Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

[White Doors]

One note I would like to mention: A direct comparison between people killed by ideologies in the 20th century and people killed by religions previous is to that does not give the best picture of the scale of destruction. Relatively speaking, in the 20th century there were a lot more people to kill, a lot more people to do the killing, and a lot more deadly weapons to help in the grisly task.

Proportionately, the craziest war ever is probably still the An Shi Rebellion of 756 to 763, with an estimate of over 33 million deaths.

WW2 had over 60 million...

[Remiel]

I did say, " proportionately " and I should add " relatively " as well. They did not have tanks, nor machine guns, nor bombers, nor any number of sophisticated killing machines back in the 8th century.

The An Shi Rebellion apparently took between 33,000,000 and 36,000,000 lives, at a time when there were only between 207,000,000 and 224,000,000 people in the world. According to the same source, World War II was between 40,000,000 and 72,000,000 at a time when the global population was around 2,300,000,000 (1940). The minimum percentage of the entire world was around 14.7%. The maximum for World War II is 3.1%. So, relative to the human population of the time, the An Shi Rebellion was five times worse than World War II in terms of deaths caused.

[WIP]

A much better post WIP. Thank you for the improved communication style - appreciated.

But you got this wrong:

I do not agree with that at all. Scientific inquiry is more valid than a statement of religious orthodoxy from a religious school of thought in trying to explain the realities of our existence. Religion is obviously better at giving people a set of rules to live by as science does not attempt to do this (with some notable exceptions such as AGW fanatics).

Science in itself cannot make moral or ethical decisions. Scientific evidence can be used to make better informed decisions in many contentious issues like abortion, stem cell research, active and passive euthanasia etc., but it's up to the people and elected or appointed decision-makers to get up to speed and have a sound moral philosophy to make the right choices.

But the "set of rules" given by religions are outdated ordinances wrapped in the superstitions and prejudices of nomadic desert-dwellers who lived 3000 years ago! Many have been conveniently disregarded, such as the prohibition against wearing a garment made of two different fabrics. Did the other commandments against murder, rape and theft represent any special revelation from a divine source? Not very likely, since every tribe that has ever lived on the planet has had the same rules as part of their code of conduct, whether written or oral tradition. And these rules only apply within the tribe or nation, not to surrounding tribes who are considered enemies or at least potential rivals. Killing, raping and pillaging was given divine sanction because they were "enemies of God." Not that the other tribes were any better; evolutionary psychology defines the motivation as "kin altruism," which causes us to consider the well-being of people related to us to be more important than strangers. The creation of the city states and then nation states united by nationalism and common religious belief, enabled a larger community to have a sense of social cohesion. Now the trick is to get people to identify a sense of internationalism, and consider the wellbeing of the rest of the world as well. Some religions may be compatible with worldpeace, but we all know there are others that are directly at odds and openly hostile to the concept, identifying it directly with the Antichrist!

My point was that 'scientists' can become fanatics too and that religion is no more of a 'problem' to human advancement than any other creed or philosophy that has a critical mass of fanatical thought.

All it takes is a little rational thought to develop a humanistic system of ethics, instead of trying to buff the edges of an antiquated religious code to make it compatible with modern times.

Communism was my example and it thoroughly discredited your singular obesession with religion being a net negative to humanity.

How so? Communism had much in common with the religious based totalitarian movements of Nazism and Italian and Spanish Fascism. they both claimed to represent a universal truth which explains everything and can cure every ill; Marxism had pseudoreligious doctrines like historical materialism, and as practised by Lenin, Stalin and Mao, it created a pantheon of heros and demigods; so Marxism had many trappings of religion, except maybe for that very important asset that supernatural religions enjoy -- the ability to promise future rewards and punishments after death.

You mention communism having lasted onky 100 years more or less, however in that 100 years that philosophy killed more people than all the religions of the world ever has combined. You also mention the inquisition. That gets alot of play in history classes. The best estimates are that the spanish inquisition was responsible for somehting like 7000 deaths. A drop in the bucket compared to communism.

Is it all just a matter of numbers? Whenever I've had this debate with fundamentalists, I ask them if I can include the mythical massacres of the Old Testament, including a flood that supposedly wiped out life on earth; but sticking to the real world, I consider all needless rules that cause death and suffering to be as bad as religious devotees who deliberately commit murder; for example, does the Catholic Church have blood on their hands for deliberately spreading misinformation about condom use in third world countries? The worst example is East African women married to migrant workers, who have been told that they must not use condoms even if they know their husbands are infected with AIDS. Instead they are promised that they will die as martyrs for remaining faithful to Catholic doctrine! Heads should roll for this:

The Catholic Church has been accused of telling people in countries with high rates of HIV that condoms do not protect against the deadly virus. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm

And even if they do show their feet of clay and apply common sense instead of blindly following tradition, that will not undo the damage already done by trying to invent arbitrary rules that do not address human needs:

Catholic Church to Ease Ban on Condom Use

Pope Benedict XVI is moving away from the absolutist stand of his predecessor

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1979145,00.html

Human nature is what both propels us and holds us back.

Two steps forward and one step back.

Well, that's why I think that quote from Steven Weinberg I posted previously, is so powerful: a person may have all of the good intentions in the world, but if he feels obligated to carry out a religious duty as a test of faith, then that person can commit barbarous acts he would not have done otherwise!

[WIP]

One note I would like to mention: A direct comparison between people killed by ideologies in the 20th century and people killed by religions previous is to that does not give the best picture of the scale of destruction. Relatively speaking, in the 20th century there were a lot more people to kill, a lot more people to do the killing, and a lot more deadly weapons to help in the grisly task.

Proportionately, the craziest war ever is probably still the An Shi Rebellion of 756 to 763, with an estimate of over 33 million deaths.

