[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 83 KB, 456x480, 1356543027702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3384985 No.3384985[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in God?

>> No.3384986

I take it you don't know much about philosophy?

>> No.3384987

Yes, but it's exceedingly more difficult in our post-modern world. You might even say, it takes a lot of strength for an intelligent person to have faith.

>> No.3384990

>>3384986
"God exists until you prove me wrong" is a fallacy. You are asserting his existence so the burden of proof is on you.

Go ahead and objectively try and prove that God exists, I'll wait, bud.

>> No.3384991

Yes. We have historical ignorance, and people who's knowledge is focused in one area.

>> No.3384993

0/10 please, at least, try.

>> No.3384995

>>3384990
Thomas Aquinas already did that.

>> No.3384997

I think it's harder to be intelligent and still believe in atheism. With religion you have just swallowed your dogma as a child, went on to study other things. Atheists have usually spent a lot of time thinking about the existence of God, and decided to subscribe to a belief claim instead of looking at it rationally and deciding they don't have enough data for a truth claim.

>> No.3384998
File: 27 KB, 482x321, laughing-women-friendship-greetings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3384998

>>3384995
>Thomas viewed theology, or the sacred doctrine, as a science,[51] the raw material data of which consists of written scripture and the tradition of the Catholic Church.

>> No.3385000
File: 85 KB, 1010x727, 1356542581626.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385000

>>3384997
Atheism isn't a belief, it's the lack of one.

>> No.3385002

>>3385000
You're thinking of agnosticism.

>> No.3385004

>>3384997
>faggot agnostic thinks atheism is an asserted belief

are you on the fence about invisible unicorns? you can make the case for a first cause and be intelligent, but "durr we don't know enough" is as retarded as blind faith in cheezus.

>> No.3385005

Who cares? Unless you're trying to make god do things for you or start a cult, believing in "god"/spiritual whatever doesn't really affect much. I think getting all in a tizzy about coming to a conclusion either way is a bit mental.

>> No.3385006

>>3385002
Atheism = I will not believe that God is real until you prove his existence objectively.

>> No.3385010

ITT: Spooks

>> No.3385012

troll thread is weak, try again with more fedoras.

>> No.3385017

>>3385004
>are you on the fence about invisible unicorns?
Yes. I have subscribed to models before. For a political example I have swung back and forth between capitalism and socialism, even out to libertarianism and communism. I made these decisions based on the information I had at the time, and with every case, learning something new changed my standpoint. This change is possible with any other view too, and it prevents me from completely endorsing one.

>you can make the case for a first cause and be intelligent, but "durr we don't know enough" is as retarded as blind faith in cheezus.
And so I lean towards the notion that there isn't a God, but I can't blindly believe it.

>> No.3385018

I got 100 downvote points on reddit for asking how atheists solved the is-ought problem.

>> No.3385024

>Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in God?

Yes.

>> No.3385027

>>3385018
Maybe that's because it's already been debunked hundreds of times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-hkpqVlYw

>> No.3385030

>>3384998
You're an idiot. The whole thing looked very different eight hundred years ago than it does now - but most crucially, the understanding of science is totally different now than it was when Aquinas was writing. There's so many intellectual presuppositions that you have that would be totally alien to Aquinas.

>> No.3385040

>>3385027
>Maybe that's because it's already been debunked hundreds of times.

An appeal to consensus is not "Debunking."

>> No.3385059

>Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in God?

Unless you want to call 99% of history's greatest thinkers,artists and scientists unitelligent,then yes.Yes,it is.

>> No.3385062

>>3385017
>Yes

congratulations! you failed the giggle test, you're a joke

>spineless faggot agnostic keeps thinking atheism is an asserted belief and thinks he invented bayesianism

>> No.3385064

>>3385018
What does that have to do with atheism? Theists can't solve it either.

It's not really a "problem" that needs to be solved, though. The "problem" is why our language makes out certain relations to be intelligible when they are, upon reflection, fallacious or untenable

>> No.3385070

Of course. Now stop making stupid troll threads on /lit/ and the rest of you, stop falling for it.

