Religion Study shows that IQ decreases with religiosity

I decide to read the article,

the thing we do not see is not our IQ with religion,
BUT THE IQ OF THOSE WHO TEACH THE RELIGION.
it has nothing to do with the faith of some, but in the methods that some teach as result of the faith,
2 good examples.
1 in the Christians, the 'witch hunt' and 'holy inquision'
2 in the muslims, the late teach of an imam that driving harms the woman's matrix, etc etc.

as you it is not the IQ of the faithfull, but the IQ of the 'teachers'
Now if that 'teacher' has high position, then we can not deny his 'divine words' cause al these 'teach us the words of Gods'
so as a faithfull I must follow and drop my IQ to their level


the problem is not our IQ, as faithfull
the problem the decrease of our IQ when follow people with low IQ simply cause they 'speak the words of Gods' or transfer to us 'God's will'

for those who study mathematics and physicsa good example the late Heisenberg quantum mechanics theory of 'uncertainty principle'
that raise many scientists against it, for what? for the believe that our god is a 'GOD OF LAW AND ORDER' so "God does not play with lucky cubes'
those who know the case realise how the IQ of some scientists was effected by the IQ of the 'God's teachers' until that day.
 
The question: Is there a creator and is the universe constructed in an organized manner, is answered through the scientific method. The creator could be the energy holding things together in space, creating and maintaining equilibrium. Whether we personify God or view God as a scientific construct makes no difference. In essence, my existence depends on IT to survive and so does every other living entity.
I'm fine with playing with semantics, god is the universe or energy in it, however if we talk about god the creator it would imply conscious effort in creating universe, some purpose and sense, and not just its mindless existence. If it just a form of flowing energy, it is losing the conscious god status, the God people are looking for. We might call it just universe instead for simplicity.

There is method in everything we observe whether we believe it is created or because of natural occurrences is a matter of world view. Personally, I believe things make sense in the world because of the existence of a creator. I cannot accept the belief that nature works the way it does simply because of natural processes were it not for the existence of a creator exercising control over such processes. The argument that we have no scientific proof for the existence of God or a creator is in my opinion one of the greatest fallacies in 'scientific' reasoning. The question however of whether a creator exists in man's image, whatever that means, is another question altogether
Hypothesis of Multi Universe, might explain order by chance and probability without invoking god to keep world orderly.
If we consider your belief in god-universe, and however elegant you make your belief, it stands in strong contrast with all existing religions. Religions which personalised god (and spirits) and made it essential for everydays' live, the participating god. It brings morality to people, justice, fortune, punishment, love, law and order, social structure, and what's not. Very importantly, in all religions gods and spirits secure life after death, where better and eternal life begins.
These gods and spirits are taking care of people and participate in their lives. This is the god(s) people want and are looking for. I'm not sure how you can consolidate your energy-universe-creator with the one based on human nature, the participating god? Just for the purpose of not inventing your own beliefs and explaining the god billions of people believe in.

. I believe that suffering and disaster is part of nature's process. To lose faith in God because of the disaster and suffering in the world is blaming the creator for our irresponsible actions and the consequences of our past actions on the planet. If intelligence and assuming responsibility for one's own actions were commensurate then
I'm not sure how someone can be responsible for a little child dying from rare genetic disorder? Suffering of this child and parents is not a consequence of actions of ancestors. Just a stupid mutation caused by cosmic rays or bad combination of genes.
If creator is participating one it should be blamed for this senseless cruelty. The nonparticipating universe-god can't be blamed for this but in this case why should we care for it, it might not exist for us at all?

I would have said that you have a point however it is my personal experience that levels of narcissism increase in more intelligent individuals as they work much harder to achieve positive regard from others, seeking recognition and affirmation by their peers. In essence, a high IQ suggests that an individual spends the requisite amount of time studying and developing themselves in the belief that they would be able to make a difference in the world, hopefully a difference for the better.
I would hope so, although I'm not sure if I would define the quest for self improvement as narcissism.

What you are saying is that less intelligent persons need to believe in a creator whereas I am saying that more intelligent persons need the existence of a creator to avoid personal responsibility for the suffering they have caused. This however becomes too 'painful' for some individuals to bare, the elite or exceptional among us have come to the realization that belief in a creator does not negate their responsibility and in an effort to free themselves from the burden they rely on themselves for 'salvation' ... the theme here is CONTROL.
I wouldn't go that far, however, I've seen on many instances people cleaning their soles, or avoid looking for answers, with short statement: "It was god's will".
I didn't say less intelligent person needs to believe in creator (the need, possibly genetic) affects intelligent people or not same way. I was saying that some less intelligent people will give up analyzing world by themselves looking for answers and rely on knowledge and beliefs of others, like parents and teachers. Plus, I believe that spirituality (the feeling supernatural forces, antropomorfism, feeling of uniqueness) might be genetic, and as such is stronger than logic in most circumstances. Simple conservativism is to blame too. People tend to romanticise things from their childhood and youth and consider them superior (religion included) over things that come with new generations. Not mentioning that many people are simply afraid of any new changes.
Well, it is not that easy to become atheist, when one used to be a believer.
I would like to mention that many religions have fall back safety if it comes to analytical reasoning of god's existence. It is a blasphemy and a sin to even consider that god might not exist.

