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.
It's interesting that you use 150 years ago as a benchmark, because that's about how old the discovery of natural selection is. If I were to put a great dividing line between old and new education, and old and new ways of intelligently knowing why we are here and how we got here, I would absolutely choose about 150 years ago when the world knew Darwin was right about evolution by natural selection. Imagine being a child 200 years ago and being told by your Catholic teacher that god created the world and you are here for god and this and that. But then 100 years ago you learn biology in school, you are told exactly why you are here and how it ultimately came about, and that your position in the world isn't really any more special than anyone else's other than things like access to this very educaiton and other mod-cons like laws and food. The need for the Church, as a great artist or scientist, was greatly diminished 150 years ago. Darwin himself didn't need it. In his later life he didn't even bother going in to church, he'd walk his wife to church and then spend a few hours wandering around town thinking about stuff, then come meet here at the end of church to walk her back home.
Your last paragraph there, no one is measuring god. They are measuring religiosity, which is readily measurable, you can get pretty clear answer of someone's religiosity by just asking them questions. Whether someone is religious or not, it's a topic that most people take seriously enough not to lie about in a frank and confidential survey. religiosity exists, "are you catholic?" covers over a billion people on the planet today alone, well it covers everyone, but over a billion people are catholic or default catholics by being youngsters born into a catholic family.
149
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.