>> No.3385071

>>3385064
Because new atheists believe in objective morality.

>> No.3385073

>>3385070
>being so new you don't understand how /lit/ deals with troll threads

>> No.3385074

yes.
see einstein and a bunch of others.

>> No.3385076

>>3385062
Have fun with your dogmatic subscription to models of reality.

>> No.3385078

Why is that guy confusing Atheism with Pragmatism?f

>> No.3385084

>>3385078
he's an idiot

>> No.3385090

>>3385078
Atheism is the only logical conclusion of pragmatism.

>> No.3385091

>>3385084
Then we at least have ascertained that it is possible to not be intelligent and not believe in God.

>> No.3385093

>>3385090
I wasn't aware that dogmatism was regarded as a desirable feature of a pragmatic worldview.

>> No.3385092

>>3385073
I do know, I just think it's a shitty way of doing it.

>> No.3385094

>>3384987
Does effort signify strength?

>> No.3385096

>>3384990
Strawman.

Seriously though op, if you allow religion to infer your opinion on someone else's intelligence you need some help.

>> No.3385099

>>3384997
Unfortunately for you, a lot of atheists have not been raised in the presence of active religious beliefs and haven't put a lot of time into investigating faith or their status as atheists.

>> No.3385101
File: 40 KB, 530x300, impatient watch man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385101

>>3385096
God doesn't exist until you can prove he does, that's how logic works.

I'm waiting.

>> No.3385103

>>3385101
I saw God.

Therefore, God exists.

>> No.3385105

>>3385103
I see the sky as red.

There, the sky is objectively red.

>> No.3385106

>>3385006
Theism = I will not believe that God isn't real until you prove his non-existence objectively.

Magically, Theism is now a position of non-belief.

>> No.3385108

>>3385101
>God doesn't exist until you can prove he does, that's how logic works.

no. You cannot 'prove' logically that anything exists, but that does not mean that nothing exists.

>> No.3385109

>>3385105
What's wrong about that?

>> No.3385111

>>3385101
The universe didn't spring into existence by itself until you prove it did.

>> No.3385112

>>3385101
That's not true. People mistake an epistemological claim like "Belief in the existence of god is justified" (which depends on subjective standards of warrant) with an ontological claim like "God exists."

The latter is either true or false, but we don't have knowledge of its truth value until it is proven. The former is normative and can be inferred and debated as such

>> No.3385113
File: 131 KB, 500x333, 1349237266950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385113

>>3385108
>FACTS DON'T EXIST!!
>NOTHING IS REAL!
>DEFINE "DEFINITION"

>> No.3385114

>>3385105
>>3385103
Relativism guys. One of you thinks he's holding a snake, the other thinks he's stroking a tree trunk, but you're both just touching this one elephant's wang and thigh respectively.

>> No.3385115

>>3385101
The Internet doesn't exist until you can prove it does, that's the way logic works. This computer doesn't exist until you can prove it does, that's the way logic works. Words don't exist until you can prove they do, that's the way logic works. You don't exist until you can prove you do, that's the way logic works.

>> No.3385116

>prove
>objectively
>logic

you don't really know how faith works,do ya?

>> No.3385119
File: 20 KB, 220x326, Kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385119

>>3385101
?

I haven't stated anything about the existence of God. If you're undermining the intelligence of great minds just, because they were religious you're not being intelligent yourself. There is no firm evidence whether God, does, or does not exist, ergo it's uneducated of you to determine the existence of God.

>> No.3385120

>>3385113
Facts don't exist, you complete moron. Go away.

>> No.3385121

>>3385115
You can easily prove that those exist using logic. So far I haven't seen any objective evidence for God.

>> No.3385122

>>3385106
Not believing that ~q is not the same thing as believing that q

>> No.3385123

>>3385112
>That's not true. People mistake an epistemological claim like "Belief in the existence of god is justified" (which depends on subjective standards of warrant) with an ontological claim like "God exists."
That's not ontology broheim. They're both epistemological claims.