Intelligence is correlated strongly with a belief in an individual's ability to exercise control. This in turn correlates with self-aggrandizement or narcissism. The belief that there can be no creator is found among the most narcissistic individuals, those of us who refuse responsibility and rationalize that the proverbial creator would never allow the holocaust to happen and yet they believe that man would somehow stop the suffering he has imposed on his fellow man. This circular reasoning ends at the feet of the individual narcissist ... for lacking the necessary empathy and insight to perceive their own inability to comprehend that it is man's own responsibility to behave in a manner that is in alignment with their own 'ideas' befitting the existence of a creator.
Not to my observations. Narcissism will correlate with believe of one's special status, look, destiny, egocentrism. Even if this person doesn't belong to mainstream religions, this person is spiritual in nature. Is he a product of random events and blind genetic combinations? Off course not, someone in the universe made him this very special specimen.

If we as man behave poorly and expect somebody other than ourselves to clean up our mess, does that not say more about our lack of morality and misguided self-importance than the existence or non-existence of a creator???
I agree with this.

What if a creator had no reason to save such a man as ourselves, does that mean the creator does not exist, or that man is riddled with vice and self-love?
One can ask couple of questions. Did creator know what he was doing?
If people are to blame for their actions, maybe god should be too?
I hope we can put god to the same or even higher standards we put imperfect people to.
 
Psychologists who specialize in this have estimated the IQs of people who lived long ago. For example, when a seven year old can read eight languages and has mastered calculus, this would give a rough estimate of IQ. We simply look at high IQ children today and see what they can do.

Martin Luther was a brilliant university student who received higher marks than all the other students. This would be the equivalent of a student on the Dean's List at Yale or M.I.T. today.
 
Hitler was not a devout Christian. He planned to eventually abolish Christianity and replace it with a new paganism. The most intelligent Nazis were propaganda minister Goebbels (200) and Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, architect of the German economic miracle (167). Hitler was intelligent, but not that intelligent. IQ was probably around 140.
Incidentally, like you, he didn't believe in IQ tests and banned them. Jews scored higher than Germans. "This is proof that Jews are sneaky and know how to fool intelligence tests."

Incidentally, religiosity itself is partly genetic. One could breed a race of religious geniuses, or a race of retarded atheists. It's all in the genes.

At present, people in the upper middle class and people who with more education tend to be liberal atheists. This has not always been the case. During the Middle Ages, the intelligentsia were the Christians and had stronger faith than the uneducated peasants.

In Germany, between 1800 and 1945, the most educated and intelligent non-Jewish Germans were the most likely to be Nazis and atheists. The highest rate of Nazi Party membership was among non-Jewish medical doctors. Half the doctors in Berlin were Jewish. They were banned from treating Aryan patients. This opened up a lot of business for Aryan doctors.
It might sound hard to believe, but in the 1920's German universities were hotbeds of right-wing activism. The hero was Nietzsche, who wrote that "God is dead."
They opposed Christian morality and wanted Darwinism, a "survival of the fittest." They believed it was the duty of Aryans to exterminate or enslave inferior races.
This is not the belief of Christians.

In the United States, many hillbillies, poor whites, and blacks are uneducated and believe in God. This is because they were raised that way. There are many intelligent people who believe in God and many stupid people who are atheists.

You keep confusing correlation with causation. Many people with very high IQ's find atheism hard to accept. If there is no God, then who or what created the Universe? Astrophysicists don't really know.
 
Hitler was not a devout Christian. He planned to eventually abolish Christianity and replace it with a new paganism. The most intelligent Nazis were propaganda minister Goebbels (200) and Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, architect of the German economic miracle (167). Hitler was intelligent, but not that intelligent. IQ was probably around 140.
This is fine, we were just shocked they were estimated so precisely, and a note that it was estimated by specialists would have been appropriate. Nobody doubts that these individuals were very intelligent people.



Incidentally, religiosity itself is partly genetic. One could breed a race of religious geniuses, or a race of retarded atheists.
It's all in the genes.
Both statements can't be right. I agree that human spirituality is genetic. Religiosity has more of cultural vibe, though in some cases would have exact meaning as spirituality.

