Reply to: Meta-study shows religious people are less intelligent

[Ruprect]

I think most people's definition of "intelligent" boils down to "think like I do".

If you don't agree with me, then you are, by my definition, stupid.

Now that is nonsense!

[NotAllThere]

This applies to Jihadis too right? The Qu'ran states that suicide is a sin, yet Takfiri jihadi's "interpret" this differently - as "dying in the line of fire in the holy war" - is this that they're not "intelligent believers", or does one's reading of a holy text allow any interpretation you like?

I think most people's definition of "intelligent" boils down to "think like I do".

If you don't agree with me, then you are, by my definition, stupid.

[Ruprect]

No, there’s a very big difference between Jihadis ‘interpretations’ and those of less fundamentalist believers. In this exchange I see Cailin and deano making their interpretations while recognising that those with other beliefs or no belief may also provide valuable insights. In a way they’ve taken up my original challenge to ‘try atheism’ by discussing matters, sometimes quite eloquently, and trying to see things through someone else’s eyes. They’re open to discussion and that will influence the way they think and act, even if it doesn’t change their belief in a god. The Jihadis however ignore all argument from those who don’t share their beliefs and simply shut themselves off in a philosophical void where they don’t allow themselves to be influenced by others and only find destruction and ultimate oblivion. Atheists could end up the same way if we choose to simply insult believers or underestimate their intelligence.

I'm not insulting anyone, just pointing out inconsistencies. You seem to be tying yourself up in similar knots now too.

[Mich the Tester]

This applies to Jihadis too right? The Qu'ran states that suicide is a sin, yet Takfiri jihadi's "interpret" this differently - as "dying in the line of fire in the holy war" - is this that they're not "intelligent believers", or does one's reading of a holy text allow any interpretation you like?

No, there’s a very big difference between Jihadis ‘interpretations’ and those of less fundamentalist believers. In this exchange I see Cailin and deano making their interpretations while recognising that those with other beliefs or no belief may also provide valuable insights. In a way they’ve taken up my original challenge to ‘try atheism’ by discussing matters, sometimes quite eloquently, and trying to see things through someone else’s eyes. They’re open to discussion and that will influence the way they think and act, even if it doesn’t change their belief in a god. The Jihadis however ignore all argument from those who don’t share their beliefs and simply shut themselves off in a philosophical void where they don’t allow themselves to be influenced by others and only find destruction and ultimate oblivion. Atheists could end up the same way if we choose to simply insult believers or underestimate their intelligence.

[Ruprect]

There are plenty of other examples where intelligent believers choose not to follow the letter of the rules, but follow what they believe is the spirit of the rules.

This applies to Jihadis too right? The Qu'ran states that suicide is a sin, yet Takfiri jihadi's "interpret" this differently - as "dying in the line of fire in the holy war" - is this that they're not "intelligent believers", or does one's reading of a holy text allow any interpretation you like?

[Purple Dalek]

Weeeeeelllll, vatican rulings on contraception have been largely a joke. Wasn't the original rhythm method rules actually proven, when science came along to look, the wrong way around.

I think they've been a little shy of the subject since.

[Ruprect]

You could argue quite logically that the commandments and ‘rules’ written down in the bible were written a couple of thousand years ago and were relevant to the times, but need further interpretation to be relevant in or time. Think, for example, of the rules governing sexual intercourse and marriage. At the time there was no contraception and medicine had no answer to STDs. Something was needed to prevent unwanted children being born and a rapid and destructive spread of disease. Back then the measures of insisting on reproduction within marriage and chastitiy outside of marriage were very logical measures. These days it would seem that despite, or perhaps due to an astonishing lack of leadership from the Vatican, many catholics make their own interpretation based on their knowledge of modern contraceptives; it must be so, otherwise Italy wouldn’t have one of the lowest birthrates in Europe. You’re not going to convince me they’ve done that through mass chastity. What those people are doing is not ‘cherry picking’, but applying their knowledge and intelligence to taking decisions in the modern world.

There are plenty of other examples where intelligent believers choose not to follow the letter of the rules, but follow what they believe is the spirit of the rules.

I’m an atheist, as I’ve already said, but I object to the suggestion that believers are stupid or just cherry-picking. They clearly aren’t, and it’s better for everyone when believers and non-believers alike converse in a civilised way to try and solve problems.

My point was that on one hand he was quoting a 90 year old woman getting pregnant as part of his argument, and then subsequently happily ignoring the whole "world created in 7 days" in favour of evolution. The argument is not exactly consistent is it? [Edit: and does look a bit like cherry picking to me]

[Mich the Tester]

So you cherry pick which bits in your holy book to believe then?

