Do you think people who believe in God due to a lack of intelligence?

robindch

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

Einstein wrote: »

there is no excuse to mock or make fun of any poster because of their beliefs

There are some ideas which really do need the point and laugh treatment. Perhaps Wicknight's comment wasn't very polite, but it certainly wasn't any more daft than the wild-eyed statement which it induced it.

Marcus.Aurelius

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am shocked anyone with a PhD actually entertains the notions of Scientific proofs. Science does not have proofs, it uses inductive logic to ascertain cause / effect relationships. You know that Q.E.D. you see at the end of Mathematical proofs, you don't see that in Science because you cannot use deductive logic to establish cause / effect relationships.

As a biologist, i'm not that well versed in physics or mathematical modeling like you seem to be. Again, please stop berating me for my beliefs. It's not what this forum is for.

I have decided for myself that evolution doesn't make good sense to me and logic should confirm it if it were correct. More evidence will be unearthed that may further confirm it as a theory, and maybe I will be swayed. Again, can we leave it at that?

robindch

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

maoleary wrote: »

I am aware of the definition of theory. It's an educated guess, based on obervation and rational judgement. As a theory, it requires more work, that's all I meant, before I am fully convinced.

In that case, you really do need to read up more on what a "scientific theory" is. I suggest looking up Karl Popper and reading some of his stuff.

Marcus.Aurelius

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

robindch wrote: »

In that case, you really do need to read up more on what a "scientific theory" is. I suggest looking up Karl Popper and reading some of his stuff.

From Wikipedia

n science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

Again, theory and fact are not at odds, but are not interchangeable either. Can we agree to disagree on this??

Edit: 12:28 PM leaving forum

Tim Robbins

Don't know

maoleary wrote: »

As a biologist, i'm not that well versed in physics or mathematical modeling like you seem to be. Again, please stop berating me for my beliefs. It's not what this forum is for.

I am sorry. I apologise.

I have decided for myself that evolution doesn't make good sense to me and logic should confirm it if it were correct. More evidence will be unearthed that may further confirm it as a theory, and maybe I will be swayed. Again, can we leave it at that?

I am just wondering what type of evidence do you seek?
A billion or so fossils, an infinite amount of DNA analysis all supporting slow gradual change and natural selection. It has been confirmed as a valid theory for over a hundred years.

Logic can never confirm anything as correct as logic always requires a premise. The role of logic is to deduce if the inference derived from a premise is valid or not.

for example.
Premise: Socrates was a man
Conclusion: Socrates was a human
is a logically valid inference. However, logic cannot tell you if the premise
"Socrates was a man" is actually correct. That's someone elses job.

Zombrex

Don't know

kelly1 wrote: »

That makes even less sense. Why can't a person be moral and Christian and have a good knowledge of scripture?

Because the scripture is immoral. To be moral you can have a good knowledge of the scripture and reject it as immoral, or you can be ignorant of the scripture. To have good knowledge of the scripture and still accept it (ie be a Christian) is immoral. Its not killing babies immoral, its not sleeping with your best friends wife immoral, but it is still an immoral position to take. It is as immoral as someone saying the war in Rwanda was a good thing, or the holocaust was great.

A lot of Christians, including yourself and PDN, try to get around that by saying that morality itself is defined by God, and therefore so long as you follow God you can't be immoral.

Which is not the standard of morality I would use.

I find both yourself and PDN's apologetic position of events described in the Bible as immoral, in the exact same way as I find someone who apologies for the IRA bombings or 9/11 to be immoral.

robindch

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

maoleary wrote: »

Edit: 12:28 PM leaving forum

As you wish

I don't know if this constitutes bringing this thread off-topic or back on topic, but to refer to the OP:

Trying to relate intelligence to religious belief is absolutely ridiculous. Some of the very smartest people in world history have been religious thinkers. Their efforts were directed, admittedly, in a religious rather than scientific endeavour but that cannot lessen their contribution to the human race.

It seems to me that regardless of what you choose to believe, for a group of people who claim to be intelligent to connect religious belief with a lack of intelligence in others is both arrogant and flawed in its basic logic.

Note: The biggest problem with evolution is that everyone gets caught up in the catchphrases which were bandied about during the initial religious reaction in the 19th century. The area has been expanded on now to a phenomenal degree and phrases such as "survival of the fittest" (which did not appear in Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species'") are highly mis-leading in their implications to those who have no more than a casual interest in the area. I, for one, believe evolution to be a scientific fact, though I do not believe we are likley to have a full understanding of the process for quite some time yet.