At present, people in the upper middle class and people who with more education tend to be liberal atheists. This has not always been the case. During the Middle Ages, the intelligentsia were the Christians and had stronger faith than the uneducated peasants.
In middle ages religious tolerance was very low for atheists or other religions. Atheists were in closets like gays.


You keep confusing correlation with causation. Many people with very high IQ's find atheism hard to accept. If there is no God, then who or what created the Universe? Astrophysicists don't really know.
Try quoting someone, so we know who you are addressing.
There is no confusion. Correlation is obvious in this case, causation or partial causation possible.
 
I'm fine with playing with semantics, god is the universe or energy in it, however if we talk about god the creator it would imply conscious effort in creating universe, some purpose and sense, and not just its mindless existence. If it just a form of flowing energy, it is losing the conscious god status, the God people are looking for. We might call it just universe instead for simplicity.

Your comment suggests that you believe that I have an understanding similar to the teaching of Aristotle & Pagan philosophy which states that God is the underlying substance, nature, being, essence of all things. This teaching makes it easy for you to comprehend God as both uncreated, incomprehensible and at the same time as God's created world and created beings. God's essence then becomes detectable and experienced as a substance, an essence, a being or nature. Rather than God's hyper-being (ousia) as, infinite and never comprehensible to a finite mind or consciousness. This is not the accepted understanding in Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Christianity however. I would also be an Atheist if this (Pagan philosophy) was my understanding of God.

The distinction as the tradition and perspective behind my understanding (.. as an Orthodox Christian), is that creation is the task of energy. If we deny the real difference between the essence of God and the acts of God, we cannot determine a clear borderline between the existence and/or reality of God (uncreated creator) and the creation.

It is necessary to make the distinction between God's nature and manifestation of things about God's nature. The two are very different, the one being the energy (uncreated essence) of God that acts on the cosmos, the other the result of God's actions on the cosmos (created). The one is God's essence (uncreated) and the other God's creation.


If one fails or is incapable of distinguishing between God's essence and His works, acts (i.e. the cosmos) then there is no distinction between God and the material or created world, cosmos. Uncreated as that which has no first cause and is not caused, in Orthodoxy is the basis for understanding outside the realm of science. Atheism here being a denial of the uncreated. Pagan philosophical metaphysics being an attempt to rationalize the uncreated.


Religions which personalised god (and spirits) and made it essential for everydays' live, the participating god. It brings morality to people, justice, fortune, punishment, love, law and order, social structure, and what's not. Very importantly, in all religions gods and spirits secure life after death, where better and eternal life begins.
These gods and spirits are taking care of people and participate in their lives. This is the god(s) people want and are looking for. I'm not sure how you can consolidate your energy-universe-creator with the one based on human nature, the participating god? Just for the purpose of not inventing your own beliefs and explaining the god billions of people believe in.

Your Paganistic or Aristotelian understanding of God brings you to the above conclusion that God and creation would 'naturally' be engaging and man would source his morality and laws from God. Evangelical teachings are problematic and Western Christianity is riddled with the inventions of sola scriptura.

The mainstream churches and Orthodox understanding in both Judaism and Christianity are and have been unified on the core principle of God as infinite and incorruptable. The heresy of personifying God is a new invention dating from the 20th century.

Evangelical Protestantism has this Pagan understanding that may be prohibiting you from engaging with me and creates this false dilemma you appear to be having. My understanding is Christian Orthodox, God is not finite, cannot be rationalized and all that is knowable to man are the actions of God (creation), the essence being the source of creation, energy. Science is the study of creation. The scientific principles are used to understand and make sense of God's creation, the cosmos.

I find that my Atheist friends have a limited or misguided understanding of the principles with Christianity. Most of my Atheist friends come from an Evangelical background or have been exposed as children to a person-centered (ego-centric) philosophy of being. This understanding naturally appeals to individuals who have a lack of self-worth and need to feel valued by a false doctrine incorporating psychology and entertainment to draw large crowds of people in need of narcissistic supply.

Atheism is not about increased intelligence. The correlation between Atheism and personality type or even a particular experience would be more probable IMHO. The essence of this discussion is about the value of IQ tests and their interpretation. Intelligence should correlate positively with better decision making and it does for the most part. The problem with intelligence as a construct is that it is not the only variable exercising an influence on a individual's decision to follow a particular belief system. Similarly, psychometric tests such as the Wechsler IQ test are not very reliable. A test taker's ability or test-giver's ability to work quickly without making an error determine to a greater extent the success of an IQ test than intelligence or general knowledge. If an individual is brilliant but is not motivated to excel and lacks interest at the time of testing, the scores will not reflect that individual's true ability.

