Man of Science or Religion? Come discuss.

Sadly, it isn't a very solid arguement to say "Smart people aren't religious" but there are some instances to take note of. Stephen Hawking, considered to be one of the smartest men in the world, is an athiest. But again, that isn't very strong grounds for any sort of arguement.

 

Einstein was religious.

Argument disproven.

 

Einstein was agnostic.

The reason that a disbelief in god is generally indicative of higher intelligence is because it requires much less freedom of thought to believe what you are told to believe, in lieu of observing the universe and drawing you own opinions.

You know who was religious? The retarded guy in my old town that collected cans.


The reason I posted that picture in the first place was because this was posted.

Spoiler

It annoyed me a little, so I typed "religious people" into google images, and clicked on the scatter graph.

Mock atheists, no-one objects. Mock the religious...

 

Because the truly intelligent religious men realize that their intelligence doesnt matter, and don't popularize it. Ghandi, Buddha, Christ, all were men that were renowned for their ability to create legions of followers who did not understand their intentions. I honestly hold these people to be some of the most brilliant. Galileo, Copernicus, Descartes, Kant, Da Vinci, all religious.

More importantly, intelligence tests are biased. They are created by men of science to test your natural understanding of SCIENCE. Of course it shows that people who believe it tend to be intelligent. In terms of actual intelligence, I'd say there is an equal number of close minded, unintelligent individuals who hold blindly to science against all reason. Its just, they seem intelligent because they can do well at the tests of science.

Do you remember in your school, how there were people who for all intent and purpose were idiots, but they still had the best grades? It was because they simply sat down and MEMORIZED everything; not learned it. The same applies here.

(2sents)

 

Benjamin Franklin, Socrates, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Galileo, and heck, one of them was a Catholic Priest.

It's more a psychological affair. The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

Think about it. People who have an average IQ usually do not question anything. They always go about, and rather would keep to themselves. They except how things happen as they happen. They don't worry about how a tornado is made, they just want to know when one is coming. They don't worry how toast is made, they just want their breakfast.

This is why kids are known to be the best learners. Because their mind is open to everything, and they're always curious. As we get older, we tend to not care and just want things. Not caring how we get them.

The people with an exceptional IQ, however, will question everything. And the more they know, the more they know that they don't, and hence, the more they will want to know. And the only way they can find out is by the way they are taught. Or logic. And they figure they can figure out anything with it.

However, how do you find out something that can't be solved with logic? Religion is almost beyond all logic. People who have an average IQ just take religion for what it is, and don't question it. Which is all the logic in the world for them. People with high intelligence will not be able to probe into it, and see what other people see because they use "logic" to everything.

What do you call something you can't solve with logic? Well, you call it illogical. So they reject it immediately because it can't be solved with logic. In a way, logic is their god. They can't figure anything out without it, and they wouldn't be able to live without it.

Heck, scientist's of the old age thought lightning was God getting angry. Until Ben Franklin showed it was a natural occurrence. Then the scientists started doubting there was a God. They figure that if they apply logic to everything, then they'll be able to find the answer to everything. Like lightning.

However, there are the very few and very rare occurrences of religious great scientists. The ones that can accept religion as it is, and that there is no such thing as creation from nothing until you put God into it.

[br][/br]

---

Edited by merge:

---

Hmm. Very agnostic. His favorite saying though is;

Yea, I don't think he was religious either.

I guarantee that 90% of ForgeHub will not like my answer.

 

that facebook trolling image was not mocking atheists in the slightest bit, im really not sure how you concluded that.
..

there are plenty of examples of highly intelligent people of religion, as well as plenty of example of highly intelligent atheists. there are also more than plenty of examples of people on the lower part of the intelligence spectrum from both parties. you cant really base an argument on examples.

personally, i believe in religion. however, i do not firmly believe in the existence of invisible beings.
also, -"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

 

I take it you've seen God.

 

I really don't know what I believe in or not yet.

 

Your typically stupid, society based, and unknowledgable ideas of what "God" is make me lol.

I don't believe in modern religion, and I'm not agnostic or atheist, or antitheist (which most self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics actually are, they just don't know to call themselves something else). You don't need to fit into a category so that you can feel you belong somewhere.

