Can't wait to see the reactions to this...
-
Yes, but if they were religious than the conclusions are suspect based upon the conclusions themselves, and if they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
f they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
Maybe you'd like to apply that principle to organized religion and see what you come up with.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
f they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
Maybe you'd like to apply that principle to organized religion and see what you come up with.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Maybe you'd like to apply that principle to organized religion and see what you come up with.
Why? I have no problem with questioning the objectivity of religion, organized or baptists.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, but if they were religious than the conclusions are suspect based upon the conclusions themselves, and if they are atheists than their objectivity is in question.
You do realise that neither might be true and that these may be honest people interpreting data in an honest way regardless of their beliefs. You do realise that some people are able to put objectivity and the truth ahead of themselves and their beliefs/non-beliefs? And I'm pretty sure you'd be the first to crow if the results had been the other way around.
digital man wrote:
You do realise that neither might be true and that these may be honest people interpreting data in an honest way regardless of their beliefs. You do realise that some people are able to put objectivity and the truth ahead of themselves and their beliefs/non-beliefs?
And some aren't.
digital man wrote:
And I'm pretty sure you'd be the first to crow if the results had been the other way around.
Actually, I wouldn't, but I'm pretty sure you'd be the first to point out the obvious flaw in the study. (Frankly, I think it probably is true that religion is less common among people with high IQs simply because religion is not really an intellectual exercise, but appeals to those psychological concerns we all possess, smart and stupid alike)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Maybe you'd like to apply that principle to organized religion and see what you come up with.
Why? I have no problem with questioning the objectivity of religion, organized or baptists.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why? I have no problem with questioning the objectivity of religion, organized or baptists.
I meant a parallel rather than exact association. The point was that if you believe atheists may have a biased opinion regarding something, then you should be willing to apply that criteria towards those who believe in god, for example. If you think the study may be biased, then you have to be prepared to accept the same line of reasoning for the religious with, say, Christian ideology.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why? I have no problem with questioning the objectivity of religion, organized or baptists.
I meant a parallel rather than exact association. The point was that if you believe atheists may have a biased opinion regarding something, then you should be willing to apply that criteria towards those who believe in god, for example. If you think the study may be biased, then you have to be prepared to accept the same line of reasoning for the religious with, say, Christian ideology.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
If you think the study may be biased, then you have to be prepared to accept the same line of reasoning for the religious with, say, Christian ideology.
I may be vague on the concept, but I'm pretty sure that religion is sort of based upon non-objectivity, and is it under no obligation to be so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
If you think the study may be biased, then you have to be prepared to accept the same line of reasoning for the religious with, say, Christian ideology.
I may be vague on the concept, but I'm pretty sure that religion is sort of based upon non-objectivity, and is it under no obligation to be so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
religion is sort of based upon non-objectivity, and is it under no obligation to be so.
We're on the same page, but what I don't understand is why that's allowed.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
religion is sort of based upon non-objectivity, and is it under no obligation to be so.
We're on the same page, but what I don't understand is why that's allowed.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
Freedom of religion?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
SK Genius wrote:
so what you really want is both a religious and a non-religious person to give their views on the data and form your own conclusion.
