| A question for the Athiests |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Seeker ® 05/21/2002, 06:59:12 Author Profile Mail author |
It is not too hard to notice that there are many people here who claim to be athiests. I am curious. I have never met or had the oportunity to talk with an athiest. I would like to know what it is exactly that you believe! I used to be under the impression that you did not believe in G-d, but I later learned that you believe there is not a G-d! Which of those two are true? I am also curious as to other beliefs that you have, ie. where did we come from (if we came from anywhere at all), what happens when we die, will we be accountable for our actions, etc. Please enlighten me on these things and whatever else you have to share. But I have one more request to those who post....if you are not an Athiest, please don´t post in regards to what they believe! Aside: This will be my last post for a short while. Until we meet again! -The Seeker- |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
This atheist's beliefs Re: A question for the Athiests -- Seeker Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/21/2002, 08:27:45
Author Profile Mail author
I fail to believe in God (that middle syllable is an "o", by the way). I don't claim to know that there is no God, just that if he is out there he is either unable or unwilling to convince me of it. (And really, why should he care what I think of him?) I prefer the term atheist to agnostic, primarily because the latter term connotes a suspension of judgment or absence of opinion that doesn't correctly describe my attitude. I have arrived at a verdict, but I'm willing to reconsider it in the unlikely event that unanticipated new evidence appears. Others in my position call themselves agnostics in order to convey the idea that the existence of God is unknowable, and I respect their choice. Where did we come from? Parents reproducing (asexually at first, but eventually in the fashionably sexual manner that's been all the rage for the last several hundred million years).
What happens when we die? Compost.
Will we be accountable for our actions? Right up to the moment when we die.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Excellent, Alf. Thanks! Re: This atheist's beliefs -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/21/2002, 16:26:34
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A pretty righteous philosophy IMO. nt Re: This atheist's beliefs -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/22/2002, 03:40:40
Author Profile Mail author
.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The "soft atheist" / agnostic position Re: A question for the Athiests -- Seeker Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/22/2002, 09:20:31
Author Profile Mail author
Seeker, I take a somewhat different tack than my friend Alf. I am what is called a "soft atheist", which is simply the lack of a belief in God. Note that that is completely different from a "hard atheist", who has an active belief that God dies not exist. As a soft atheist, I neither believe that God exists nor do I believe God doesn't exist.
A key reason for my lack of a belief either way is a philosophical position known as "agnosticism", which is the view that both the existence or nonexistence of God is simply beyond all human knowledge. In my particular flavor of soft-atheism / agnosticism, I am not too far from Alf's position in that I am of the position (based on a complete lack of any evidence to the contrary) that the likelihood that God exists in this material universe we all share is so close to zero that we may as well call it zero.
However, the traditional and most widely held conception in Western thought is that God exists in some transcendent realm that, if such a realm "exists" (it is not at all clear what the word "exists" might actually mean in such a context), it is by definition beyond all human knowledge. Therefore, in the same way that it is impossible to know whether such a transcendent realm exists or not, it is also impossible to know whether a transcendent God exists or not.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Wed, May 22, 2002, 09:21:26
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Atheism re the usual God? Re: The "soft atheist" / agnostic position -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/22/2002, 12:16:05
Author Profile Mail author
Martin,
You write that the likelihood of God existing "in this material universe we all share" approaches zero. That's pretty much an affirmation that there is no God of that sort, in other words, a denial of that sort of God. That's an atheism of a certain kind, and, most importantly perhaps, an atheism about almost any historically common conception of God.
But you also write that the idea (or possibility) of a "transcendent" God existing in a transcendent realm renders the very idea of God unknowable, that it's hard to say what knowledge means if one starts speaking of transcendent realms like these. Hence the need to call oneself an agnostic.
Now, the usual idea of God is that he's both transcendent and immanent in some sense to his creation, say, omnipresent and in constant providential communion or communication with his creation while not contained within it. The presence of God for His creation depends on this immanence, and so does our "knowledge" of Him.
From what I gather, you think it's epistemologically very safe to be an atheist regarding all those conceptions of God that depend on the notion of his immanence to the material world we all share. Am I right? If so, then you might as well call yourself an atheist when it comes to almost any monotheistic way of looking at these things, whether it be Christian, Muslim or Jewish, Deist, etc.
The agnosticism seems to be a flourish of sorts for all practical purposes--in part to emphasize the fact that the disbelief can't depend on certainty or proof. Or a kind of acknowledgement of the remote and irrefutable possibility of a God in which few have ever believed.
You know my posting style, so I know you won't think I'm being contrary here. I'm curious to see what you have to say so I can clarify my own thinking. For what it's worth, I tend to think of myself as an atheist gun to my head. No matter what the idea of God at issue. It's just that with certain conceptions of God I'm much more sure of myself than with others.
