Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

[Pliny]

But the person who accepts these beliefs has to apply their own subjective interpretation, even if they think they are following the words of wisdom of their favourite religious figure.

No argument with that.

And much of the altering and reinterpreting had to be done because of new evidence that challenged the church teaching. An example would be the discovery that the earth wasn't flat, and the biblical cosmology of a three decker universe -- heaven, earth and hell, could not be interpreted literally. Next to go, was the teaching that the earth was at the center of the universe, thanks to Copernicus. And then, the teaching that the heavens were perfect was challenged by Galileo, when he developed the telescope and discovered the sun had blemishes (sunspots), and the moon wasn't smooth, but was instead pockmarked with craters. Over time, supernatural explanations for the movement of the planets, earth forces like wind, rain, earthquakes and volcanoes, were replaced with natural explanations for the phenomena.

Backs me up.

The one thing that never happened was for a natural theory to be replaced by a more convincing supernatural theory!

We may have time for that to happen.

You might want to look up the scientific use of the term "theory." It is more than a mere idea; it has to explain a set of natural phenomena, and be capable of making predictions of future occurrences or observations. Not many people would dispute Germ Theory as a way to explain the cause of disease.

No argument with the definition of theory. They all attempt to explain a set of natural phenomena. Germ theory is a theory and all theories have practical applications or they would be dismissed. Because you do not believe in a life force and think life is a series of electro-chemical reactions you will more than likely develop applications to resolve problems that are electro-chemically related. And so we see our humanities developing that way.

People with different theories of life approach the problems of life differently. Perhaps prayer would be their solution to some things. What ever gets one through the night.

You can be entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own truth! I think I've already pointed out previously where the gaps in knowledge are and ways of filling the gaps that are highly speculative right now. There are other concepts that have substantial evidence to back them up, and can be used to make some trustworthy observations about the world we live in -- so no, it is not an illusion!

Well, then you will continue to study effects in search of the origin of the universe.

Like Drea, you have an aversion to religion but I think it is a result of your experiences with religious organizations and not the true concept of what religion is about. It is an attempt to bring about an understanding of life. Rite, ritual and dogma are a part of organized religion and secular humanism has it's own dogma and is no less a religion than Christianity. Whatever "theory" we accept determines our solutions and actions in resolving the problems we encounter in life and that is probably the essence of a good theory if it can make our lives run more smoothly. There is little joy to be taken in playing both sides of a chess game so most of us steer clear of truth - just my opinion.

[JB Globe]

But in general, people who are capable of great academic achievements are going to be a lot smarter than the average, and so far, nobody has ventured to give me a reason why the members of the elite scientific bodies mentioned in the article, have so few believers compared to the general population:

No one really knows, although I would wager that environmental factors have a lot to do with it. If you go to a university and you're somewhat religious, and you're surrounded by people who are ardent atheists, after 4 years or more you're probably going to come out less religious than you went in.

But really, since I don't believe that intelligence and religious belief are mutually exclusive, it really doesn't concern me too much.

[Pliny]

No one really knows, although I would wager that environmental factors have a lot to do with it. If you go to a university and you're somewhat religious, and you're surrounded by people who are ardent atheists, after 4 years or more you're probably going to come out less religious than you went in.

But really, since I don't believe that intelligence and religious belief are mutually exclusive, it really doesn't concern me too much.

Perhaps the legality of expressing or having religion mingle with academic thought has something to do with it.

Education has increasingly been influenced by the State and the attempt is to separate Church and education. It's quite simple, in an atmosphere with an absence of religion, and where organized religion is not tolerated, I can't expect academia to be a flourishing centre for professors with any religious inclination.

[White Doors]

evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. And if that's my opinion, then it's relevant.

Drea, No one has issues with you 'exposing' religion as you smugly put it, people have issues with your bigotry and elitism.

Although elitism doesn't quite fit does it?

Elitism usually goes hand in hand with being highly educated, and from your posts here - it is plain to see that you are not highly educated - at all.

There is also a study that links bigotry and education, that is they are inversely related. The more educated you are the less likely you are to be a bigot.

Drea, the student loans you didn't have, came at a very high oportunity cost in your case, my dear.

