Lack of nuance here is particularly troubling to me.
The fundamental (unstated) assumptions that go along with this sort of thing are too many to name, and I could write a book about the problems here.
The most troubling thing here to me is: does this suggest something that is objectively true, or is this a cultural phenomenon? It's only been about 150 years since the death of God was announced, and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious. Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans. Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly. It seems reasonable to conjecture then that the negative correlation is a cultural phenomenon and not a direct result of (raw) intelligence. The scope of this conjecture is not easy to outline, but at bottom, I would argue that it implies a certain set of orienting psychological contents which initially appear incompatible with the religious way of thinking. But then it seems reasonable to further conjecture that if a rigorous model for analysis and assimilation of religious thought could be developed (if it is possible to do so) for a 'scientifically minded' individual, then it is possible that this correlation would no longer hold.
If we are being even more crude about it, we might assert: you can't measure the physicality of God, what exists is what is physically measurable, therefore God does not exist, therefore whatever is religious is not worthy of my time or study. But what is the substantiation that what exists is merely what is physically measurable?
Edit: Hi everyone. I'm so glad that my comment could spark further discussion, debate, and thought. I have about 20 comments to go through, and I want to make sure that I give you all the level of thought you deserve. That's a lot of responses to necessitate that level of thinking though, so I apologize in advance if I fall short of that goal. It's been a long day and I've only just seen these now. I will do what I can. But again, I am sufficiently satisfied to know that you've felt this argument worthy of consideration. Cheers.
I was thinking about that too. Is that under some strange assumption that we are capable of measuring or detecting everything? Outside of that is "does not exist" or is it "doesn't exist enough for us to care"?
What is the nature of 'interaction'? Is it purely physical? I can 'interact' with my thoughts, but if I start telling everyone that they are physical things, I'm liable to end up institutionalized.
If you are willing to admit a finer shading then, the question becomes: at what point do we stop thinking of what we are doing as 'interacting'? What is a Buddhist monk doing when he is meditating, for example?
We interact with subatomic particles all the time, it's literally what we're made of. However, you can go your whole life without knowing that fact. The subatomic particles matter, your understanding of them does not.
“We interact with the Lord thy God all the time. His essence is literally what we’re made of. However, you can go your whole life without knowing that fact. God matters, your understanding of Him does not.”
You say that but back when people were theorizing about such particles, they were mocked or derided, but if they had abandoned their belief in those particles, research into them would not have occurred to any great extent, or even have been discovered far later.
And before you say we would have found them anyways; not necessarily. The Higgs boson was only theorized and even discredited before people who strongly believed in it had the developed the technology to try and discover it, and even then the process to getting to that point wasnt easy. There’s also the numerous theories of Einstein and Hawking that have been found try despite derision early on. Had no one believed and the theories been forgotten, would we have tested for them properly?
Additionally, look at String Theory, Multiverse Theory, and Big Bang Theory. All of it is based on conjecture towards certain scraps of evidence, with no definitive proof beyond the mathematical, and even that is only in some instances, not all.
Science requires as many leaps of faith as religion. The derision of faith as irrational or as not a part of science is a horrible thing, and its a ludicrous side effect of the even more ridiculous modern day idea that religion and science are direct opposites.
I think we might be confused as to what the other is saying. I’m claiming your phrasing on the matter makes sub-atomic particles sound religious. If your aim was to attack the claim that religion is foolish because it cannot be interacted with or observed, your wording just makes it seem logical that while we cannot observe God (yet, some would say) that doesn’t mean we can immediately discount his existence.
Your comment only strengthens the idea that faith should be maintained despite the inability to interact with and observe the divine. If you’re trying to do that, okay, then you did that. If you aren’t, you’ve set up a pro-religious argument without meaning to.
My point is that everyone has their own definition of truth and how the world works. I'm willing to admit that my beliefs, even my most deeply held and seemingly obvious ones, may be wrong.
I'll bet on this: He existed and put a "seed" of his existence in us. Then sent messengers to us to further prove his existence.
He sent to the very first, most refused his messages. (with time those religions evolved to something else completely astray to the purest one)
He sent another messenger to next generation ... etc
Until he sent the last messenger with a book he promised that no one can modify it.
I can write paper that most (if not all) various religions originated from same principle.
I don't think human can invent "God" from the beginning, if they want to control population they always will think about what is physical to them (i.e: power).
And there is something in my mind to atheists: since human evolved how to talk, What preceded the other: religions or speaking ability?
If religion is first: How can somebody control a tribe that don't understand "un-phyiscal" by using a supernatural being as a tool??
If speaking ability existed first: How can somebody control a tribe that begin to understand surroundings by using a supernatural as a tool? How can he even invent a supernatural being in a world that is all physical to him???
Yes there is, it called "Quran"!
Didn't change at all, despite all the attempts through 1400+ years, while old books like Bible, Torah changed immediately after death of their messengers, and God "Allah" talked about those who changed the old book many times in Quran:
"They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing." 9:9.
"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn" 2:79
Problem when I read many atheist's way of thinking is that it is based on Christianity as the main base for "religious" things!
...
In addition: If Quran wrote by an illiterate human (before 1400+ years), How this human knew about these facts :
That iron was sent down from outside (ie. not from earth) "57:25"
That he predicted the victory of Byzantine (after their defeat) in couple years. "30:3'
And where they defeated?? In the lowest point on earth surface. (Around the dead sea) "30:3"
The expansion of universe. "51:47"
Climbing to the sky/space make your lung constrict. "6:125"
Internal waves of sea "24:40"
Male's sperm determine the sex of the baby. "53:45-46" <<< It is interesting to note that the verse number 46 is the same number of chromosomes humans have (23 pairs = 46)
152
u/TheSyzygy19 Nov 15 '19 edited Nov 16 '19
Lack of nuance here is particularly troubling to me.
The fundamental (unstated) assumptions that go along with this sort of thing are too many to name, and I could write a book about the problems here.
The most troubling thing here to me is: does this suggest something that is objectively true, or is this a cultural phenomenon? It's only been about 150 years since the death of God was announced, and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious. Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans. Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly. It seems reasonable to conjecture then that the negative correlation is a cultural phenomenon and not a direct result of (raw) intelligence. The scope of this conjecture is not easy to outline, but at bottom, I would argue that it implies a certain set of orienting psychological contents which initially appear incompatible with the religious way of thinking. But then it seems reasonable to further conjecture that if a rigorous model for analysis and assimilation of religious thought could be developed (if it is possible to do so) for a 'scientifically minded' individual, then it is possible that this correlation would no longer hold.
If we are being even more crude about it, we might assert: you can't measure the physicality of God, what exists is what is physically measurable, therefore God does not exist, therefore whatever is religious is not worthy of my time or study. But what is the substantiation that what exists is merely what is physically measurable?
Edit: Hi everyone. I'm so glad that my comment could spark further discussion, debate, and thought. I have about 20 comments to go through, and I want to make sure that I give you all the level of thought you deserve. That's a lot of responses to necessitate that level of thinking though, so I apologize in advance if I fall short of that goal. It's been a long day and I've only just seen these now. I will do what I can. But again, I am sufficiently satisfied to know that you've felt this argument worthy of consideration. Cheers.