Modified by Cal at Wed, May 22, 2002, 13:00:53
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Atheism re the usual God? Re: Atheism re the usual God? -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/22/2002, 13:33:37
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Cal, It is essential first to understand that I was trying to be very concise and readily understood and that I had absolutely no intention of explaining the full depth of my views in that post. Also, I didn't want to antagonize Alf into renewing our previous debate on hard vs. soft atheism, so I deliberately leaned over in his direction to try to avoid this.
It is my firm opinion that the Abrahamic faiths -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- emphasize transcendence well above immanence as the primary aspect of their definition of God (minor sects like Mormonism with their physical Gods are obviously an aberration). By this I mean to state that although God is alleged to interact with "His" creation, such interactions emanate from the transcendent realm rather than the physical realm of the knowable Universe. Even omnipresence is strictly transcendent in nature since most believers strongly insist that God's presence is not physically detectable. To my mind, this removes the imminence you speak of from actually being part of the material universe. Instead, there is imagined to be some supernatural or mystical connection between the transcendent "God" and it's reputed "interactions" (whatever that might mean in this context) with our universe. In other words, God is still envisioned to exist only in some transcendent sphere, where He somehow manipulates various aspects of our physical universe.
Even Paul and most other non-Gospel writers in the New Testament rejected the idea of the physical incarnation of God, as did some of the early Church Fathers. Paul's Christ was quite obviously supernatural and transcendent, descending from Heaven only as far as the angelic realm and clearly not to any real, historical Earth as a physical human being.
It is only with the Gospel fictions that God is alleged to have entered our physical universe. And those fictions, as you know, produced some intractable theological problems for later eras, yielding such weak and implausible "solutions" as the alleged Trinity.
Thus, since I still contend that the chief aspect of the Western conception of "God" is its transcendence, agnosticism is no mere "flourish", it is the most logically defensible position to take, since transcendence is by definition unavailable to human knowledge.
- Martin
p.s.: I do not understand your statement: "I tend to think of myself as an atheist gun to my head." Even providing for the accidentally dropped word, I'm not at all sure what you're getting at. Could you please elaborate?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Soft and hard heads, er, atheists Re: Re: Atheism re the usual God? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/23/2002, 02:24:20
Author Profile Mail author
Let me take another stab at this. First, I will describe four attitudes toward the question of the existence of God.
1. God may or may not exist. I have no opinion either way.
2. God may or may not exist. There is no way we can know anything about the transcendental, so nothing has persuaded me to believe in God.
3. God may or may not exist. I strongly suspect the latter, and I will make that my working assumption.
4. God does not exist.
If I understand your definition of soft and hard atheism, #2 is soft and #3 is hard. (#1 doesn't really qualify as a philosophical position, and #4 is a strawman that none but the stubborn and epistemologically unsound could hold.)
In popular parlance, most people conjure #1 when they think of agnosticism and #4 when they think of atheism. I can't cite any surveys to verify this impression, but the existence of people like Seeker, who apparently doesn't know any atheists, bears it out. For that matter, I can't think of any atheists in my personal circle outside of this forum, but of course I am still very much a Mormon socially and culturally.
I am willing to concede that if we are not discussing #4 (and really, what's to discuss?), then #3 represents the hard end of the atheism scale. I only proposed "firm atheism" because "hard atheism" seems so apt a description of #4. And given the lexicographer's dictum (to describe rather than prescribe) I think we have to recognize the danger of overly specialized nomenclature, especially when it fights the popular usage of some of the same terms.
I recognize that you are much more widely read in philosophy (and science for that matter) than I. (I can only plead a misspent fundamentalist youth that persisted into my thirties.) Please clarify or restate anything I may have misstated or failed to do justice to.
I am not at all surprised to hear that our personal positions are very close, whatever we call them.
P.S. I parsed Cal's "atheist gun to my head" term to mean that if you held a gun to his head, he would admit to considering himself an atheist (although I believe it is an admission he has made here before under considerably less duress).
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Good parsing Re: Soft and hard heads, er, atheists -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/23/2002, 11:36:30
Author Profile Mail author
I'm wondering if you've heard the phrase used before. My wife and I use it all the time to indicate how strongly we suspect something to be true or false. "Gun to your head, would you say Joe is going to fire the secretary over something like that, or is he just blowing off steam?"