Whether an individual is religious or intelligent is not as relevant as whether an individual was traumatized as a child or lacked the love and affection of a primary caregiver. Psychometric testing should only be interpreted by a trained professional. Any psychometric test scores become void following 6months after testing and the use of test scores should only be used for the purpose the test was originally intended for.

Fact: Atheism as a belief-system cannot be proven using the scientific methods.
Fallacy: Atheism is a scientifically verifiable theory.
 
Psychologists who specialize in this have estimated the IQs of people who lived long ago. For example, when a seven year old can read eight languages and has mastered calculus, this would give a rough estimate of IQ. We simply look at high IQ children today and see what they can do.

Martin Luther was a brilliant university student who received higher marks than all the other students. This would be the equivalent of a student on the Dean's List at Yale or M.I.T. today.


i am speaking to the dogmatic priest of the neighborhhod, who's power sometimes is big,
or those who believe in what ever they say to them, cause they are priests,


i am talking about the Salem witch hunt,
I am talking about holy inquision minds, at their times they were consider brilliant minds
somewhere in USA few decades a massacre happened cause some followed a god-send priest.
 
Its funny when people say they are religions because they think its only about doing good. Religions are based on text and scriptures. These texts and scriptures are pretty disturbing in my opinion and install a sense of hate, prejudice and supremacy, ideologies that can be more compared to Fascist and Nazi and totalitarian mind sets. They are nothing but MEN MADE. Who has an honest heart and read WELL should know what I mean.
 
..................
Fact: Atheism as a belief-system cannot be proven using the scientific methods.
Fallacy: Atheism is a scientifically verifiable theory.

Atheism consists of the position that one does not believe in something (the existence of a supreme being) because there is no evidence that such a being exists. If you're going to claim that a god or a unicorn or whatever exists, it is up to you to prove it. Saying "I don't see the proof" isn't a belief system unless it involves disregarding evidence. Nobody needs to prove that a god or a unicorn or elves don't exist.
 
Hitler was not a devout Christian. He planned to eventually abolish Christianity and replace it with a new paganism. The most intelligent Nazis were propaganda minister Goebbels (200) and Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, architect of the German economic miracle (167). Hitler was intelligent, but not that intelligent. IQ was probably around 140.
Incidentally, like you, he didn't believe in IQ tests and banned them. Jews scored higher than Germans. "This is proof that Jews are sneaky and know how to fool intelligence tests."

Incidentally, religiosity itself is partly genetic. One could breed a race of religious geniuses, or a race of retarded atheists. It's all in the genes.

At present, people in the upper middle class and people who with more education tend to be liberal atheists. This has not always been the case. During the Middle Ages, the intelligentsia were the Christians and had stronger faith than the uneducated peasants.

In Germany, between 1800 and 1945, the most educated and intelligent non-Jewish Germans were the most likely to be Nazis and atheists. The highest rate of Nazi Party membership was among non-Jewish medical doctors. Half the doctors in Berlin were Jewish. They were banned from treating Aryan patients. This opened up a lot of business for Aryan doctors.
It might sound hard to believe, but in the 1920's German universities were hotbeds of right-wing activism. The hero was Nietzsche, who wrote that "God is dead."
They opposed Christian morality and wanted Darwinism, a "survival of the fittest." They believed it was the duty of Aryans to exterminate or enslave inferior races.
This is not the belief of Christians.

In the United States, many hillbillies, poor whites, and blacks are uneducated and believe in God. This is because they were raised that way. There are many intelligent people who believe in God and many stupid people who are atheists.

You keep confusing correlation with causation. Many people with very high IQ's find atheism hard to accept. If there is no God, then who or what created the Universe? Astrophysicists don't really know.

So, you're just going to make stuff up? I see no point in arguing with you.
 
Atheism consists of the position that one does not believe in something (the existence of a supreme being) because there is no evidence that such a being exists. If you're going to claim that a god or a unicorn or whatever exists, it is up to you to prove it. Saying "I don't see the proof" isn't a belief system unless it involves disregarding evidence. Nobody needs to prove that a god or a unicorn or elves don't exist.

My point exactly, the belief that there is no scientific evidence of God is one of the beliefs in Atheism. Atheists need to have faith that what they believe is the truth despite the very real chance that they may actually be wrong. And both sides cannot prove that they are right using scientific methods.

The universe was formed or created whether we like it or not. Similarly, something created the universe. Now to say that you don't believe in unicorns is testable as unicorns, if they did exist, would be visible to the human eye, audible to the human ear, recognizable to us in a way that we could verify its existence using scientific measurement. This analogy however is false when comparing the quest for unicorns with the quest for the creator or god(s).

How are we suppose to verify the existence of God if we cannot comprehend or know what we are looking for. The existence of verifiable creation does not prove the existence of a verifiable creator in much the same way as the existence of verifiable Atheists that live and breathe does not prove the non-existence of God.

