People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God

[DaWoad]

I'd say so (Though there's nothing wrong with twisted science). Religion and science just SIT there, they can't do anything without people to do the moving, thinking, and killing.

lol noice of course you do realize you have now given me ANOTHER adiction to get over lol

I make no apologies. It just won a Hugo and it AWESOME!

It IS awesome good god where did you find this???? And how didn't i hear about it sooner???
*goes back to reading*

[NERVUN]

I would that both Religion and Science be judged not by their intent but by their effect. And that's a hard series of gauntlets to run.

Hard? I'd say that's damned near impossible given how long both have been used by humans every day. You'd end up having to try to tally thinks like every time someone used a microwave to heat their food, it's a plus and every time someone donated to a charity for religious reasons it also is a plus, but the firing of a gun with intent to kill is bad and denying equal rights on the basis of belief and so on.

You'd never get anything done, ever again.

[DaWoad]

I would that both Religion and Science be judged not by their intent but by their effect. And that's a hard series of gauntlets to run.

Hard? I'd say that's damned near impossible given how long both have been used by humans every day. You'd end up having to try to tally thinks like every time someone used a microwave to heat their food, it's a plus and every time someone donated to a charity for religious reasons it also is a plus, but the firing of a gun with intent to kill is bad and denying equal rights on the basis of belief and so on.

You'd never get anything done, ever again.

lol but if I could design a computerprogram to . . . . *120 years later* .. . ok so nerv was right. . . .again . . .drat . . .

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

Which is to say, a dissident in the (semi)theocratic society of his day.
He was also an alchemist, and believed some truly crazy stuff which almost no-one believes today.

And your point is...?

My point is blindingly obvious. I cannot put it plainer than that.

*sigh*

I will try.

When almost everyone was religious, on pain of exclusion from academia, of course the most brilliant minds avowed religion.

The alternative for them was not to study, not to publish, and quite possibly to be paupered, sold into slavery or killed.

I demonstrated how those three examples of eminent scientists were beholden to the theocracies of their day.

Perhaps you can explain how the current Pope is "one of the hundred most intelligent people alive today."

[NERVUN]

lol noice of course you do realize you have now given me ANOTHER adiction to get over lol

I make no apologies. It just won a Hugo and it AWESOME!

It IS awesome good god where did you find this???? And how didn't i hear about it sooner???
*goes back to reading*

Uh... link from... somewhere, I forget just where, it was about 8 or so years ago. And I have no idea why you've never heard of it.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

I would that both Religion and Science be judged not by their intent but by their effect. And that's a hard series of gauntlets to run.

Hard? I'd say that's damned near impossible given how long both have been used by humans every day. You'd end up having to try to tally thinks like every time someone used a microwave to heat their food, it's a plus and every time someone donated to a charity for religious reasons it also is a plus, but the firing of a gun with intent to kill is bad and denying equal rights on the basis of belief and so on.

You'd never get anything done, ever again.

No, I wouldn't. And ... I may not!

I did not even propose to tally the consequences of Religion and Science against each other.

Just to give a glimpse into my own personal Purgatory: to put a standard of consequences on action is to be transfixed. To be either amoral, or negligent, or to cower before the consequences of any action.

And so we should judge the past. Lots of bad things were done, for good or bad reasons, but if earlier generations had not taken significant actions ... then neither you nor I would exist.

Yet, I believe we should try to calculate consequences, not just intent. We should consider the consequences of our own actions, to the best of our ability.

And I admit that this is an almost religious dictate. I admit that Consequences are unknowable ... but in place of "good intentions" I put "careful and educated consideration of consequences."

[NERVUN]

Which is to say, a dissident in the (semi)theocratic society of his day.
He was also an alchemist, and believed some truly crazy stuff which almost no-one believes today.

And your point is...?

My point is blindingly obvious. I cannot put it plainer than that.

*sigh*

I will try.

When almost everyone was religious, on pain of exclusion from academia, of course the most brilliant minds avowed religion.

The alternative for them was not to study, not to publish, and quite possibly to be paupered, sold into slavery or killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newt ... ious_views Where in there can you find proof to show that Newton secretly would have been an atheist? He studied the Bible more than physics. This is not the action of a man who takes up theology reluctantly to fit into the surrounding world.

I demonstrated how those three examples of eminent scientists were beholden to the theocracies of their day.