Edited June 17, 2008 by White Doors

[Drea]

So you feel the "need" to insult me because you don't agree with the premise of the thread? Why not just refute the thread? Find some links that support your position.

Why does everybody have to make this about me? This is not about me at all for chrissake.

I am flattered that you all think I wrote the article... but I didn't. Go back and check the link if you don't believe me!

And White, do you really think that intelligence hinges on university education? You telling me that all your buds are university academics (sorry, but I find that hard to believe LOL).

Intelligence is a product of an open mind and willingness to be "wrong".

Organized religion is the product of fear and an unwillingness to be "wrong".

Quoting a portion of what I read somewhere:

"...telling our children that they are born sinners and must spend eternity repenting for a sin they didn't commit, working off a debt that can never be repaid, while terrifying them with lies about eternal hellfire, is not comforting; it is sick and abusive."

This is in response to a woman saying we should not teach evolution in schools because it fails to provide "comfort" to children.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE American Woman:

How in the world would you even begin to know if "most religious people" have "never bothered to take the time to examine what they believe and why?" That's a totally off-the-wall unfounded accusation.

Do you always selectively quote someone's posts just so you have an opportunity to be outraged? Or does it make you unable to read the rest of the sentence: so many have never bothered to take the time to examine what they believe and why!

??

Were you unable to read my whole post?? I didn't "selectively quote" you. This is what I "quoted" in my post:

QUOTE(WIP @ Jun 16 2008, 04:51 PM) *

Everybody developes a belief system. Some people just inherit one without giving it more than passing consideration, and that's the beef I have with most religious people -- so many have never bothered to take the time to examine what they believe and why!

I repeat what you said: "that's the beef I have with most religious people"-- so your beef is with "most religious people." And what is your beef? That they haven't "bothered to take the time to examine what they believe and why." Which is exactly what my comment was in regards to.

So I repeat. How do you know whether most religious people have taken time to examine what they believe and why? As I already said, it's an unfounded off-the-wall statement and it's followed by yet another unfounded completely off-the-wall statement:

...I don't have any way to sugarcoat the fact that most people just follow whatever their priests, ministers, pastors etc. tell them is true Christian doctrine.

How in the world would you know that "most [there's that reference to most again] people just follow whatever their priests, ministers, pastors etc. tell them is true Christian doctrine?"

Your "facts" are nothing but your opinion at best-- and completely fabricated at worst.

Edited June 17, 2008 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Monty Burns

Your rebellious nature is making Jesus very angry.

He cannot really complain, he died for all our sins anyways. That was the deal, and that poor man did not even have a say in his sacrafice. God's will.

I really love those who talk about Quantum Mechanics and how it is all theory. But there is quite a bit of math to back all that up. Ever look at that math? It is very complex and has been reworked to accomodate our new understanding. Science is ever growing and evolving with our constant growth and understanding of the universe around us. Einstein has developed his theories, but was only provable with newer understanding of how the universe works, and that was after his death. Einstein had doubts about his theory as well, and understood that they will be tested and either proven true, or false by others scrutinizing the theory. This is how science works people.

Religion, stagnant, this is how it is, always was, always will be. End of disscussion. Which leads to a close minded mentality. If one is confident enough in their beleifs, then they have no problem with those beleifs being tested by others. This is what it really comes down to.

From what I gather is this. Organized religion makes you think inside the box. Others want you to think outside that box. But what if there really is no box at all? It is a possibility, but it is discarded by so many on both sided of the non existent box.

I kind of equate the god/religion question as a security blanket. People freak out when they do not have a security blanket to crawl under and say everything is fine. Religion and god provides that security for many. And it is not entirely a bad thing. People panic to find an answer, so they choose the easy route of religion, where everything is already explained and interpreted for them.

As a young boy, I had a firm beleif in god. As time went on, that beleif was tested. Which concluded in my atheism. It was hard to deal with really. Everyone else beleived in a god, why can't I? I struggled with it for a few years, but ultimately, I can say, there really is no god.

Athiets/Agnostics and the like are different. I consider myself and athiest/agnostic. The only one who is ever going to save my ass is me and me only. When I die and there is a heaven, I will be judged then. But then again that might work to my advantage. For the saying goes, god only helps those who help themselves.