I don't buy the idea of comparing numbers, because the excuse is always going to be offered up that there were other reasons for the killings. Christians invoke the names of Stalin and Mao, but won't take credit for Adolph Hitler because the Nazis blended in elements of Nordic paganism. Hitler was able to take advantage of existing hatred and suspicion of Jews to begin a campaign of extermination. How big a role did time honoured religious traditions like Martin Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies" play in motivating either active or passive participation in the genocide? http://www.humanitas-international.org/sho...luther-jews.htm But, besides counting the dead from wars and genocides, any religion that advocates rules that endanger people's lives, like refusing blood transfusions, vaccinations, condoms and anti-retroviral drugs, is also guilty of murder.

[jbg]

Religion hampers intelligence by teaching followers to accept what they are told rather than question (analyze).

I see no conflict between believing that there is a G-d that imposes a pattern on the world, and at least some uniform rules that any civilized society, and being intelligent.¹

¹Granted, I am a poor example of this since I am certainly not intelligent. My IQ is 79.

[GostHacked]

I see no conflict between believing that there is a G-d that imposes a pattern on the world, and at least some uniform rules that any civilized society, and being intelligent.¹

¹Granted, I am a poor example of this since I am certainly not intelligent. My IQ is 79.

Why do people do this ?? G-d? There has got to be something behind this.

[Guest American Woman]

Why do people do this ?? G-d? There has got to be something behind this.

As far as I've seen, "people" don't do that; jbg does it.

[jbg]

Why do people do this ?? G-d? There has got to be something behind this.

As far as I've seen, "people" don't do that; jbg does it.

Jews often omit the middle "O" as a violation of the commandment against speaking G-d's name in vain. I'm not Orthodox but that tradition has spread into the Conservative and Reform movements. I am not offended if other's don't follow suit; it's the way I prefer to spell G-d's name.

Edited June 22, 2008 by jbg

[GostHacked]

Jews often omit the middle "O" as a violation of the commandment against speaking G-d's name in vain. I'm not Orthodox but that tradition has spread into the Conservative and Reform movements. I am not offended if other's don't follow suit; it's the way I prefer to spell G-d's name.

I think I get it a little more. Do not use the name falsley

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

This makes sense to me. But this is the Jewish perspective. Followers of other religions do the same thing. I guess for the same purpose. So swearing by G-d that something is truthful is actually against the rules on the possibility you are wrong. Alright so I have a hard time wrapping my head around that one.

[jbg]

I think I get it a little more. Do not use the name falsley

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

This makes sense to me. But this is the Jewish perspective. Followers of other religions do the same thing. I guess for the same purpose. So swearing by G-d that something is truthful is actually against the rules on the possibility you are wrong. Alright so I have a hard time wrapping my head around that one.

Exactly. My Rabbi, when using the word G-d in discussion, says "Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei". And that fact that you try "wrapping (your) head around that one" is admirable. Edited June 23, 2008 by jbg

[White Doors]

How so? Communism had much in common with the religious based totalitarian movements of Nazism and Italian and Spanish Fascism. they both claimed to represent a universal truth which explains everything and can cure every ill; Marxism had pseudoreligious doctrines like historical materialism, and as practised by Lenin, Stalin and Mao, it created a pantheon of heros and demigods; so Marxism had many trappings of religion, except maybe for that very important asset that supernatural religions enjoy -- the ability to promise future rewards and punishments after death.

So now communism's murderous rampage is the fault of religion too? Do you want people to take you seriously?

Do you know the definition of religion? hint religion does not equal fanaticism. Change your quote above to fanaticism and I agree. Your obsession with religion is not allow you to see the facts as they are.

Also, Nazism was not a religious movement. Most historians recognize this.

It was a nationalist socialist movement.

But go ahead and quote som obscure quote from Hitler invoking religion when he was still gathering votes, if you must. It will just go to show the depths of your illogical obsession of religion.

[GostHacked]

Exactly. My Rabbi, when using the word G-d in discussion, says "Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei". And that fact that you try "wrapping (your) head around that one" is admirable.

Do not swear in the name of God on the possibility you are wrong. I guess because of this God is 100% righteous. I have a problem with this. If we are made in the true image of God, then he is fallable as well. For we are not perfect, and that was his intention, for us to be perfect in his eyes.

I can only be perfect in my eyes, or the eyes of my peers. I never claim to be perfect, and no one should. Not even a God himself is perfect, just because of all the wrong that happens in the world, and no matter how much we pray to God, it does not seem to do anything, we do not get a response(from an outsiders view on religion). Not to mention that much that is done wrong, is done in his name.

So my interpretation is, because you could be wrong, don't ever swear on God's name that it is so. One should never swear on God, that God is the greatest, because there is a chance that you are wrong.

[White Doors]

I can only be perfect in my eyes, or the eyes of my peers. I never claim to be perfect, and no one should. Not even a God himself is perfect, just because of all the wrong that happens in the world, and no matter how much we pray to God, it does not seem to do anything, we do not get a response(from an outsiders view on religion). Not to mention that much that is done wrong, is done in his name.

Addressed by St Thomas Aquinas @ 1500's.

I took a philosophy of religion course once, facinating.

[WIP]

So now communism's murderous rampage is the fault of religion too? Do you want people to take you seriously?

Do you know the definition of religion? hint religion does not equal fanaticism. Change your quote above to fanaticism and I agree. Your obsession with religion is not allow you to see the facts as they are.

And do you know that religious dogma is a set of protected beliefs? Since the point has gone right over your head, I'll put it more directly: Karl Marx created a number of philosophical positions that he declared were absolute, unalterable truths; and that makes his political, ethical and historical philosophy a close cousin of religion! The only thing he didn't have was a claim to a supernatural realm to appeal to, and that makes a religious fascist movement potentially more lethal than communism!

In today's news, a new round of suicide bombings by female terrorists have killed dozens of Iraqis, have you ever heard of a communist suicide bomber? Let me know if you find one, because it seems unlikely that you can convince someone to sacrifice their lives just to become "heroes of the revolution!" It's much more effective if you can convince them that paradise awaits in the next world!

