, what?

 

[shunyadragon]

It is not correlations I am talking about. I talk about concentrations: in Universities are more of atheism. Just recall the Darwinism in School.

First it is not Darwinism. It is the science of evolution. Second, most universities are fortunately secular. The 'Age of Reason' is bearing fruit, but the darkness of the Medieval past still persists.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I contest that highly intelligent people are atheist. Atheism is highly unintelligent in my view.

In fact, i think its down right intellectually bankrupt.

A fascinating, although very slightly uncorroborated, statement.

"I don't understand how lightening happens," says a young boy, and the father gets the local priest to explain, "it is caused by Zeus." To be "intelligent," the boy must accept that explanation. To be "intellectually bankrupt," he must try to thing his way through conjectures and experiments that might actually show that lightening isn't caused by Zeus at all. (And by the way, the work has been done, and it isn't.)

Nobody here can point to any actual, verifiable evidence of a "god," although they may have had "experiences" that they don't understand but far too often have other, much more likely explanations. But the correct, "intelligent" response is to suppose that there must be a "god" anyway, and all the more likely explanations must be ignored. To do otherwise is "intellectually bankrupt."

I repeat what I said in a thread about my "most controversial view:" religion really does have the power to cause otherwise ordinarily intelligent people to turn their reason off. And I think that is really, really unfortunate.​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So because the chances that a scientist is an atheist is 59% means that the "scientific community is hostile place: the highly good people are very few."

Gotta say this is some of screwiest reasoning I've seen in a very long time.

Have a good day.

.

It's not "reasoning" at all. It's stating some (dubious) statistics, interpreting them in a context which doesn't make sense, and then taking a giant leap of faith, thus bypassing the reasoning process altogether.

 

[Firemorphic]

"it is caused by Zeus."​

How do you argue this with a Pagan though? Do you understand the world-view that underlies Pagan thought? (as I'm sure you're aware that there are still Pagans around in this day and age).
Thunder is a scientifically verified phenomenon, so when you say "Zeus doesn't exist", are you speaking of depictions of Zeus or thunder itself? because you'd get a lot of strange looks from atmospheric scientists if you went around claiming that thunder doesn't exist.
Wherein lies the differentiation between the thing, it's perceived qualities and traditions that subsume to such perceived qualities (however it is interpreted later on in history is another matter)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How do you argue this with a Pagan though? Do you understand the world-view that underlies Pagan thought? (as I'm sure you're aware that there are still Pagans around in this day and age).

I would not "argue with this Pagan." I might try to teach the Pagan, but failing that, I wouldn't bother. Learning is a good way to escape from unsatisfactory, and unexplanatory, pseudo-explanations. But for those unwilling to learn, I have nothing to offer. They're welcome to continue to believe as they do, and go play in the thunderstorm under the metal Jungle Jim, so long as they're convinced Zeus is in a good mood.

On the other hand, in such situations as that thunderstorm and Jungle Jim example, I rather suspect that evolution itself could help to move the species along a bit. (See "The Darwin Awards.")

Thunder is a scientifically verified phenomenon, so when you say "Zeus doesn't exist", are you speaking of depictions of Zeus or thunder itself? because you'd get a lot of strange looks from atmosphetic scientists if you went around claiming that thunder doesn't exist.

But I would never say such a thing, for the very simple reason that I would never equate "thunder" to "Zeus," and therefore can easily say that while thunder exists, Zeus does not.

Wherein lies the differentiation between the thing, it's perceived qualities and traditions that subsume to such perceived qualities (however it is interpreted later on in history is another matter)

I'll leave that to you to try to work through, but will just remind you that our perceptions, and how they get translated into "perceived qualities and traditions," are often remarkably unreliable.

 

[Firemorphic]

But I would never say such a thing, for the very simple reason that I would never equate "thunder" to "Zeus," and therefore can easily say that while thunder exists, Zeus does not.