The Theory of Relativity has been proven through many experiments that garnered the same results, so more or less it is a provable theory with defineable repeatable results.

Open up your mind to this: My Oma was a religious woman. However she despised organized religion and how it is portrayed. She beleived in the live and let live. She had her own pesonal relationship with whatever god she beleived in. The way she lived her life was through generosity, love and respect for others. And to stand up for what is right. She lived and taught through example. Her whole life was a lesson for me. Her morals and ideals will carry on in me and the other grandchildren and even my parents (who consider themselves athiests btw). Her wisdome was some of the best I will ever encounter.

Now on the other hand I am an Athiest, but I have taken her lessons and carried them on in my life. Both different people, but both being intelligent and wise, and understanding that we will never know everything and that beleifs will be tested througout your life.

Religion hands you a beleif system and says, this is the way it is, always was , always will be. (Closed mind)

Science looks for answeres through scientific method, and understands that things can and will change. (Open Mind)

IN a world that science built, (gas vehicles, world air travel, space travel, space station, power distrobution, mp3 players, computers, .... you use so much proven science in your average day, that it is hard to ignore what it is all about. Change.

WIP Demonstrates just that... change.

And much of the altering and reinterpreting had to be done because of new evidence that challenged the church teaching. An example would be the discovery that the earth wasn't flat, and the biblical cosmology of a three decker universe -- heaven, earth and hell, could not be interpreted literally. Next to go, was the teaching that the earth was at the center of the universe, thanks to Copernicus. And then, the teaching that the heavens were perfect was challenged by Galileo, when he developed the telescope and discovered the sun had blemishes (sunspots), and the moon wasn't smooth, but was instead pockmarked with craters. Over time, supernatural explanations for the movement of the planets, earth forces like wind, rain, earthquakes and volcanoes, were replaced with natural explanations for the phenomena. The one thing that never happened was for a natural theory to be replaced by a more convincing supernatural theory!

I just want to say that all other animals execpt for humans are not very intelligent. I doubt any of them have even wondered about their own existence let alone if there was a god.

There is intolerance on both sides of this fence. All of us in this thread has proven that. And still this discussions rages on and no one has gained any insight or wisdom. Think of it in terms of thinking about possibilities and probabilities.

Is it possible that there is no god? Yes.

Is it possible god exists? Yes.

Do we know for sure there is a god? No.

[Guest American Woman]

There is intolerance on both sides of this fence. All of us in this thread has proven that.

Speaking for myself, I'd like you to back up your claim-- I'd like you to cite some evidence of my alleged intolerance. I stated quite clearly that I couldn't care less if people believe in God or not. I have no where indicated that those who don't believe are inferior in any way. I have not so much as insinuated that there is anything amiss with non-believers' beliefs. I don't recall anyone else posting intolerance for athiests not believing in God either, but I'm only going to speak up for myself since there's a lot in this thread I haven't read.

Or am I misreading your statement?

[noahbody]

Is it possible god exists? Yes.

Who created this God?

[Oleg Bach]

Speaking for myself, I'd like you to back up your claim-- I'd like you to cite some evidence of my alleged intolerance. I stated quite clearly that I couldn't care less if people believe in God or not. I have no where indicated that those who don't believe are inferior in any way. I have not so much as insinuated that there is anything amiss with non-believers' beliefs. I don't recall anyone else posting intolerance for athiests not believing in God either, but I'm only going to speak up for myself since there's a lot in this thread I haven't read.

Or am I misreading your statement?

Atheists actually believe that their belief system is superiour to those that believe in a superiour consciousness or a "God". Oh my goodness or godness! I personally believe that so-called high I Q types are really not that smart..a rapidly firing brain does not equate with a superiour mind or intelligence...it's just fast...in fact that brings to mind that the term "demon" actually means a rapidly moving michievious spirit...prime example of such an entity is that Ontario Premier, Dalton McGinty...a rapid mind and mouth but dumber than a bag of hammers on a cold day!