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Gun to my head Re: Good parsing -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/23/2002, 12:16:23
Author Profile Mail author
I can't say the phrase is in my everyday vocabulary, at least your shorthand version, but it sounds entirely idiomatic to me. If you're wondering whether you invented it, gun to my head I'd say probably not.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
My Webelo credulity Re: Good parsing -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/23/2002, 13:10:06
Author Profile Mail author
When I was a Mormon Webelo, we kids shouted out after our (pack?) meeting the words to "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory of the Burning of the School." Our semi-active (pack?) leader, John Lightner (why do I remember that name?) bellowed the song with us. That was disturbing. I remember claiming we child geniuses had made the song up ourselves. Fat John Lightner just burst out laughing. He was a jolly old SOB who, though he believed the stories and confabulations of true Mormon believers, taught me one of my first lessons in skepticism.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
"gun to the head" Re: Re: Atheism re the usual God? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/23/2002, 10:29:00
Author Profile Mail author
Tonight I won't have time for the fuller discussion, but here's a clarification of "gun to the head." It isn't a typo.
It's a phrase that evokes this kind of scenario: Suppose someone with total access to the Truth put a gun to your head and asked you to answer a yes-or-no question about some state of affairs. You can't answer, "I don't know." If you get it wrong, he kills you. If you get it right, he spares you. The "gun to the head" belief is the one you'd affirm on the expectation that doing so is the best bet to save your life.
Suddenly I'm wondering where I got it. I don't know. I'd thought it was somewhat widespread. And yet, as far as I know, it could be a private phrase my wife and I developed over the years, forgetting that we made it up ourselves. But, gun to the head, I'd wager that we got it from somewhere else.
Anyone else ever use this phrase?
Modified by Cal at Thu, May 23, 2002, 10:31:48
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: "gun to the head" Re: "gun to the head" -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: someone ®
05/23/2002, 12:20:17
Author Profile Mail author
I'd say, "Id bet my life on it" or my cat or something, with the same intention.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: "gun to the head" Re: "gun to the head" -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: sansfoy ®
05/24/2002, 03:37:41
Author Profile Mail author
I've heard and used the "gun to my head" phrase many times, FWIW.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Hello, Martin! Help me out here.... Re: Re: Atheism re the usual God? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Glen ®
05/24/2002, 02:32:56
Author Profile Mail author
Martin says: "Even Paul and most other non-Gospel writers in the New Testament rejected the idea of the physical incarnation of God, as did some of the early Church Fathers. Paul's Christ was quite obviously supernatural and transcendent, descending from Heaven only as far as the angelic realm and clearly not to any real, historical Earth as a physical human being.
It is only with the Gospel fictions that God is alleged to have entered our physical universe. And those fictions, as you know, produced some intractable theological problems for later eras, yielding such weak and implausible "solutions" as the alleged Trinity."
Could you help me out with commentary on some of the NT writers' letters, below, in light of your statement above? You made the above statements quite confidently, and I would like to see your textual evidence.
Rom. 5:8-9 1 Cor. 2:2; 11:23-26; 15:3-8 Gal. 3:13; 4:4-5 Eph. 2:13-16 Phil. 2:5-8 Col. 1:19-22 1 Tim. 3:16 Heb. 5:4-10 1 Pet. 3:24 1 John 4:2-3
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Bear with me please, Glen Re: Hello, Martin! Help me out here.... -- Glen Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/24/2002, 16:17:30
Author Profile Mail author
Glen, Thanks for your inquiry. I'll reply Friday or Saturday.
In the mean time, can we agree to try to keep our replies moderately concise? I very much want to avoid a situation like last time, when you posted FIVE extremely lengthy posts in reply to my own! Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a new thread for this debate. What say you to that?
In any case, thank you for your patience.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
with some assistance from Martin Re: A question for the Athiests -- Seeker Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
05/22/2002, 10:17:40
Author Profile Mail author
...I have concluded that I am a Noncoherent Apathetic Atheist. That means that I don't believe that one can make meaningful statements about the nature of god - no coherent definitions of god. And personally, I don't care whether or not god exists. It has no bearing what-so-ever on how I live my life. As to your other questions:
where did we come from (if we came from anywhere at all)
I came from Brazil, I have no idea where you (or anyone else on this board) came from. (and yes, I tend to think that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for human existence)
what happens when we die
I don't know, nor do I care. I will deal with that (or not) when I am dead.
will we be accountable for our actions,
Only if we're caught...oh...after we die? Wouldn't that be nice? I doubt it.
etc.
My personal philosophy of life is to live it honestly and respectfully of the world around me. My doctrine is: To question. My dogma is: To doubt. My Bible is: THINK (and I stole that from Emmet F. Fields)
regards,
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: A question for the Athiests Re: A question for the Athiests -- Seeker Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Wayne Wilson ®
05/22/2002, 10:45:15
Author Profile Mail author
Seeker
Since I don't claim to be an atheist, I might not fit your criterea. What I do have incommon with atheists is a disbeleif in ideas that can't be proved.I think God is irrelavant.
Where do we come from?
Our mothers womb.Where will we go?
I would like my relatives to cremate my body.
