Support NeoGAF

[k_trout]

Einsteins pantheism was more of the understanding that "the universe can't be stupid if it is this elegant", coming from a rather opposing interpretation of "stupid building blocks of the universe", as we like to see the atoms in the west. Simply put, he was stunned by the beauty of the universe as he discovered it. To attribute that to a feeling that the whole thing is an elegant thing, as opposed to just cold dead matter that happened to make humans, is very irrelevant in a discussion of religion. But you might as well go ahead and abuse the quote on the matter, for as he said "in that regard, I am a deeply religious man".

This is completely analogous to saying 1 + 1 = 3, and saying it is your opinion. It serves you no purpose, because you lack a critical view of your own statement. As such, you're contributing merely with a type of word salad to this thread. Syntactically correct sentences that, in the end, give no insight or meaning.

it is most definitely like 1+1 = 3 which was my point all along
the religious function is illogical but that does not mean it makes one less intelligent
so cant argue with that
or am i misreading your post
so many posts to reply to lol

 

[MisterNugNug]

I don't see this as very surprising. Arent intelligent people much more likey to suffer from depression too?

Well the more you know, the more aware you are of your own ignorance, so maybe there's a correlation.

 

[k_trout]

Calling it the "religious function" is grossly misleading. This is the same aspect of the human psyche that puts stock in everyday superstitions, and falls for cognitive traps like the Gambler's fallacy and loss aversion.

see i dont think it is misleading at all
Jung explains it over volumes and volumes and it makes more sense than me trying to explain it on a forum in some sentences
so dont judge the term judge my inability to explain it correctly

 

[V_Arnold]

Also, most who argues with the "1+1 = 3" example grossly lacks the mathematical foundation for such arguing tool, imho. It is very early when you learn that it is up to you to define what "+" means, and you just stick with it. If you work with the subset of N that is 2n+1's, 1+1 can definitely be 3. (Or one of the dozen different examples where you redefine what + means in relation to the field/group you are working with). Which, weirdly enough, kinda diminishes the point one wants to make when citing "and yet you believe 1+1 can ever be 3, lol".

 

[Septimius]

what i mean by the religious function is one of the natural archetypal structures of the psyche
a specific ordering system which is a priori (before consciousness)
it is part of what human is and can not be negated by simple denial of it
it is an energic flow from outside the ego consciousness
part of what defines human nature

But you are cherry-picking. The term you're looking for is "evolution", and the fact that we are the runners on the savannah. We have to jump to conclusions, because if we linger, we die. Evolutionary, it has served us a purpose to be able to see lines in static, it is beneficial to have all the cognitive biases we have.

To label this as "religious function" and say it is a priori is an illicit minor fallacy. Because, even though religious function comes from evolution, and evolutionary construct come from "nature", saying "religion is natural" is mincing words.

 

[Haly]

see i dont think it is misleading at all
Jung explains it over volumes and volumes and it makes more sense than me trying to explain it on a forum in some sentences
so dont judge the term judge my inability to explain it correctly

It's misleading because on this board and in mainstream culture, "religion" has a very different definition from what you're talking about.

Most people would dismiss you as a religious nutjob (hence all the quotes) when you are actually just repeating Jungian philosophies.

In any kind of discourse it's important to modulate your words to fit your audience's preconceptions so there isn't the risk of miscommunication.

 

[Septimius]

it is most definitely like 1+1 = 3 which was my point all along
the religious function is illogical but that does not mean it makes one less intelligent
so cant argue with that
or am i misreading your post
so many posts to reply to lol

No, your statement is 1 + 1 = 3. You are saying it is your opinion. I am not talking about the content of your opinion, I am saying you are presenting your interpretation of fact as an opinion, when it is merely wrong. If you come to math-class and say 1 + 1 = 3, and the teacher calls you out, you are not saved by saying it is your opinion.

You made an inconsistent argument, you were called out for it lacking foundation and understanding, and then you said it is your opinion. If you have no qualms with forming opinions that are founded in factual errors and fallacies, then you are not after forming your opinions based on feedback. As such, you seem to get some diluted ideas, and end up coming of as incoherent and nonsensical. Your further inability to correct or see the fault of your arguments, seemingly by continuing to mince the words, is not only disrespectful to those trying to rebut your arguments, but actually is troll-like behavior. Conscious or not.

see i dont think it is misleading at all
Jung explains it over volumes and volumes and it makes more sense than me trying to explain it on a forum in some sentences
so dont judge the term judge my inability to explain it correctly

You presented the term. You presented it badly and incoherently. I am not going to read volumes of Jung to understand your position. You lack the ability to present it, and you are judged for just that. Nothing else. I judge your presentation of the proposition, because it makes no sense. If the actual proposition is something else, then it has nothing to do with this.