[White Doors]

I really love those who talk about Quantum Mechanics and how it is all theory. But there is quite a bit of math to back all that up. Ever look at that math? It is very complex and has been reworked to accomodate our new understanding. Science is ever growing and evolving with our constant growth and understanding of the universe around us

Hasn't quantum mechanics been abandoned recently in favour of string theory?

The math on quantum mechanics is pretty ugly and has like 23 unknown variables in it that they just made up to 'make it work'.

my understanding on it anyways.

all cool stuff.

[White Doors]

In general I dislike the generalizations and the sterotyping on here, mostly perpetrated by the humanist atheists, which is just ironic. Especially when you consider they are attacking religion in other threads for being exactly how they are behaving. I digress.

Isn't it possible the people that believe in a higher power have a more open mind? Dogma aside, isn't holding out hope/faith in a higher power merely being humble in the scheme of things?

In reality perpetuating the myth that 'science' has it all figured out is the ultimate in hubris. The scientific method is where it is at, as far as what remains to be discovered? I don't even think we have begun to surprise ourselves.

People may look back on the atheists and say that they were closed minded a thousand years from now.

However you put it and whatever 'side' you are on, to say that you know the answer and berate others that do not think the same as you is the ultimate in arrogance and smugness.

Thank goodness real science and personal sprituality do not work that way and continues on this great journey to look for answers.. and more questions..

[Oleg Bach]

Hasn't quantum mechanics been abandoned recently in favour of string theory?

The math on quantum mechanics is pretty ugly and has like 23 unknown variables in it that they just made up to 'make it work'.

my understanding on it anyways.

all cool stuff.

Jesus and Steven Hawkins were both big on the quantum mechanical aspects of physical existance...most people are just not open or bright enough to draw the parallels between the ancient and modern thinkers..atheists are much like western Buddist converts...just not quite sharp enough to grasp Christianity.

[WIP]

??

Were you unable to read my whole post?? I didn't "selectively quote" you. This is what I "quoted" in my post:

QUOTE(WIP @ Jun 16 2008, 04:51 PM) *

Everybody developes a belief system. Some people just inherit one without giving it more than passing consideration, and that's the beef I have with most religious people -- so many have never bothered to take the time to examine what they believe and why!

I repeat what you said: "that's the beef I have with most religious people"-- so your beef is with "most religious people." And what is your beef? That they haven't "bothered to take the time to examine what they believe and why." Which is exactly what my comment was in regards to.

It may have been in your quotebox, but you didn't include it in your response because you were trying to frame me in as bad a light as possible! Fundamentalists typically use this strategy to divide the world into black and white. You're using the same tactic!

So I repeat. How do you know whether most religious people have taken time to examine what they believe and why? As I already said, it's an unfounded off-the-wall statement and it's followed by yet another unfounded completely off-the-wall statement:

How in the world would you know that "most [there's that reference to most again] people just follow whatever their priests, ministers, pastors etc. tell them is true Christian doctrine?"

Yeah! Well maybe some people do a thorough examination of everything they've been taught and still agree 100% with everything they've been taught by their clerics, but considering the multitude of religions and splintering variations of them, it's still a safe bet that 100% agreement is only a likelihood for people who lack the curiosity or the courage to re-examine their beliefs.

Your "facts" are nothing but your opinion at best-- and completely fabricated at worst.

Who said anything about facts? I was making some observations, and as I pointed out, I was giving you some of my own personal observations. The "facts" were pretty much layed out on the first page of this thread, but you and the rest of the torch and pitchforks crowd aren't interested in offering evidence to refute the question, just feigning indignation and attacking the messenger!

[WIP]

White Doors, that quote from Wip is more than babble, it's hate speech trolling. Conservatives want to kill some of those groups he's listed, how irresponsible to say that. Has this turned into just another bash the right thread?

No, I was just testing to see if you really are ignoring me!

[Oleg Bach]

No, I was just testing to see if you really are ignoring me!

When one has the sense of being ignored it is usually because you are right on target and your advesary makes the decision to turn the other way and be ignorant...but not really...if you are being turely ignored take heart..it may just me a shy form of respect.

[Guest American Woman]

It may have been in your quotebox, but you didn't include it in your response because you were trying to frame me in as bad a light as possible! Fundamentalists typically use this strategy to divide the world into black and white. You're using the same tactic!