As for "spirit" I tend to think that reincarnation is possible, but all I can do is speculate and that is a waste of time.
What I beleive in has to do with experience.
I sincerely beleive that one should never cook with a wine they would not drink.If it takes five minutes to drive where you need to go, walk there instead.
Use sunscreen!
I hope you find what you are looking for.
Wayne
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Speaking only for myself Re: A question for the Athiests -- Seeker Top of thread Archive
Posted by: diehl ®
05/22/2002, 11:19:43
Author Profile Mail author
I'm just speaking for myself here. (And possibly for others)
I do not believe in a God or Gods (nor any other intelligent higher power). I do not claim that they aren't any (I can't prove their in-existence) nor do I claim that there cannot be any (I cannot prove that it is impossible for one or more to exist).
Where/How "we" (meaning in this case the uni/multi-verse) originated in my belief (which if a theory is found that has better support, I will then follow that one) is the "Big-Bang" of the proposed methods that one appears to be the most probable. Whether or not a being influenced this to me seems irrelevant, and I see no need for there to be one.
When "we" (this time limiting it humans only) die (meaning our brains cease to function) that’s it; we cease to be. After death that person no longer exists in the sense of they are capable of thought. They exist then only in the minds of those that knew them (or rather an 'entity' that represents the perceptions of that person). The stuff (matter) that makes them up is re-used (decomposes, and then used in plants... and so on).
No afterlife means we are not ultimately accountable for our actions. In life we are, and should be (I will not go into why, other threads have covered this). I pity most people who believe in an afterlife who use it as a motivation to act in a "good" manner. I (and many others) live a moral life believing that we won't be rewarded, why do so many need this promise of reward/threat of punishment to do so?
And to make things clear. I do not believe what I do to spite a God or Gods (why would I try to wrong that which I don't believe in.) nor is it because I dislike the concept of a God, afterlife, or judgment. The opposite is true, I would love for there to be some loving, benevolent, wise, and powerful entity watching over me, protecting me, and helping me, but as much as I would like there to be, it doesn’t change anything. I can wish for 2 + 2 to not equal four. I can pray, hope and dream till I die; but nothing I can do will ever change that. What I believe has nothing to do with what I want, it is a reflection of what I see and observe from the reality that surrounds me. Likewise, I don't want to die, I would love to live for eternity (does such a thing exist? is time truly never-ending?) but again what I want does not impact what is.
"Carl never wanted to believe. He wanted to know"
- Ann DruyanToo many people have accused me of not believing because I don't want to, what does that have to do with anything? My wants are separate from my beliefs.
As far as me changing me beliefs (which are entirely mutable, show me something that you can support better than my current one and I'll change, I hold no allegiance to an individual idea). But I can say this, there may be a God (and I may eventually profess a belief in one, pending on if it can be proven), but the Christian concept of him/her/it is not something that I find even remotely possible.
I'm often accused of having no faith. In what? In mans ability to overcome problems (and contrary to what right-wingers would like you to believe) morality has improved over time (and continues to improve). Think, 2000 years ago we had slavery (on a mass scale), genocides beyond number, raping, looting and pillaging galore. In the crusades this was done in the name of God. Rulers persecuted thousands because of the concept “divine right”. Entire civilizations have been eradicated because they didn't submit to the European beliefs. Now I have given mostly Christian bloopers, but there are countless examples for most every other religion (the exception be a very few passive philosophies such as Buddhism). What do we contend with today? Prostitution, admittedly unsanitary, isn't inherently immoral; both are consenting, and he or she is selling something, and guess what it's been around before written records. Pornography has existed as long as man (including females) could draw. Exploitive? Not really, so long as the depicted understands the implications it has (e.g.: I do oppose 'child pornography' as I would oppose it of and adult who does not understand the concept, so rather it's the ignorance not the age that determines it). Piracy of software/music/movies you cannot own an idea, that’s my belief and it is not a crime now credit should be given where it's due, but monetary payment is not required (e.g.: plagiarism no, distributing an mp3 go ahead).
I think the decline in morals is not a decline, but rather we as a society are more willing to discuss it. Also the media helps keep secrets get out, further aiding in this process. Like the priest scandal, I'm willing to bet that it has gone on for centuries, but now our society has the ability to find out.
I do not have any faith in a being that I cannot see, hear, or feel in anyway that supposedly wants a perfect world and has the power to make it so, but chooses not to.
But I also have no faith in my beliefs either; I will turn away from them the moment they don't live up to being the truth. I also know that the whole world can deny it, turn from it and blind themselves to it and it won't change the truth.
I have faith that we as a species can (maybe not will) become something greater than we are. Humans aren’t perfect, we are not the best something can be, and if life has any given/inherent meaning it's this: To make the world a better place. However one goes about it, may it be bettering oneself, helping others, seeking knowledge, or repairing the damage our shortsightedness has caused.