Atheism relies on science for its argument against theism whereas the existence of God cannot be tested or falsified using scientific measurement. To say that the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God using science when science is the study of creation Not the creator, suggests a lack of willingness on the part of the Atheist, the onus is therefore on the Atheist to prove that the scientific measure put forth as necessary for the verification of God is in fact a reliable measurement. This is another belief of Atheists, namely that scientific measurements can be used to tests the existence of God.

When I state that Atheism is not falsifiable I am merely stating it to prove the point that the measure or ruler or canon used by Atheists to discount the existence of God is in fact not the right tool for the job, whether one is testing the hypothesis one way or the other is irrelevant really. The onus is on the Atheist to prove that his/her canon of what constitutes the non-existence of God is in fact a reliable measure in that it is a measure of whether God does or does not exist. Therefore it can be said that both believers and Atheists rely on their experiences rather than verifiable measurements and as a consequence are reliant on their faith in God or the non-existence of God. Atheists have a unicorn too!
 
The distinction as the tradition and perspective behind my understanding (.. as an Orthodox Christian), is that creation is the task of energy. If we deny the real difference between the essence of God and the acts of God, we cannot determine a clear borderline between the existence and/or reality of God (uncreated creator) and the creation.

It is necessary to make the distinction between God's nature and manifestation of things about God's nature. The two are very different, the one being the energy (uncreated essence) of God that acts on the cosmos, the other the result of God's actions on the cosmos (created). The one is God's essence (uncreated) and the other God's creation.


If one fails or is incapable of distinguishing between God's essence and His works, acts (i.e. the cosmos) then there is no distinction between God and the material or created world, cosmos. Uncreated as that which has no first cause and is not caused, in Orthodoxy is the basis for understanding outside the realm of science. Atheism here being a denial of the uncreated. Pagan philosophical metaphysics being an attempt to rationalize the uncreated.
If we go by Christian scriptures there is no mentioning of energy as personalization of god. Actually there is a lot of created thinking done by you in giving god some form of existence. It feels that you need to embrace scientific language and concepts, like energy, to find god according to current scientific discoveries. There is nothing really comparable in bible, which should be your "manual" in understanding god. You might be creating a new heresy.
Your writing reminds me times when I was a devoted Catholic, and had to go into very creative explanation to consolidate my beliefs with scientific observation of nature. Once I've departed from my beliefs everything became much simpler and makes more sense.

Let's assume for a moment that you are right and god is energy. How can you be sure that god is only one and not many gods or spirits exist? After all we know that there are few forms of energy, therefore why only one creator? Two or more cooperating gods could have pulled this off too.


Your Paganistic or Aristotelian understanding of God brings you to the above conclusion that God and creation would 'naturally' be engaging and man would source his morality and laws from God. Evangelical teachings are problematic and Western Christianity is riddled with the inventions of sola scriptura.
As atheist I don't need to understand God or spirits. I'm more fascinated by spirituality and religion that make people belief in supernatural, me included.

The mainstream churches and Orthodox understanding in both Judaism and Christianity are and have been unified on the core principle of God as infinite and incorruptable. The heresy of personifying God is a new invention dating from the 20th century.
When I said personalized, I meant it in more general term of giving god a function, character, voice/thought and purpose as an existing entity. I didn't mean to present god or gods in human form on a picture.

Evangelical Protestantism has this Pagan understanding that may be prohibiting you from engaging with me and creates this false dilemma you appear to be having.
I have no dilemma. I rather sense dual personality in your beliefs. On one hand you are committed Orthodox Christian and should be looking for loving and caring god, on other hand you ignored biblical teaching and "created" god out of energy.



My understanding is Christian Orthodox, God is not finite, cannot be rationalized
And yet you rationalized it as form of energy and need for existence.



I find that my Atheist friends have a limited or misguided understanding of the principles with Christianity. Most of my Atheist friends come from an Evangelical background or have been exposed as children to a person-centered (ego-centric) philosophy of being. This understanding naturally appeals to individuals who have a lack of self-worth and need to feel valued by a false doctrine incorporating psychology and entertainment to draw large crowds of people in need of narcissistic supply.
I don't think you have met many Atheists.

Egocentric? Perhaps is the person who sees other Christians as pagans? Who claims the only right understanding of universe? Who says that he believes in only true religion and god. Who calls people of different understanding of world confused, misguided, egocentric, narcissistic, incapable, heretics. Doesn't it make you special, chosen by God, born in right place and the only true religion, and skills to point others the Creator.