As soon as you pick one religion, or one sect of a religion, over all of the others, you are potentially setting the stage for conflict! Many religions make a claim to having absolute truth and being the only true religion, and yet are considered peaceful because they are passive in regards to attempting to carry out God's will on earth. So the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, are pacifists although they don't believe in a pacifist god, but one that will wipe out the whole human race during the divine judgement, except for those who have separated themselves from the world by joining the "true" church. But all it takes is a belief that there is one true, exclusive religion coupled with an exhortation that the believers must subdue the godless world and bring everyone under the true faith, and you have the most lethal form of fascism!

And I consider religion just as harmful where it causes harm through adherence to doctrine at the cost of preventing the spread of disease.......but you aren't willing to deal with that issue!

Also, Nazism was not a religious movement. Most historians recognize this.

It was a nationalist socialist movement.

Sure it was a national socialist movement! But, what other features did Nazism have to distinguish itself from Communism besides religion and racial superiority? Read an english translation of Mein Kampf and you'll see loads of religious references in the personal philosophy of Adolph Hitler that he used to develop and distinguish his movement from Communism! You'll notice that it's not socialism or anti-capitalism that Hitler finds objectionable about Communism; but instead it's atheism, internationalism and racial equality which are the Marxist principles that he objects to.

But go ahead and quote som obscure quote from Hitler invoking religion when he was still gathering votes, if you must. It will just go to show the depths of your illogical obsession of religion.

There are too many to bother, I'll leave you to look them up yourself, and while your at it maybe you kind find me one quote of Hitler calling for atheism or the abolition of religion!

[WIP]

Addressed by St Thomas Aquinas @ 1500's.

I took a philosophy of religion course once, facinating.

Was that quote really from Aquinas? I can't believe he would say God wasn't perfect when his arguments to prove the existence of God in the Summa Theologica maintain that God is perfect, infinite and immutable.

[GostHacked]

Was that quote really from Aquinas? I can't believe he would say God wasn't perfect when his arguments to prove the existence of God in the Summa Theologica maintain that God is perfect, infinite and immutable.

I am not familiar with Aquinas, but it is something I will read up on tonight.

However...

Aquinas, from the logic in the previous posts that I have made, should not have said anything about God. He can say god is not perfect, because Man is the image of God. And we are far from perfect. So no one on this planet can say anything truthful about a god that cannot be proven or garanteed as fact. This is even stranger than debating that there is a god in the first place. Perfection births perfection.

For arugments sake, let's say god does exist, but he is not perfect. Then we can try to imagine what is imperfect about this god. But saying anything definate with resolute that God is anything specific, goes against the religion of 'taking the name in vain'. Everytime we make a claim about God, we are doing so with the possibility that we are wrong. To me this leaves things open to interpretation, which the ever growing number of branch religions show us that there are lots of interpretations. Who is right? All of them? Not possible. So all religions are in err of the 'don't take God's name in vain' because they say they are right and say it is a fact, and then swear on God's name that they are right.

But we can see people from many different religions do just that. Claiming righteousness over all other forms of religion.

Also if God is immutable, why have I not heard from him at all?

[WIP]

I am not familiar with Aquinas, but it is something I will read up on tonight.

However...

Aquinas, from the logic in the previous posts that I have made, should not have said anything about God. He can say god is not perfect, because Man is the image of God. And we are far from perfect. So no one on this planet can say anything truthful about a god that cannot be proven or garanteed as fact. This is even stranger than debating that there is a god in the first place. Perfection births perfection.

Well, according to the story, we are created in the image of God, but man is a fallen creature because of that Garden of Eden thing, where Adam and Eve chose the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and were banished from the Garden. It's a neat little theodicy that explains why things are so bad down here with all of this disease, death and suffering, while up in the sky everything seems perfect.....and up until modern times, most philosophers would reason that the creator of a perfect celestial sphere would also have to be perfect!

For arugments sake, let's say god does exist, but he is not perfect. Then we can try to imagine what is imperfect about this god. But saying anything definate with resolute that God is anything specific, goes against the religion of 'taking the name in vain'. Everytime we make a claim about God, we are doing so with the possibility that we are wrong. To me this leaves things open to interpretation, which the ever growing number of branch religions show us that there are lots of interpretations. Who is right? All of them? Not possible. So all religions are in err of the 'don't take God's name in vain' because they say they are right and say it is a fact, and then swear on God's name that they are right.

But we can see people from many different religions do just that. Claiming righteousness over all other forms of religion.

That was the biggest stumbling block for me growing up while being surrounded by religion (a series of religions) -- they make contradictory claims, so they all can't be right; if any one of them is a divine revelation, that usually means the majority of people are doomed to annihilation or worse (hell); or none of them are right!

Also if God is immutable, why have I not heard from him at all?

I'm not sure what you mean! Immutable in theology means that God's nature does not change; perhaps you are thinking of one of the other unbounded divine virtues like omnipresensce.

[White Doors]

Karl Marx created a number of philosophical positions that he declared were absolute, unalterable truths; and that makes his political, ethical and historical philosophy a close cousin of religion!

wow, you are really stretching now. careful of your back.

The whole problem you have is that you are treating the word 'religion' in the same vein of 'fanaticism'.

They are not interchangeable.

You can be a fanatical Islamicist, but surely you are not trying to tell us that every muslim is a fanatic are you?

My my my....

You can also be a fanatic and NOT be religious.

You don't have to look very far back into history to see people commit suicidal acts for any other number of creeds, tribes, nationalism and racism.

I'll leave it to you to do your own research.

[GostHacked]

Well, according to the story, we are created in the image of God, but man is a fallen creature because of that Garden of Eden thing, where Adam and Eve chose the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and were banished from the Garden.

Not much of a gene pool there. If Adam and Eve are the first, then the children would be the second generation. Then what about the third generation? Seems like some incest going on there. To harsh?

I doubt such genetic diversity in the human species could derive from just two people. That was one thing I thought about when someone brought up Adam and Eve... I would get a reply of immaculate conception.

Now the Tree of Knowledge should not be shunned, it should be embraced, and if eating that fruit garners more knowledge and understanding that should be considered a good thing right? But it is not. The religion wants you to stay dumb so you can be manipulated.