So, let some people spin the data their way and then figure out yourself who is spinning least?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Freedom of religion?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Yeah, that's the political reason - and I really don't have an objection to religious freedom. I just wonder why it's culturally taboo to suggest that God (in any one of his forms) is non-existent. I suppose it offends sensibilities. In that case I'm not sure - other than tradition - why elements of religion need to be incorporated into modern society.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Yeah, that's the political reason - and I really don't have an objection to religious freedom. I just wonder why it's culturally taboo to suggest that God (in any one of his forms) is non-existent. I suppose it offends sensibilities. In that case I'm not sure - other than tradition - why elements of religion need to be incorporated into modern society.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
Just speaking for myself here, but I would maintain that it is because there is a 100% correlation between religion and civilization historically. That is an altogether crucial bit of scientifically valid data. The two cncepts seem to go hand in hand. It has not yet been validated that a non-religious civilization is even possible, and I believe that it is not. Civilization must be predicated upon some agreed upon source of moral authority which individuals relent to based upon custom and personal responsibility. I am willing to tolerate religion if that is the cost for a well managed civil society. The only other possibility is a society managed entirely from the top down by the moral dictates of a ruling elite - which is precisely what the west is rapidly becoming.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Just speaking for myself here, but I would maintain that it is because there is a 100% correlation between religion and civilization historically. That is an altogether crucial bit of scientifically valid data. The two cncepts seem to go hand in hand. It has not yet been validated that a non-religious civilization is even possible, and I believe that it is not. Civilization must be predicated upon some agreed upon source of moral authority which individuals relent to based upon custom and personal responsibility. I am willing to tolerate religion if that is the cost for a well managed civil society. The only other possibility is a society managed entirely from the top down by the moral dictates of a ruling elite - which is precisely what the west is rapidly becoming.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
You know, I can't really argue with what you wrote. The only issue I take with it is in regard to this part:
Stan Shannon wrote:
It has not yet been validated that a non-religious civilization is even possible,
I maintain that it is possible, yet clearly there is a great fear of attempting it. I suppose, like many questions, this one will remain unanswered in my lifetime.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
You know, I can't really argue with what you wrote. The only issue I take with it is in regard to this part:
Stan Shannon wrote:
It has not yet been validated that a non-religious civilization is even possible,
I maintain that it is possible, yet clearly there is a great fear of attempting it. I suppose, like many questions, this one will remain unanswered in my lifetime.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I maintain that it is possible, yet clearly there is a great fear of attempting it. I suppose, like many questions, this one will remain unanswered in my lifetime.
I think the fact that none has ever been created and grown in an organic way is telling evidence to the contrary. Societies not based upon firmly held moral convictions (however defined) are probably not competitive with those which are. Thinking about that now, it occurs to me that the only way such a condition would be stable is if there were, in fact, no such competition. Which, being the paranoid that I am, increases my suspecions concerning the agenda of secular humanism. If there were no religion, anywhere, and everyone subscribed bascially to the same materialistic views of nature, non religious civilization might be possible. But you would still need moral authority of some kind invested exclusively in a non-democratic political ruling elite of some sort (a supreme court, say). I have no doubt of that. So, that is not a social order I feel compelled to embrace. I'll take my chances with a source of moral authority (religion) which can be separated from the state. I think that is as good as human civilization can be expected to get.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I maintain that it is possible, yet clearly there is a great fear of attempting it. I suppose, like many questions, this one will remain unanswered in my lifetime.
I think the fact that none has ever been created and grown in an organic way is telling evidence to the contrary. Societies not based upon firmly held moral convictions (however defined) are probably not competitive with those which are. Thinking about that now, it occurs to me that the only way such a condition would be stable is if there were, in fact, no such competition. Which, being the paranoid that I am, increases my suspecions concerning the agenda of secular humanism. If there were no religion, anywhere, and everyone subscribed bascially to the same materialistic views of nature, non religious civilization might be possible. But you would still need moral authority of some kind invested exclusively in a non-democratic political ruling elite of some sort (a supreme court, say). I have no doubt of that. So, that is not a social order I feel compelled to embrace. I'll take my chances with a source of moral authority (religion) which can be separated from the state. I think that is as good as human civilization can be expected to get.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I understand what you are saying. The problem is that morals do not come from the divine. Morals are derived from mortal man. Morality is a human condition - the divine is constructed as solely a convenient framework to express innate morality. I think religion comes from the primitive - societies that needed to believe in the divine before science was able to explain crops and rain and behaviour. I'm not suggesting the state as a source of morality, but I also am not suggesting we invent sky-gods to sanction our morality.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
I understand what you are saying. The problem is that morals do not come from the divine. Morals are derived from mortal man. Morality is a human condition - the divine is constructed as solely a convenient framework to express innate morality. I think religion comes from the primitive - societies that needed to believe in the divine before science was able to explain crops and rain and behaviour. I'm not suggesting the state as a source of morality, but I also am not suggesting we invent sky-gods to sanction our morality.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
I subscribe to an entirely different theory. I think human beings possess an instinct for morality just as we possess an instinct for language. That is ultimately what allows us to live together in large complex social groups. We instinctively adhere to whatever moral principles that our society defines, or at least wish to be viewed as being capable of adhering to them. I think religion itself begins with the beginning of trade between far flung human settlements. If you wish to trade with other groups you need to be able to symbolically communicate to them that you observe the same basic moral principles which they do. That communicates that you are fair and trustworthy to people you might never have met before. That requires the etablishment of a ritualistic means of communicating a well defined moral code to other humans. Therefore, religion represents a synthesis of humanity's two instincts - morality and speech. Religion is at its most elemental form a means of communicating morality. The 'sky-god' merely represents that your society observes a higher authority to which it is self-obligated to submit (obviously linked to primitive perspectives on natural processess). And finally religion does begin to serve as a means of control of much larger and more complex human societies. People simply are not going to cooperate in the effort required to build a trully advanced civilization without some kind of coercion. The best way to achieve that is simply to make them believe that they are supposed to help out, an appeal to the underlieing instinct for morality.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I maintain that it is possible, yet clearly there is a great fear of attempting it. I suppose, like many questions, this one will remain unanswered in my lifetime.