Zombrex

Don't know

Einstein wrote: »

Quotes like this are childish, as is becoming this whole thread.

Perhaps you missed the point.

To assert that they are 100% certain God exists demonstrates a lack of intelligence, or at the very least understanding, since it is actually [EDIT]impossible[/EDIT] for a human being to assert with 100% accuracy anything, let alone that God exists. A person who asserts that, while also asserting that they are intelligent, is basically contradicting themselves.

The are in essence, being stupid. Not that there is anything wrong with that, everyone is stupid from time to time.

Wicknight

Don't know

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps you missed the point.

To assert that they are 100% certain God exists demonstrates a lack of intelligence, or at the very least understanding, since it is actually possible for a human being to assert with 100% accuracy anything, let alone that God exists. A person who asserts that, while also asserting that they are intelligent, is basically contradicting themselves.

i think you mean "impossible" ?

yes, thats all i have to contribute...

Zombrex

Don't know

bluewolf wrote: »

i think you mean "impossible" ?

yes, thats all i have to contribute...

I did indeed. See we can all be stupid. Even me!

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

To assert that they are 100% certain God exists demonstrates a lack of intelligence, or at the very least understanding, since it is actually impossible for a human being to assert with 100% accuracy anything

However you just asserted with 100% confidence it was impossible to assert anything with 100% confidence.

Zombrex

Don't know

kelly1 wrote: »

negated is a bit strong isn't it? Wouldn't modified be better.

You can't modify a "law", that is the whole point of a law. A law either holds universally or it isn't a law.

In fact after the philosophical debates on the nature of science and discovery in the late 19th early 20th century, few scientists today would hold to the idea of "laws" anymore.

Humans lack the ability to determine if some judgment is actually a law, and as such the term is used more in a common English sense, than an actual scientific sense.

Einstein

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps you missed the point.

To assert that they are 100% certain God exists

The quote was that they 100% believed in God.
big difference

Zombrex

Don't know

Deleted User wrote: »

However you just asserted with 100% confidence it was impossible to assert anything with 100% confidence.

That is an interesting point.

Can we know for certain that it is impossible to make a 100% accurate assertion about the world?

Any science philosophers here?

Zombrex

Don't know

Einstein wrote: »

The quote was that they 100% believed in God.
big difference

There is?

If a person 100% believes in something then they have a 0% belief that they could be wrong or that the thing might not exist.

For example, I'm an atheist. I strongly reject the idea of God as being real, and believe equally strongly that humans invented the idea of a god. But I also believe that I could be wrong about that, so I couldn't say that I 100% believe there is no God.

Zombrex

Don't know

maoleary wrote: »

Everywhere in Biochemistry I see perfection in regulation.

Perfection is a very unscientific term. What you call perfection someone else might call "good enough" or even "not that good".

In fact Creationists tend to be the only ones who assert that anything in nature is "perfect", and after a bit of discussion it tends to turn out that what they meant is that what ever process they are looking at does the function it is trying to do. Which is hardly what I would call perfection.

maoleary wrote: »

What I don't see is that which evolution clings to most. That we are continually improving.

Well firstly evolution doesn't say anything improves, it says things adapt to their environment. Again, like perfect, improvement by itself is an undefined term. A species might evolve to live on a cliff edge that then falls into the sea, killing all the animals. That wouldn't be an "improvement"

Secondly, you obviously aren't looking very hard, since only yesterday I was reading in the science section of The Economist about studies recently completed that looked at recent human evolution. The study identified at least 55 genes that showed recent localized evolution. Six controlled skin and hair colour, while 4 helped the immune system to fight disease causing organisms.

maoleary wrote: »

Rather, the opposite is true. With each new generation the DNA within our cells is more and more degraded. If evolution is indeed true, that shouldn't be happening. Centromeres shouldn't degrade.

That isn't true at all.

maoleary wrote: »

And more importantly, if evolution is true, the earth would be hundreds of trillions of years old in order to allow sufficient time for enough sequential and successful mutations to occur to create the life we see around us.

According to what assessment? Who worked that out?

maoleary wrote: »

Evolution does not explain things for me as a scientist.