I'm not going to get into a discussion here because I know how idiotic people are about these things, but learn to form your own view, not what people tell you something is -.-

You know where people get the idea of an invisible guy whose a personal god? Right, society standards. Learn to care enough about something to figure it out for yourself.

 

Let me clear things up in the first hand. I'm an athiest. So then you might wonder, "Well, why is an athiest defending religion?" Read on.


Name me thinkers who were athiest/agnostic, and I'll name back thinkers who believed in the divine. Stephen Hawking? Albert Einstein. Bertrand Russel? Martin Heidegger. As for Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates? The Pythagoreans treated mathematics with such high regard that they considered it to be a religion.


Religion and science aren't polarizing schools of thought. You mistake 'religion' for dogma, and 'science' with 'empiricism-rationalism'. Religion brings together people into collectives, where thinkers can unite and progress can be made. It was only through the funding of the churches that many philosophers and scientists got their start.

Of course, we must be wary of unimpeded dogma. Typically, we associate dogma with the religious side, and you wouldn't be wrong for the most part. There are many examples throughout history where religious dogma has impeded the progress of knowledge - notably, Galileo, Copernicus, and Darwin.

But you'd be a fool to assume that dogma only comes in one form. It is, by definition, the stringent adherence to a system that one assumes to be definitively true. The Victorian-era dogma impeded on the progress of knowledge with its outlandish social expectations. Libertarian dogma makes the idea of a larger government to be heretical; conservative dogma makes social programs seem like the harbingers of communism.

And here's the kicker: there's dogma in science too.


Science prides itself in its rational analysis of the external world, of its empirical process in achieving objective truths. Science has indeed proved itself in our world. Our proof lies in our great technological gains and our enormous berth of knowledge. We seem to know that mass curves space-time*, that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, that subatomic particles exhibit a wave-particle duality*.

But when was the last time you've actually tried to verify these claims?


By adhering to science as the progenitor of all knowledge, you create a massive contradiction.** Science is based on rationalism and empiricism. Science is also based on this: "That there exists an external world, [and] that there exist objective truths about that world." (Sokal).

But there is no rational way to explain the presence of the external world. Or, more simply, that the external world even exists at all. How do we perceive the external world and its external truths? Science can work to explain everything but itself. In actuality, science itself is based on a single irrational claim: the belief in the external, objective world.

Welcome to metaphysics. Enjoy your stay.***


Besides that, I'll also point out that none of you have probably tried using science to verify some of its claims. I for one have never tested to see if water does boil at 100 degrees Celsius (at 1 atm). I believe it does because I have faith in science, but I've never tried to scientifically test it out.






*I'm aware that these are technically only theories, but my point is that most people take it for granted that these are truths.
**Please don't be a pretentious **** and tell your science teacher that their class is a contradiction. You'll just look like a smarmy wannabe know-it-all.
***I'm not telling you to all go join whatever pseudo-metaphysics club that claims that astrology works and that the world will end in 2012.

If you want to be technical, Einstein believed in the abstract idea of God, not the Judean God. But the argument still stands.

Depends where you live. In a more religious town, you might encounter that. However, most people where I hang out with are atheists as well, so I see the opposite.

 

Einstein believed in a 'cosmic religion' or some sort of super natural being that 'started' the big bang. He thought the idea of a personal god was ridiculous and spoke out against it on several occasions.

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."

While he was born and raised Jewish, his religious views differed greatly but he still appreciated the Jewish traditions. I would say that he would measure his importance of religion very low.


That being said, it has been proven that with increased intelligence comes less of a dependence on religion. This is because religion is a method of explaining things we don't understand. As we're starting to understand more and more about our universe, more of the gaps had been filled in with scientific data.

"When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces"

 

Thank you Insane, looks like I can get this topic locked faster than I thought.

Man you guys are idiots. I thought you didn't want me trollin' and causing flame wars. I can get thousands of topics locked easily.

You idea of stupid, society based, and unknowledgable ideas of what I'm thinking is stupid in itself. Are you judging my opinion? Why are you calling it stupid? Why are you getting angry after I say that?

Oh yea. 'Cause it conflicts with your belief. You see, you can't call me the above statement unless you had conflicting reasons. Your belief very well does apply that conflict.

