大象传媒

"The study also notes that non-religious people tend to be highly educated, unmarried males who are intellectually adventurous but personally "less agreeable". Sound like anyone you know?"

Looking in the mirror

higher education - check
unmarried - check
intellectually adventurous - check, to a degree
less agreeable - check, to some people

What kind of person is an atheist. There may be many kinds including those for whom the question of existance is unimportant but for one kind, it is someone who is intelligent, thinks for himself, and is difficult to persuade without totally convincing evidence. I like to think I am such a person. I've noticed that when such people have to overcome indoctrination into religion they've been given no choice in as children, when they come to this conclusion it often creates real psychological trauma and conflict within themselves. They seem obsessed wtih it. I on the other hand having never been indoctrinated, never told what to believe or not believe had atheism come naturally to me all of my life. I never had an obstacle to overcome. As an adult able to think critically for myself, it has been virtually impossible for anyone to even make me consider for one moment that god might exist. I never gave it serious consideration because I had no need to and I saw no evidence for it.

I'm married. Does that mean I need to become an agnostic?

-H

The study also notes that non-religious people tend to be highly educated, unmarried males who are intellectually adventurous but personally "less agreeable". Sound like anyone you know?

That is quality Will!

Funny, I'd just been reading a study that found a correlation between IQ and atheism. Seems to fit the profile. Those who rise above peer pressure in general tend to fit the same profile: libertarians, for example, who are an even smaller intellectual minority than atheists! And I'm sure 200 years ago the same study could have identified deism as fitting the same profile. The moral of the story is not necessarily that atheism is more likely to be true because it's held by smarter people, but that among smart people a more diverse range of opinions exist as the result of freethought!

When I read this post, and the insinuation within it that there is some kind of relationship between "intelligence" and "atheism", I am reminded of a passage from Victor Hugo's novel "Les Miserables".

The Bishop of Digne was in conversation with an atheist senator who expatiated on the joys of his materialistic philosophy. He sums up his discourse with the words: "I have my philosophy, bishop, and my philosophers, but I do not let myself be fooled by make-believe. But that is not to say that there aren't some who need it, the poor, the under-fed, the down-and-outs. We give them myths to feed on, fairy-tales - the soul, immortality, Paradise, the stars ... And they swallow it. They butter their dry bread with it. The man who has nothing else has God. It's better than nothing and I've no objection, but for myself I stick to realism. God is for the masses."

The bishop congratulated the senator on his "admirable discourse": "What a splendid thing that kind of materialism is. Not everyone can achieve it. But the man who has it can't be fooled; he isn't going to let himself be exiled like Cato, or stoned to death like Stephen, or burned alive like Joan of Arc. He has all the joys of irresponsibility, the feeling that he can encompass everything with an easy mind - places, sinecures, dignities, power however gained, profitable recantations, useful betrayals, comforting adjustments of conscience - and go to his grave having stomached them all. How pleasant for him! I am not rebuking you, Monsieur le Senateur; I cannot refrain from congratulating you. As you say, you great men have your own philosophy, subtle, refined, accessible only to the rich, suited to all occasions, an admirable seasoning for the pleasures of life. It is a philosophy distilled from the depths by those who specialise in such matters. But you are a good-hearted man, you do not grudge the masses their belief in God, any more than you grudge them their goose stuffed with chestnuts while you have your turkey and truffles."

So pity this poor ignorant, unhappy, under-educated, "religiously bound" Christian (who, I have been informed on another thread, will "learn some day"). I can only bow to the superior wisdom of those who know everything, who have plumbed the depths of the mysteries of the universe, and who have the insight and confidence to inform us - the ignorant masses - that all our hopes, all our faith, all our desire for meaning and purpose and justice, all our "naive" deductions from observing the complexity of life, are but a pathetic illusion. Who can't be impressed by such "intelligence"!

But at least I have the intelligence to work one thing out: when we are all six feet under, and enjoying our (supposed) eternal oblivion, at least you higher beings will not able to turn around to us "ignorant" believers and say: "I told you so!"