Such as?

maoleary wrote: »

It's a complex theory, and it has some drawbacks. That of course, does not mean its incorrect. Equally, I cannot see why a higher power than us could have genetically engineered all the life we see as it is.

And as soon as you formulate a scientific, testable theory around that idea, get back to us.

maoleary wrote: »

God? Maybe. Alien Life? Maybe? Evolution? Maybe, but in some ways more unlikely than the two previous.

Evolution is less likely than aliens or a god?

Given that Darwinian evolution in biological organisms is an observed phenomena, where as aliens and gods, well, aren't, I find it a little difficult to understand how you could come that that conclusion.

robindch

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

Deleted User wrote: »

However you just asserted with 100% confidence it was impossible to assert anything with 100% confidence.

You can do this by separating out rules and rules-about-rules (metarules).

A metarule can quite reasonably state with 100% confidence that no rule can state something with 100% confidence.

That's my $.02...

sdep

Convergent evolution has struck again, turning this into another 'Darwinism' thread.

maoleary wrote: »

From a purely genetic standpoint, evolution is an impossibility. To even successfully change a single base pair to create a better protein is statistical lunacy.

While creationism is unprovable, evolution is more or less disproven with the recent completion of the human genome project.

I've not heard any biologist who has analysed human or other genomic data come to this conclusion.

maoleary wrote: »

In order for a simple celled organism to decide to suddenly become eukaryotic and multicellular would need thousands of successful base pair changes in order to create the neccessary changes in proteins to achieve this new state. Have you any idea of the chances of this?

And what are we to believe? That there is a intelligent radiation that allows this? That animals can "decide" to grow these more useful appendages for their environment?

(my emphases)

Wicknight wrote: »

1) The "chances" of it happening are greatly increase because of natural selection. It is not in fact a massive random change, but is in fact the end result of thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of random changes selected by natural selection.

2) Single celled organisms have been observed to form simply multicelluar structures after only a few hundred generations of mutations and adaption. Again the chances of that happening by a completely random process is impossible. But then that isn't how it happened.

Darwinian evolution states that the individual random mutations are selected and kept through a process of natural selection to provide an accumulation of benefitial changes to the species that adapt the species for the environment they are in.

I agree with Wicknight's comments.

The theory of evolution does not state that organisms evolve of their own will, that evolution must proceed through coordinated simultaneous mutations (indeed the Thorne review cited below states, 'Most models of sequence evolution consider only events that lead to exactly one sequence position being changed'), or that organisms undergo 'necessary changes' 'in order' to produce preordained descendents.

maoleary wrote: »

An interesting article (one of a few hundred thousand on evolution) released in June 2007 in "Current Opinion in Structural Biology" discussed in some detail the problems of assuming evolutionary theory in examining protein structure, in particular the enormous near-impossibility of successful protein structure changes to achieve a fully functional protein in any organism due to a sudden random and inexplicable mutation. As you an imagine, the backtracking is easy, explaining the original mutational shift/deletion/substitution and chances (mathematically) is not.

"Protein evolution constraints and model-based techniques to study them" Jeffrey L Thorne, Current Opinion in Structural Biology, Volume 17, Issue 3, June 2007: pp. 337-341

I think the author would be very surprised to see his paper summarised thus. The paper simply points out some of the sources of DNA mutation rate variability within genomes and between species, and notes that there are additional constraints in protein translation and folding that must be considered in assessing the selective effect of mutations.

maoleary wrote: »

Everywhere in Biochemistry I see perfection in regulation. What I don't see is that which evolution clings to most. That we are continually improving. Rather, the opposite is true. With each new generation the DNA within our cells is more and more degraded. If evolution is indeed true, that shouldn't be happening. Centromeres shouldn't degrade.

Wicknight, above, gives correct responses. Telomeres do degrade, but the damage is repaired in the chromosomes contributed to the next generation. Overall DNA degradation, whatever that might be, is not seen. 'Improvement', as commonly understood, is not an end of evolution; it again presupposes that there is some ultimate standard towards which evolution is aiming. 'Continual adaptation' is correct, 'continual improvement' not. As to perfection, there are plenty of examples of imperfection and suboptimal, make-do solutions in organisms.

maoleary wrote: »

And more importantly, if evolution is true, the earth would be hundreds of trillions of years old in order to allow sufficient time for enough sequential and successful mutations to occur to create the life we see around us.