Not really. You said one taught at a Catholic university, however Lemaître was ordained LONG before he taught at that university and AFTER receiving his degree in mathematics. This was the early 1920's, hardly a time where to be a member of a university one needed to profess any faith. Nor did you show that Mendel could ONLY go to the abbey. Frankly, you made some vague suppositions that they had to be religious without showing anything to say that this was indeed the case and that actually they had other beliefs.

Perhaps you can explain how the current Pope is "one of the hundred most intelligent people alive today."

I didn't make the claim and I have no interest in finding out.

[Krypton-Zod]

I think the reason why people with High IQs are less likely to believe in God is because they think they are so smart that they can do everything on their own and they dont need a "god" to help them. They think that just because they are smarter than most the people they meet, they dont need the same god as them. They like to look to themselves for answers rather than God.

Darn right I do. Because 'god' does not exist so I am not going to look to it for guidance.
Just look at the world as it is now, the poorest countries is where folks are most religious.

That, and the fact that the bible and the quran promote glorification of the faithful and eternal damnation to those who do not. Religious folks have this inherit need to feel morally supreme and revel in the prospect of eternal glory whereas those 'smart kids' will all suffer for all eternity. Religions like christianity and islam also promote killing (preferably employing the economies of scale), slavery, inferiorness of women, hatred against gays and giving your money to socalled clergymen. Also, religion isn't big on science, reason and facts. And let's not forget how the religious texts blatantly contradict eachother (ie 'Jebus' = son of 'god' in one book, and then in another book it says that 'Jebus' was not the son of 'god').

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

Nature is two things: the "nature" of the universe, and the "nature" of life.

The nature of the universe tends towards disorder (though, by existing ... headexplode)

The nature of life tends towards order. But life is a tiny fraction of what exists (our physical Earth is so: life is a very thin and widely-dispersed part of our planet: it is significant to us, because we are of it.)

Life is one step forward, among a million steps back.

an on topic statement? how dare you! lol


um . . . . not really. Basically everytime life creates "order" (via photosythesis etc.) it actually drastically increases disorder in the surroundings. Basically we (earth) are becoming increasingly chaotic. If global warming/war/nuclear aciddent/ the LHC (heheheheh) don't get us first we will eventually sucumb to this "diorder" (essentially by running out of the power sources we use to provide "order".

I spoke of "life." Not of humanity.

Life, by evolution, violates the principle of entropy. It concentrates order, in compliance with the laws of the universe, and against the principle (not law!) of Entropy.

And, as a proud human, I boast that we are the flower of life on Earth. We are brilliant and beautiful in our many expressions ... and our million ancestors back to bacteria depend on us to carry this principle of life forward, and continue to create order and to do what only life can do.

Is it not terrifying, that our efforts create so much waste? That our striving for order and meaning is so much perverted into making objects? The objects themselves are waste, or at best icons of culture. Culture, words and ideas and art ... this is the order we and we alone can make. It lives only in our own minds, and how fragile it is.

The human race is massively ordered. From your perspective, or mine, it looks like chaos. But we're doing OK ... and yes, that's just a 'faith' statement on my part. I say we're doing OK.

[Duckside]

Issac Newton is considered to be one of the greatest scientific minds in history.
Fair enough, he was a Christian, and a devout Christian at that.
However, there were a few reasons why he was, and the pointlessness of him being religious.
Firstly, people at that time were all christians, there was no such thing as atheism then, hence, even if he wanted to be atheist, he would either be a: ostracized by the church and the rest of society, or b:secretly be one.
secondly: Newton had made studies into the bible and alchemy. in fact, he probably did more work in the bile and alchemy than in physics. But what do we see? his works on alchemy were fruitless attempts which he wasted much of his life to, and his work on the bible was mostly forgotten to society as of today.
it is what that you are remembered for, that is the most important. not what you did.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

And your point is...?

My point is blindingly obvious. I cannot put it plainer than that.

*sigh*

I will try.

When almost everyone was religious, on pain of exclusion from academia, of course the most brilliant minds avowed religion.

The alternative for them was not to study, not to publish, and quite possibly to be paupered, sold into slavery or killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newt ... ious_views Where in there can you find proof to show that Newton secretly would have been an atheist? He studied the Bible more than physics. This is not the action of a man who takes up theology reluctantly to fit into the surrounding world.

I mentioned that he had some nutty ideas?

Bible study was among them.

I demonstrated how those three examples of eminent scientists were beholden to the theocracies of their day.

Not really. You said one taught at a Catholic university, however Lemaître was ordained LONG before he taught at that university and AFTER receiving his degree in mathematics.

According to WikiPedia, only two years of his academic career were spent in secular institutions. He studies at Cambridge for two years, long before the "Big Bang" theory which some poster credits him with.