----

An observation.

Throughout this thread we have gone in a couple directions. We talked about the scientific method and how it tells us how the universe works around us. None of us swear on the future theories because we know they could change and possibly be wrong altogether. But the theory is still backed by scientific method, test, prove, repeate.

We then talk about religion and god, this got us more into a philosophical debate about what god is and such. Religion teaches us that god is everything and that is it.

Can intelligence mean that you understand that there are hypocracies within religions and denounce them based on the hypocracies? Can intelligence mean that you denounce the scientific method only when it comes to dealing with the God question?

[WIP]

wow, you are really stretching now. careful of your back.

The whole problem you have is that you are treating the word 'religion' in the same vein of 'fanaticism'.

Maybe you can give me your definition for "fanaticism," since I was talking about beliefs that are protected from scrutiny and analysis. If your religion has doctrines that transcend criticism and empirical analysis and must be accepted uncritically as a matter of faith, then like or not, you have a belief system that is completely insulated from any sort of critical inquiry (except by outsiders). Whether or not the adherents of the religion are fanatics, depends on how they respond to outside challenges. Young-earth creationists are fanatics, because they've seen scientific discovery challenge their literal interpretations of mythology, and they are hard at work building a wall of separation between their church members and any educational material that includes evolutionary theory. They teach their children from creationist home-schooling textbooks, that scientists and academics are godless enemies of Christianity, and when they are done with their education, the brightest homeschool children are encouraged to further their education at places like Liberty University, Regent University and this new Patrick Henry College that was created specifically with them in mind. These Christian colleges seem to focus almost exclusively on law and theology, so they will fill the ranks of the ministry and clog the benches with more conservative judges, but they won't add anything to future scientific discovery.

Now, to sum it up, these people may be polite in public, dress nice, go to work every day, pay their taxes and keep their grass cut......but to me, I would have to say YES they are fanatics! Probably not dangerous fanatics (except for the way they vote), but still fanatics none-the-less!

They are not interchangeable.

You can be a fanatical Islamicist, but surely you are not trying to tell us that every muslim is a fanatic are you?

My my my....

They are to some degree except for Secular Muslims! Speaking of creationism, there is a very large Islamic creationist movement that has its own version of the Discovery Institute, over in Turkey. They create their own science textbooks that deny evolutionary theory where it confronts their religion, and as a result, according to a poll of public acceptance of evolution taken two years ago that compared the U.S., Japan and 30 European nations, Turkey was at the bottom of the list, and the only country that saved the U.S. from being in last place: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/0...at-least-w.html

But, once again there is still the question of deciding who is a harmless fanatic and who is a dangerous fanatic! A few years ago, just after 9/11, I spent some time studying this religion that I completely overlooked up till then. At first, I was put off by the Islamic apologists, both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars such as Karen Armstrong, who tried to shift the blame for terrorism and related violence completely from their religion to social, economic, and tribal issues. These may play a part, but it seemed that they are deliberately downplaying the role of religious doctrines that encourage martyrdom.

On the other hand, the arguments made by Islam-critics like Robert Spencer, Craig Wynn, Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, focus on those Quran and Hadith verses that are the most shocking to Western ears, and argue that all of these verses condoning warfare and slaughter during the Conquest of Arabia makes Muslims more accepting of violence and brutality today. But, at the same time, they try to minimize the influence on modern Christians and Jews of the glorification of killing and brutality found in the Old Testament books, especially those dealing with the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan. From what I've read about some of the stories coming from the warfronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, military chaplains are once again reaching back to those OT verses that are usually ignored except during times of war.

You can also be a fanatic and NOT be religious.

Yeah, I think I mentioned that already!

You don't have to look very far back into history to see people commit suicidal acts for any other number of creeds, tribes, nationalism and racism.

And, if they believe that they will escape judgement and hellfire by becoming a suicide bomber, you can't deny the connection with the religious doctrine!

I'll leave it to you to do your own research.

I do it all the time!

[WIP]

Not much of a gene pool there. If Adam and Eve are the first, then the children would be the second generation. Then what about the third generation? Seems like some incest going on there. To harsh?

I doubt such genetic diversity in the human species could derive from just two people. That was one thing I thought about when someone brought up Adam and Eve... I would get a reply of immaculate conception.

I guarantee the people who developed the myth of the Garden of Eden, which probably originated in ancient Sumeria, gave such issues no consideration since genetics was unknown and traditional societies that arrange marriages, still today force cousins to marry to keep wealth and land within the tribe. So, if you already accept the concept of first cousins getting married, I'm sure they would have seen nothing wrong with allowing a special dispensation to allow the children of Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply!" Today, many Christian fundamentalists teach that incest was not a taboo in this case because these first people were closer to perfection than successive generations. They back this belief up with ridiculously long lifespans of ancient patriarchs, most notably Methusalah, who allegedly almost made it to the thousand year mark! He died at the age of 969. Numbers had great significance in ancient times; you notice the same lucky numbers like 7, 10, 12 popping up all over the Bible, and it seems that while they were telling their tall tales, the original writers seen a millenium (1000 years) as too significant to claim that any man could surpass it!

But if a man could live almost a thousand years and still be fertile, the population increase would have been astronomical. For this reason, the biblical literalists claim that the long-lived early descendents of Adam and Eve could quickly populate the Earth! It would have been as good an explanation as anything if the fossil record and genomics hadn't come along and killed it!

Now the Tree of Knowledge should not be shunned, it should be embraced, and if eating that fruit garners more knowledge and understanding that should be considered a good thing right? But it is not. The religion wants you to stay dumb so you can be manipulated.

That's a point I have made with many fundamentalists who take the Garden of Eden literally -- the serpent (wasn't Satan at that time, that was a later interpretation) told Eve the truth. God did not want them to gain knowledge, but instead remain innocent and ignorant like animals in a zoo! Because of their curiosity, and desire for knowledge, they were cut off from Eden and lost their innocence and their immortality, since the angels prevented them from returning to the Garden and eating the fruit of the Tree of Life.

