Religion Study shows that IQ decreases with religiosity

@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?

Hi FBS, I am not a physicist unfortunately but I can put it differently for you using the example of a universal quantum experiment. The experiment has an observer and an unknown which the observer is looking for. The unknown will be influenced by the observer's 'needs'. This in turn affects the experiment's outcome so that it appears to have no reliable variables that effect the outcome ... making it an experiment that expresses a 'quantum' or unreality. This proves only that the observer's 'hoped outcome' has the desired effect on the experiment.

If we change the experiment to a non-quantum experiment but a conventional scientific experiment, we get a controlled environment that allows for a reliable outcome each time, hence a reality that various people can agree on.

The quantum experiment is dependent on a variable that changes constantly (observer). Similarly, the way in which we experience God changes constantly.
 
Hi FBS, I am not a physicist unfortunately but I can put it differently for you using the example of a universal quantum experiment. The experiment has an observer and an unknown which the observer is looking for. The unknown will be influenced by the observer's 'needs'. This in turn affects the experiment's outcome so that it appears to have no reliable variables that effect the outcome ... making it an experiment that expresses a 'quantum' or unreality. This proves only that the observer's 'hoped outcome' has the desired effect on the experiment.

If we change the experiment to a non-quantum experiment but a conventional scientific experiment, we get a controlled environment that allows for a reliable outcome each time, hence a reality that various people can agree on.

The quantum experiment is dependent on a variable that changes constantly (observer). Similarly, the way in which we experience God changes constantly.

Are you referring to the Measurement Problem?
 
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.

Hi Aberdeen, the Bible is not an individual or person with a single opinion. Rather, it is a collection of writings/experiences that individuals have had concerning their relationship with God over many centuries. You cannot disprove an experience, it is a deeply personal thing that is unique to the individual who is experiencing it. The existence of God is not testable using conventional science but God's 'energies' can be experienced.

You may say that a purple dragon named Albert created the universe. Who else agrees with you and how long have people believed this? This is an experiential measure ... expressed in a quantitative form.
 
Hi Aberdeen, the Bible is not an individual or person with a single opinion. Rather, it is a collection of writings/experiences that individuals have had concerning their relationship with God over many centuries. You cannot disprove an experience, it is a deeply personal thing that is unique to the individual who is experiencing it. The existence of God is not testable using conventional science but God's 'energies' can be experienced.

You may say that a purple dragon named Albert created the universe. Who else agrees with you and how long have people believed this? This is an experiential measure ... expressed in a quantitative form.

So you're saying that if a lot of people believe something that isn't supported by any scientific data, it's more likely to be true than something that one or a few people believe is true and isn't supported by any scientific data? If numbers of believers is the important thing, the universe really does have a creator and it's almost as likely to be Vishnu as Jehovah, although Jehovah is still in the lead at the moment. But if the day ever comes when Hindus outnumber Christians, will that mean it would then be more likely that Vishnu created the universe? Just wondering.
 
I should add that I have actually experienced the presence of purple dragons, but that was when I was much younger, and I may have been under the influence of a certain energy, although whether it was sunshine or a window pane I can't remember at the moment. If the subjective experiences of other people have validity, so do mine.
 
Thanks. I was referring to the Measurement Problem.

If your god is so malleable that attempting to locate him causes him to vanish, he's not much of a god, in my opinion. If you want to be a religious believer, my suggestion is that you man up and get yourself some faith.
 
If your god is so malleable that attempting to locate him causes him to vanish, he's not much of a god, in my opinion. If you want to be a religious believer, my suggestion is that you man up and get yourself some faith.


It seems as if you have a passing acquaintance, at least, with Kierkegaard...:) People call it "the leap of faith",although Kierkegaard actually used the phrase "the leap to faith".

It's the decision to believe in or accept something intangible or improvable. It grows out of the rather conservative Christian belief (Kierkegaard came from the Lutheran tradition) that faith is a gift which one must choose to accept.