It's also worth noting, that he theorized only expansion of the universe, which was not "Big Bang" at that time. It was equally compatible with the Steady State theory ... a rather more compatible theory with the existence of God, since it does not put a "start date" on the Universe.

Perhaps you can explain how the current Pope is "one of the hundred most intelligent people alive today."

I didn't make the claim and I have no interest in finding out.

My apologies. I have mistaken you for some other poster in that.

[Duckside]

Life, by evolution, violates the principle of entropy. It concentrates order, in compliance with the laws of the universe, and against the principle (not law!) of Entropy.

And, as a proud human, I boast that we are the flower of life on Earth. We are brilliant and beautiful in our many expressions ... and our million ancestors back to bacteria depend on us to carry this principle of life forward, and continue to create order and to do what only life can do.

Is it not terrifying, that our efforts create so much waste? That our striving for order and meaning is so much perverted into making objects? The objects themselves are waste, or at best icons of culture. Culture, words and ideas and art ... this is the order we and we alone can make. It lives only in our own minds, and how fragile it is.

The human race is massively ordered. From your perspective, or mine, it looks like chaos. But we're doing OK ... and yes, that's just a 'faith' statement on my part. I say we're doing OK.

Foolish fool. you cant break the law of thermodynamics (and neither can god proving that he is not omnipotent and proving yet again that he does not exist, besides, god must be a very orderly being to have created order in the first place, which breaks the law again >.<).
on evolution, what you see is just the tip of the iceberg.
imagine the precursor to the giraffe. it would have a short neck, and need to "evolve" to get a longer neck, agree? during the process of millions of years, genetic defects cause millions of changes, most of them are bad(up entropy), causing shorter necks, poorer eyesight, etc. however, some grow longer necks which let them survive and produce more offspring than the shorter necked generation. Hence giraffes of what we know are now here.
Evolution is not a "SNAP" your finger "TA-DA!" insta-results, kind of thing. it is a messy(a.k.a entropic) process leaving masses of failed mutations in the process.

[DaWoad]

Snip

Point

*goes back to awesome webcomic*

[DaWoad]

I spoke of "life." Not of humanity.

Life, by evolution, violates the principle of entropy. It concentrates order, in compliance with the laws of the universe, and against the principle (not law!) of Entropy.

And, as a proud human, I boast that we are the flower of life on Earth. We are brilliant and beautiful in our many expressions ... and our million ancestors back to bacteria depend on us to carry this principle of life forward, and continue to create order and to do what only life can do.

Is it not terrifying, that our efforts create so much waste? That our striving for order and meaning is so much perverted into making objects? The objects themselves are waste, or at best icons of culture. Culture, words and ideas and art ... this is the order we and we alone can make. It lives only in our own minds, and how fragile it is.

The human race is massively ordered. From your perspective, or mine, it looks like chaos. But we're doing OK ... and yes, that's just a 'faith' statement on my part. I say we're doing OK.

actually ni . . .um every reaction increases entropy including photosynthesis and the creation of order. Basically we expend so much energy creating "order" that each time we do we create MORE disorder than order. (we give offf energy in the form of non-recoverable heat which will eventually cause the heat death of the universe)

[Lik-faa]

I think the reason why people with High IQs are less likely to believe in God is because they think they are so smart that they can do everything on their own and they dont need a "god" to help them. They think that just because they are smarter than most the people they meet, they dont need the same god as them. They like to look to themselves for answers rather than God.

Darn right I do. Because 'god' does not exist so I am not going to look to it for guidance.
Just look at the world as it is now, the poorest countries is where folks are most religious.

That, and the fact that the bible and the quran promote glorification of the faithful and eternal damnation to those who do not. Religious folks have this inherit need to feel morally supreme and revel in the prospect of eternal glory whereas those 'smart kids' will all suffer for all eternity. Religions like christianity and islam also promote killing (preferably employing the economies of scale), slavery, inferiorness of women, hatred against gays and giving your money to socalled clergymen. Also, religion isn't big on science, reason and facts. And let's not forget how the religious texts blatantly contradict eachother (ie 'Jebus' = son of 'god' in one book, and then in another book it says that 'Jebus' was not the son of 'god').

That is one way to look at it, however, I think that the study was incorrect. If you ask many people with high IQs, ESPECIALLY scientists,(ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY physicists), they will say that they do believe in some kind of god or guiding force in the universe.

