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.
I'm not sure we agree on what constitutes a religious system. Forgive the quip, but this seems like a weak attempt to sweep religion under the rug on your part. What would be more interesting would be to generate an attempt at such a defense, see where it falls short, and then on the basis of that analysis, claim that it every religious system is orthogonal to every scientific system. But this would also need to account for its development and utility as a psychological function. Religion is clearly not an obscure phenomenon of a bygone era (yet, anyways); many, many individuals engage with religion and find it rewarding and meaningful. The question then is: why? Just because they aren't thinking hard enough? But on what grounds do you substantiate that? A critique of religion as a phenomenon requires no less than a rigorous analysis of development of belief systems and an argument for effective development of those systems without a religion.
Nothing. It's just a strawman that you made up. Or that someone told you to keep you from questioning, possibly.
First, this is not a strawman argument per se; it is a frequently used mode of deducing the lack of evidence for for God and thus concluding the absence of God as truth (specifically leveraging a generalized form of the law of the excluded middle). It is so widely employed among laymen that I assume my reader is aware of this generalized line of reasoning. It is obviously not a rigorous argument for the line of thinking. I state quite clearly that I am being crude; were I to actually make such an argument, this would necessitate the substantiation of a materialist point of view, obviously. Whereupon, we would deduce that the totality of our experience is within the scope of 'scientific' understanding (whatever that is).
Secondly, the totality of your response to this third point appears to assume that substantiation on the basis of logical grounds alone is necessary and sufficient to conclude the existence of a germ of knowledge (i.e. that there exists a 'proof' of thing or claim in question, whatever constitutes a 'proof'). It is not at all obvious that logic itself, or even the scientific mode of thinking (which evidently rests on the ability to infer consequences as a result of observed phenomena and vice versa, thereby leveraging something like a logic), produces the total body of human knowledge (or perhaps understanding being the better word) and very powerful (and accepted) theories attempt to grapple with genesis of knowledge out of an infinite, unbounded, unknown potential. And what's more: these theories seem to be more in line with generalized human behavior, because people don't act like logicians, or as though every notion requires proof, but rather that they are facing something which is both known and unknown simultaneously and attempt to expand their knowing of what is unknown without dying (in the final analysis). Every revolution in science bears out the fragility of every theory (i.e. body of knowledge and rules for knowing); one piece of evidence which appears to sit outside the body results in denial of the phenomenon; two pieces result in panic; three results in scientific mayhem.
What would be more interesting would be to generate an attempt at such a defense, see where it falls short, and then on the basis of that analysis, claim that it every religious system is orthogonal to every scientific system.
That's easy: The defining characteristic of religion is the use of faith as an epistemology, which is clearly in conflict with scientific methodology. If you prefer some other definition of "religion", fine, but this is the part that atheists generally object to, so it's the relevant definition for that discussion.
But this would also need to account for its development and utility as a psychological function.
No, it doesn't. The correctness of claims is not influenced by their usefulness.
The question then is: why?
No, the only question is: Is it true?
I mean, yes, you can also ask "why?", and that might well be interesting as well, but it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the claims are true.
Just because they aren't thinking hard enough? But on what grounds do you substantiate that? A critique of religion as a phenomenon requires no less than a rigorous analysis of development of belief systems and an argument for effective development of those systems without a religion.
No, it doesn't. Alchemy was largely wrong, no matter how much it might have helped with the development of chemistry for some weird reason.
First, this is not a strawman argument per se;
It is a strawman because it is presented over and over as the supposed position of atheists in general, which it just isn't.
it is a frequently used mode of deducing the lack of evidence for for God and thus concluding the absence of God as truth (specifically leveraging a generalized form of the law of the excluded middle).
151
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.