At any rate, his theology was in opposition to that of many others, including some modern Christians like C.S. Lewis, who believed that supernaturalism can be logically inferred based on a teological argument regarding the source of human reason.

From Kierkegaard:
"... naked dialectical deliberation shows that there is no approximation, that wanting to quantify oneself into faith along this path is a misunderstanding, a delusion, that wanting to concern oneself with such deliberations is a temptation for the believer, a temptation that he, keeping himself in the passion of faith, must resist with all his strength, lest it end with his succeeding in changing faith into something else, into another kind of certainty, in substituting probabilities and guarantees, which were rejected when he, himself beginning, made the qualitative transition of the leap from unbeliever to believer...When someone is to leap he must certainly do it alone and also be alone in properly understanding that it is an impossibility. … the leap is the decision ...."

Sorry, these guys were all required reading at a certain point in my life...

Of course, sometimes people who make the leap fall flat on their faces, or make the decision and then recant it...
 
Yes, I'm quite familiar with Kierkegaard, although I don't share his views. But you seemed to be taking the C.S. Lewis approach, and that's an easy target, IMO.
 
Yes, I'm quite familiar with Kierkegaard, although I don't agree with his views. But you seemed to be taking the C.S. Lewis approach, and that's an easy target, IMO.

There's something to be said for C.S. Lewis' arguments, in my opinion. I don't agree with Kierkegaard when he says things like this:

"The world has perhaps always had a lack of what could be called authentic individualities, decisive subjectivities, those artistically permeated with reflection, the independent thinkers who differ from the bellowers and the didacticizers. The more objective the world and individual subjectivities become, the more difficult it becomes with the religious categories, which are precisely in the sphere of subjectivity. That is why it is almost an irreligious exaggeration to want to be world-historical, scholarly-scientific, and objective with regard to the religious...even wanting to be subjective enough to appeal to another subjectivity is already an attempt to become objective, is a first step toward getting the majority vote on one’s side and one’s God-relationship transformed into a speculative enterprise on the basis of probability and partnership and fellow shareholders is the first step toward becoming objective. Concluding Unscientific Postscript

However, at the end of the day, I think Kierkegaard has it right. Reason only takes you so far. Then, you must decide whether, no longer relying only on yourself, you will take the leap into the loving arms of God, or not.

Anyway, as I said, he was required reading. The good Sisters who taught me were very fond of the Lutheran theologians like Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich and Bonhoeffer. They were fond of Hans Kung too. Now there's a case for you...I guess they don't formally excommunicate anyone nowadays.
 
If your god is so malleable that attempting to locate him causes him to vanish, he's not much of a god, in my opinion. If you want to be a religious believer, my suggestion is that you man up and get yourself some faith.

If my lack of faith or inability to man up somehow makes God less visible to you then maybe it's me that is not much of a believer. I forgive myself for my lack of faith, your lack of faith is not my responsibility, nor is it God's. It's a choice. There is nothing to be afraid of or threatened by if one finds it hard to believe, it is difficult to forgive and often more difficult to accept that man has no control over God. This inability to understand and control God is not God's inability, it's ours. We need faith, I need faith. God is not responsible whether we have faith or not. It's the nature of man to resist that which limits him. Man wants to have control and freedom above all else.
 
If my lack of faith or inability to man up somehow makes God less visible to you then maybe it's me that is not much of a believer. I forgive myself for my lack of faith, your lack of faith is not my responsibility, nor is it God's. It's a choice. There is nothing to be afraid of or threatened by if one finds it hard to believe, it is difficult to forgive and often more difficult to accept that man has no control over God. This inability to understand and control God is not God's inability, it's ours. We need faith, I need faith. God is not responsible whether we have faith or not. It's the nature of man to resist that which limits him. Man wants to have control and freedom above all else.
Alow me. Isn't the faith (and anything else in this word) god's creation? Therefore why God gives some people more faith than he gives to others?
 
Alow me. Isn't the faith (and anything else in this word) god's creation? Therefore why God gives some people more faith than he gives to others?