FYI: I'm a 17-year-old, male, Caucasian, scout and atheist. And many accuse me of being to idealistic... but I don't think that’s possible, I hope for the best, and plan for the worst.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You've never met an atheist Re: A question for the Athiests -- Seeker Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/22/2002, 12:33:54
Author Profile Mail author
That's interesting. My wife wondered if you've been living under a rock. Until she remembered that you probably live in the USA, where almost everyone at minimum believes in God as a Higher Power and nary a thoroughgoing disbeliever is to be met except, perhaps, on the Web.
One thing to keep in mind: An atheist, or a non-believer, is likely to have a lot more familiarity with believers and their theology than vice-versa. At least on this BB the non-believers do all come without exception from believing backgrounds. So don't underestimate the knowledge of the life of faith in the non-believers here. And please don't overestimate your knowledge of what kinds of considerations lead to non-belief.
Modified by Cal at Wed, May 22, 2002, 12:34:16
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
(aside for Cal) Re: You've never met an atheist -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/22/2002, 13:38:37
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Cal, It may well be that my memory has failed me yet again, but I don't think I ever realized you were not living in the U.S. (as am I).
Where are you posting from, and are you a national of that country?
Interesting sidelight!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I wish my life were that interesting Re: (aside for Cal) -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/23/2002, 08:37:11
Author Profile Mail author
Rereading my post I see exactly how you got the impression I was outside the U.S. My wife was referring to the USA thing simply because, as someone who's spent the last decade in subcultures with scarcely a believer, she often has to remind herself that in our dear country there are lots of places where people won't knowingly interact with a non-believer for years at a time. Actually, we live on the east coast of the USA.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
East Coast huh? Re: I wish my life were that interesting -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/24/2002, 12:03:02
Author Profile Mail author
Ah! You're singing my song! What state?
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: East Coast huh? Re: East Coast huh? -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/24/2002, 14:13:43
Author Profile Mail author
Hey Vicki,
I can tell you if you e-me. I'm always worried that a Mormon brother, sister, cousin, in-law, former teacher, etc., will crack my identity while surfing the Web. At any rate, I was transplanted east after graduating from college and suddenly found myself much more in my element. I'm an easterner by adoption.
Cal
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: East Coast huh? Re: Re: East Coast huh? -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/25/2002, 04:14:46
Author Profile Mail author
As I recall, you were one of the posters that emailed me when I seemed to be struggling back in March? I no longer have your e-address, do you have mine?
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
(additional aside for Cal) Re: You've never met an atheist -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
05/22/2002, 19:19:05
Author Profile Mail author
"At least on this BB the non-believers do all come without exception from believing backgrounds."
ummm....no.
That's one reason I'm here...to try and understand how a believer's mind might work. ...I couldn't stomach the true believers forums, this is a compromise. ;-)
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
i don't recall ever believing... Re: (additional aside for Cal) -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: diehl ®
05/23/2002, 03:34:39
Author Profile Mail author
I doubt I ever believed in a higher power. My parents really never talked about it, and I consider that a good thing. I would like to know how many Christains became so without any parental intervention. But not all of us here came from believing backgrounds.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Hello to the exception! Re: (additional aside for Cal) -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/23/2002, 08:17:34
Author Profile Mail author
Hey rdl,
It looks like you're saying you got a non-believers' upbringing. That's what my pre-teen daughter's getting, and she's clearly glad about that so far. But who knows? Maybe she'll come home some day having experienced the saving power of Jesus and convict my wife and me of having led her astray.
At any rate, how were you raised when it comes to the religion question? Are you glad you were raised the way you were? Or do you wish you'd been exposed to religion in some other way?
Cal
Modified by Cal at Thu, May 23, 2002, 08:18:09
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Hello to the exception! Re: Hello to the exception! -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
05/23/2002, 09:17:09
Author Profile Mail author
I would say that I had a non-religious upbringing. It simply wasn't an issue. My first memory of a discussion about religion was with my older brother who I asked about the existence of god. He informed me (in no uncertain terms) that "god" was just humankind's attempt to explain that which they couldn't understand. ie. there used to be a god of fire and the sun and rain and anything at all that humans didn't have an explanation for. As humankind discovered answers, gods fell by the wayside. The only remaining question is "what happens when we die" (or where were we before we were born)...hence, God. (I think I was about 10ish at the time)
I have never felt any lack because of the way I was raised. My parents didn't discourage me from attending any churches I showed an interest in. (I spent time with Methodists, Jews, Catholics, and Mormons.) They dutifully carted me to whatever belief du jour I dabbled in. (they just didn't join me). I hear that my sister laid a load of guilt on them for not providing her with a belief system that she could fall back on in times of trial, but I never felt the lack.
