[cauthon]

Well, I like SE's stance on religion. It makes you think. And that's always a good thing. I think that religious people should constantly question their beliefs and through looking for answers they can confirm their faith. We are thinking creatures. Everybody who mindlessly follows some religion without giving it concious thought is probably easily swayed in other things too.

[D Man]

Ok, some good discussion. I like it.

I think brynjar has it closest so far. I made a mistake trying to connect education with intelligence, and therefore religion with IQ. Refutations of that have been correct, in my re-assesment.

Reason being I made the jump from education to IQ to religion. The middle-man is unneeded and wrong. The connection seems to be direct: education -> religiosity.

And yes, its very possible for an intelligent person to be religious. As I said before, I know a few for a start. In my experience of intelligent religious folk they find more sophisticated ways to think of and maintain their beliefs. Powerfull minds can boggle themselves very easily. I'm reminded of something Richard Feynman (physicist and to a degree social philosopher, remarkable man) said:

"The easiest person to fool is yourself".

P.S. Brood: the IQ test was just a bit of fun, dont take it so seriously. And I'm under no impression that anything can be proven here: still just a bit of fun. I do still think that the stats dichotomy with the global figures are indicative of the de-religionising effect of education, though. But 'proof'...well, I certainly wouldnt make a paper based on this poll!

However, I dont think the proportions would change much with a larger sample (and yes I've done A LOT of stats, far more than I ever wanted to [needs must as the devil shits in your cornflakes], and 50 isnt a bad test group, but not enough to be fully representative).

Brynjar also raises a good point: we're talking about secular education here, which will tend to secularise. Look at it like that and one may say that the secularity of developed countries is as much impressioning as religion.

But you have to ask: how did that come about? Is it a tendency of an increase in the technological level of a society (yes, theres more to it than technology of course, but thats as good a thing to characterise it as any) with a population that has, on average, a better understanding of the world around them and greater freedom to think for themselves and opportunity to do so to become less religious, thus making the education in that society more secular?

If you take the extremes and course through history, I say yes. Peoples without any sciences, philosphy or complex ethical issues to deal with, like, say, a tribal culture, will all share a spiritual outlook. 100%.

Then historical cultures that were more socially sophisticated maintained that spirituality but added the more doctrines to regulate and normalise behaviour (believing the same thing, spiritually and morally, is conducive to peacefull coexistance: its quite possible that without organised religion 2000BC to, oh, 1700 or so would have been global anarchy). Still very little in the way of naturalistic views of the world.

Now we have a coexistance of cultures with religion in their collective unconscious and many religious people, but freedom of thought and naturalistic world views as a viable alternaitve, and rather prohibitive cultures with poor education that are highly religious. I dont think thats a coincidence.

Its quite clear that increased natural (i.e. non-spiritual) understanding of the world and awareness of the depth and breadth of global cultures, disseminated through education, has the effect of de-relionising a culture. Just look at the progression of europe over the last 400 years: As religiously dogmatic as the taliban -> free discssion of it on the net, with a very strong non-religious presence.

Another interesting observation: my physics course had about 40 people on it. I knew maybe 25 of them well, and not one of them was religious (all atheists, some aggressively so, or agnostics). We'll ignore the global stats for a minute and just take the uk (http://www.statistic...gget.asp?id=293) 70% should have been christian. These will be biased somewhat by basically non-religious people that were baptised or went to church as a kid or still go occasionally that just say they are. But still: you would expect that up to 17 of those 25 would be christians, but not one was

And yes, I realise 'the people D Man knew in his UMIST physics course' a crappy sample, and you certainly cant prove anything with that. But its a very interesting indication, isnt it?

[Tiste Simeon]

cauthon said:

Well, I like SE's stance on religion. It makes you think. And that's always a good thing. I think that religious people should constantly question their beliefs and through looking for answers they can confirm their faith. We are thinking creatures. Everybody who mindlessly follows some religion without giving it concious thought is probably easily swayed in other things too.

We also have to remember that SE is fiction and that he's not trying to gain people to follow his cause... unless he is, and it's a global conspiracy for Canada to take over the world with SE at the head...

[caladanbrood]

D Man;151525 said:

P.S. Brood: the IQ test was just a bit of fun, dont take it so seriously. And I'm under no impression that anything can be proven here: still just a bit of fun. I do still think that the stats dichotomy with the global figures are indicative of the de-religionising effect of education, though. But 'proof'...well, I certainly wouldnt make a paper based on this poll!

I know - was just pointing out the fact - some people I talk to seem to think that they're reliable tests:rolleyes:

[lokiman]

Shinrei no Shintai;150989 said:

I'd be curious to see if our poll numbers above would reflect general fantasy reading audiences. It's good to see that we have Christians here who don't believe Erikson and Harry Potter are the path to satan.

Mi i'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Now my mom and dad, and everyone else in my congregation would say the books that I read are very bad, and that I shouldn't read them. But I know that what I read is not true, it's fantasy. And I know that i'm not going to cut my palms and make myself bleed, then start praying to K'rul. Thats what i think my parants think after reading so many books like that. But I know the difference between reality and fantasy. I still have the faith in my religion i've always had, reading books like fantasy or Sci Fi novels isn't going to change the faith that i have.