God affords man free will to choose. If man has no free will then there can be no faith, for to have faith man must have the choice to believe. Similarly, sin is only possible if man has the freedom to choose right from wrong and chooses wrong. However, God's love affords Grace, forgiveness is deserved. Some people, me included, are too proud at times to love unconditionally. Others, myself included, have difficulty due to lack of knowledge. God affords Grace based on each individual's circumstances.

Equality in terms of faith is necessary for man to relieve man of the choices and consequences resulting from the responsibilities afforded him.
 
There's something to be said for C.S. Lewis' arguments, in my opinion. I don't agree with Kierkegaard when he says things like this:

"The world has perhaps always had a lack of what could be called authentic individualities, decisive subjectivities, those artistically permeated with reflection, the independent thinkers who differ from the bellowers and the didacticizers. The more objective the world and individual subjectivities become, the more difficult it becomes with the religious categories, which are precisely in the sphere of subjectivity. That is why it is almost an irreligious exaggeration to want to be world-historical, scholarly-scientific, and objective with regard to the religious...even wanting to be subjective enough to appeal to another subjectivity is already an attempt to become objective, is a first step toward getting the majority vote on one’s side and one’s God-relationship transformed into a speculative enterprise on the basis of probability and partnership and fellow shareholders is the first step toward becoming objective. Concluding Unscientific Postscript

However, at the end of the day, I think Kierkegaard has it right. Reason only takes you so far. Then, you must decide whether, no longer relying only on yourself, you will take the leap into the loving arms of God, or not.

Anyway, as I said, he was required reading. The good Sisters who taught me were very fond of the Lutheran theologians like Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich and Bonhoeffer. They were fond of Hans Kung too. Now there's a case for you...I guess they don't formally excommunicate anyone nowadays.

Okay, you seem to really know this stuff, so I'm going to ask you a question that, AFAIK, an insular European such as Kierkegaard didn't feel the need to address. After one ponders spiritual issues, if one decides to make a leap of faith and believe in a god, why should one decide to believe in the christian god rather than some other deity? Is it simply a cultural issue? It seems to me that, just as with positing the idea that the existence of a universe necessitates some unspecified creator, deciding on the need to believe in some kind of creator does not get you to a justification for believing in a specific creator.
 
Okay, you seem to really know this stuff, so I'm going to ask you a question that, AFAIK, an insular European such as Kierkegaard didn't feel the need to address. After one ponders spiritual issues, if one decides to make a leap of faith and believe in a god, why should one decide to believe in the christian god rather than some other deity? Is it simply a cultural issue? It seems to me that, just as with positing the idea that the existence of a universe necessitates some unspecified creator, deciding on the need to believe in some kind of creator does not get you to a justification for believing in a specific creator.

It’s been a long time since I’ve read any of these theological works. Most of my copies of their books are in a box in the attic. (You can see how far I have fallen away.) All I have on my computer are quotes from them that I’ve kept.


Here is a very Kierkegaard like one from Hans Kung:
“historical arguments; traditional apologetics breaks down here. Since man is here dealing with God and this by definition means with the invisible, impalpable, uncontrollable, only one attitude is appropriate and required : believing trust, trusting faith.”

FWIW, I don’t remember Kierkegaard ever addressing even the question of Judaism. For him, Christianity is an absolute.

A few of their books are still in my bookcases, and I’ll see if I can find some pertinent quotes.


I can say that personally, if I were to be a believer, I would be a Christian.


Christianity, and Judaism before it are totally different from paganism and the eastern religions-Hindusim, Buddhism, Tao.


My reason leads me to believe in a transcendent God, the creator of the universe, not a god(s) who is part of the universe. The pagan gods were just immortal men, subject to all the vices and sins of ordinary men. Buddhism and Hinduism, while they are profound religions which exhibit deep reflection on the nature of reality, the divine, and the meaning of life and suffering, are really pantheistic religions in which, reduced to their essence, the godhead is basically the universe itself.