I married a (pretty much) lapsed Catholic and raised my daughters to question, doubt, and THINK. They haven't shown any signs of taking me to task because of this or appear to lack in ethics or morals. On the contrary, they are two of the most amazing, honorable, strong, well adjusted women I have ever had the pleasure to know. I stand in awe of them.
....your daughter is fortunate to have open minded, intelligent parents.
I have no regrets
rdl
ps. I think your wife may have a point. The East Coast seems to be a slightly different country.
Modified by rdl at Thu, May 23, 2002, 09:21:43
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Hello to the exception! Re: Re: Hello to the exception! -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/25/2002, 10:48:36
Author Profile Mail author
rdl,
Thanks for your reply. Though I haven't had much direct contact with you on the bb, I've followed a number of your posts and have enjoyed your presence here. I hope you keep it up.
In any case, I have a question for you: Is there anything in particular that made you want to start understanding religious views better? Is it simple curiosity? A hope to clarify your own beliefs by putting them in contact with contrary beliefs? These and more? Something else?
Regards, Cal
BTW, my wife's experience has to do not only with us being in the east, where there are plenty of believers, but with the particular subcultures to which we've happened to belong since leaving the LDS church. They've largely been academic until recently, and populated by lapsed or nominal Christians and Jews. Almost everyone my wife has been around these past ten years has been an agnostic or an atheist or at most believer in some vague Higher Power. It's a little different for me, because I now teach at a conservative school where my closest friend is a devout Orthodox Christian.
Modified by Cal at Sat, May 25, 2002, 11:02:10
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
answer Re: Re: Hello to the exception! -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
05/25/2002, 19:27:57
Author Profile Mail author
"In any case, I have a question for you: Is there anything in particular that made you want to start understanding religious views better? Is it simple curiosity? A hope to clarify your own beliefs by putting them in contact with contrary beliefs? These and more? Something else?"
...simple curiosity and the advent of a deeply religious person into my life (who just happens to be LDS). I was hoping to come to a better understanding of what a believer's thought processes might be. I have had very little contact with religious people in my life thus far (avoid them like the plague ;)I became hooked on the personalities and discussions on this board and have been lurking ever since.
...question for you. Do you subscribe to the theory, espoused by Martin a few months ago, that better educated people tend to be less religious?
respectful regards,
rdl
ps. I still think that the North East...especially New England is a much more laid back region in regards to religion, especially Christian Fundamentalism. Even the rural areas are liberal...just spend some time in VT where there are still more cows then people (that's actually not true anymore, but it still gives you the general flavor of the place) and they are very open-minded (at least the cows are)You can say whatever you wish about their beliefs, just don't mess with their shotguns or their pick-up trucks. ;-)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Better educated folk on average less religious? Re: answer -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/27/2002, 13:33:54
Author Profile Mail author
I don't know exactly what Martin was arguing for, so I'm not sure what to say. I imagine he was on the right track. Certainly American scientists on the whole tend to reject supernatural beliefs more often than other Americans, including the notion of God. This goes especially for the most prominent scientists. But I don't know how this connects up to the idea that more "educated" folk tend towards an absence of religiosity (however that's construed) more often than less-educated folk. Intuitively I'd expect that to be true. It at least fits with my own experiences. I wonder what Martin's specific claims were?
Thanks, at any rate, for your responses. I've truly appreciated them. I wish you'd post more often.
Regards, Cal
Modified by Cal at Mon, May 27, 2002, 13:35:29
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Archive reference Re: Better educated folk on average less religious? -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/27/2002, 14:17:05
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Cal, See my opening post on that topic in the archives on the old board: Inverse correlation between intelligence and belief
It started a bit of a ruckus, as you might well imagine! ;)
I would be happy to cite the references to the original articles in Free Inquiry if you like, but it might take a little doing.
In any case, please note that the correlation is general and a very long way from fully concordant!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Cat out of the bag Re: Archive reference -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/28/2002, 12:07:55
Author Profile Mail author
A ruckus indeed. The cat out of the bag is that it isn't simply education but rather intelligence that was at issue in the studies you cited. (Note for lurkers and others: This doesn't mean there are no brilliant or intelligent believers, as Martin makes clear when he says the correlation is evidently general).
In any case, it was "intuitive" for me that highly educated people tended on average to be less religious, but I've always thought that that could be largely a function of what educated folk absorb in attending institutions of higher learning and the sorts of subcultures produced by these institutions. Of course, I've known that general intelligence has a lot to do with who ends up becoming highly educated. But perhaps institutions of higher learning, I'd reasoned, tend towards a culture of disbelief for reasons significantly distinct from the intelligence of their participants. I imagine they do to a significant extent. One is likelier to run into a subculture of disbelief in a highly educated community than in a less-educated one.