LSV- Does my explanation of the numbers offer you another way to look at this? (ie. atheism is not the result of intelligence, free thought is a result of intelligence, from which atheism derives more frequently than it does among those of lesser academic interest)

#7 - John -

You're right - free thought is the result of intelligence, and my freedom of thought has led me to reject atheism. I can't speak for what others choose to do with their freedom of thought. Is it real freedom of thought, or simply an emotional reaction against perceived bigotry?

In fact I would consider myself a "free thinking humanist" in the true sense of these words. I believe in freedom of thought, and I am well able to think for myself, and not blindly follow the crowd, whether it's the ecclesiastical crowd, or the rather more tyrannical naturalistic scientific crowd (after all, anyone who DARES to question that most "precious" of theories called macro-evolution will soon find out how much these so-called "freethinkers" are worthy of the name!)

I am also an unrepentant fully-fledged humanist. This means that I believe in the value - eternal value - of the human race, and consider that the belief system which gives human beings the greatest dignity is that which was taught by Jesus Christ. This is why I do not accept such philosophies as naturalism, which states that man is nothing more than a system of atoms and molecules, and neither do I accept the absurdities of Calvinism or the judicial implications of original sin, which reduce human beings to a position of complete worthlessness.

Reading some of the views expressed by atheists, both on this blog and elsewhere, leads me to question the claims they often make to be the guardians of reason. I find no place for reason within the naturalistic philosophy, and empiricism cannot even be verified by its own rules (where is the empirical evidence that proves that empiricism is true?). Therefore the scientific method at the heart of naturalism is a leap of faith.

Concerning intelligence: I would like to suggest that a lot of Christians do not shout about how intelligent they are, so the perception is that they are not as intelligent as those who fancy themselves as oracles of all wisdom. But the reality, in my view, is rather different from the appearance. After all, it is an extremely intelligent thing to acknowledge that there are mysteries in life, and to show some intellectual humility, which is consistent with having a handle on reality. To insist that we must explain everything in life according to the naturalistic philosophy is not consistent with freedom of thought (since a particular philosophy is being imposed on us) and it is not intelligent (since it is being imposed without logical justification - i.e. where is the independent evidence that demands that we should explain all phenomena in terms of matter?).

You say that smarter people hold a more diverse range of thoughts. It's funny, isn't it, that when there is a diversity of opinions within the church we are accused of being divided and bigoted by those very same people who champion freedom of thought! Yet I don't see a diversity of opinions being allowed when it comes to theories of origins. Anyone who upsets the "freethinking" inquisition is dismissed as an idiot, even though anyone with half a brain can work out that all theories of origins are precisely that: theories - so therefore all views should be constantly subjected to intense analysis at every level. So much for freedom of thought and diversity of opinion!!

LSV;

"But that is not to say that there aren't some who need it, the poor, the under-fed, the down-and-outs. We give them myths to feed on, fairy-tales - the soul, immortality, Paradise, the stars ... And they swallow it."

It may be eloquent, even poetic but it's not very efficient. Marx would merely say religion is the opiate of the masses. But that was then, this is now. Today it's sports. Or is it Twitter?

"I believe in the value - eternal value - of the human race..."

Value is in the eye of the appraiser. You'd better enjoy it while you can. From the look of things, the human race seems to be on the way out. Headed for extinction...by its own hand. Global warming is probably now irreversible, ultimately the result of overpopulation. Iran will soon get "the bomb." North Korea already has it. If the Taleban ever take over Pakistan, al Qaeda will have an aresenal of them. Looks rather grim for the heirs of the inquisition, the crusades, and the holocaust you value so much.

"Therefore the scientific method at the heart of naturalism is a leap of faith."

So is the state of consciousness. That's the gist of what Sartre and Camus had to say about it.

All you clever atheists should look up the correct use of the word "religious," which is meant to be a noun, not a johnny-come-lately and very imprecise adjective. You, me and everyone else in this discussion who is not bound by vows to the Church hierarchy is a non-religious by definition.