[Obdigore]

@lokiman

And yet the Jehovah's Witness faith is against that utterly. The religion itself, from those that think they are part of the 144k down to your local congregation elders, will talk to you, and talk about excommunicating you if you continue to read said books.

At least they did to me.

[chill]

You could say I'm a Christian, because I believe in God, but not in Church. All those rituals and sacraments were formed to give shape to our belief, in a way that we can safely say "I have done this and that and I will go to Heaven, whilst my neighbour hasn't and will surely burn in Hell. I'm a true believer because I do everything the pope tells me to and I will live happily for all eternity". It has nothing to do with God. It involves minimal effort in finding truths of a religion, because why would I contemplate on the meaning of life, when all I need to do is get baptized and married in The One True Church That Is Oh So Much Better Than Every Other Because The Pope Said So. Maybe it has something to do with intelligence - stupid people don't want to bother themselves with such complicated thoughts. But I think it has more to do with self-indulgence.

[Dr Trouble]

People get baptized because the pope tells them to?

The new testament lied to me!

[lokiman]

@Obdigore

You were a Jehovah's Witness?
I know i'm not on the greatest track in my religion, but I love these books.

[chill]

Trouble;206875 said:

People get baptized because the pope tells them to?

The new testament lied to me!

Errm, alright, I put it the wrong way...

Contrary to the popular belief around these parts, baptism isn't a ticket to paradise. When I said the pope, I meant the Church as whole which is represented in the person of pope.
I was refering to the belief that you have to get baptized if you want to avoid eternity in Hell, because it doesn't matter what you do or say, but to which group you belong to, so you don't have to act like a Christian, you only have to say you are one. That's what really gets on my nerves and that's what I was trying to say.
There you have it:)

[Gothos]

Shinrei no Shintai;150021 said:

Besides, no matter what scientific theory says, I can't bring myself to believe that the earth and we are all just one cosmic accident. That is just as far fetched as anything else.

that's a severe lack of faith ;-)


anyways, I'm not a fan of following any organised religion. christianity's JC Superstar said quite a few smart things about humanity and human relations that I agree with. but so did the muslim world. there's value in Confucius' teachings.
personally I believe in supernatural powers. but I don't believe they precede the Universe. they're it's creations just the same as we are. the "supernatural" means just stuff we don't understand yet, like once electricity, fire, the Sun, the Moon. I believe in spirituality. what does that make me?

[caladanbrood]

Confused

[Obdigore]

lokiman;206906 said:

@Obdigore

You were a Jehovah's Witness?
I know i'm not on the greatest track in my religion, but I love these books.

Yes, I was, when I was younger, and my personal thought process was more easily subverted by teachings. Bitter much? Perhaps. JW are, in my eyes, the most 'benevolent' religion in regards to thre rest of the world, but I have quite a few issues with their beliefs that could not be answered to my satisfaction.

[Cold Iron]

you left out pantheist

[stone monkey]

@ shin
Random accident is, at the very least, as likely an origin for the universe as it being the construct and plaything of some mythical, omnipotent, supernatural sadist. Although, most unfortunately, you do seem to be deploying the Argument from Personal Incredulity with that stance...which ain't the most rigourous of the pro-God arguments out there...

Religious-type people are capable of saying sensible things about the human condition - Christ's alleged "Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you" is probably the most rational thing to ever come out of a religion (although I do suspect that it really wasn't an original thought) The hatstand batshittery seems to arrive on the scene when they go on to declare that living a decent life is contingent on the addition to this, perfectly sensible, advice of a very particular set of irrationalities...

[Dolorous Menhir]

stone monkey;207620 said:

Religious-type people are capable of saying sensible things about the human condition - Christ's alleged "Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you" is probably the most rational thing to ever come out of a religion (although I do suspect that it really wasn't an original thought)

I don't think Jesus gets credit for the Golden Rule. It's at the heart of almost all ethical, moral, philosophical and religious systems.

[MecnunK]

Gothos;207276 said:

that's a severe lack of faith ;-)


anyways, I'm not a fan of following any organised religion. christianity's JC Superstar said quite a few smart things about humanity and human relations that I agree with. but so did the muslim world. there's value in Confucius' teachings.
personally I believe in supernatural powers. but I don't believe they precede the Universe. they're it's creations just the same as we are. the "supernatural" means just stuff we don't understand yet, like once electricity, fire, the Sun, the Moon. I believe in spirituality. what does that make me?

confused.

[MecnunK]

stone monkey;207620 said:

@ shin
Random accident is, at the very least, as likely an origin for the universe as it being the construct and plaything of some mythical, omnipotent, supernatural sadist. Although, most unfortunately, you do seem to be deploying the Argument from Personal Incredulity with that stance...which ain't the most rigourous of the pro-God arguments out there...

How can it be as likely? I am not sure I follow. Random relies on a bunch of luck for it to have happened whereas there is no such luck involved if you do believe in a God. Perhaps you are referring to the 'possibility' of either scenario being equal in mathmatical terms ?

[Tremolo]

I am an agnostic. But it will have to be some really serious shit (read wonders and such) before I accept that there is one or more gods out there.

@: Brood: Having read your very first comment I am guessing you must be Church of England

[Aptorian]

I ventured to choose agnostic...

I have a sneaking suspicion that the flying speghetti monster is somewhere out there.