At any rate, the studies that would interest me the most would be cross-cultural ones and ones that focus on children. Does, e.g., intelligence correlate well with skepticism towards beliefs that witches have an extra internal organ that permits them to fly at night and torment their enemies in non-Western cultures where that belief is prevalent? Here evidence could be brought to bear on the relation of intelligence and religiosity in a way that clearly bypasses the American educational process to get at the contribution of intelligence itself. And it could, in the long run, help clarify precisely what kinds of religious or supernaturalist claims most run into resistance by intelligent folk.
Modified by Cal at Tue, May 28, 2002, 12:13:11
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Cat out of the bag Re: Cat out of the bag -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: someone ®
05/29/2002, 11:00:23
Author Profile Mail author
It seems to me that highly intelligent people are just as likely to have wierd personal beliefs as anyone else. In fact, I wonder if there might be a stronger correlation between high functionality and lack of religion.
I'd been thinking about that a little while back in light of some conversations I had with my best friend who is a doctor. During his Psychiatry rotation we had a lot of discussions about patients, their problems, how they respond to drug therapy etc. Well, it made me think of a intelligent friend (has a masters) that I have who has had some really 'powerful' spiritual experiences. This friend I think, is very sincere. But this friend also has a lot of problems in life and can't ever seem to really get into control. Anyway, considering the specific types of problems this person has, I'm tempted to think that the right set of drugs might not only help with his/her problems but also lessen the intensity of some of these experiences or at least the tendency to overinterpret them (or what I perceive as such).
To think this through, I'd want to be able to distinquish between what people say they believe, and what they really believe (has anyone ever been questioned about their religious beliefs under a lie detector? just curious if that would add anything). Ok, some personal experience, here--id be interested in how it matches up with yours.
I have a relative who is friends on a social level with members of the 12. He holds a high church calling, and its been made clear that higher callings are available according to his interest level. Honestly, I don't think he is a TBM. I think he believes in what he is doing, I think he likes his social clique and really likes structured authority, I think he believes religion in general can help people become better. We've had some talks, and his focus is always ethics, orthodoxy, integrity, success--that kind of stuff (and I've seen him role his eyes on more then one occasion when family members get into the more spiritual side of the gospel). I've never heard him speak of the atonement (even in church talks), his testimony of Joseph Smith, the temple, the power of the priesthood; in fact, he really doesn't seem to know the scriptures all that well or even care much about them for that matter. He is unquestionably high functioning. He holds a graduate degree and is a self-made multi-millionare..his family by anyones standards I think is as close to a complete success as it practically could be. Gun to the head, I don't think he believes the church is true..at least not in its role as a saving institution.
I think there are a lot of others out there like Alf or Sans who say they believe for practical reasons but hold some serious doubts. I think there are many who are high functioning and very gifted but whose leadership abilities are ahead of their testimony. They get caught up in being a role model for others and put their own skepticism on hold for what they percieve to be the greater good. I think people who are highly intelligent but not high functioning may tend to let their imaginations get the best of them (more then one personal friend here I could talk about). Well, I'm kind of rambling, hope your getting the idea. It would of course, be all too easy to simply define high functioning with disbeliever, and its always a possibility that psychiatry can't measure the health of a true believer adequately (if indeed there is a correlation to begin with).
I guess what would impress me is some really good counter-examples. High-function, average-high intelligent people who 'really' believe in God, who operate as if God is at work in their lives, who would take a priesthood blessing over and above a doctor, who are spiritually/emotionally overcome as they contemplate things like the atonement. For instance, if my 'relative' were to give testimony of J.S., the restoration, the priesthood, a living prophet (not president of church)--all successfully under a lie detector, I might really, sit back and reconsider my position as an agnostic bordering atheist.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Trying to sort through the evidence Re: Re: Cat out of the bag -- someone Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/29/2002, 13:40:38
Author Profile Mail author
1. If there is a strong correlation between "high functionality" and "lack of religion," this could still be related closely to general intelligence itself. General intelligence and high functionality may well correlate highly too. There is strong evidence to this effect, as far as I can tell from reading Martin's archived thread, especially the Scientific American article he references that argues for the idea of g, the measure of general intelligence, and its connection to what we call "high functioning," such as climbing the social ladder, making money, doing well in school, holding leadership positions, etc.
2. In any case, the correlations that Martin argues for hold generally, so there will always be anecdotal evidence that we can gather that seems to suggest trends that counter the correlation: Stories one picks up from psychiatrists or former interns who made the psychiatric rounds (neither of whom are necessarily good at sorting out the evidence); experiences one acquires from chance encounters elsewhere, say, the fact one happens to have an intelligent, highly functional friend with weird beliefs that don't seem to interfere too much with his successes; examples one picks up from a bulletin board or one's local congregation, etc., etc. And there will always be actual counterexamples to the general trend. Hence the need for studies that put anecdotal experiences to the test.