You can't be serious. "Trying to frame you in as bad a light as possible"-- by using your words? Evidently you think you look pretty bad, too.

Yeah! Well maybe some people do a thorough examination of everything they've been taught and still agree 100% with everything they've been taught by their clerics, but considering the multitude of religions and splintering variations of them, it's still a safe bet that 100% agreement is only a likelihood for people who lack the curiosity or the courage to re-examine their beliefs.

Could you contradict yourself any more than you have here? Since there are, as you claim, a "multitude of religions and splintering variations of them," one would have to conclude that "most people" do NOT just accept and believe what they are told.

Who said anything about facts?

Ummm. You did. Do I really have to remind you of what you said? I'll use emphasis to help answer your question:

QUOTE(WIP @ Jun 17 2008, 05:43 AM) *

...I don't have any way to sugarcoat the fact that most people just follow whatever their priests, ministers, pastors etc. tell them is true Christian doctrine.

I was making some observations, and as I pointed out, I was giving you some of my own personal observations. The "facts" were pretty much layed out on the first page of this thread, but you and the rest of the torch and pitchforks crowd aren't interested in offering evidence to refute the question, just feigning indignation and attacking the messenger!

Here's a tip. When you are making observations, whether they be personal or any other variety, don't state your opinion as "fact."

As for the "facts" being laid out on the first page of this thread--- ummmm, no, they weren't. That was merely opinion too. As for my interest in refuting the issue, I have no desire to do that. Which is why I chose to point out that the source isn't a credible source rather than waste my time refuting it.

But go ahead and cry that I'm "attacking the messenger" because I point out that your "facts" are in no way facts. Evidently you'd rather play the picked-on martyr role than take the high road and admit that you were wrong to state your "observations" and "personal observations" as "fact."

Edited June 17, 2008 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

You can't be serious. "Trying to frame you in as bad a light as possible"-- by using your words? Evidently you think you look pretty bad, too.

Could you contradict yourself any more than you have here? Since there are, as you claim, a "multitude of religions and splintering variations of them," one would have to conclude that "most people" do NOT just accept and believe what they are told.

QUOTE(WIP @ Jun 17 2008, 05:43 AM) *

...I don't have any way to sugarcoat the fact that most people just follow whatever their priests, ministers, pastors etc. tell them is true Christian doctrine.

Here's a tip. When you are making observations, whether they be personal or any other variety, don't state your opinion as "fact."

As for the "facts" being laid out on the first page of this thread--- ummmm, no, they weren't. That was merely opinion too. As for my interest in refuting the issue, I have no desire to do that. Which is why I chose to point out that the source isn't a credible source rather than waste my time refuting it.

But go ahead and cry that I'm "attacking the messenger" because I point out that your "facts" are in no way facts. Evidently you'd rather play the picked-on martyr role than take the high road and admit that you were wrong to state your "observations" and "personal observations" as "fact."

In order to become righteous (right or correct) there is a first step that has to be taken..you must admit you are in error. Martyring is a myth and does not accomplish anything...and if never appreciated anyway....Frankly I can not find a quote where say Christ said...I have come to be killed by you in order to help you....sounds like those not martyred get a lot of mileage out of those that they destroy and then do a bit of revisionistic editing to suit themselves - and so the Roman Empire was born .......The idea of God or goodness is highly intelligent and it creates a real democracy where there should be no losers only winners....athesists are just like false Christians who feed off of the poor and foolish..cos' they like false Christians are arrogant liars and users.

[GostHacked]

Hasn't quantum mechanics been abandoned recently in favour of string theory?

The math on quantum mechanics is pretty ugly and has like 23 unknown variables in it that they just made up to 'make it work'.

my understanding on it anyways.

all cool stuff.

String theory is a new Unifying theory. When Einstein discovered Relativity, his theories work for large scale celestial bodies, like suns, planets, moons and how they interact with each other. Quantum mechanics (won't be abanonded anytime soon) deals with interactions of the smallest particles like atoms, quarks, positrons, electrons, protons, ect. The rules for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are drasticly different and can't really be interchanged with each other. String theory is a new theory that some how fills the gaps to unify the interaction between the drasticaly different rule sets. Can string theory be proven at this point? No, but the science gives us results which steers us in this new unifying theory direction.