If you look on the story as an allegory for the loss of childhood innocence, the Garden of Eden and many similar myths tell the story of coming of age and learning about death and suffering in the world we have been born in to. Especially during earlier times when life was brutal, arduous and short (paraphrasing Thomas Hobbes), many people upon reflection, may have wished they had never learned about the facts of life!

----

An observation.

Throughout this thread we have gone in a couple directions. We talked about the scientific method and how it tells us how the universe works around us. None of us swear on the future theories because we know they could change and possibly be wrong altogether. But the theory is still backed by scientific method, test, prove, repeate.

We then talk about religion and god, this got us more into a philosophical debate about what god is and such. Religion teaches us that god is everything and that is it.

Can intelligence mean that you understand that there are hypocracies within religions and denounce them based on the hypocracies? Can intelligence mean that you denounce the scientific method only when it comes to dealing with the God question?

Many years ago, evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould proposed a philosophical position that he hoped would prevent conflicts between science and religion; he called it NOMA - non-overlapping magisteria, and it was his wish that science would be given the areas of discovery where it works best, and would not step beyond neuroscience and go in to ethics and philosophy of mind, where religions claim to have their special expertise. But right from the start, there were people on both sides who realized it would never work, because science is researching areas that religion considers home-turf, and even liberal religion makes claims about the Cosmos and human nature that are in opposition to scientific discoveries.

The religious way of explaining and defining our world draws from basic human nature to make up explanations for the unknown where factual knowledge is unavailable. A modern example of this process was studied by anthropologists in the 20th Century when they examined the "Cargo Cults" of the South Pacific. The John Frum Cult studied by David Attenborough just after WWII, showed Pacific Islanders making their own "radios" to talk to the air gods, making uniforms and doing marching drills mimicking U.S. soldiers who had been observed. And what's really extraordinary is that within one generation they had created their own end-time apocalyse where John Frum would return from the air with lots of cargo and drive the foreigners from their islands.

On the contrary, the scientific method is a recent development that runs counter to the human desire to jump to conclusions. I prefer this method to finding meaningful answers, but I'm a little skeptical about it replacing religion or pseudo-religious methods like new age spiritualism and mysticism. The best we can hope for is for religious dogmas to make way for reality when accumlated scientific knowledge makes certain beliefs implausible.

[JB Globe]

Okay, thanks for providing a textbook example of a straw man argument!

If you notice, I said "self-righteous atheists" instead of atheists in general. I was hoping that people would be bright enough to realize I wasn't talking about ALL atheists. So, unless you're a self-righteous atheist, you shouldn't feel offended by what I'm saying.

I'm going to skip the bits of your post where you assumed that I was speaking about all atheists, simply because that isn't what I was saying.

These assumptions that atheists are claiming to be incapable of prejudice and even claiming to be more intelligent, are part of your prejudiced view, not ours!

Well, actually they're part of Drea's prejudiced worldview, so no - I'm not pulling assumptions out of my ass.

The study that started this thread is making a claim based on averages that skeptics who have dropped their religious dogmas are going to be more intelligent than the people who accept them!

And I disagree with the findings, just like I disagree with the findings of the author's other study that says men are smarter than women. As I explained earlier, he excluded some criteria that would have influenced the findings.

But the religious are already starting off with a transcendent worldview that they have varying abilities to adapt and re-apply when new knowledge becomes available. Every new discovery that challenges a faith-based belief system can create a cognitive dissonance that leads many to adopt a hostile attitude to everything new that might threaten this carefully crafted model.

I think you're greatly exaggerating the degree to which people who aren't atheists or agnostics adhere to a fundamentalist religious worldview. They aren't the majority - most Christians in Canada for example, don't believe the earth was created in seven days, or however long it was.

Not if you take more than a superficial examination of belief systems like Communism that were based on a materialistic worldview!

Here's the thing though - if a person thoroughly examines communism as objectively as they can, they'll be a lot less likely to become a zealous communist with a dictator-streak. The same can be said for someone who objectively studies religion as well though.

But the religious are already starting off with a transcendent worldview that they have varying abilities to adapt and re-apply when new knowledge becomes available.

And what about people with transcendent worldviews that are formed by nationalism? Isn't someone who is a nationalist zealot handicapped as much as a religious zealot when it comes to digesting new kinds of knowledge?

Again, my point isn't that political ideologues are worse/better than religious ones - just that people who love to critique religion often don't apply the same standards towards other things that shape our society, and that religion is a red herring - we should be focusing on the factor that causes people to gravitate towards extreme worldviews in the first place.

Right! But physicist Steven Weinberg says it best: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I don't see what religion had to do with the Stanford prison experiment. I don't think the atheist guards in the lot were any more/less likely to torture the inmates than their religious counterparts.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you and Weinberg - religion is not the only ideology which potentially (although not systemically) causes good people to do bad things, it's one of many.

When people are told it's their Christian duty to torture and kill heretics, they may otherwise be good people, but a religious belief forces them to be barbaric

Explain to me how this is any different than Nazi propaganda fed to Germans during the third Reich? - other than the fact one is political and one is religious. Because to me - the end result is the same.

with the revival going on in the Muslim World today, many might have otherwise been productive citizens if their religious beliefs and the exhortations of their trusted religious leaders didn't tell them God wanted them to commit a terrorist attack, become a warrior, or stone a young woman to death for talking to an infidel British soldier!

Subscribing extreme religious views such as these to the majority who don't believe in them is as lazy as saying all communists are in the same league as Stalin.

I'm not sure what you mean by "revival" in the Muslim world either.

[WIP]

I think you're greatly exaggerating the degree to which people who aren't atheists or agnostics adhere to a fundamentalist religious worldview. They aren't the majority - most Christians in Canada for example, don't believe the earth was created in seven days, or however long it was.