Don't take it the wrong way. In no way did I say that your religion is wrong. I'm Catholic, and what I said back then was from a Catholic point of view. I did not say it was impossible to have a religion without belief in the invisible. I was merely questioning before jumping.

Still, I find it peculiar that you immediately rejected my point of view in a very opinionated and prejudice statement. Insane, are you ok? Did I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry. Maybe you can mature a bit, and we can talk about this civilized.

Back to the subject

Is it really idiotic people are about things? Insane, I don't think you're taking your own advice. How much of your religion have you learned by forming your own view? How much of your religion have you learned? Is it really your opinion, or is your religion a FACT. Basically, I think it's alright that we take what people tell us as our view. Maybe we're taught that. Maybe it's in you religion to do that. Doesn't being a Jew mean that? Taking what God has told you to do, and not forming your own opinion of it?

I ask this to you Insane. How can you believe in a religion by forming your own views? Insane, that's how new religions are made. Because people are forming their own views. You can't have but the same view of God as the people in the religion to be a true follower.

I really want to know how you think about bread Insane. Is it really a natural product that is rich with fiber, or do you have your own view of it? Do you say it's something that God created for the use of mankind? Insane. Choose both, choose one, just choose.

Oh, so I should just stick to my own view points, and reject everything someone else told me? I remember clearly something from this sites moderators. Oh YEA! It was

"Learn the Rules. Obey the rules."

Now should I take this advice, or should I continue to rampage this site in disagreement to the rules.

But hey, I'm going to care enough to figure out for myself that I don't have to listen to the rules, and I want to continue doing what I do.

 

Just because they're spitting at you doesn't mean you need to spit back.

 

It portrays atheists as easy to fool, quick to temper and immature. Not exactly the best traits to be associated with.

Not even close. IQ tests seek to measure general conceptual understanding, among other things. Also, since when was science a bad thing to have an understanding of?

You may call me an agnostic... I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

To poorly paraphrase, Einstein believed religiously in nature, which isn't what we're debating here. "Religion" almost exclusively relates to people talking about a belief in a personal god.

A damn good point. Revenge sure is satisfying though. If petty.

 

Nemi.

I'm Frag Man. F-R-A-G M-A-N.

Of course it does.

 

Yeah, it was more of an exercise in futility than anything.

 

I'm not really for organized religion, but if it works for people and makes them happy, then I really couldn't give a crap. I typically lean towards agnostic religion-wise. I really don't care, and don't care to care if there was some sort of holy creator. I like the science behind everything, and I like how there's facts behind science, so yeah I'd say I'm more of the science type.

BUT.
I don't disregard the fact that there's a possibility that someone created everything. True science isn't cutting off any possible variables within a theory, that's true religion. So people who are 100% atheist because they believe in science so much that they're not even going to entertain the idea of a god, are pretty much acting exactly how the religious people do, which is ironic because each side is pissing the other off for the exact same reason and they don't even know it.

What kind of puts me in the middle is, you can have religion and science go off of each other. There is a middle ground in all of this that pretty much 90% of people fail to go for is: "A 'god' created the universe with scientific knowledge (not magic), which is why there's an exact science behind everything". I don't care for any stories the bible tells trying to prove there's a god, but the one thing I'm ok with is that someone intentionally created the universe. I don't believe it's watching over us or anything, but it's entirely possible that something created it. And, I'm ok with believing that it was a random act of nature. As a true believer in science, I have to entertain either concept. Because while evidence may stack up to support one thing, nature is random as hell, and the tables might be turned one day in a revealing of counter-evidence.

Both sides have fanatics, both sides tend to get on my nerves because they get so serious and hostile about it.

As for either side being smarter, there's no way to determine that other than bias speculation.

 

i dont believe so.
the atheist just said "**** you" to the obviously horrible and ridiculous comment made by the troll, but then the christians said "**** you scumbag" and "proof that atheists have no morals" because they were under the impression that the atheist said **** you to the original, reasonable post after the troll deleted his post. which would have been reasonable outrage had the troll never posted anything, as they believed. so really, it was the christians that were fooled, but only after a successful trolling. it actually didnt insult anybody, only demonstrated how to successfully troll, as the large bold letters described at the top of the image.