This assertion needs backing up with some hard maths. It's not the prevailing view among evolutionary biologists.

PDN

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

Maybe there should be an equivalent of Godwin's Law that applies to evolution.

"As an online discussion on the Christianity or A&A Boards grows longer, the probability of it descending into a debate about evolution approaches one."

sdep

PDN wrote: »

Maybe there should be an equivalent of Godwin's Law that applies to evolution.

"As an online discussion on the Christianity or A&A Boards grows longer, the probability of it descending into a debate about evolution approaches one."

Unfortunately true. And one involving Stalin, too.

PDN

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

sdep wrote: »

Unfortunately true. And one involving Stalin, too.

And the Inquisition (gets mentioned around here about twice as much as Stalin).

Dades

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

PDN wrote: »

Maybe there should be an equivalent of Godwin's Law that applies to evolution.

sdep wrote: »

And one involving Stalin, too.

PDN wrote: »

And the Inquisition

Let's not forget "free will"...

sdep

PDN wrote: »

And the Inquisition (gets mentioned around here about twice as much as Stalin).

They're inextricably linked in any thread. It's Mutually Assured Distraction.

AngryHippie

Don't know

Truly an existential conundrum.

They "Believe" in God because at some point they were convinced, or accepted his existence, In the same way that I doubt it and do not accept God exists. Intelligence has little to do with it.
A lack of access to education may leave some people vulnerable to the words of the clergy as they usually are well read and educated, enacting an inferiority complex. But IMO an equal number of people who consider themselves believers are just to lazy or busy to actually sit back read THE book (Bible/Quaran/whatever) and take apart the text and realize that it is merely a guideline for what we have come to identify as civilized moral society. The rest of it is Bunkum. (IMO, Not inviting a big spiel about how great god is)

DILLIGAF

Don't know

If you were kept away from everything religious your whole life, like it was never put in front of you in any way, and death was simply not discussed but you knew it happened and was just one of those things that kids don't really think about. Imagine you were 18 in a second hand book store with your buddy and you came across a copy of the bible, would you really start leafing through it saying "Hey.....hey this is great! Hey Clarence come look at this man, it all makes sense now,wicked!"..... Would you ****!It'd look like the ramblings of your Alzheimers ridden grandfather,speaking in an important sounding,dead language! That's why they beat it into you when your a kid cause your brains all mush and it'll take anything you feed it! Santa Clause,The Easter Bunny,The Tooth Fairy,God, it's all bull****. And the worst bit is when they grow up and say to people like me "Oh I feel sorry for you because you don't have God in your life".....hahaha I feel sorry for you because your 32 years old and still have a boogeyman under the bed!


As was said above. Around 20 years ago, religion stopped being bored into our heads when the economy changed and not all schools had priest and nun teachers. It became about education for the sake of education and I think this, while it was halved for us in our 20's, will nearly be entirely thrashed when we all have kids in schools. The state is sensitive now to all religious groups through the way the world currently is, that if someone said stop teaching my child about god, then the school would heel right away and little timmy would be doing some homework at the back of the class while all the other kids learn about some guy who was supposed to have turned one fish into 600lbs of raw whiting for the folks of Nazerath or wherever to chow down on.(ahem,yeah Africe could probably do with that nosh now ya tight ****)

In direct response to your question, I don't think people believe for a lack of intelligence, but more,a slightly stronger will of ignorance to so much fact that can be placed before them.Personally, human love is stronger than gods love(or complete lack there of) and the sooner people realize that man is god,then the sooner we can go about cloning in peace....erm...I mean living in peace!

PDN

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

DILLIGAF wrote: »

If you were kept away from everything religious your whole life, like it was never put in front of you in any way, and death was simply not discussed but you knew it happened and was just one of those things that kids don't really think about. Imagine you were 18 in a second hand book store with your buddy and you came across a copy of the bible, would you really start leafing through it saying "Hey.....hey this is great! Hey Clarence come look at this man, it all makes sense now,wicked!"..... Would you

Instead of using your imagination, why not look at what happened when the above scenario actually happened?

Millions of Chinese kids, since 1949, were kept away from everything religious their whole life. It was never put in front of them in any way. Chinese society under Mao was the perfect laboratory to replicate the conditions you describe above.