>> No.3385124

>The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God.[158] Kierkegaard writes, "doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world".

>> No.3385125

>>3385119
>ergo
You should be slapped for this. I bet you use 'thus' and 'whence' too.

>> No.3385127

>>3385121
You really can't. Unless you can logically prove "my perceptions of the world are an accurate mirror of an actually-existing objective world". & if you can prove that, I would be interested in seeing such a proof.

>> No.3385128

>>3385123
How is "God exists" not an ontological claim?

>> No.3385130

>God 'existing'.

How do I into apophatic theology?

>> No.3385131

>>3385122
>is not necessarily the same thing
ftfy. And in this case it pretty much is, unless you're suddenly going to go bad faith on the theist statement and not the atheist one.

>> No.3385129

>>3385106
Theism = I will now believe in something entirely groundless.

Magically, it's now a position of belief again.

>> No.3385132

>>3385127
Prove that the dichotomy of "world according to my perceptions" and "objective world" exists.

>> No.3385134

>>3385128
An ontological claim would look at how God would exist or what it might mean for God to exist.

>> No.3385136

>>3385129
>Theism = I will now believe in something entirely groundless.

It's not groundless. Theists believe in God based on the particular models of reality they have adopted, to them their belief is justified. You just reject God because of the particular models of reality that you have adopted.

>> No.3385137

>>3385129
It's also now the same position as Atheism.

>> No.3385138

>>3385127
Please cut that out. I know what you're saying and it'll always be a bunch of irrelevant bull. If we're going to have any kind of discussion, let's assume that we've gotten "what if we're the only human left and we're connected to a dream machine" out of the way already.

>> No.3385139

>>3385132
You're the one who's claiming that it's possible to prove logically the existence of material objects. I'm the one saying it's not possible to prove it. You're the one who has to show his proof here, not me, and one part of that proof is showing that there is no such dichotomy exists. Because if it does exist, you can't prove with logical certainty that anything exists.

>> No.3385140
File: 21 KB, 220x326, Kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385140

>>3385125
What's wrong with the word, 'ergo'? It's a perfectly reasonable word to show a flow of logic. Stop sidestepping the argument.

>> No.3385143

>>3385000
nope

>> No.3385144

I always wonder if people like OP are secretly Mr Gradgrind from Hard Times shitposting on 4chan.

"Now, what I want, is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!"

>> No.3385145

>>3385134
Those would also be ontological claims, but so is "God exists." How the hell could that be epistemic?

>> No.3385147

>>3385138
It's relevant when you're claiming that a logical proof for a given thing is a necessary condition for saying that it exists, which is what anon was arguing. Of course it's nonsense in the large sense, as is anon's original statement. If you want to talk about reasonable belief instead of logical proof, of course any such thing as this is ruled out, but that's not the ground that anon staked out originally.

>> No.3385149

>>3385138
>let's assume that we've gotten "what if we're the only human left and we're connected to a dream machine" out of the way already.

Exaggerating the logical flaws in your ideology wont do anything for you.

>> No.3385150

>>3385113
you obviously have no clue what logic is.

>> No.3385153

>>3385140
Ceteris paribus, "ergo" sui generis is a sort of persona non grata in writing circa /lit/

>> No.3385154

>>3385138
>it'll always be a bunch of irrelevant bull

If you think it is, you also think formal logic is bull. What you mean when you write 'logic' is not logic but common sense, and you really need to fuck yourself.

>> No.3385155

>>3385147
>hurp durp how do I into anything but irrelevant bull
All I know is that there is zero evidence, be it empirical or scientific, to the claim of God or anything else supernatural. Sure we can sit here and deconstruct reality until none of us exist, but let's try to keep it relevant.

>> No.3385156

>>3385155
Then you shouldn't have fucking brought up the idea of "proof" and "logic" in the first place, you fucking numbskull. You should have been talking about common sense, if that's what you meant.

>> No.3385158

>>3385154
The issues skepticism raises are not with logic but with general standards of epistemological justification. If you change those from an untenable Cartesian foundationalism to something more nuanced then they tend to disappear

>> No.3385159

>>3385145
You need to read up on your terms. Having knowledge that God exists or doesn't exist is rather obviously epistemological, and is much the same as saying one is justified in that knowledge.