Quantum mechanics and Relativity MUST interact with each other somehow. Planets are made of atoms. So how do we explain the interaction between them ... well ... one has to start somewhere. For all we know this theory will be disproven as time goes on. Yes the possibility of it is there.

If you think they just 'made them work', you really need to understand all that math behind it. I am no mathemetician, never was really good at math, but I know that much of it will make many people's head spin. And yes there are still some unknown variables. Again claiming to know everything off the get go is foolish and also dangerous.

Electricity and Magnetism are two drasticly different things, but interact with each other, but the rules to explain them are different. We unified them with something called Eletromagnetism, this new set of rules tells us how these two interact with each other.

American Woman

It is a general blanket statement. I included myself in there as well. So don't think I specificaly pointed you out. I am not here to insult. So don't take it as one. If I wanted to insult you, I would have been more clear about it . Again, it was not intended to be specific, but there is intolerance on both sides.

I am open to there being a god, but being a kind of person who needs to see things to beleive them, I just cannot put any faith into the existance of a god. Not sure if this makes me more intelligent, but it does make me more open minded of the possibility. Most religions and again another generalization but it fits here, religions tell you what is inside the box and god created all that is in the box. End of story.

I look at this as an outsider of religion. Never grew up with it, so it really had no impact of influence on my life. Most of my friends were brought up to go to church and be the Catholic/Chritsian ect that they should be.

White Doors

In reality perpetuating the myth that 'science' has it all figured out is the ultimate in hubris. The scientific method is where it is at, as far as what remains to be discovered? I don't even think we have begun to surprise ourselves.

Science will never make that claim that it has it all figured out. The Scientific Method is there because we do not know everything. Once we get an answer for one scientific question, we find out that there is more than we though there was before. This makes us refine the science.

Science has brought us so much advancement technologicaly as a race/species. Religion has given us some basic and common core morals to live by.

------------------

Oleg Bach

Jesus and Steven Hawkins were both big on the quantum mechanical aspects of physical existance...most people are just not open or bright enough to draw the parallels between the ancient and modern thinkers..atheists are much like western Buddist converts...just not quite sharp enough to grasp Christianity.

Not quite sharp to grasp Christianity? Hmm that is interesting. People are scared to be alone it seems. Even if they are alone in life. The beleif in a god or a higher power somehow comorts ones mind. When life is bad, they turn to the god to make everything right, their security blanket. They pray, they hope, they wait.. and wait ... and wait. They want someone else to fix their problems for them. Only yourself, or your fellow man, will help you out.

White Doors

Isn't it possible the people that believe in a higher power have a more open mind? Dogma aside, isn't holding out hope/faith in a higher power merely being humble in the scheme of things?

If you can grant the same to Athiests who do not beleive in god to have a more open mind. Holding out for that higher power does not make one humble. Learning through your mistakes, and admitting you were wrong will make you humble. I was one that was quick with opening the mouth to state a fact. More often than not, I got myself into trouble for it. I don't shoot off my mouth much anymore if I know little about the subject.

So wait, maybe I am not Atheist in whole. I am really agnostic, which says, there is a possibility that god does or does not exist. This is something I do not expect to discover in this lifetime.

[sharkman]

When one has the sense of being ignored it is usually because you are right on target and your advesary makes the decision to turn the other way and be ignorant...but not really...if you are being turely ignored take heart..it may just me a shy form of respect.

You may not be aware, Oleg, but I actually AM ignoring him, I have him on ignore in my control page. This is because in the space of about a week he butted into a conversation two or three time that I was having with Drea, to claim I was bitching and otherwise defend her.

In discussing Wip with me, White doors seems to have been a recipient of this bizarre behaviour from Wip as well:

predictable ain't it? He's like rue in the babbling, and buffy and Kuzadd in the direction.

Once he made it his job defend Drea, well that pretty much says all that needs to be said doesn't it?

I got tired of the Wip knee jerk every time I disagreed with Drea so there you have it. I can't read a thing he says and I am free to cross pens with Drea and let her defend herself, which she is able to do vigorously.