Atheism is not about increased intelligence. The correlation between Atheism and personality type or even a particular experience would be more probable IMHO. The essence of this discussion is about the value of IQ tests and their interpretation. Intelligence should correlate positively with better decision making and it does for the most part. The problem with intelligence as a construct is that it is not the only variable exercising an influence on a individual's decision to follow a particular belief system. Similarly, psychometric tests such as the Wechsler IQ test are not very reliable. A test taker's ability or test-giver's ability to work quickly without making an error determine to a greater extent the success of an IQ test than intelligence or general knowledge. If an individual is brilliant but is not motivated to excel and lacks interest at the time of testing, the scores will not reflect that individual's true ability.
It's ok, we see a correlation between IQ and religiosity, or income, or choices of occupation, and having a nice talk to see if one causes the other of not. No harm in it.

Fact: Atheism as a belief-system cannot be proven using the scientific methods.
For some people could be a belief, but for me it is a state 0 of religiosity. 0 in spectrum from 0 to 10 being maximum. State of non existent god, gods, spirits, UFO, Santa Claus, etc. Whatever science can't prove, or I can't see or touch, doesn't exist for me. A state of disbelief in anything supernatural or too small or too far.
I could be mistaken and some of this might exist, but I don't believe in it. My mind is in state 0 regarding these things. It hardly constitutes a belief, even less a system.
600 years ago we believed in heliocentric universe, hell in center of Earth and Saints killing dragons. Now thanks to science we stopped believing in these things. Would you call this lack of faith, in things people used to believe, a belief-system? It doesn't make sense, does it?
 
If I may...

My point exactly, the belief that there is no scientific evidence of God is one of the beliefs in Atheism.
There is no scientific proof of god's existence, therefore no need to believe.
You don't need to believe in god's nonexistence. You just need to lose a belief in god and supernatural to become Atheist. You don't need to start believing in god's nonexistence. The state of god's non existence is granted after losing a belief. It comes automatically. It is not a belief.
Take a word of someone who went through this process, which is only a theory for you.
If you love someone and you stop loving this person, does it mean that you necessarily need to love someone else? You just lose love and you lose a belief, and you back to state 0.
 
My point exactly, the belief that there is no scientific evidence of God is one of the beliefs in Atheism. Atheists need to have faith that what they believe is the truth despite the very real chance that they may actually be wrong. And both sides cannot prove that they are right using scientific methods.

The universe was formed or created whether we like it or not. Similarly, something created the universe. Now to say that you don't believe in unicorns is testable as unicorns, if they did exist, would be visible to the human eye, audible to the human ear, recognizable to us in a way that we could verify its existence using scientific measurement. This analogy however is false when comparing the quest for unicorns with the quest for the creator or god(s).

How are we suppose to verify the existence of God if we cannot comprehend or know what we are looking for. The existence of verifiable creation does not prove the existence of a verifiable creator in much the same way as the existence of verifiable Atheists that live and breathe does not prove the non-existence of God.

Atheism relies on science for its argument against theism whereas the existence of God cannot be tested or falsified using scientific measurement. To say that the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God using science when science is the study of creation Not the creator, suggests a lack of willingness on the part of the Atheist, the onus is therefore on the Atheist to prove that the scientific measure put forth as necessary for the verification of God is in fact a reliable measurement. This is another belief of Atheists, namely that scientific measurements can be used to tests the existence of God.

When I state that Atheism is not falsifiable I am merely stating it to prove the point that the measure or ruler or canon used by Atheists to discount the existence of God is in fact not the right tool for the job, whether one is testing the hypothesis one way or the other is irrelevant really. The onus is on the Atheist to prove that his/her canon of what constitutes the non-existence of God is in fact a reliable measure in that it is a measure of whether God does or does not exist. Therefore it can be said that both believers and Atheists rely on their experiences rather than verifiable measurements and as a consequence are reliant on their faith in God or the non-existence of God. Atheists have a unicorn too!

If someone says "I don't believe in things that cannot be shown to exist", some would say that is not a statement of belief but merely proof of sanity. And the scientific idea that there is no evidence of a supreme creator is in fact "falsifiable" in the sense that one could disprove it by presenting proof of a supreme creator.

If you want to argue that the existence of the universe is evidence of a creator, and if you personally find that convincing, it still doesn't provide you with any evidence to support any one particular deity. According to your argument, I could take the view that the universe was created by a purple dragon named Albert. That can't be disproven, so if someone disagrees with me, they merely have a belief system that they cannot support with evidence.
 
Both Judaism and Christianity are revelation-based models. God has certain attributes positively ascribed to Himself. The text is said to be inspired. Another way to say this is God represents Himself through the text. This type of reasoning is known as cataphatic theology. Orthodoxy however holds an apophatic view of God.