But a few of the young people in China managed to get their hands on Bibles. I know one individual, the former Youth Secretary of the Communist Party in Henan Province, who was studying English and, intrigued by references to the Bible in Shakespeare, searched through the basement of the University library until he found a copy of the Bible in a box labelled "Western Pornography". When he started reading the Bible his reaction was exactly as you described it, "This is great! Now it all makes sense." Today that Chinese guy is a committed Christian minister. (I presume he is somewhat intelligent since he has 2 earned PhDs and is fluent in 5 languages).

The same scenario has been repeated countless times, DILLIGAF, exactly as you describe. Today there are over 100 million Christian believers in China - and the greatest growth is among young urban intellectuals and professionals.

Tim Robbins

Don't know

PDN wrote: »

But a few of the young people in China managed to get their hands on Bibles. I know one individual, the former Youth Secretary of the Communist Party in Henan Province, who was studying English and, intrigued by references to the Bible in Shakespeare, searched through the basement of the University library until he found a copy of the Bible in a box labelled "Western Pornography".

I wonder was "Why I am not Christian?" on his reading list? Or "The origin of species"?

Dades

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

PDN wrote: »

Millions of Chinese kids, since 1949, were kept away from everything religious their whole life. It was never put in front of them in any way. Chinese society under Mao was the perfect laboratory to replicate the conditions you describe above.

At some point in my teens, my Dad got a bit protective and confiscated a copy of 'Salem' I was reading. My response? A reading splurge on the occult. (Facinating stuff, but bunkum).

Restricting people from reading books is like having a big red button that says "Do Not Press".

Tim Robbins

Don't know

Dades wrote: »

At some point in my teens, my Dad got a bit protective and confiscated a copy of 'Salem' I was reading. My response? A reading splurge on the occult. (Facinating stuff, but bunkum).

Restricting people from reading books is like having a big red button that says "Do Not Press".

I remember my Dad telling me that he wanted to read An Phoblacht when he was young. His Dad's response was yeah sure, as long as you read every single other newspaper after.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Don't know

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I remember my Dad telling me that he wanted to read An Phoblacht when he was young. His Dad's response was yeah sure, as long as you read every single other newspaper after.

Haha I like that! :P

DILLIGAF

Don't know

Dades wrote: »

Restricting people from reading books is like having a big red button that says "Do Not Press".

Couldn't have said it better. Besides, using China as any sort of an example for what is currently a bigger issue in the western world(IMO don't go getting all economical on my ass)isn't building a great image. I can only assume that "western porno" means that it was probably a communist sect and would no doubt have many many other restrictions(money,property,marriage etc etc)so it's the same as referring to a prisoner who "finds god" in his cell because,well,he can't find a way out. It's a human reaction as a pose to a supernatural discovery,a comfort zone.

And 100 million may sound like a lot, but the population of China is around
1,321,851,888....!

PDN

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I wonder was "Why I am not Christian?" on his reading list? Or "The origin of species"?

Probably not, my friend was studying English literature and (while I enjoy reading Russell) neither of the books you mention would be viewed as classics of English literature.

Also, it was not a case of the Chinese being repeatedly told "You must not be a Christian. You must not read the Bible" because Christianity was so tiny in China when Mao seized power in 1949. Despite all the efforts of missionaries for several centuries there were less than 1 million Christians (comprising less than 0.25% of the population) and many of these were elderly.

For example, my friend never heard anyone mention the Bible until he read Shakespeare at 18 years of age. He never met a Christian until he was 21 years old. He was the embodiment of DILLIGAF's example of someone who grew up knowing nothing of the Bible or of Christianity. His only knowledge of religion was that it was referred to in history classes as a tool of foreign oppressors (similar to how we would learn about the Famine at school).

DILLIGAFF wrote:

Besides, using China as any sort of an example for what is currently a bigger issue in the western world(IMO don't go getting all economical on my ass)isn't building a great image.

What is currently a bigger issue in the Western world?

And 100 million may sound like a lot, but the population of China is around 1,321,851,888....!

100 million is a lot. It represents over 7.5% of the largest nation in the world. I consider 7.5% of any population to be statistically significant. I consider the proportion of atheists in the world to be significant even though most studies reveal it to be between 3% and 5%. (But if you include agnostics and general irreligious then the figure rises.)

Anyway, I think my point stands. Where you genuinely raise people without any knowledge of Christianity or the Bible, then let them find a Bible and start reading it, a significant proportion of them do find that the Bible makes sense. The proportion of those who come to this conclusion, based on the Chinese experience, is higher among the well educated.