Edited June 17, 2008 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman

It is a general blanket statement. I included myself in there as well. So don't think I specificaly pointed you out. I am not here to insult. So don't take it as one. If I wanted to insult you, I would have been more clear about it . Again, it was not intended to be specific, but there is intolerance on both sides.

Thank you for your response, but I didn't think you were singling me out. I just disagree with your statement of "all" since, speaking for myself as I stated earlier, that would include me. I don't for a moment deny that there's intolerance on both sides, but that doesn't mean all people on both sides are intolerant; and you referred to "all"--There is intolerance on both sides of this fence. All of us in this thread has proven that.-- and I think one has to be careful about making blanket statements like that because it's not true.

[WIP]

No argument with the definition of theory. They all attempt to explain a set of natural phenomena. Germ theory is a theory and all theories have practical applications or they would be dismissed. Because you do not believe in a life force and think life is a series of electro-chemical reactions you will more than likely develop applications to resolve problems that are electro-chemically related. And so we see our humanities developing that way.

A lifeforce has been a theory almost since the beginning of civilization, but it keeps disappearing further into the shadows as more discoveries about nature are made. Of all of the theories of mind that are used to explain consciousness, the only dualistic theory that is still seriously debated are the forms of property dualism -- that conscious properties are present in the atoms or other fundamental building blocks of nature and cannot be reduced to a materialist explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism -- if physical theories of consciousness cannot adequately explain subjective mental experiences (qualia), they are still too tightly correlated with brain function to allow a ghostly force to be working in the background. So any type of "life force" in nature would have to be in those building blocks of the natural world, and not working somewhere unseen in the background.

People with different theories of life approach the problems of life differently. Perhaps prayer would be their solution to some things. What ever gets one through the night.

Well, then you will continue to study effects in search of the origin of the universe.

The power of prayer doesn't have a very good track record in the efforts to prove its existence: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

Pretty dismal results considering that the Templeton Foundation throws a lot of money out there to prove various religious beliefs. Although they accepted the results of this study were valid, they vowed to continue funding other research to prove the power of prayer.

Like Drea, you have an aversion to religion but I think it is a result of your experiences with religious organizations and not the true concept of what religion is about. It is an attempt to bring about an understanding of life. Rite, ritual and dogma are a part of organized religion and secular humanism has it's own dogma and is no less a religion than Christianity. Whatever "theory" we accept determines our solutions and actions in resolving the problems we encounter in life and that is probably the essence of a good theory if it can make our lives run more smoothly. There is little joy to be taken in playing both sides of a chess game so most of us steer clear of truth - just my opinion.

I know my personal experiences incline me to look elsewhere for understanding, so I have to leave it up to the churchgoers to decide how to keep one foot in this world and one in the next. Can religion keep adapting to contrary or challenging discoveries? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[GostHacked]

Thank you for your response, but I didn't think you were singling me out. I just disagree with your statement of "all" since, speaking for myself as I stated earlier, that would include me. I don't for a moment deny that there's intolerance on both sides, but that doesn't mean all people on both sides are intolerant; and you referred to "all"--There is intolerance on both sides of this fence. All of us in this thread has proven that.-- and I think one has to be careful about making blanket statements like that because it's not true.

No actually I could stand by my statement, we have all shown and proven that there IS intolerance on both sides. Have we shown the intolerance ourselves? For the most part no. But through this thread we have demonstrated how there is intolerance on both sides. If there was none, we would not be having this discussion.

[Oleg Bach]

A lifeforce has been a theory almost since the beginning of civilization, but it keeps disappearing further into the shadows as more discoveries about nature are made. Of all of the theories of mind that are used to explain consciousness, the only dualistic theory that is still seriously debated are the forms of property dualism -- that conscious properties are present in the atoms or other fundamental building blocks of nature and cannot be reduced to a materialist explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism -- if physical theories of consciousness cannot adequately explain subjective mental experiences (qualia), they are still too tightly correlated with brain function to allow a ghostly force to be working in the background. So any type of "life force" in nature would have to be in those building blocks of the natural world, and not working somewhere unseen in the background.