The problem with religious liberals or moderates is that their doctrinal beliefs shift like sand dunes in the desert, and are couched with nebulous, obscure language that usually only has meaning to the theologians who create it! But because they don't want to answer questions of what supports their own beliefs, liberals feel a knee-jerk need to protect those crazy fundamentalists who vigorously proclaim their mythologies as facts. People like journalist Chris Hedges comes to mind -- as someone who regurgitates the old arguments that a belief in God is necessary to be moral, even though he doesn't apparently even believe anything in Christian doctrine is factual! Instead he applies a totally humanistic interpretation to his own religion. But Hedges's liberal theology does not stop him from running interference to try to block or divert the criticisms of atheist writers such as Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens, because they dare to connect intolerance, aggression and barbarism with Christian and Muslim religious doctrines.. As long as there are liberal apologists who demand that relgious belief systems must always be regarded as benign, no serious debate over whether harms can be connected directly with religious doctrines can be made!

Here's the thing though - if a person thoroughly examines communism as objectively as they can, they'll be a lot less likely to become a zealous communist with a dictator-streak. The same can be said for someone who objectively studies religion as well though.

An objective study of any religion will lead to a crisis of faith in most people! When I was in highschool, I was planning on heading off to a seminary to seek a career in the ministry, but I made the mistake of reading books on textual examination of the scriptures and was shocked to discover how cluttered and arbitrary the collection of books that finally made up the Bible was, and the degree of copying errors, additions and omissions - all led me to question whether my religion was any different than the others that were mere mythology. Whenever some fundamentalist tells me now, that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, I have to assume they no nothing about the collection and copying of the various books.

And what about people with transcendent worldviews that are formed by nationalism? Isn't someone who is a nationalist zealot handicapped as much as a religious zealot when it comes to digesting new kinds of knowledge?

The term "transcendent" in itself, means a belief in supernatural principles that are ultimate and unchanging. The only non-religious belief system I can think of that has transcendent beliefs and principles is Marxism; so besides the commies, transcendent nationalism means that it uses a religious belief system to justify its claims of nationalistic or racial superiority.

Again, my point isn't that political ideologues are worse/better than religious ones - just that people who love to critique religion often don't apply the same standards towards other things that shape our society, and that religion is a red herring - we should be focusing on the factor that causes people to gravitate towards extreme worldviews in the first place.

Now, if that extremist worldview can be connected to being indoctrinated with a religious belief, such as 'martyrdom', then the leaders and adherents of that religion should not be able to duck questions about what connection that doctrine may have had with a man who steps on a loaded bus wearing a bomb-belt. But this is where those moderates like the previously mentioned Hedges, jump in the way and demand that you can't challenge the religion itself.

I don't see what religion had to do with the Stanford prison experiment. I don't think the atheist guards in the lot were any more/less likely to torture the inmates than their religious counterparts.

I don't either! It was so long ago, I forget what the point about the Stanford experiment was about anyway.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you and Weinberg - religion is not the only ideology which potentially (although not systemically) causes good people to do bad things, it's one of many.

Yes, and some sociologists claim that nationalist grievances or tribal resentment alone, can motivate someone to commit barbaric acts that would normally be out of character. But, once you add the belief that barbarism is actually a holy cause that will be rewarded by God, you have a killer who believes he must overcome his natural revulsion to commit whatever crime is demanded, because it will gain favour with God and lead to reward after death. The Communists' version: 'Heroes of the Revolution' pales in comparison!

Explain to me how this is any different than Nazi propaganda fed to Germans during the third Reich? - other than the fact one is political and one is religious. Because to me - the end result is the same.

Nazism was political and religious - the two cannot be separated in any analysis of their ideology. Christians obviously try to unload Hitler and the Nazi movement, but Hitler himself, always regarded himself a Catholic first - although he spoke highly of Martin Luther in some of his speeches -- likely because Luther wrote a book declaring the Jews to be damned for refusing Christ and deserving of hellfire. Luther was angry with the governments of his day because they would not destroy Jewish synagogues and drive the Jews out of Christian lands. Many of Hitler's henchmen, and possibly Hitler himself, were fond of Norse mythology, and wanted it incorporated into a unified German church that the Nazis intended would amalgamate Catholic and Lutheran churches in Germany. But regardless of whether or not they were heretics, there's no denying the huge influence religious beliefs had in formulating Nazi philosophy! From an historical view, this is one of the things that really irritates me about how this story is being taught -- Hitler did not invent antisemitism; and it wasn't a racial issue in the centuries that led up to the Holocaust -- there was always an underlying thought that those who refuse to become Christian were a damned lot, who were on there way to hell and might lead others to destruction as well.

Subscribing extreme religious views such as these to the majority who don't believe in them is as lazy as saying all communists are in the same league as Stalin.

Actually, that's not a bad analogy, since socialists or the 'Euro-communists' for example, played much the same role as religious liberals, by getting indignant when criticism of the Soviet Union or Mao's China included criticism of the Marxist ideology that inspired these regimes. The Euro-coms in particular, were always claiming that the Soviets weren't real communists. And to me, that sounds similar to many Muslims who say terrorists are not real Muslims and we have to criticise the "extremists" with language that does not include questions about their religion as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by "revival" in the Muslim world either.

It's not accepted by all Orientalist historians, but many feel that the growth of secularism in the Muslim World ended in 1919, with the shock of the collapse of the last Islamic Caliphate, when Kemal Attaturk, who decided after winning the Battle of Galipoli, that he would seize upon the new-found national pride of the Turks to scrap the old empire and replace it with a Western-style secular state - the nation of Turkey. The first caliphate was formed by Muhammed, and Muslims assumed that this was God's chosen government, and would continue to slowly expand until it conquered the entire world. With its collapse, many Muslim intellectuals may have become disillusioned and abandoned religion, but there was a hard core that decided that Muslims were being judged by God for their failings and had to return to religion in a big way. One of the movements was the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt founded by Hassan al-Banna; which still exists today, and influenced Al Qaeda, Hamas, and probably every other extreme Muslim fundamentalist group that wants a return to Sharia and Islamic government.

[JB Globe]

The problem with religious liberals or moderates is that their doctrinal beliefs shift like sand dunes in the desert,

Says who, you?