 

[Hunter S.]

Women are more religious. Do we have a correlation here?

 

[k_trout]

But you are cherry-picking. The term you're looking for is "evolution", and the fact that we are the runners on the savannah. We have to jump to conclusions, because if we linger, we die. Evolutionary, it has served us a purpose to be able to see lines in static, it is beneficial to have all the cognitive biases we have.

To label this as "religious function" and say it is a priori is an illicit minor fallacy. Because, even though religious function comes from evolution, and evolutionary construct come from "nature", saying "religion is natural" is mincing words.

i disagree
in my opinion the term i used is correct
certinaly not evolution
of course religion is natural
we are nature
everything we do and think is natural
unless you believe in an external deity who is unnatural to the laws of this universe who implanted the thought of religion
pretty sure you arent suggesting this though lol

thanks for the good replies though
well keeping me on my toes

 

[imtehman]

and yet the point of the the thread is that smart people arent religious or are less likely to be
but............

exactly, its highly ironic.

 

[RedShift]

thats just speculation

Lol no it isn't. Einstein specifically wrote a letter saying he didn't believe in a god because people like you kept putting words in his mouth.

 

[k_trout]

It's misleading because on this board and in mainstream culture, "religion" has a very different definition from what you're talking about.

Most people would dismiss you as a religious nutjob (hence all the quotes) when you are actually just repeating Jungian philosophies.

In any kind of discourse it's important to modulate your words to fit your audience's preconceptions so there isn't the risk of miscommunication.

been married for 15 years miscommuncation is my art lol

i disagree though i think peoples bias against religion is what creates this misunderstanding not my explanation of it

 

[Perkel]

and yet most of the great scientific discoveries across time were made by people who believed in a deity
go figure

Because not believing in deity often lead to death, especialy for scolars.

 

[Easy_Money]

I don't think that's a good comparison to make, since religion is a choice, and being black or white is not.

Michael Jackson anyone?

 

[TomJoadsGhost]

It always seems to take a lot of effort to be religious, the non-religious scientific viewpoint requires no maintenance whatsoever and demands no time or commitment at all.

I'm not religious and I'm too damn lazy to start finding myself a daydream but I still find it a little bit weird reading these things where people congratulate themselves for following the path of least resistance.

 

[Septimius]

i disagree
in my opinion the term i used is correct
certinaly not evolution
of course religion is natural
we are nature
everything we do and think is natural
unless you believe in an external deity who is unnatural to the laws of this universe who implanted the thought of religion
pretty sure you arent suggesting this though lol

thanks for the good replies though
well keeping me on my toes

When you want to present yourself as an intellectual being, as it seems you would, by pointing to things like Jung, and throwing terms like "a priori" into the mix, you cannot be expected to be judged as anything but someone with an agenda, when you present your arguments just as poor as the youtube videos "proving God" by a logical proposition that is riddled with fallacies. The inability to see the fallacies when presented with them will color your perceived nature far more than some alleged readings will. If you wish to come across as a reflected individual, it starts and ends with reflection of your own propositions. When they're shown to be filled with errors, saying it is your opinion is very detrimental.

When you follow it up with further word salads like the one you just did, you are skipping your fallacies altogether. You are misusing the meaning of words to seemingly say that religion is the default state of humans, and therefor God exists. That is anathema to anyone who's tried to argue the existence of a god with anyone using the same kind of tactics.

As such, we could have a fine discussion about pantheism and nature, and it would sound very differently. But the inconsistent way you've presented your argument paints you as someone wishing to prove God more than say something about nature.

 

[Monocle]

and yet most of the great scientific discoveries across time were made by people who believed in a deity
go figure

Most people across time were religious, so basically you're taking a fact of history out of context so you can thumb your nose at the study.

 

[k_trout]

Lol no it isn't. Einstein specifically wrote a letter saying he didn't believe in a god because people like you kept putting words in his mouth.

i did not bring up einstein and when i quoted the reply i was commenting on pantheism being a religious function
which it is

 

[Prophet Steve]

It always seems to take a lot of effort to be religious, the non-religious scientific viewpoint requires no maintenance whatsoever and demands no time or commitment at all.