LSV rekindles the evolution debate:

"after all, anyone who DARES to question that most "precious" of theories called macro-evolution will soon find out how much these so-called "freethinkers" are worthy of the name!"

Actually LSV, if you read just a few research papers on evolutionary biology, you would find out that evolution is being debated among biologists all the time. And that has been going on for a long time, hence the theory of evolution has changed in a number of areas since Darwin wrote On the origin of species. Where is freethinking being limited in that?

What biologists (and scientists in general) have grown tired of, is the poor attempts to challenge origins theories without any good basis. As an example of that, let me remind you of some of your own posts on the Tree stump apparition thread. You started off the debate on origins by saying stable forms don't last longer than chaotic ones. Geneboy, Helio and challenged you on that one. You then tried to salvage your position by saying things in fancy terms but with very little substance like 'controlled randomness' which didn't make much sense. Then you gave up on arguing from science and said you didn't expect anyone to recover from depression if they switched to 'Darwinism'. When called out over that silly argument, you said we were going around in circles. We did no such thing. Every attempt at a scientific argument against origins theories you put forward was soundly trashed in that thread (if you disagree then please point out where we kept coming back to the same arguments).

A poor showing as summarized above does not warrant intellectual respect. If you get called out over that (strongly, perhaps sometimes) then the tone of the debate hardly constitutes any ground for saying freethinkers don't live up to their name. Your shift from presenting arguments to complaining about the tone of the debate is not a sign of strength.

"The present study indicates that the common assumption of greater religiosity relating to greater happiness and satisfaction is overly simplistic."

But a cursory glance at Hebrews 11 and 12 would be enough to knock this sentimental view of (Christianity anyway) on it's head. How popular Christianity ever got to the stage where it allowed itself to be associated with, 'Give your heart, or your Sunday morning, or your Frothy Frappuccino to Jesus and all you problems will go away', is more than I know.

#11 鈥� PeterK 鈥�

I don鈥檛 know where you get the idea that I want your respect. I disagree profoundly with your views, and I have every right to express my point of view, quite irrespective of what people think of it. If that is unacceptable to people who disagree with me, then that鈥檚 their problem, not mine.

Of course you despise me. That is consistent with your negative and nihilistic philosophy. I feel sorry for Christians who seem to want and hope for the respect of closed-minded atheists 鈥� dogmatists who in their hearts can have no respect for 鈥減eople of faith鈥�, as is clear from their views, and the way they promote them. I am no fool. I know that you and your co-religionists (and I use that word quite seriously) on this blog are enemies of all I hold dear - so why would I want your respect?

As a right thinking person I see nothing illogical in the idea that 鈥渃omplexity begets complexity鈥�. You seem to think that such a concept is absurd 鈥� contrary to human experience and observation. I have done nothing more than point this out, and for this I am being castigated.

So who is really worthy of disrespect?

Well, there certainly were some bits of anger and distortion in your post there, LSV.

"Of course you despise me."

I despise you? I didn't know that. I profoundly disagree with some ideas you hold, and I think some of them are not very bright. Not quite the same thing as despising someone.

"That is consistent with your negative and nihilistic philosophy."

I'm quite negative towards some ideas, like some that are frequently discussed on this blog. Because they stand in the way of more constructive, productive thinking. On the whole, I would say I have a pretty optimistic outlook as to where we might take things. To the degree that some of your fellow theists think I have 'faith in scientific optimism'.

"I know that you and your co-religionists (and I use that word quite seriously) on this blog are enemies of all I hold dear"

I am an enemy, no less?! Maybe I can try to be more kind then. For instance, I could offer to loosen your straight jacket a little for you, I you like.

"As a right thinking person I see nothing illogical in the idea that 鈥渃omplexity begets complexity鈥�. You seem to think that such a concept is absurd"

And where did I ever say that complexity couldn't come from complexity? Oh I remember, I didn't, you're setting up a distorted straw man of my position so that you have something you can knock down.
What I said on the tree stump thread was that complexity (or rather, 'order' was the word used on that thread) need not necessarily come from previous complexity, but can locally also arise from disorder under some cicumstances. Without a divine hand behind it.