And on the other hand, even if it is all a crap heap, it does satisfy a basic need, that of spirituality. It also gives people something in common with each other to unite behind so that they can proudly say that what they believe in is right and just, even when it isn't.

Also, religions such as Taoism, Buddhism, and Unitarianism do not promote killing or any form of violence. The reason that so many others do, is because of their ultra-corrupt leadership in the 1st to 16th centuries,(roughly). The church leaders picked and chose what they wanted in the religion, and those things haven't changed in centuries, making them utterly outdated, but nobody wants to revamp an entire religion, they'd loose hundreds of thousands of followers.

On the point of Religion as a whole rejecting science, that is another by-product of power-drunk leaders. They feared science, because it could and did take many of their followers, a large problem of that, is that science and religion are no allowed to coexist, when they could quite happily. For instance, I believe that Jesus was a real person, but I do not believe he was the son of God, because the Bible is a religious text designed to convert people to Christianity, and NOT a historical fact book, no matter how much anybody wants it to be.

However, I do believe that all gods have existed at one time or another because we are sentient enough to create an ethereal shadow of what we think is true, but they are just vibrating differently on a subatomic level, so we cannot see, hear, or interact with them in any way, but some people can just barely tap into their world at a subconscious level. Thus, the more people believe, the more real the gods are, but unless we amplify our mental powers and get roughly 226 billion normal people thinking about them at the exact same time,(roughly the amount of psychic power it takes to make a piece of toast fly across the room), they will never be able to interact physically with our world, and thus for all intents and purposes, do not exist.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

I spoke of "life." Not of humanity.

Life, by evolution, violates the principle of entropy. It concentrates order, in compliance with the laws of the universe, and against the principle (not law!) of Entropy.

And, as a proud human, I boast that we are the flower of life on Earth. We are brilliant and beautiful in our many expressions ... and our million ancestors back to bacteria depend on us to carry this principle of life forward, and continue to create order and to do what only life can do.

Is it not terrifying, that our efforts create so much waste? That our striving for order and meaning is so much perverted into making objects? The objects themselves are waste, or at best icons of culture. Culture, words and ideas and art ... this is the order we and we alone can make. It lives only in our own minds, and how fragile it is.

The human race is massively ordered. From your perspective, or mine, it looks like chaos. But we're doing OK ... and yes, that's just a 'faith' statement on my part. I say we're doing OK.

actually ni . . .um every reaction increases entropy including photosynthesis and the creation of order. Basically we expend so much energy creating "order" that each time we do we create MORE disorder than order. (we give offf energy in the form of non-recoverable heat which will eventually cause the heat death of the universe)

As a living creature (a locally ordered being) why should I worry about that?

Only insofar as other living creatures are not denied the same chance. And knowing only of living creatures on this our planet ... that is all I care about.

Certainly I care about extinctions of non-human species. Certainly I care about pollution, and unintended consequences like global warming, or nuclear war, or asteroid strikes. These things are entropy, for no gain in order.

But I'm not going to worry my pretty head with "entropy guilt" for being such an ordered being.

It might even be that some day people like us, or creatures or machines we make, or some other society of living beings with or without our help, optimises the process of life to the extent it actually outweighs entropy. That our actions create order so effectively, that we turn that principle around and reverse the flow of entropy. And make the Universe after our own image.

So don't be sad. Life as we know it is still young!

[Ostronopolis]

Meh, I've seen some pretty intelligent religious people, some who would make some of the researchers look like idiots, but I guess it all depends on the circumstances too.

[Duckside]

*COUGH* *COUGH* read my damned post.
you cant break the laws of thermodynamics (i'd like to see you try).
Laws:
Zeroth: You must play the game.
First: You can't win.
Second: You can't break even.
Third: You can't quit the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
proof of "order" that is actually chaos.
also, if you do ask any respectable scientist and ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY physicist, they will NOT say that they believe in some sort of god. otherwise, prove it.

[NERVUN]

Issac Newton is considered to be one of the greatest scientific minds in history.
Fair enough, he was a Christian, and a devout Christian at that.
However, there were a few reasons why he was, and the pointlessness of him being religious.
Firstly, people at that time were all christians,

A-wha huh? So... the world then consisted JUST of Europe and European colonies? Who knew? And what WERE the Deists doing then?

there was no such thing as atheism then

,
Uh... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

hence, even if he wanted to be atheist, he would either be a: ostracized by the church and the rest of society, or b:secretly be one.

Which doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, but ok.