Examples of apophatic theology are:

The theophany to Elijah, where God reveals Himself in a "still, small voice" (1 Kings 19:11–13). And St. Paul's reference to the "Unknown God" in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 17:23) is sometimes pointed to as an apophatic statement.

The Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th century said that they believed in God, but they did not believe that God exists in the same sense that everything else exists. That is to say, everything else that exists was created, but the Creator transcends even existence. The essence of God is completely unknowable; mankind can know God only through His energies.

Maimonides was perhaps the first Jewish Thinker to explicitly articulate this doctrine (see also Tanya Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah Ch. 8):
God's existence is absolute and it includes no composition and we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute... still less has He accidents (מקרה), which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute however , the negative attributes are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe... When we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible; it is living — it is not dead; ...it is the first — its existence is not due to any cause; it has power, wisdom, and will — it is not feeble or ignorant; He is One — there are not more Gods than one… Every attribute predicated of God denotes either the quality of an action, or, when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself — and not of His actions — the negation of the opposite. (The Guide for the Perplexed, 1:58)

Eastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, and especially the traditional scholastic claim that God is actus purus, for its alleged incompatibility with the essence-energies distinction.

Atheism does not engage with Eastern Orthodoxy. http://www.asna.ca/resources/dawkins-delusion.pdf
 
If we go by Christian scriptures there is no mentioning of energy as personalization of god. Actually there is a lot of created thinking done by you in giving god some form of existence. It feels that you need to embrace scientific language and concepts, like energy, to find god according to current scientific discoveries. There is nothing really comparable in bible, which should be your "manual" in understanding god. You might be creating a new heresy.
Your writing reminds me times when I was a devoted Catholic, and had to go into very creative explanation to consolidate my beliefs with scientific observation of nature. Once I've departed from my beliefs everything became much simpler and makes more sense.

Let's assume for a moment that you are right and god is energy. How can you be sure that god is only one and not many gods or spirits exist? After all we know that there are few forms of energy, therefore why only one creator? Two or more cooperating gods could have pulled this off too.

As atheist I don't need to understand God or spirits. I'm more fascinated by spirituality and religion that make people belief in supernatural, me included.

When I said personalized, I meant it in more general term of giving god a function, character, voice/thought and purpose as an existing entity. I didn't mean to present god or gods in human form on a picture.

I have no dilemma. I rather sense dual personality in your beliefs. On one hand you are committed Orthodox Christian and should be looking for loving and caring god, on other hand you ignored biblical teaching and "created" god out of energy.

And yet you rationalized it as form of energy and need for existence.

The concept of God's essence in Eastern Orthodox theology is called (ousia) and is distinct from his energies (energeia in Greek, actus in Latin) or activities as actualized in the world.The ousia of God is God as God is. It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine, at first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or noetically. The essence, being, nature and substance (ousia) of God is taught in Eastern Christianity as uncreated and incomprehensible. God's ousia is defined as "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing".God's ousia is beyond all states of (nous) consciousness and unconsciousness, being and non-being (like being dead or anesthetized), beyond something and beyond nothing beyond existence and non-existence. The God's ousia has not in necessity or subsistence needing or having dependence on anything other than itself. God's ousia as uncreated is therefore incomprehensible to created beings such as human beings. Therefore God in essence is superior to all forms of ontology (metaphysics).The source, origin of God's ousia or incomprehensibliness is the Father hypostasis of the Trinity, One God in One Father.The God's energies are "unbegotten" or "uncreated" just like the existences of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) both God's existences and energies are experience-able. God's ousia is uncreatediness, beyond existence, beyond no existence, God's hyper-being is not something comprehensible to created beings.As St John Damascene states "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."

With respect to the Eastern and Western theological traditions, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, at times, one tradition may "come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or [express] it to better advantage." In these situations, the Church views the various theological expressions "often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting."

The Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (Handbook of Creeds and Definitions), the collection of Roman Catholic teachings originally compiled by Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger, has no mention of the words "energies", "hesychasm" or "Palamas". The later twentieth century saw a remarkable change in the attitude of Roman Catholic theologians to Palamas, a "rehabilitation" of him that has led to increasing parts of the Western Church considering him a saint, even if uncanonized. Some Western scholars maintain that there is no conflict between the teaching of Palamas and Roman Catholic thought on the distinction.According to G. Philips, the essence-energies distinction of Palamas is "a typical example of a perfectly admissible theological pluralism" that is compatible with the Roman Catholic magisterium. Jeffrey D. Finch claims that "the future of East-West rapprochement appears to be overcoming the modern polemics of neo-scholasticism".Some Western theologians have incorporated the essence-energies distinction into their own thinking.
 
@Dorinafinder. Thanks for these lengthy explantions. So, if we simplify and use the quantum jargon, God is actually both the superposition (the unknown) and (I might add) the Higgs Boson particle. Right?
 