Now that we're back to discussing issues of a scientific nature, you left a number of open questions on the tree stump thread. Rather than venting your anger at the atheists here, why not try to answer those questions?

LSV,
I find no place for reason within the naturalistic philosophy

Perhaps you would need to google the term "facepalm". In all seriousness, you seem to have a remarkably jejune notion of the processes scientists use to determine What Is Going On, and the basis on which "naturalistic philosophy" is established. But we've been over this before. We do NOT start from a premise that everything is rational and can be understood. That the universe by-and-large behaves in a comprehensible manner is an *observation*, not a premise.

I am also confused as to why you think that scientists are the enemies of all you hold dear, rather than the likes of the creationists or the jihadis or the Falun Gong or Scientologists. If reason and rational analysis are agin all you hold dear, then I suggest you have misplaced your values, and should re-evaluate your core philosophies.

#14 - PeterK -

"I could offer to loosen your straight jacket a little for you"

I am not aware that I am in a straightjacket. You are expressing a common assumption about so-called "religious" people, that we are all bound up with fear and terror and need to be "liberated" from the big man in the sky. I am afraid that this is a false assumption you could do well to disabuse yourself of. I feel perfectly free, thank you.

I've had another look at the "Tree Stump" thread. I was interested in Geneboy's comment in message 55:

"Regardless of the lack of clarity, or likely impossibility of an answer regarding abiogenesis; evolution is extremely solid in it's theoretical and empirical findings regarding the diversification of life on earth. The simple fact of the matter is that methodological naturalism is the fundament of all science, whether you like it or not."

It may be true that methodological naturalism is the fundament of all science. As a methodology who can argue with that? The problem comes when a methodology relevant to understanding the output of experimentation becomes an all-encompassing philosophy. That is a leap of faith, and has nothing to do with either logic or science. As I have said before, there is no empirical evidence which proves the validity of empiricism itself.

In the light of Geneboy's honest acknowledgment concerning abiogenesis, could you please have a stab at answering the following questions:

1. Please describe the exact mechanism by which inorganic matter can produce life.

2. If you are able to construct some kind of theory in answer to question 1., then please provide proof that that is exactly how it did, in fact, happen. No philosophical assumptions please - just scientific proof.

If you cannot do that then, as far as ID is concerned, the jury should still be out. That is not an emotional comment. That is a logical comment.

As for venting anger at those of a different persuasion, if that is what I am doing then I know that I am not the only one who is guilty of this "sin".

PS - I apologise for the "of course you despise me" comment.

#15 - helio - yes I do hold reason and rational analysis dear. That is why I am not an atheist. And if reason did tend in the direction of atheism, then, according to what you have written in message 4 of the "Darwin and Atheism" thread you will not begrudge me obeying your recommendation and questioning authoritarian beliefs. ("It's called Freethought. The ability to doubt and question *everything*. The removal of a requirement to "believe". Belief is just a particular formulation of the fallacy of argument from authority. It sullies the mind. We give up our freedom to disbelieve at our peril"). I agree with you. I am a freethinker; that is why I do not swallow, hook, line and sinker what either Christians or atheists say.

If freethinking means that we are required to accept atheism (and its foundational philosophy of naturalism with its self-contradictory epistemology), then I wonder on what basis you have written the comment I have quoted.

Hello LSV,

"1. Please describe the exact mechanism by which inorganic matter can produce life."

I can not describe the exact mechanism. The fine details of how abiogenesis works have not been fully determined yet. While there is evidence to support it, it is by no means as comprehensive and detailed as for some other theories.

"2. If you are able to construct some kind of theory in answer to question 1., then please provide proof that that is exactly how it did, in fact, happen. No philosophical assumptions please - just scientific proof.

