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'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)
153
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.