1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Faith as a Measure of Intellect

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by CheScott, Aug 2, 2008.

?

Which faiths, if any, do you believe have no rational legs to stand on?

  1. None, faith and intelligence are unrelated.

    59 vote(s)
    53.2%
  2. Some faiths are, in my view, totally stupid. (Choose as many as you like)

    48 vote(s)
    43.2%
  3. Judiasm

    30 vote(s)
    27.0%
  4. Islam

    36 vote(s)
    32.4%
  5. Scientology

    60 vote(s)
    54.1%
  6. Mormonism

    41 vote(s)
    36.9%
  7. Christianity

    29 vote(s)
    26.1%
  8. Catholocism

    33 vote(s)
    29.7%
  9. Any religion other than my own is logical fallacy.

    7 vote(s)
    6.3%
  10. Any sect other than my own is logical fallacy.

    8 vote(s)
    7.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    One can be divorced from rational thought on certain issues, and be the most rational person on others. All it takes is a little flawed foundational logic, and you've got some potential "iffy" spots.

    That is only because they are more mainstream, so you seem that as perhaps more acceptable. All religions requiring faith commit the same intellectual sin. It doesn't matter if it's the most ridiculous cult in the world, or if it's Christianity. Once you chuck your intelligence at the door and embrace faith, it doesn't really matter what the religion is saying (since you don't need it to make any sense anymore).

    Yes (just like I can call a famous and smart scientist an idiot if he/she says the sky is always pink). All of them (by definition of faith).

    Atheists (which includes agnostics) are the least trusted persons in the United States. An atheist won't have a shot at the white house for many decades...

    Slight. You believe that not adopting the mainstream opinion on how to save your eternal soul, regardless of your own personal discoveries, is to be condemned and not elected. Mind elaborating on how this makes sense?

    I disagree.

    Do something not intelligent: That's just the realization of the faith through action. Before this action, the person would still have the irrational belief that led to all this. The action itself is actually logical, given that their faith is correct. The crux of the problem lies with the actual foundation: their faith.

    Believe something not intelligent: Again, this is the realization of the faith. If I believe mathematical addition is what I want a random number to be: 2+2=5, 5+7=10, 3+4=7, I would still be grossly wrong despite the fact that I got 3+4=7 correct randomly.

    Agreed. I can't blame the Christian for finding it unthinkable to elect a non-Christian that doesn't serve the will of his god. I can blame the Christian for being a Christian.

    Unfortunately, for any person to have even a remote chance at the white house, they need to claim and preach Christianity.

    This belief can definitely challenge their grasp on reality: if you believe there's an invisible person in the sky that's affecting things on Earth, I shudder to think about the decisions you'd make with America. Maybe you'll send soldiers to death missions, because you have faith that this invisible friend of yours will actually miraculously save them, to give a simple example.

    It is illogical to assert one's beliefs with the lack of evidence against these beliefs. Suppose I say that the universe came to be by a unicorn stabbing itself in the eye. There isn't any evidence against this, since none of us were there at that time (and other reasons).

    Now we have two perfectly reasonable (in your opinion) conclusions: your god and my unicorn. Yet, by your method of belief (evidence against is required), they are equally plausible. Soon, we can add to those 2 conclusions an infinite number of equally plausible conclusions.

    The logical result is that when dealing with an unknown subject (such as creation), anyone can believe whatever the hell they want (regardless of existent theories and evidence leading to these theories), and it is equally valid. If that makes sense to you, then there's not much more I can discuss with you.

    How do we know that Jesus was the Son of God? The Bible says so, showing us all the miracles and giving us all the evidence we need. But the Bible is directly tied in with Jesus. If one is correct, the other is correct, and vice-versa. So the question remains: How do we know that the Bible is correct?

    These eyewitness accounts are directly from a book that asserts his being the Son of God! A book's claim "Jesus is the Son of God" cannot be backed up by the same book's content. Then I could create a book that says that I am the son of God, and back it up with the book's content in a similar way. So the question remains: How do we know that the Bible is correct?

    You are committing the logical fallacy before your own eyes! You demand anti-evidence for Christ, but evidence for the other poster.

    Logically, using the scientific method, you make no assumptions. In this case, the two subject are on equal footing, and Christ only seems a more reasonable conclusion because you had already assumed it. In fact, we can even do the opposite:

    Assume the poster is correct. Do we have any evidence against the poster being the son of God? No (since it's usually impossible to prove a negative). Do we have evidence for Christ? Yes, but is it enough (evidence exists of everything everywhere, and it's up to us to evaluate it)? Probably not.

    With the same kind of data, we can obtain contradicting conclusions. That must mean that the method is incorrect. I believe that the best method (as an alternative method for you) that we have right now is the Scientific Method.
     
  2. bhsup

    bhsup Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    Well then wouldn't that point of view invalidate all ancient accounts from all sources?
     
  3. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    Says you. ;)
     
  4. downtown

    downtown Crafternoon Delight

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    19,514
    Location:
    Chicago
    Sure, I'm a little biased...but for the life of me, I really cannot understand this line of thinking.

    Honestly, what is the difference between a "fraud" religion and a "socially acceptable" one? Sure, the Joesph Smith story can sound a little fantastic, but lets put that in the context of the rest of Christianity, who worships a water-walking zombie. Can you imagine how silly this sounds?