Sure, you might not want to, but attempting to historically analyse the place of these pagan deities within their specific cultures may help you to gain a better understanding of the notion of deities you are using as an argument tool. Anthropomorphizing planets, elements etc was a big thing among many cultures around that point of history and understanding their world-views and methods of thought, may help you to grow a wider understanding of the object itself you are speaking of (again, even if you're using it as a cheap argument tool).

And as these cultures grew up more, these pagan deities became material for philosophical and scientific reflection by the ancient Greeks. Their position within their society evolved into other areas as their culture evolved etc.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sure, you might not want to, but attempting to historically analyse the place of these pagan deities within their specific cultures may help you to gain a better understanding of the notion of deities you are using as an argument tool. Anthropomorphizing planets, elements etc was a big thing among many cultures around that point of history and understanding their world-views and methods of thought, may help you to grow a wider understanding of the object itself you are speaking of (again, even if you're using it as a cheap argument tool).

And as these cultures grew up more, these pagan deities became material for philosophical and scientific reflection by the ancient Greeks. Their position within their society evolved into other areas as their culture evolved etc.

I am fully aware of the folly of judging history with the knowledge of the present. I am not doing that, as I am not, in what I talk about, really talking about history. I'm talking about us...today...now...with all of the knowledge that we have available to us.

Part of what I am about, here in these forums, is insisting that we don't discard real knowledge in favour of fable, myth, magic and ignorance.

The real truth about human intelligence is this: we are capable of learning a lot, but not everything, yet we must somehow find a way to navigate even what we can't learn. Therefore, beliefs are important, and when we lack knowledge, we will defend our beliefs, often vigorously, as we see here in the forums. What else can we do if we are to move forward and successfully navigate through our lives?

Yet, I propose that actual learning, really becoming educated, understanding truly how the world works through the rigour of the scientific method (although it may not answer our deepest existential questions) is so important that I think it is akin to a sin not to do so.

 

[Jollybear]

A fascinating, although very slightly uncorroborated, statement.

"I don't understand how lightening happens," says a young boy, and the father gets the local priest to explain, "it is caused by Zeus." To be "intelligent," the boy must accept that explanation. To be "intellectually bankrupt," he must try to thing his way through conjectures and experiments that might actually show that lightening isn't caused by Zeus at all. (And by the way, the work has been done, and it isn't.)

Nobody here can point to any actual, verifiable evidence of a "god," although they may have had "experiences" that they don't understand but far too often have other, much more likely explanations. But the correct, "intelligent" response is to suppose that there must be a "god" anyway, and all the more likely explanations must be ignored. To do otherwise is "intellectually bankrupt."

I repeat what I said in a thread about my "most controversial view:" religion really does have the power to cause otherwise ordinarily intelligent people to turn their reason off. And I think that is really, really unfortunate.​

When one truely sees God as the creator, reason is turned ON.

God created the laws, by certain laws lightning happens. Thus, God created lightning. Lightning is a part of design.

Theres more evidence for God then the alternative explanations.

 

[Firemorphic]

I am fully aware of the folly of judging history with the knowledge of the present. I am not doing that, as I am not, in what I talk about, really talking about history. I'm talking about us...today...now...with all of the knowledge that we have available to us.

Part of what I am about, here in these forums, is insisting that we don't discard real knowledge in favour of fable, myth, magic and ignorance.

The real truth about human intelligence is this: we are capable of learning a lot, but not everything, yet we must somehow find a way to navigate even what we can't learn. Therefore, beliefs are important, and when we lack knowledge, we will defend our beliefs, often vigorously, as we see here in the forums. What else can we do if we are to move forward and successfully navigate through our lives?

Yet, I propose that actual learning, really becoming educated, understanding truly how the world works through the rigour of the scientific method (although it may not answer our deepest existential questions) is so important that I think it is akin to a sin not to do so.

Whilst it is not what we started discussing here, I do agree with your point there (although not with the same ultimate conclusion)

 

[lukethethird]

When one truely sees God as the creator, reason is turned ON.

God created the laws, by certain laws lightning happens. Thus, God created lightning. Lightning is a part of design.

Theres more evidence for God then the alternative explanations.

So, who cares? Gods are a dime a dozen.