People like journalist Chris Hedges comes to mind -- as someone who regurgitates the old arguments that a belief in God is necessary to be moral,

I've never read anything by Hedges that suggests he believes that. Have you?

the criticisms of atheist writers such as Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens, because they dare to connect intolerance, aggression and barbarism with Christian and Muslim religious doctrines..

The problem with Hitchens and Harris' arguments, like other atheist fanatics, is that they ignore the fact that secular ideologies also have the capacity to turn their adherents into irrational people who will violate human rights to advance their cause.

An objective study of any religion will lead to a crisis of faith in most people!

If by this you mean that it will lead to most people becoming atheist, than that's a gross assumption based on nothing more than your own personal experience.

However if you mean that objectively challenging one's own beliefs (and really, we could be talking about political beliefs as well here) will result in an evolution of one's own beliefs, than of course.

The only non-religious belief system I can think of that has transcendent beliefs and principles is Marxism;

I would argue that any political, national, or ethnic ideology that espouses that its followers/members are superior simply because of their beliefs, nationality, or ethnicity qualifies as being transcendent.

Now, if that extremist worldview can be connected to being indoctrinated with a religious belief, such as 'martyrdom', then the leaders and adherents of that religion should not be able to duck questions about what connection that doctrine may have had with a man who steps on a loaded bus wearing a bomb-belt.

Other than the small minority of Imams and scholars affiliated with extremist movements - who is saying that suicide bombing of civilians is acceptable under Islamic doctrine? The vast majority of Muslims and Muslim scholars readily admit that Islam does not allow the targeting of civilians, or setting out on a mission with the implicit intention of killing oneself.

But this is where those moderates like the previously mentioned Hedges, jump in the way and demand that you can't challenge the religion itself.

Well of course you CAN challenge the entirety of Islam on the issue of suicide bombing, it would just be utterly redundant considering it's already considered a sin.

But, once you add the belief that barbarism is actually a holy cause that will be rewarded by God, you have a killer who believes he must overcome his natural revulsion to commit whatever crime is demanded, because it will gain favour with God and lead to reward after death. The Communists' version: 'Heroes of the Revolution' pales in comparison!

If that's the case, than why are communists responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history? (see: Stalin's purges, Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouge genocide)

Nazism was political and religious - the two cannot be separated in any analysis of their ideology.

Whatever the motivators behind certain Nazi figures actions, the de-facto way they played out in the general public was an ideology based on racial superiority, religious elements were only used when it helped advance that ideology.

Christians obviously try to unload Hitler and the Nazi movement, but Hitler himself, always regarded himself a Catholic first

Actually, there's no historical consensus on if Hitler was religious or not.

The first caliphate was formed by Muhammed, and Muslims assumed that this was God's chosen government, and would continue to slowly expand until it conquered the entire world. With its collapse, many Muslim intellectuals may have become disillusioned and abandoned religion, but there was a hard core that decided that Muslims were being judged by God for their failings and had to return to religion in a big way.

The term "first caliphate" does not apply to all governments that existed from Mohammed-the end of the Ottomans - it is not one single monolithic entity (ie - the Ottoman Empire was radically different from the Umayyad Caliphate). Within that time period there have been waves of conservatism, reform, fundamentalism, etc. - it didn't just start with Ataturk.

Even now there is reform going on in the Muslim world, some authors like Reza Aslan have argued that we are in the period of the Islamic Reformation. Moderates are going at it with extremists, conservatives, liberals, and vice versa.

And quite frankly, a non-Muslim Western man discrediting Islam as a whole only serves to help extremists who have set up this polarized worldview that "the West is against Islam in general"

[WIP]

I've never read anything by Hedges that suggests he believes that. Have you?

Do you know who Chris Hedges is? Or are you just playing dumb, like you are doing on that other thread, making excuses for Muslim extremists!

Here's the guts of Chris Hedges' position that religion and belief in God cannot be blamed for violence:

Real religion has nothing to do with superstition, irrational beliefs, or tribalism. God is not an anthropomorphic deity; He is just “the name we give to our belief that life has meaning.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200705...ve_in_atheists/

Now, doesn't that strike you as a little arrogant and presumptuous, for a reporter, who has no training in the study of religion, philosophy, or theology, to start making sweeping statements about what constitutes "real religion?" For Chris Hedges, "God is not an anthropomorphic deity." Well, what sort of God does Chris Hedges believe in anyway? It's certainly not the 'anthropomorphic' god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, so what right does he have to claim any sort of intellectual authority to speak on behalf of 'moderate' religions? "He is just “the name we give to our belief that life has meaning.” -- is not going to fly very far with even the most liberal Christians, let alone Muslims or Jews! To me, it seems that this sort of religious moderate doesn't believe in anything supernatural any more than I do; he just believes in belief! There is a patronizing aspect of this notion that the masses have to believe in divine purpose and eternal life or they will conclude life has no meaning. There are a lot of atheistic scientists and academics who share this outlook, and it's more likely that Hedges is an atheist who also believes that the real world may be too harsh for most people, so they need religion -- than it is that he actually practices any sort of Christianity.

During an interview on Point Of Inquiry, host D.J. Grothe tried to get Hedges to elaborate a little on what his own religious beliefs are, and how they correlate with the majority of believers, let alone fundamentalists -- and as usual, it was like nailing jello to a wall. But in the interview, Hedges is sure that he doesn't believe in the concept of moral progress; which dismisses advances made in society, like ending slavery, or the scientific advances made in medicine and technology, that have improved the quality of life. Hedges says that 'he finds people who put their faith in science and reason to be as delusional as Christian fundamentalists place in miracles and angels.' As for that comparison, I haven't looked for polling numbers, but offhand I'd be willing to bet that a clear majority of Christians believe in miracles and angels! So once again, what sort of 'moderate' is this guy, and how much does his beliefs coincide with the majority he is claiming to represent?

The problem with Hitchens and Harris' arguments, like other atheist fanatics, is that they ignore the fact that secular ideologies also have the capacity to turn their adherents into irrational people who will violate human rights to advance their cause.

