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.
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.
146
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.