The power of prayer doesn't have a very good track record in the efforts to prove its existence: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

Pretty dismal results considering that the Templeton Foundation throws a lot of money out there to prove various religious beliefs. Although they accepted the results of this study were valid, they vowed to continue funding other research to prove the power of prayer.

I know my personal experiences incline me to look elsewhere for understanding, so I have to leave it up to the churchgoers to decide how to keep one foot in this world and one in the next. Can religion keep adapting to contrary or challenging discoveries? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Religion is a human construct - infinite wisdom or consciousness or "God" is not a human thing. In my estimation most religions are natural and being natural are evil in the sense of survivalism. SUPER nature or supernatural is supposedly another matter..speaking of matter the so-called soul is not eternal it is the animation of matter and once death occurs the soul is dispersed and disappated never to take orgainized form or animation again.

NOW the issue of the "Holy Spirt" is totally different than the human soul...it is eternal..it is the mind of God or the consciousness of the endless universe...to accept...the holy spirit is like an entity that only at invitiation comes to reside in the human being..kind of like a benevolent life sustaining parasite of sorts..that is what Christ meant by being born again or made new..you dumb your old self and let God live in you...kind of scarey but all developing and evolving men and woman who strive for wisdom and eternal life in the here and now and here after eventually go for it..

There is not much that is a "challenging discovery" once you have reached this height of awareness.....This re-birth if very interesting...as scripture says "the second death will not harm you" ...So what is the first death? Perhaps it is life itself in a non spiritual organic state or perhaps we are dead before birth...also Christ said "let the dead bury the dead" MEANING - There are animated souls about that do not truely live...the whole ancient concept is very facinating.

[WIP]

String theory is a new Unifying theory. When Einstein discovered Relativity, his theories work for large scale celestial bodies, like suns, planets, moons and how they interact with each other. Quantum mechanics (won't be abanonded anytime soon) deals with interactions of the smallest particles like atoms, quarks, positrons, electrons, protons, ect. The rules for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are drasticly different and can't really be interchanged with each other. String theory is a new theory that some how fills the gaps to unify the interaction between the drasticaly different rule sets. Can string theory be proven at this point? No, but the science gives us results which steers us in this new unifying theory direction.

Quantum mechanics and Relativity MUST interact with each other somehow. Planets are made of atoms. So how do we explain the interaction between them ... well ... one has to start somewhere. For all we know this theory will be disproven as time goes on. Yes the possibility of it is there.

If you think they just 'made them work', you really need to understand all that math behind it. I am no mathemetician, never was really good at math, but I know that much of it will make many people's head spin. And yes there are still some unknown variables. Again claiming to know everything off the get go is foolish and also dangerous.

Electricity and Magnetism are two drasticly different things, but interact with each other, but the rules to explain them are different. We unified them with something called Eletromagnetism, this new set of rules tells us how these two interact with each other.

From what I've gathered, the mistake White Doors is making is to believe that one physics theory has to completely replace another. Highschool physics is still based on the Newtonian model because his theories of the relationships of force, acceleration and momentum work just fine to explain how things work in our everyday world. The problem Newton had was with physics on the grand scale -- his theory of gravitational attraction could not explain the eccentricities discovered by astronomers studying Mercury's orbit around the Sun. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity could explain this effect, and when Relativity's other predictions were tested, such as: the speed of light being constant, and the mass of an object curving the spacetime surrounding it as a better explanation for how gravitational force is directed, Relativity became the theory to use when studying the physics of the very large and the very massive objects in space.

The strange world of Quantum Mechanics gradually developed because no one could explain the wavelength patterns of blackbody radiation with 19th century laws of theromodynamics and electromagnetism. Einstein started the ball rolling for Quantum Mechanics, when he proposed that light particles were not emitted continuously but instead in tiny packets of energy called Quanta. The physicists in the 1930's who developed the theory further, realized that the atomic world did not work in predictable, certain patterns, and Einstein could not accept the randomness and uncertainty that were proposed and tested in the first atomic accelerators.

But today, even if some form of Supersymmetry String theory can make testable predictions, and show how gravity works in very small, very dense situations like the Big Bang, it still will not "replace" the other theories. They will still be used in situations where they work best.