    "Okay, believing that a man, 2000 years ago, walked on water, turned water to wine, healed the sick, died for the sins of mankind, and came back from the dead 3 days later is completely logically reasonable. But the idea that after all that, he came to the Americas? THATS JUST CRAZY CULT TALK"

    I think somebody's religion should only come into play if you can prove that its really had a negative impact on one's decision making ability on behalf of the public. We have a pretty large group of LDS politicians...the Governors of several states, the Senate Majority Leader, several influential Senators, and in the last few decades, cabinet-level posts, high level posts in the military and in the civil service. I do not think you can find anybody who's decision-making ability was compromised by his religion (like I think you can with say, Tom Cruise).

    I can't stand Mitt Romney....I really can't...but looking at his record of professional and academic accomplishments, I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument that he's some crazy cultist that couldn't be trusted with any real decision making ability. I would question the intellectual capacity, or at least the wisdom, of anybody who made that leap, with Romney, or Me, or anybody else.
     
  5. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,937
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    When they claim divine intervention and miracles? Definitely.

    As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Miracles are extraordinary; millenia-old non-eyewitness religious text casting a divine, miraculous light on events are, well...pretty much ordinary. (This is not meant as a slight on the content of the gospels, but as a statement of their historical value)

    (and the majority of relevant scholars) ;)
     
  6. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    41,982
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Downtown: I'm really sure 'Ro was being silly.
    Don't mistake me. I'm just saying that the authors of the gospels never actually witnessed the events. It's not as if the disciples themselves wrote those gospels.

    You can't say there were 'a dozen witnesses to the event', because at best there's one person quoted as being a witness, and he was claiming that other people were there too.

    So, again, walking on water's not really all that impressive. Hundreds of people have seen me rip the head off of a tiger.
     
  7. C~G

    C~G Untouchable

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,146
    You stole my line.
     
  8. downtown

    downtown Crafternoon Delight

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    19,514
    Location:
    Chicago
    I'm not, and even if he was, there are thousands of people (some on this board), who still believe this.
     
  9. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    Yep, I was joking. ;) I'd vote for Downtown for president, crazy Mormon or not.

    True. But that's also a matter of opinion, not demonstrable fact. These aren't mathematicians checking a colleague's proof, or physicists double checking an experiment - these are historians making educated guesses. Often they're right, and quite often they're wrong, and unfortunately it's often more difficult to show either way in a 'soft' science like history or archaeology than it is in other, 'harder,' sciences.

    But you don't know that. You don't think that the disciples wrote the Gospels, but you can't prove that that they didn't. And since you're the one trying to convince me, not vice versa, that's your problem, not mine. ;)
     
  10. downtown

    downtown Crafternoon Delight

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    19,514
    Location:
    Chicago
    Oh, sorry, this was for the OP, not you. I knew you were joking.
     
  11. CheScott

    CheScott Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    Havana, Minnesota
    You know, there's a lot of talk about if Biblical accounts can be considered evidence or not.

    My feeling is that Jesus was the best of the lot, and he never wrote a damn thing about any of it. If their best guy doesn't feel there was anything worth writing about, I have a hard time putting a lot of stock in a distant second has to say about the subject.
     
  12. CheScott

    CheScott Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    Havana, Minnesota
    Yes, he's right. I was there. There were hundreds of people watching.

    God inspired me to write this, therefore it must be true.
     
  13. Gogf

    Gogf Indescribable

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,163
    Location:
    Plane Of Fish Sticks
    This is just poorly-disguised bigotry.
     
  14. Brighteye

    Brighteye intuitively Bayesian

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Location:
    Oxford
    I can understand having an emotional attachment to a religion because you were brought up with it, but finding a religion, or a new religion, when an adult really does seem odd to me. All these middle-aged converts need to see a psychiatrist, not a preacher.
    I tell Catholics that. It's a good way to start a conversation with them (I meet a lot of theologians and mediaeval scholars).
    I like this. Religion is often just a crutch for the weak and needy.
    I'd agree with this too, although the Mormons I know on this forum are the only two I know at all. Given the sample of Mormonism I've seen, I'd say that they're fine citizens of whom the US should be proud.
    And he visited England before he did all that, travelling as a child with Joseph of Arimathea. He really got around!
     
  15. CheScott

    CheScott Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    Havana, Minnesota
    No, I'm not disguising it.

    I'm saying I don't think it's entirely unjustified.
     
  16. CheScott

    CheScott Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    Havana, Minnesota
    I've known quite a few been friends with a couple. I've still yet to meet one I'd call intelligent, however.

    But, I would like to point out that there seems to be a double standard going on here. People seem to have little trouble designating members of a religion with positive traits, while we say to call them unintelligent is bigoted.

    But they are both the same act, with different spin. It is just as bigoted to say Mormons are fine citizens as it is to say they are stupid.
     
  17. History_Buff

    History_Buff Knight of Cydonia

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    6,529
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    I can't see why this is such a big deal. So I don't believe there is some all powerful being in the sky interfering in people's lives. This does not mean I am incapable of acknowledging higher secular powers.
     
  18. bhsup

    bhsup Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    30,387
    I just thought the option should be included for fairness. :)
     
  19. Brighteye

    Brighteye intuitively Bayesian

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Location:
    Oxford
    Only if both are untrue.
    A sample of two is insufficiently large for reliable conclusions: I'd need at least six, and preferably eight. So my qualifier is actually rather important.
     
  20. CheScott

    CheScott Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    Havana, Minnesota
    Well, I had intended to include Atheists/Agnostics in the list as an eleventh option. I filled out the number of options first, wrote the post then on the second page, where I was to fill out the poll, gapped on that part.

    But, anyone who thinks Scientology has greater logical weight than Atheism needs to be checked into a mental institution.
     

Share This Page