I'm not religious and I'm too damn lazy to start finding myself a daydream but I still find it a little bit weird reading these things where people congratulate themselves for following the path of least resistance.

In many communities it is very easily is the path of the least resistance. Having religious traditions and beliefs do not way against the social stigma many times. Also, parents can be quite harsh when it comes to religion.

 

[Log4Girlz]

As we learn more of the universe there is less need for an irrational belief system such as god to explain anything. Hence why most scientists are now atheist while most were reigious in the past. There were fewer answers then.

 

[archnemesis]

Women are more religious. Do we have a correlation here?

That was one of the other interesting findings in this study.

According to the review, other factors - such as gender or education - did not make any difference to the correlation between intelligence and religious belief.

 

[k_trout]

Because not believing in deity often lead to death, especialy for scolars.

it is a good point but the prevailing conscious attitude has always been a deeply religious one in human nature
wasnt just on the threat of punishment that people believed in that kind of thing
they genuinly saw the universe that way
and were still intelligent
the 2 do not cancel each other out
back to the OP again

 

[Log4Girlz]

it is a good point but the prevailing conscious attitude has always been a deeply religious one in human nature
wasnt just on the threat of punishment that people believed in that kind of thing
they genuinly saw the universe that way
and were still intelligent
the 2 do not cancel each other out
back to the OP again

Intelligent but far, far less knowledgeable. Atheism and knowledge of the universe go hand in hand.

 

[BocoDragon]

This reads as "study: water is wet" to me.

And I am a scholar of religions.... and I respect the intelligent religious who actually study their belief system.

But 99% of believers are sheep, following their cultural/parental programming.

 

[Torhthelm Tídwald]

and yet most of the great scientific discoveries across time were made by people who believed in a deity
go figure

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

 

[Timedog]

and yet most of the great scientific discoveries across time were made by people who believed in a deity
go figure

It says "less religious" it doesn't say atheist.

 

[Hunter S.]

This is such a huge meta-analysis of 63 studies over 80 years. Anybody that tries to refute it is laughable.

That was one of the other interesting findings in this study.

Interesting, you convinced me to read the whole thing.

 

[V_Arnold]

But 99% of believers are sheep, following their cultural/parental programming.

While I agree with you, I would argue that 99 percent of the "awakened" atheists are not much better, or better at all, only that now they do not believe.

They can still persecute, hate, ignore things at will, just as much as their religious counterparts do.

 

[BocoDragon]

While I agree with you, I would argue that 99 percent of the "awakened" atheists are not much better, or better at all, only that now they do not believe.

They can still persecute, hate, ignore things at will, just as much as their religious counterparts do.

I agree.

Perhaps not 99 percent... but maybe I overshot with the religious with that number too.

 

[JDSN]

This news make me....euphoric.

 

[aly]

This reads as "study: water is wet" to me.

And I am a scholar of religions.... and I respect the intelligent religious who actually study their belief system.

But 99% of believers are sheep, following their cultural/parental programming.

To be honest that 99% sounds like people in general.

 

[Log4Girlz]

While I agree with you, I would argue that 99 percent of the "awakened" atheists are not much better, or better at all, only that now they do not believe.

They can still persecute, hate, ignore things at will, just as much as their religious counterparts do.

And what are they ignoring pray tell?

 

[k_trout]

When you want to present yourself as an intellectual being, as it seems you would, by pointing to things like Jung, and throwing terms like "a priori" into the mix, you cannot be expected to be judged as anything but someone with an agenda, when you present your arguments just as poor as the youtube videos "proving God" by a logical proposition that is riddled with fallacies. The inability to see the fallacies when presented with them will color your perceived nature far more than some alleged readings will. If you wish to come across as a reflected individual, it starts and ends with reflection of your own propositions. When they're shown to be filled with errors, saying it is your opinion is very detrimental.

When you follow it up with further word salads like the one you just did, you are skipping your fallacies altogether. You are misusing the meaning of words to seemingly say that religion is the default state of humans, and therefor God exists. That is anathema to anyone who's tried to argue the existence of a god with anyone using the same kind of tactics.

As such, we could have a fine discussion about pantheism and nature, and it would sound very differently. But the inconsistent way you've presented your argument paints you as someone wishing to prove God more than say something about nature.

i actually thought about not using a-priori then decided i would not treat GAF as stupid

i do like word salads though and as we know salad needs tossing sometimes
dont know what else to say to you as your replies are more of a comment on my personal inabilities than a discussion about the topic

 

[jaxword]

It says "less religious" it doesn't say atheist.