Zombrex

Don't know

PDN wrote: »

Anyway, I think my point stands. Where you genuinely raise people without any knowledge of Christianity or the Bible, then let them find a Bible and start reading it, a significant proportion of them do find that the Bible makes sense.

That is a bit of faulty logic.

There simply isn't enough Bibles in China for people to come to Christianity through reading the Bible. They become believers through social interaction other Christians, through official churches or through house churches (the illegal kind). Despite claims to the contrary from the Chinese government that they are allowing enough Bibles to be printed, there may only be 1 Bible for every 10 Christians in China, let alone those who convert each year. And Christians groups in the West are quite concerned about this, worried that Chinese Christians cannot grow properly in their faith without actually reading a Bible. Which would make sense

PDN

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a bit of faulty logic.

There simply isn't enough Bibles in China for people to come to Christianity through reading the Bible. They become believers through social interaction other Christians, through official churches or through house churches (the illegal kind). Despite claims to the contrary from the Chinese government that they are allowing enough Bibles to be printed, there may only be 1 Bible for every 10 Christians in China, let alone those who convert each year. And Christians groups in the West are quite concerned about this, worried that Chinese Christians cannot grow properly in their faith without actually reading a Bible. Which would make sense

It makes perfect sense to believe that Chinese Christians need Bibles in order to grow in their faith. It would be hypocritical of me if I argued otherwise since I have smuggled Bibles into China.

My point is that the Gospel - the message of the Bible, often makes perfect sense to intelligent educated people who have never been culturally conditioned by Christianity. That is true whether you pick up a Bible and read it (as my friend did) or whether a fellow research scientist speaks the same message to you in the laboratory (as happened to another friend of mine in Shanghai).

Now, you may disagree with the conclusions of these Chinese intellectuals, but I think the available evidence clearly contradicts DILLIGAF's implication that someone who is removed from all religious cultural conditioning would therefore, find the Bible to be ridiculous when they do stumble across it.

Zombrex

Don't know

PDN wrote: »

It makes perfect sense to believe that Chinese Christians need Bibles in order to grow in their faith. It would be hypocritical of me if I argued otherwise since I have smuggled Bibles into China.

Er, I said it makes perfect sense

PDN wrote: »

My point is that the Gospel - the message of the Bible, often makes perfect sense to intelligent educated people who have never been culturally conditioned by Christianity.

Well I would be interested in seeing a group of people who's genuine first interaction with Christianity was through reading the Bible.

As I pointed out China is not a particularly good example of this since most Chinese come to know Christianity through social networks.They don't sit down and read the Bible cover to cover and say "Wow, that made perfect sense, I want to be a Christian". Giving a person a Bible and asking them to critically assess it after they have already been introduced to the religion through people they probably trust, would not be a very good test of whether the Bible makes sense on first reading

PDN wrote: »

That is true whether you pick up a Bible and read it (as my friend did) or whether a fellow research scientist speaks the same message to you in the laboratory (as happened to another friend of mine in Shanghai).

Well its not really, because Christians describe Christianity to each other in rather sanitised fashion, highlighting the good and skipping over the rest.

PDN wrote: »

Now, you may disagree with the conclusions of these Chinese intellectuals, but I think the available evidence clearly contradicts DILLIGAF's implication that someone who is removed from all religious cultural conditioning would therefore, find the Bible to be ridiculous when they do stumble across it.

Only if these people genuinely had no idea about Christianity until the picked up a Bible, which seems very unlikely. You can't ignore the social aspect of a religion, people will make something make sense if they have already determined that it is something they want to be a part of.

PDN

Yes for some, No for others impossible to generalise

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, I said it makes perfect sense

I know you did. No need to be puzzled - we will occasionally agree on something. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Well I would be interested in seeing a group of people who's genuine first interaction with Christianity was through reading the Bible.

As I pointed out China is not a particularly good example of this since most Chinese come to know Christianity through social networks.They don't sit down and read the Bible cover to cover and say "Wow, that made perfect sense, I want to be a Christian". Giving a person a Bible and asking them to critically assess it after they have already been introduced to the religion through people they probably trust, would not be a very good test of whether the Bible makes sense on first reading

I have met a significant number of Chinese believers who claim that their first contact with Christianity was through reading the Bible. These would usually be 40-somethings who grew up during the Cultural revolution at which time there were insufficient Christians in China for them to meet Christians through social networks.