The concept of God's essence in Eastern Orthodox theology is called (ousia) and is distinct from his energies (energeia in Greek, actus in Latin) or activities as actualized in the world.The ousia of God is God as God is. It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine, at first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or noetically. The essence, being, nature and substance (ousia) of God is taught in Eastern Christianity as uncreated and incomprehensible. God's ousia is defined as "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing".God's ousia is beyond all states of (nous) consciousness and unconsciousness, being and non-being (like being dead or anesthetized), beyond something and beyond nothing beyond existence and non-existence. The God's ousia has not in necessity or subsistence needing or having dependence on anything other than itself. God's ousia as uncreated is therefore incomprehensible to created beings such as human beings. Therefore God in essence is superior to all forms of ontology (metaphysics).The source, origin of God's ousia or incomprehensibliness is the Father hypostasis of the Trinity, One God in One Father.The God's energies are "unbegotten" or "uncreated" just like the existences of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) both God's existences and energies are experience-able. God's ousia is uncreatediness, beyond existence, beyond no existence, God's hyper-being is not something comprehensible to created beings.As St John Damascene states "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."

With respect to the Eastern and Western theological traditions, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, at times, one tradition may "come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or [express] it to better advantage." In these situations, the Church views the various theological expressions "often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting."

The Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (Handbook of Creeds and Definitions), the collection of Roman Catholic teachings originally compiled by Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger, has no mention of the words "energies", "hesychasm" or "Palamas". The later twentieth century saw a remarkable change in the attitude of Roman Catholic theologians to Palamas, a "rehabilitation" of him that has led to increasing parts of the Western Church considering him a saint, even if uncanonized. Some Western scholars maintain that there is no conflict between the teaching of Palamas and Roman Catholic thought on the distinction.According to G. Philips, the essence-energies distinction of Palamas is "a typical example of a perfectly admissible theological pluralism" that is compatible with the Roman Catholic magisterium. Jeffrey D. Finch claims that "the future of East-West rapprochement appears to be overcoming the modern polemics of neo-scholasticism".Some Western theologians have incorporated the essence-energies distinction into their own thinking.

Thanks for Wiki articles. Links would be nice, as you see you misled FBS, who thought it was your "lengthy explanation". I was hoping you would love to exercise your brain and engage in conversation, answering few questions and contemplating dilemmas.
 
Both Judaism and Christianity are revelation-based models. God has certain attributes positively ascribed to Himself. The text is said to be inspired. Another way to say this is God represents Himself through the text. This type of reasoning is known as cataphatic theology. Orthodoxy however holds an apophatic view of God.

Examples of apophatic theology are:

The theophany to Elijah, where God reveals Himself in a "still, small voice" (1 Kings 19:11–13). And St. Paul's reference to the "Unknown God" in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 17:23) is sometimes pointed to as an apophatic statement.

The Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th century said that they believed in God, but they did not believe that God exists in the same sense that everything else exists. That is to say, everything else that exists was created, but the Creator transcends even existence. The essence of God is completely unknowable; mankind can know God only through His energies.

Maimonides was perhaps the first Jewish Thinker to explicitly articulate this doctrine (see also Tanya Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah Ch. 8):

God's existence is absolute and it includes no composition and we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute... still less has He accidents (מקרה), which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute however , the negative attributes are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe... When we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible; it is living — it is not dead; ...it is the first — its existence is not due to any cause; it has power, wisdom, and will — it is not feeble or ignorant; He is One — there are not more Gods than one… Every attribute predicated of God denotes either the quality of an action, or, when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself — and not of His actions — the negation of the opposite. (The Guide for the Perplexed, 1:58)

Eastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, and especially the traditional scholastic claim that God is actus purus, for its alleged incompatibility with the essence-energies distinction.

Atheism does not engage with Eastern Orthodoxy. http://www.asna.ca/resources/dawkins-delusion.pdf

So what you're saying is that your god exists because the bible says so. And why should we care what the bible says? Because it's the word of your god, apparently. Even a young child could see that's a circular argument. And it does nothing to address my position. I say the universe was created by a purple dragon named Albert. If you can't disprove that, it must be true, according to your earlier position.
 
I hope my point is clear - we could debate whether the existence of the universe "proves" that it must have had a creator, but even if we accept such an assumption, it only gets us an abstract deity, not the god of the Isrealites. And it doesn't "prove" that Attis, Dionysus, Orpheus or Jesus was a demi-god who died in order to be resurrected as a true god. Those sorts of beliefs are entirely dependent on faith, and not having faith in the christian deities is not a belief, just the absence of faith in unproveable deities.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 61016 times.

Back
Top