If you cannot do that then, as far as ID is concerned, the jury should still be out. That is not an emotional comment. That is a logical comment."

If 'the jury should still be out' means that abiogenesis and ID are on an equal footing then the answer is no. While there are still clear gaps in abiogenesis, there is evidence in support of it. That is not the case for ID. ID proponents have tried to find it and have held up various examples they claimed were evidence for ID. These examples have sofar all been shown to be incorrect. Moreover, not only have all specific examples sofar been successfully refuted, some of the 'theoretical foundations' underlying ID have been shown to be wrong. It turned out that even if valid examples for those would ever be found, that they would still not offer proof for ID, as the reasoning as to why those examples would be evidence for ID were shown to be invalid.

"As for venting anger at those of a different persuasion, if that is what I am doing then I know that I am not the only one who is guilty of this "sin"."


True enough, I've made angry crap posts here myself.

Plus, no ID is needed unless the preponderance of evidence in favour of evolution is proved to be invalid and evolution is proven incorrect. You can throw God into the gap otherwise occupied by abiogenesis if you insist abiogenesis can't be proven, but you still have the overwhelming evidence for evolution to deal with, so it's moot.

If life became complex by natural processes - and it did - then simple life emerging from non-living matter should be a cakewalk.

Galen, the author of the study, is a host of the Reasonable Doubts podcast. Episode 32 "Profiles of the Godless" is a lecture where he explains in detail the design and implications of the study. There is also a pdf on the sight with charts and figures related to the study. Its interesting stuff. Well worth checking out. Heres a link

Sure,

The masses will swallow, unthinking, all sorts of superstition and nonsense, but it is a non-sequitor to suggest this proves that God does not exist or that faith is nonsense.

So, highly educated single, disagreeable males tend to be athiests?

I wouldnt forward any certain conclusions on this, but I can imagine that some people might suggest the following reasons;-


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A man who feels himself well educated in his field might be overconfident in drawing drastic conclusions outside his field eg religion.

Einstein, as a contrary example, was a giant in his field but was very careful about his conclusions on God and religion. A humanist, he railed against athiests using his words to claim him as one of them, for example. (Humanism was originally nothing to do with athiesm but germinated in a rich soil of faith and enquiry in Renaissance Europe).

Einstein said man really had no idea who or what God might be because it was so far above man, though he did discount the idea of a personal God.(my paraphrase).

Now that is a fine example of a giant of science bowing in humility before the awsomeness of the universe, as he saw it;-




Could it also be that athiests are frequently single because they are often poor at empathy, relationships and humility before the possibility that others might be correct and that they might occasionally be wrong about trivial domestic matters as well as issues of earth shattering significance?

Perhaps, Helio, it doesnt mean that you shouldnt be married, just that your more relaxed and personable approach to life (outside the athiest norm?) means that you are unusually capable of marriage, for an athiest???

;-)

That might be an explanation as to why athiests often tend to stay single ie an inflexible mindset which is unable to empathise with others, or disagree agreeably, if you like.

That might explain the stats here, or it might not! I will give way to other opinions on the matter.

PB
East of the Bann

It seems that Einstin will not easily be claimed by either side of the athiest/theist debate;-

"...a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argued that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors".

The game of one side or the other trying to claim Einstein or some other towering intellect gets tedious pretty quickly. The non-religious can just shoot back Einstein's letter to Eric Gutkind:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"Appeal to Authority" is a very poor form of argument anyway.

There is another common form of non belief not mentioned yet - called apatheism by some. For many of us, the whole debate serves little purpose other than killing time that could be put to more productive uses. Like Thomas Jefferson I don't care if some one believes in no god, one god or 20 gods as long as he doesn't impose that view on me or others. I have enough to do trying to live a good life here and now in this physical world without worrying about how many angels are or are not dancing on the head of a pin.

Just want you to contact me because I am annoyed about outcomes.

So if the non-religious are single, should the religious just try to outbreed them?

H

Kind of chasing your tail in post 15, don't you think?