I think the fact that none has ever been created and grown in an organic way is telling evidence to the contrary. Societies not based upon firmly held moral convictions (however defined) are probably not competitive with those which are. Thinking about that now, it occurs to me that the only way such a condition would be stable is if there were, in fact, no such competition. Which, being the paranoid that I am, increases my suspecions concerning the agenda of secular humanism. If there were no religion, anywhere, and everyone subscribed bascially to the same materialistic views of nature, non religious civilization might be possible. But you would still need moral authority of some kind invested exclusively in a non-democratic political ruling elite of some sort (a supreme court, say). I have no doubt of that. So, that is not a social order I feel compelled to embrace. I'll take my chances with a source of moral authority (religion) which can be separated from the state. I think that is as good as human civilization can be expected to get.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If there were no religion, anywhere, and everyone subscribed bascially to the same materialistic views of nature, non religious civilization might be possible. But you would still need moral authority of some kind invested exclusively in a non-democratic political ruling elite of some sort (a supreme court, say).
No. All you'd need are laws, written laws of conduct based on common sense. Once those are established, there's no need for a "moral authority". You just need a system of government that abides by and enforces those laws, which is essentially what we have today.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, that is not a social order I feel compelled to embrace.
You're embracing it now. You know the laws and you follow them -- regardless of religious scripture. Do you always rest on the Sabbath? Do you never eat pork? Do you attend church on a weekly basis? ..... Isn't it great that our society is not governed by a religious moral authority?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'll take my chances with a source of moral authority (religion) which can be separated from the state.
And that's fine, as long as your religious morals don't lead you to break the law.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If there were no religion, anywhere, and everyone subscribed bascially to the same materialistic views of nature, non religious civilization might be possible. But you would still need moral authority of some kind invested exclusively in a non-democratic political ruling elite of some sort (a supreme court, say).
No. All you'd need are laws, written laws of conduct based on common sense. Once those are established, there's no need for a "moral authority". You just need a system of government that abides by and enforces those laws, which is essentially what we have today.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, that is not a social order I feel compelled to embrace.
You're embracing it now. You know the laws and you follow them -- regardless of religious scripture. Do you always rest on the Sabbath? Do you never eat pork? Do you attend church on a weekly basis? ..... Isn't it great that our society is not governed by a religious moral authority?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'll take my chances with a source of moral authority (religion) which can be separated from the state.
And that's fine, as long as your religious morals don't lead you to break the law.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Al Beback wrote:
No. All you'd need are laws, written laws of conduct based on common sense. Once those are established, there's no need for a "moral authority". You just need a system of government that abides by and enforces those laws, which is essentially what we have today.
I disagree. Without a source of moral authority the law becomes virtually impossible to administer without overwhelming power and force. People must view the law as a reflection and extension of their own grassroots morality or they will not voluntarily comply with it. If people are 'self-governed' by a common set of moral principles which they acknowledge as a common tradition, which is the role religion plays, the legal system will have a much less onerous presence in that society.
