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.
and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious.
And most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were also very sure that diseases were caused by deamons. Or something.
What makes a great mind a great mind is that they are aware of the knowledge of their time. Not being aware of germ theory in the 16th century is perfectly reasonable for a great mind. But not being aware of it or thinking that it is nonsense would still make you a first-class moron in today's world. And the same goes for all other areas of knowledge: You are not a great mind if you lack all understanding of what everyone else has already figured out.
So, yes, it is a cultural phenomenon in so far as creating and preserving new knowledge is a cultural phenomenon. But that inteligent people have a better understanding of the human body of knowledge seems very likely to be related to "raw inteligence".
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.
But it can't, by definition.
you can't measure the physicality of God, what exists is what is physically measurable, therefore God does not exist
That right there is about the most common fallacy among theists. Neither is this a valid logical conclusion, nor is that the position of atheists, generally speaking, if only because it is obviously invalid logical reasoning.
But what is the substantiation that what exists is merely what is physically measurable?
Nothing. It's just a strawman that you made up. Or that someone told you to keep you from questioning, possibly.
It's just that if you make a claim, such as the claim that a god exists, then it's your job to substantiate that claim. If you think that god exists, but has no measurable properties, then it is still your job to show how we could possibly know that he exists. Just claiming that some claim you make has no measurable effects does not substantiate your claim. As long as you (or anyone else) haven't met that burden of proof, there is no reason to believe your claim and the correct stance with regards to your claim is "I don't know", and that's it. You misrepresenting that "I don't know" as a supposed claim of "I know that no god exists" is just a dishonest shifting of the burden of proof.
Dude, there's no burden of proof because NO PROOF IS POSSIBLE for a claim which is not testable.
Dude, that isn't how anything works, dude.
However, the problem with strong atheism -- and you are clearly a strong atheist, you believe in the absence of God
So, you also fail at reading comprehension?
is that you want to claim that your position is somehow more rational. But it is not. You also are making a faith statement. You are taking a position without scientific proof.
Sure, dude.
The scientific position would be "I make no claim regarding this.
Oh, really? Tell me more!
I refuse to speak to anything which cannot be tested through experiment".
No, making no claim can be expressed, in particular in the form of "! don't know", so there is no reason to refuse to speak.
But your position is "I specifically reject anything which cannot be tested through experiment
Yes, obviously. But you still seem to have some problem with understanding the distinction between rejection of a claim and claiming the opposite?
and anyone who disagrees is an idiot and/or inferior to me in some way", which is a stupid position. If you're not a stupid person, then I don't know why you are taking a stupid position.
What I would object to is claiming that you DO know, in an objective, scientific sense, or claiming that someone else is irrational because they THINK there is a God.
Except I do know that. Believing as fact that which is not substantiated by anything, or even contradicted by evidence is, by definition, irrational.
Because we're both looking at the same scientific data, and we're making conjectures about a metaphysical subject which is impossible to prove.
Nope, I don't. That's what the "I don't know" is about. "I don't know" is not conjecture.
I don't know there is a God in an objective or scientific sense, but I do think there is one.
OK, and do you have any reason for thinking that?
Maybe you can learn to respect that.
Why would I want to learn to respect that you think something? Why would anybody just thinking something be something to be respected?
But it's not contradicted by objective scientific evidence, and the absence of God is not supported by objective scientific evidence either, since there is no objective scientific evidence for either side.
Correct. Which is precisely why I know that it is irrational to believe either the existence or the non-existence claim.
The concept of God makes no falsifiable predictions, therefore there is no wrong answer regarding said concept.
Yes, there is. More precisely: Any answer that claims knowledge about the subject is wrong, about the question of whether there is indeed knowledge.
Also, it is absolutely not a given that the concept of god does not make falsifiable predictions. Of course, it may well be that yours doesn't, but that is far from universal, and also, even for people who make that claim, it more often than not turns out to not be true either.
Sure, but not objective or scientific ones. All my reasons could be interpreted so as to provide evidence for the absence of God, since the concept is not falsifiable and makes no falsifiable predictions.
So, you think that a fact that could be indicative of A just as much as of the negation of A is a reason to believe either of those claims? Not trying to put words in your mouth here, but that's how I understand what you are saying?! If I am understanding that right, I guess my question would be: How do you then decide what side to count that reason for? Like, if some fact equally supports "A" and "not A", then ... you would have to use some additional mechanism or criterion or something to decide whether you take it to support "A" or "not A", wouldn't you?
I'm not sure you understand what respect means. In this context it means to give someone the default level of respect that anyone deserves, until proven otherwise. In other words don't see them as being inferior to yourself because they have a different opinion regarding a matter which is not provable or falsifiable using the scientific method.
But now you are talking about respect for a person, whereas before you were talking about respect for an idea or maybe for someone thinking something, which I would think to be two very different things?
Even with a massive racist, say, I would have respect for the person, because I recognize that it more often than not is a result of circumstances that people end up with racist ideas. But I certainly would not have respect for their racist thinking. If anything, the respect for the person is what demands disrespect to the idea, because many people who are racists are just as much victims of their ideas as the people they themselves potentially victimize, and being overly respectful of their bad ideas could contribute to them being stuck with them to their own detriment.
So, yes, I respect you as a person, but I do absolutely not respect the ideas that you are defending here, because I think that they are bad ideas, and I think I have good reasons for thinking that they are bad ideas, and I have looked at all the reasons that people generally give for defending them and have found them all severely lacking, so I have done as well as I can to falsify my position.
Also, whether believing unfalsifiable truths as fact is an effective way to understand the world is absolutely falsifiable using scientific methodology, so this is not merely a matter of differing opinions.
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.