No, they do not ignore dangerous secular movements! That is a false charge that gets continually tossed up (like Hitler was an atheist), no matter how many times they are refuted. It's usually little more than an attempt to change the subject, whenever anyone criticizes the growth of Islamism or harms done by the Vatican. But the preachers and other religious critics like to lump every secular movement together, and Hitchens or Harris have a right to point out that Communism was not a humanist philosophy, since it did not value individual rights and freedoms, and made a claim to possessing perfect knowledge of human needs and how to remedy them. Out of the other side of their mouths, the same critics criticize humanism for not having objective standards and continually revising and updating their philosophy.

Other than the small minority of Imams and scholars affiliated with extremist movements - who is saying that suicide bombing of civilians is acceptable under Islamic doctrine? The vast majority of Muslims and Muslim scholars readily admit that Islam does not allow the targeting of civilians, or setting out on a mission with the implicit intention of killing oneself.

And one way to play games with this issue is to redefine the very word 'civilian'. You could say that no Israeli is a civilian, since they have a mandatory draft, and everyone has to serve in the army - as C.I.C. president, Mohammed Elmasry did, or you could quote the Quran and say they are just decendents of apes and pigs, like this sheik who runs a Vancouver mosque: Muslim leaders clarify anti-Semitic remarks

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/10/25/...ers_041025.htmlMuslim leaders clarify anti-Semitic remarks

Well of course you CAN challenge the entirety of Islam on the issue of suicide bombing, it would just be utterly redundant considering it's already considered a sin.

Got any polling data to back that up?

If that's the case, than why are communists responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history? (see: Stalin's purges, Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouge genocide)

Now since that answer was supposed to address the issue of highly motivated warriors who are willing to die for a cause, it avoids the question entirely! Stalin's and Mao's mass killings were done by starvation, not by holy warriors on a suicide mission! The question I want answered is how do you motivate someone to sacrifice his or her own life for the purpose of killing others, unless that you can convince him that he's not really going to be dead, and will instead have a better life than he would have if he failed to carry out the mission?

Whatever the motivators behind certain Nazi figures actions, the de-facto way they played out in the general public was an ideology based on racial superiority, religious elements were only used when it helped advance that ideology.

And you're going to pretend it all began with Adolph Hitler? Pop quiz, who wrote the following -- Adolph Hitler or Martin Luther?

What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? ...Let me give you my honest advice. First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire. ...Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. ...Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books. ...Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more. ...Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden. ...Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. ...Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the ax, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle, and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses. [if there is any danger of Jews doing harm to their gentile overlords] ...let us drive them out of the country for all time ...away with them.

http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm

Actually, there's no historical consensus on if Hitler was religious or not.

Then, there should be! Since his owning writings were obsessed with religion. Take a look at some of the prominent quotes from Mein Kampf, and notice how much he talks about faith, God and how he wants to save Christianity.

The term "first caliphate" does not apply to all governments that existed from Mohammed-the end of the Ottomans - it is not one single monolithic entity (ie - the Ottoman Empire was radically different from the Umayyad Caliphate). Within that time period there have been waves of conservatism, reform, fundamentalism, etc. - it didn't just start with Ataturk.

What started with Ataturk was secular government in a Muslim-majority nation; and even the moderates have to admit that Turkey's secularism has been continually dangling by a thread since the nation was founded, and would not have survived if the constitution wasn't set up to place the military in charge of safe-guarding that constitution, and overthrowing a number of elected governments that tried to change it! And Muslims seem to consider the Caliphate to be a single entity, regardless of which dynasty was in charge:

The fall of the Caliphate in 1924 was an event of monumental significance for Muslims as it represented the end of a 1350 year-old institution that had existed since the time of the Prophet Muhammad himself. Its loss had a "deep effect on the way in which politically conscious Arabs thought of themselves" [1] such that in the immediate aftermath, individuals and movements from all quarters of the Islamic political spectrum emerged, advocating the restoration of some form of Shariahbased political system. Demands were not restricted to Turkey though it was the last home of the Caliphate and was then subject to harsh, anti-religious Kemalist policies. In Egypt, even prominent reformists led calls for its immediate re-establishment, Rashid Rida for example saying in his magazine 'al-Manar' "All Muslims will remain in a state of sin until they select another caliph and pledge allegiance to him", and by 1928 a populist Islamic movement had emerged which held Islamic government as a central goal. "When asked what is it that you call, reply that it is Islam, the message of Muhammad, the religion that contains within it a government" were the words of Hassan al-Banna founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. In its dying days, attempts to salvage it where directed from as far away as India by such likes as the Khilafat Movement [2]

http://www.newcivilisation.com/index.php/m...article/73/P0/0

Even now there is reform going on in the Muslim world, some authors like Reza Aslan have argued that we are in the period of the Islamic Reformation. Moderates are going at it with extremists, conservatives, liberals, and vice versa.

And wondering which version of Islam will prevail, would be nothing more than a parlour game for Westerners if it wasn't for the fact that we are spending billions of dollars to buy oil from Muslim nations, many of whom are using a large portion of oil revenues to build mosques and madrassahs that teach the most conservative, hardline version of Islam all around the world today.

And quite frankly, a non-Muslim Western man discrediting Islam as a whole only serves to help extremists who have set up this polarized worldview that "the West is against Islam in general"

Now this goes back to the contention of Sam Harris, that moderate religionists are part of the problem, because they want to block any criticism of dangerous ideologies!

Should a non-Muslim Western man stay silent while female suicide bombers in Iraq are reminding the world about "martyrdom" or say nothing about barbaric judicial penalties of Sharia, like public stoning, beheadings, or chopping off hands of thieves? Or say nothing when Western publications are intimated into not displaying cartoons because of the threats of violence from Muslims? On the contrary, I would argue that the silence and lack of action by the West when the Ayatollah Khomeini put a contract out on Salmun Rushdie's life, emboldened other extremists to use violence and intimidation to try to stop criticism of many things that need to be challenged.