Of course such cases become rarer as the numbers of Christians in China increase. I think the children of the cultural revolution may be the only valid evidence to test DILLIGAF's claims, since there can be few educated people in the world who have not already had some knowledge of Christianity.

Well its not really, because Christians describe Christianity to each other in rather sanitised fashion, highlighting the good and skipping over the rest.

That's not my experience of Christianity. I find educated Christians often to be brutally honest about what they perceive as weaknesses in Christian practice and belief. However, others say they have different experiences. Maybe I'm just extraordinarily lucky in the calibre of Christians that I meet.

Zombrex

Don't know

PDN wrote: »

I have met a significant number of Chinese believers who claim that their first contact with Christianity was through reading the Bible. These would usually be 40-somethings who grew up during the Cultural revolution at which time there were insufficient Christians in China for them to meet Christians through social networks.

Ok, well there is not a whole lot I can do with person anecdotes. Did they just happened to get hold of one of the rare Bibles and have a read?

PDN wrote: »

I think the children of the cultural revolution may be the only valid evidence to test DILLIGAF's claims, since there can be few educated people in the world who have not already had some knowledge of Christianity.

Well to be honest I don't think there is any population group that is both large and that has so little interaction with Christianity that this could be tested. Christian missionaries and the survival of the Chinese Church during the stricter times of Communist Revolution, do not provide a blank slate in China.

PDN wrote: »

That's not my experience of Christianity. I find educated Christians often to be brutally honest about what they perceive as weaknesses in Christian practice and belief. However, others say they have different experiences. Maybe I'm just extraordinarily lucky in the calibre of Christians that I meet.

I think you may have been.

Tim Robbins

Don't know

PDN wrote: »

Probably not, my friend was studying English literature and (while I enjoy reading Russell) neither of the books you mention would be viewed as classics of English literature.

Russell won a Nobel Prize for literature in 1950 so you never know :-)

For example, my friend never heard anyone mention the Bible until he read Shakespeare at 18 years of age. He never met a Christian until he was 21 years old. He was the embodiment of DILLIGAF's example of someone who grew up knowing nothing of the Bible or of Christianity. His only knowledge of religion was that it was referred to in history classes as a tool of foreign oppressors (similar to how we would learn about the Famine at school).

I think Dilligaf may be referring to someone who grew up knowing a bit more about Science, Philosophy and not having to carry religious baggage.

Your example refers to someone who didn't have to carry religious baggage, but was probably not allowed to explore Science, Philosophy and even literature. I think you are missing his point.

AngryHippie

Don't know

PDN wrote: »

It makes perfect sense to believe that Chinese Christians need Bibles in order to grow in their faith. It would be hypocritical of me if I argued otherwise since I have smuggled Bibles into China.

Wow, your such a hero.....
Thank you for spreading :

Gen 38:10-11
Lev 20:13
Matt 5:31
Deut 21:20
Matt 10:34

You've just helped enlighten loads of minds with that mission !:eek:

threeleggedhors

Don't know

I'm a non believer but has anyone considered that this belief that most humans have has come about through evolution which enabled us to have more intelligent thinking. We are after all probably the only living thing that's self aware. I agree about it being drilled into us at a young stage and it being a lot easier to go with the flow and keep up the charade but to say it's down to poor intelligence is walking on thin ice. You can argue that a less intelligent mind would be easier to influence, I'll agree. Most of the greatest minds of our time believed in some sort of divine power like good old Einstein. Not many of us are on a par with that guy.

Zillah

Don't know

robindch wrote: »

I think that referring to it as a mental illness is too stigmatizing, although it's not too far off reality in some senses.

I believe it's better described using the term "mind-virus", analogous to a very rapidly mutating, self-obfuscating software virus whose sole aim is to replicate itself using whatever means are available within the host substrate within which it executes.

Which understanding implies that the common characteristics of religions should indicate certain features of brain design and cognition. I don't know if anybody's looked at religion back-to-front in this manner, but I've always felt there's a rich seam of observation to mine there.

A friend of mine once used the term "head-fected with ancient evil".

Tim Robbins

Don't know

threeleggedhors wrote: »

has anyone considered that this belief that most humans have has come about through evolution which enabled us to have more intelligent thinking.

Yes, that's it.