It's these sort of anecdotes that weigh heavily in your response. So perhaps your suggestion that highly intelligent people are "just as" prone to "weird personal beliefs" as less intelligent folk is a matter of anecdotally gathered experiences reflecting the fact that you, given your circumstances, tend to run into people who'd score very well on measures of general intelligence rather than those who don't. Maybe you've got a biased sample of who in general functions well and why, and of the relation of their particular lives to general patterns relating intelligence, strange beliefs, and everyday functioning. Experience in psychiatric wards populated by folk who do less well on measures of general intelligence may well affect your intuitions here.
3. I hadn't begun to think of one of your suggestions: I'd love to see what would would happen if "highly functional" people with certain outlandish beliefs were forced, given some reliable lie-detector test, to display how much they really believe the things they tell themselves and others in everyday life.
What would the general results be? How would they compare to "less functional" fellow-believers? Perhaps, as Martin's evidence suggests, they'd be in general more intelligent. But would they, gun to the head, be less credulous than their less functional cohorts?
Disclaimer: I'm fully aware that one can't take from any of this that God doesn't exist, that there aren't supernatural powers, etc. Nor that brilliant people can't be believers. Nor that all of the studies that Martin cites couldn't, even if they're right, be misconstrued in ugly ways. Someone, anyone, tell me where I'm wrong.
Modified by Cal at Wed, May 29, 2002, 13:42:17
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Trying to sort through the evidence Re: Trying to sort through the evidence -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: someone ®
05/30/2002, 10:27:36
Author Profile Mail author
thanks for the response cal. I didn't actually read Martins post again (I believe i read it before), so I wasn't as much challenging it as I am trying to get a handle on the issue in general. I certainly see your point that intelligence is highly correlated with functionality. To be clear, I was in fact arguing that the two are probably not correlated--but as you suggest I may be wrong on that. My thoughts on this are completely a matter of my personal experience, I havn't as of yet sought to really study it out; looks like a good place to start would be going back to Martin's post.
I agree that this kind of research could never conclusively tell us anything about the existence of God etc.
I do think its entirely possible for brilliant, high functioning people to be believers (once again based on my own limited experience); I guess I'd just be interested in meeting a few more then I have thus far (given as well that I could somehow feel assured that they are being honest).
another thought:
If say, Mikwut is right, then our tests for intelligence and high-functionality wouldn't likely assess the matter correctly. Some behavior may only seem to be neurotic or unintelligable simply because those who construct the tests are themselves unable to think "hyper-rationally".
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Trying to sort through the evidence Re: Re: Trying to sort through the evidence -- someone Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/30/2002, 11:16:48
Author Profile Mail author
Someone, You write: "If say, Mikwut is right, then our tests for intelligence and high-functionality wouldn't likely assess the matter correctly. Some behavior may only seem to be neurotic or unintelligable simply because those who construct the tests are themselves unable to think 'hyper-rationally'."
I am not at all sure I follow you. It seems to me you are suggesting, in part, that intelligence tests measure "behavior" and "neuroses". Do you see how I might think this from the quotation above? Intelligence tests do not measure functionality directly, but rather it is that the "g" factor which can be extracted from a vast array of different intelligence testing techniques that has been demonstrated to be highly correlated with functionality.
Furthermore, you seem to be implying that the entire array of intelligence testing methods could well be fundamentally flawed because they do not attempt to measure one's Mikwuttian-style belief that they possess mystical knowledge of the transcendent, the unknowable, the non-empirical, and the untestable. And that perhaps if they did somehow find a way to measure the unmreasurable, people of high religiosity might well be seen to be more intelligent than skeptics.
Respectfully, such ideas (and I fully realize that they were NOT offerred as arguments or assertions) strike me as rather dubious...
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Trying to sort through the evidence Re: Re: Trying to sort through the evidence -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
05/30/2002, 11:54:46
Author Profile Mail author
"tests for intelligence and high-functionality..."
would be better as "..respective tests for intelligence and functionality".
I didn't mean to say that intelligence tests would measure functionality. In fact, from my personal experience (which I don't submit as anything but that), it would seem that functionality isn't correlated with intelligence at all. so there would be independent testing for both. I've read a little about rating functionality in my friends Psychiatry text.
"but rather it is that the "g" factor which can be extracted from a vast array of different intelligence testing techniques that has been demonstrated to be highly correlated with functionality"
got it.
As far as my final comment there went, yes, I'm dubious too...I just like to speculate how my opposition might argue.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
education/belief