You could argue quite logically that the commandments and ‘rules’ written down in the bible were written a couple of thousand years ago and were relevant to the times, but need further interpretation to be relevant in or time. Think, for example, of the rules governing sexual intercourse and marriage. At the time there was no contraception and medicine had no answer to STDs. Something was needed to prevent unwanted children being born and a rapid and destructive spread of disease. Back then the measures of insisting on reproduction within marriage and chastitiy outside of marriage were very logical measures. These days it would seem that despite, or perhaps due to an astonishing lack of leadership from the Vatican, many catholics make their own interpretation based on their knowledge of modern contraceptives; it must be so, otherwise Italy wouldn’t have one of the lowest birthrates in Europe. You’re not going to convince me they’ve done that through mass chastity. What those people are doing is not ‘cherry picking’, but applying their knowledge and intelligence to taking decisions in the modern world.

There are plenty of other examples where intelligent believers choose not to follow the letter of the rules, but follow what they believe is the spirit of the rules.

I’m an atheist, as I’ve already said, but I object to the suggestion that believers are stupid or just cherry-picking. They clearly aren’t, and it’s better for everyone when believers and non-believers alike converse in a civilised way to try and solve problems.

[sasguru]

Indeed. Assuming all believers are stupid is pretty naive. ALL the smart/hard questions people trot out feeling smug about "this'll get 'em" - none of these are new questions, they have all been asked for centuries.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics which is concerned with this very subject.

As I said a few posts back, I believe that religion is a human artefact, as evidenced by the myriad forms it takes and its dependence on particular cultures. That is my belief anyway, based on travelling widely and talking to many religious people. If Deano had been born in Iraq he quite possibly might have been a Jihadist and just as convinved of his rectitude as he is now.

[NotAllThere]

...Fair enough.
I think I'll explore Buddhism a little more. That seems, in general, like a sensible sort of religion - if indeed it one.

It certainly is a religion - by the criteria there are buddhists states who persecute anyone not of their faith. ( Bhutan, Burma ... ).

[sasguru]

Okay, question 1. Previously on this thread I wrote....

There is no evidence for a supernatural being because by definition that means the being is "beyond" nature. And the only tools we have available are the ones we have fashioned from within nature. Ergo, there is no way to prove the existence of God.

That is why it is called faith.

Which bit don't you get?

2) It may not persuade you, but to be frank I don't really care whether I do or not. There's nothing in it for me after all. But it does for me. You might need to read around the subject though, but anyone who was around in the aftermath of 9/11 and who wasn't terribly dull might get the reference. I don't hold out much hope for you.

Genesis 17.17-27

17Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” 18And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live in your sight!” 19God said, “No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.

Easy peasy. I'm beginning to think that with all the simple questions and having to keep repeating the answer, you might actually be a bit... well simple.

Ah Yes I probably am a bit simple.

So your answers to my question are:

1. There is no evidence you can point to for the existence of "God".
2. You can't really say why your beliefs are better than than the 9/11 bombers.

Fair enough.
I think I'll explore Buddhism a little more. That seems, in general, like a sensible sort of religion - if indeed it one.

[Ruprect]

I don't know. My understanding of Christian theology leads me to believe that it is logical. However I also believe science is logical, from quantum theory, through evolutionary theory and back to the big bang.

Neither do I see any particular dichotomy between the two positions. I always amazed when new scientific discoveries are made, just how clever God has been in creating them. Who would have thought that he has made us into what we are using something like evolution to get there. Incredible.

The two tie up nicely when I look at them in that light.

So you cherry pick which bits in your holy book to believe then?

[d000hg]

For common or garden believers, that is the case. But theologians have wrestled with the philosophical problems of religion - the hard questions - for centuries.

Indeed. Assuming all believers are stupid is pretty naive. ALL the smart/hard questions people trot out feeling smug about "this'll get 'em" - none of these are new questions, they have all been asked for centuries.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics which is concerned with this very subject.

[NotAllThere]

...Who would have thought that he has made us into what we are using something like evolution to get there...

Stone the blasphemer!

[NotAllThere]

Actually I'm not holding my breath for your answers - I know the believers MO is to ignore the hard questions.

For common or garden believers, that is the case. But theologians have wrestled with the philosophical problems of religion - the hard questions - for centuries.

If your question of "why do bad things happen" is answered "because God moves in mysterious ways", then the person answering hasn't thought through anything, and probably doesn't even know the basic tenets of what the purport to believe.