Ha, a good point.

A really, really good point.

It would probably change the whole tone of the debate if people acknowledged it.

 

[k_trout]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

is that for real?
83% of the general public believe in god ?wow
mind blown
no way would i have guessed it was that high

 

[BocoDragon]

is that for real?
83% of the general public believe in god ?wow
mind blown
no way would i have guessed it was that high

The world is essentially dominated by theists, with a minority being atheist.

 

[k_trout]

The world is essentially dominated by theists, with a minority being atheist.

wow would not have guessed it that high at all

 

[SpoonyBard]

While I agree with you, I would argue that 99 percent of the "awakened" atheists are not much better, or better at all, only that now they do not believe.

They can still persecute, hate, ignore things at will, just as much as their religious counterparts do.

This goes against what this study says. Or are you claiming that intelligent people are as likely to be racist or homophobic as stupid people?

 

[jaxword]

is that for real?
83% of the general public believe in god ?wow
mind blown
no way would i have guessed it was that high

Why not? People can believe in God without subscribing to a religion.

 

[marvelharvey]

What's remarkable is how many intelligent and well informed people hold onto their beliefs, despite mountains of data showing how incogruent those beliefs are to the rest of the world... and even internally on a regular basis!

Conformation bias. We're all guilty of it.

 

[dragonelite]

This goes against what this study says. Or are you claiming that intelligent people are as likely to be racist or homophobic as stupid people?

Im pretty sure i saw a thread posted yesterday about that..

 

[k_trout]

Why not? People can believe in God without subscribing to a religion.

ye i know
but thats not what i meant
i was just genuinely suprised
i dont know anyone who believes in god or are part of a religious organisation

 

[Aurongel]

There was a study years ago that showed that a higher percentage of Americans believed in angels than Christianity. I wouldn't put much stake in statistics like this as they can be horribly misleading. For example, the article in the OP isn't directly addressing atheism, only the less religious. Small detail, big difference.

 

[Raonak]

Science tells a creation story that is infinitely more detailed and beautiful than any religious book.

 

[temp]

When you want to present yourself as an intellectual being, as it seems you would, by pointing to things like Jung, and throwing terms like "a priori" into the mix, you cannot be expected to be judged as anything but someone with an agenda, when you present your arguments just as poor as the youtube videos "proving God" by a logical proposition that is riddled with fallacies. The inability to see the fallacies when presented with them will color your perceived nature far more than some alleged readings will. If you wish to come across as a reflected individual, it starts and ends with reflection of your own propositions. When they're shown to be filled with errors, saying it is your opinion is very detrimental.

When you follow it up with further word salads like the one you just did, you are skipping your fallacies altogether. You are misusing the meaning of words to seemingly say that religion is the default state of humans, and therefor God exists. That is anathema to anyone who's tried to argue the existence of a god with anyone using the same kind of tactics.

As such, we could have a fine discussion about pantheism and nature, and it would sound very differently. But the inconsistent way you've presented your argument paints you as someone wishing to prove God more than say something about nature.

These posts are some really bizarre attacks of a guy's posting style. Kind of ironic that you can so doggedly rag on a guy about not contributing to a thread and simultaneously be the one contributing the least.

P.S. Jung's theories of human religious tendencies aren't meant to prove the existence of God.

 

[aly]

This goes against what this study says. Or are you claiming that intelligent people are as likely to be racist or homophobic as stupid people?

Not sure about homophobic, but I have met plenty of racist intelligent people. Not sure why its hard to believe.

 

[Monocle]

Science tells a creation story that is infinitely more detailed and beautiful than any religious book.

And the cool part is it's probably more or less accurate.

 

[SpoonyBard]

Not sure about homophobic, but I have met plenty of racist intelligent people. Not sure why its hard to believe.

Of course there are some (and maybe being intelligent gives ones arguments more visibility), but this was about percentages. No way they are the same.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

 

[V_Arnold]

This goes against what this study says. Or are you claiming that intelligent people are as likely to be racist or homophobic as stupid people?

You mean this?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=649775&page=2

 

[Feep]

These posts are some really bizarre attacks of a guy's posting style. Kind of ironic that you can so doggedly rag on a guy about not contributing to a thread and simultaneously be the one contributing the least.

Septimius is obviously very intelligent, but must accept the holy maxim of "bro, it's not worth it".