It’s only in the monotheistic religions of the Near East that we have an individual transcendent God who creates the universe. That makes more sense to me.


Moreover, he is a God who manifests himself in history and with whom we can communicate. He is a personal God.


Also, the eastern religions do not, in my opinion, satisfactorily address the question of human suffering. The “solution” to suffering in the eastern religions is to stop existing. That is the goal. When, after multiple reincarnations you have learned the necessary “lessons”, you will be rewarded by never being incarnated again, and merging into the formless universe. In Christianity, suffering is the means…it’s through the redemptive suffering of Christ and our participation in that suffering, that we and the world are redeemed. That redemption leads to an afterlife in which the individual identity remains intact.


To use the old formulation, death will be no more, not because we will be blessed by non-existence, but because we will have a different, but still unique, individual existence.


Also, in Christianity there is, contrary to the eastern religions, a definition of the godhead as a loving God. A God, moreover, who, to quote Kierkegaard again, became man and suffered because of that love for mankind, and in the process could say to mankind, [FONT=&quot]"See, here is what it is to be a human being."[/FONT]

The differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam would be a whole other long post, but I think some of the differences can be inferred just from what I have written.

[FONT=&quot]
Of course, I’m aware that the form my logic, my reasoning takes, even my preference, perhaps, if you will, for this definition of God, for this theology, is grounded in a very “western” oriented, “humanistic” philosophical and theological view of the world, God, and man.[/FONT]
 
God affords man free will to choose. If man has no free will then there can be no faith, for to have faith man must have the choice to believe. Similarly, sin is only possible if man has the freedom to choose right from wrong and chooses wrong. However, God's love affords Grace, forgiveness is deserved. Some people, me included, are too proud at times to love unconditionally. Others, myself included, have difficulty due to lack of knowledge. God affords Grace based on each individual's circumstances.

Equality in terms of faith is necessary for man to relieve man of the choices and consequences resulting from the responsibilities afforded him.
Ok then, let me ask you this. Why god creates people with mental disabilities, like down syndrome or others due to improper brain development and function. Such people lack understanding of good and evil concepts, therefore cannot sin or be fully responsible for making bad choices in life. It also means they can't be judged by god and go to heaven or hell. Their lives make no sense when viewed through christian understanding of the world. On other hand easily explainable by genetics and natural selection.
 
My reason leads me to believe in a transcendent God, the creator of the universe, not a god(s) who is part of the universe.

It’s only in the monotheistic religions of the Near East that we have an individual transcendent God who creates the universe. That makes more sense to me.

Moreover, he is a God who manifests himself in history and with whom we can communicate. He is a personal God.

Also, in Christianity there is, contrary to the eastern religions, a definition of the godhead as a loving God.

Could you elaborate on why you find a personal and loving god of creation more likely to exist, by your "reason" as you put it? (As long as I am understanding you correctly?) I assume that you see properties of the universe or human nature that point toward this, rather than simply seeing these god properties as products of different types of stories from different cultures?
 
Could you elaborate on why you find a personal and loving god of creation more likely to exist, by your "reason" as you put it? (As long as I am understanding you correctly?) I assume that you see properties of the universe or human nature that point toward this, rather than simply seeing these god properties as products of different types of stories from different cultures?

To do an adequate job is probably beyond me for reasons of time, space, and ability( I am not qualified to provide the most learned exposition of each and every philosophical and/or theological point. It's been a long time since I read and had to write papers on these works.) Also, it's a given from my point of view that someone could find flaws in each and every reasoned argument. For every argument based on reason, a counter-argument has been presented.

Each person has to contemplate these arguments and decide individually what weight to give to them. I personally think, as I said, that reason only takes you so far.

What I can say with regard to philosophy/theology and culture is that I think it's sort of a which came first argument, the chicken or the egg. Is western philosophy the product or the creator of western culture?
 

This thread has been viewed 61020 times.

Back
Top