Al Beback wrote:
ou're embracing it now.
No I don't. I largely tolerate it because those who enforce it have more fire poewr than I do. Our system of government becomes more totalitarian as it becomes less religious.
Al Beback wrote:
And that's fine, as long as your religious morals don't lead you to break the law.
So a police state it is then after all, eh? I thought as much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I reckon that while a low intelligence will quite easily increase the probability of someone being a believer, the converse is not necessarily true, the converse is not necessarily true: Theism cannot be used as a reliable indicator of low intelligence.
Brady Kelly wrote:
I reckon that while a low intelligence will quite easily increase the probability of someone being a believer, the converse is not necessarily true, the converse is not necessarily true: Theism cannot be used as a reliable indicator of low intelligence.
If the probability of theism diminishes with rises in intelligence, then it is mathematically unavoidable that theists have lower intelligence on average than atheists. Of course, the population is not all located at the average. Some theists are quite brilliant, just as some are incredibly stupid. On average, they are less intelligent than atheists (at least according to the study --- and many other studies).
John Carson
-
I subscribe to an entirely different theory. I think human beings possess an instinct for morality just as we possess an instinct for language. That is ultimately what allows us to live together in large complex social groups. We instinctively adhere to whatever moral principles that our society defines, or at least wish to be viewed as being capable of adhering to them. I think religion itself begins with the beginning of trade between far flung human settlements. If you wish to trade with other groups you need to be able to symbolically communicate to them that you observe the same basic moral principles which they do. That communicates that you are fair and trustworthy to people you might never have met before. That requires the etablishment of a ritualistic means of communicating a well defined moral code to other humans. Therefore, religion represents a synthesis of humanity's two instincts - morality and speech. Religion is at its most elemental form a means of communicating morality. The 'sky-god' merely represents that your society observes a higher authority to which it is self-obligated to submit (obviously linked to primitive perspectives on natural processess). And finally religion does begin to serve as a means of control of much larger and more complex human societies. People simply are not going to cooperate in the effort required to build a trully advanced civilization without some kind of coercion. The best way to achieve that is simply to make them believe that they are supposed to help out, an appeal to the underlieing instinct for morality.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
That's interesting and well thought out, but I'm not sure it's correct. Evidence from the neolithic suggests that religion arises from fertility and agricultural rites. That's why you find these carved statuettes of large-breasted "fertile" women and carved bulls. Cave drawings suggest hunting and agriculture played important roles as well - with a form of "religious" elite that would aid in communicating with gods to ensure good harvests and hunts. If you think about it, hunting, agriculture and fertility play far more important roles than trade; isolated hunter-gatherer societies would put 'trade' low down on the importance list.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
That's interesting and well thought out, but I'm not sure it's correct. Evidence from the neolithic suggests that religion arises from fertility and agricultural rites. That's why you find these carved statuettes of large-breasted "fertile" women and carved bulls. Cave drawings suggest hunting and agriculture played important roles as well - with a form of "religious" elite that would aid in communicating with gods to ensure good harvests and hunts. If you think about it, hunting, agriculture and fertility play far more important roles than trade; isolated hunter-gatherer societies would put 'trade' low down on the importance list.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Evidence from the neolithic suggests that religion arises from fertility and agricultural rites. That's why you find these carved statuettes of large-breasted "fertile" women and carved bulls. Cave drawings suggest hunting and agriculture played important roles as well - with a form of "religious" elite that would aid in communicating with gods to ensure good harvests and hunts.
ACtually, the first indications of extensive trade networks show up at almost exactly the same time as the first hints of religious symbolism. About 35,000 years ago, goods such as flint, sea shells, newer weapons and hunting technologies, etc, show up in areas many hundreds of miles from where they should have been expected to have been found, almost simultaneiously as cave paintings, fertility figures etc begin appearing over very wide areas. I think it is obvious that as trade of physical goods developed, technology and ideas went right along for the ride, leading to a sudden explosion in human cultural and social evolution. And, again, I think the very most rudimentary forms of religion would have been an important part of that both as a way of having some means of predicting and understanding natural phenomenon and as a means of easily communicating to other peoples your own moral standards and convictions.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.