[Duckside]

Issac Newton is considered to be one of the greatest scientific minds in history.
Fair enough, he was a Christian, and a devout Christian at that.
However, there were a few reasons why he was, and the pointlessness of him being religious.
Firstly, people at that time were all christians,

A-wha huh? So... the world then consisted JUST of Europe and European colonies? Who knew? And what WERE the Deists doing then?

Fine, i was speaking about his society in general. I admit my error.

there was no such thing as atheism then

,
Uh... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

yes, again i apologise. i was still speaking about his society.

hence, even if he wanted to be atheist, he would either be a: ostracized by the church and the rest of society, or b:secretly be one.

Which doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, but ok.

it does. for example, if everyone else thinks that education is good, and you think that it is bad, if you made it known to the society around you, you would probably be viewed as eccentric, and probably be ostracized.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

*COUGH* *COUGH* read my damned post.

Do you mean the one which calls me a fool twice in the first sentence?

I decline.

Read mine.

[Treznor]

I understand the objection to bringing up Isaac Newton's religious devotion, because not being religious (or at least Deist) was a quick way to a long fall with a short rope. Subscribing to a religious organization was also the best way to make connections, particularly among the Masons.

Given the cultural attitudes of the time, you'll find few prominent atheists stepping forward. Not necessarily because they were convinced of the rational arguments for gods, but because society was particularly unforgiving of assumptions that didn't begin with gods.

[NERVUN]

My point is blindingly obvious. I cannot put it plainer than that.

*sigh*

I will try.

When almost everyone was religious, on pain of exclusion from academia, of course the most brilliant minds avowed religion.

The alternative for them was not to study, not to publish, and quite possibly to be paupered, sold into slavery or killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newt ... ious_views Where in there can you find proof to show that Newton secretly would have been an atheist? He studied the Bible more than physics. This is not the action of a man who takes up theology reluctantly to fit into the surrounding world.

I mentioned that he had some nutty ideas?

Bible study was among them.

Which shows what? He was still a theist.

I demonstrated how those three examples of eminent scientists were beholden to the theocracies of their day.

Not really. You said one taught at a Catholic university, however Lemaître was ordained LONG before he taught at that university and AFTER receiving his degree in mathematics.

According to WikiPedia, only two years of his academic career were spent in secular institutions. He studies at Cambridge for two years, long before the "Big Bang" theory which some poster credits him with.

It's also worth noting, that he theorized only expansion of the universe, which was not "Big Bang" at that time. It was equally compatible with the Steady State theory ... a rather more compatible theory with the existence of God, since it does not put a "start date" on the Universe.

He was a contempory of Einstein, so no, you still have not shown that he HAD to be a beliver. He also got his PhD from MIT.

Furthermore, he did indeed propose the Big Bang, he just didn't call it that. But he had the primordial atom, the expanding universe and the like.

Perhaps you can explain how the current Pope is "one of the hundred most intelligent people alive today."

I didn't make the claim and I have no interest in finding out.

My apologies. I have mistaken you for some other poster in that.

No worries then.

[DaWoad]

As a living creature (a locally ordered being) why should I worry about that?

Only insofar as other living creatures are not denied the same chance. And knowing only of living creatures on this our planet ... that is all I care about.

Certainly I care about extinctions of non-human species. Certainly I care about pollution, and unintended consequences like global warming, or nuclear war, or asteroid strikes. These things are entropy, for no gain in order.

But I'm not going to worry my pretty head with "entropy guilt" for being such an ordered being.

It might even be that some day people like us, or creatures or machines we make, or some other society of living beings with or without our help, optimises the process of life to the extent it actually outweighs entropy. That our actions create order so effectively, that we turn that principle around and reverse the flow of entropy. And make the Universe after our own image.

So don't be sad. Life as we know it is still young!

lol entropy guilt awesome! no no I just wanted to point it out I wasn't trying to make a point at all lol.

[NERVUN]

I understand the objection to bringing up Isaac Newton's religious devotion, because not being religious (or at least Deist) was a quick way to a long fall with a short rope. Subscribing to a religious organization was also the best way to make connections, particularly among the Masons.

Given the cultural attitudes of the time, you'll find few prominent atheists stepping forward. Not necessarily because they were convinced of the rational arguments for gods, but because society was particularly unforgiving of assumptions that didn't begin with gods.

Given that at the time of Newton you have Deism going on...

It's up to you guys to actually show through his writings that Newton WASN'T a theist. Saying that, "well of course he was because he HAD to be, but if he was alive now" is nothing but speculation. Given the amount of time he spent in study of the Bible and his writtings, I think it is safe to say that he truely belived.