>> No.3385161

>>3385159
"I have knowledge that God exists" is not the same statement as "God exists". The latter is very obviously ontological.

By your standards, what counts as an ontological, rather than an epistemological, statement? Isn't any affirmative statement at all equivalent to saying that one has a justified belief in some fact, and hence by your standards epistemological?

>> No.3385162
File: 21 KB, 220x326, Kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385162

>>3385153
Why make such a fuss over it? It's just a commonly used Latin word. Instead of addressing diction, how about you address the argument?

>> No.3385163

>>3385159
Obviously, "I have knowledge that God exists" is an epistemic claim, but "God exists" itself is clearly not.

>> No.3385166

>79 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click here to view.
/lit/, why.

>> No.3385167

>>3385158
I didn't engage in skepticism. Formal logic only works on abstract symbolic structures, thus you cannot prove whether 'things' 'exist'.

>> No.3385170

>>3385163
>but "God exists" itself is clearly not.
So you've confused metaphysical with ontological now or what? It's really not ontological, and basic research beyond the first sentence on wikipedia would clear that up for you.

>> No.3385172

>>3384985
Sure it is. Suggesting otherwise betrays a considerable degree of idiocy. Go read some Charles Taylor.

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/04/24/secularism-and-critique/

>> No.3385174

>>3385170
Ontology is a branch of metaphysics, namely, the branch dealing specifically with existence.

Do you want me to cite my justification of the usage for a basic term in one of the most obvious ways it is employed? Well, fine; the Stanford Encyclopedia says, e.g. "Many classical philosophical problems are problems in ontology: the question whether or not there is a god, or the problem of the existence of universals, etc."

>> No.3385175

>>3385170
It's a statement about the basic nature of existence. Hence, an ontological statement.

Defend your arguments instead of being a jackass about "just do basic research lol" - because the combination of your insistence on a really stupid definition of "epistemological" and your weird idea about what constitutes "ontological" make me really doubt your fundamental competence here. I'd really like to see you actually make some kind of statement.

>> No.3385186
File: 118 KB, 840x1200, 12513476-jerusalem--feb-05--orthodox-jewish-man-prays-in-the-western-wall-on-february-05-2011--the-western-wa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385186

I'm an orthodox Jew, we're easily the coolest of all religious people.

>> No.3385189

>>3385186
What about those Beit Shemesh hasidim who spit on 8-year olds and call them whores?

>> No.3385190
File: 116 KB, 500x451, israeli jew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385190

>>3385189
Maybe they shouldn't dress like whores and they wouldn't be called such a name?

"The principal guiding point of tzniut in regard to dress is that a Jew should not dress in a way that attracts attention. This does not mean dressing poorly, but neither men nor women should dress in a way that overly emphasizes the physical or attracts undue attention.

Orthodox Judaism requires both men and women to substantially cover their bodies. This involves covering the elbows and knees."

>> No.3385191

>>3385190
That's not very cool, my mensch.

>> No.3385192

>>3385189
one time there was a case where they covered up a statue of a woman surfing, because she was "indecent", and made quite a lot of fuss. ah, jewland.

>> No.3385193

>>3385191
Being a whore isn't cool either.

>> No.3385196

>>3385193
calling anyone a whore to begin with is the uncoolest thing.

>> No.3385197
File: 113 KB, 800x529, israeli children.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385197

>>3385196
Bullying lets dissenters know what the social taboos are, without these actions Israel will become a modern-day Sodom like America.

>> No.3385201

goddammit /lit/

>> No.3385202

>>3385174
>Ontology is a branch of metaphysics, namely, the branch dealing specifically with existence.
It's a way of looking at a metaphysic through the lens of "what is". Not as in "so and so exists", but more bluntly "what is existence?", or "what is so and so existing?". And the fact is it is a basic, but oft misunderstood term, for the most part because people read vague statements like "ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist", and assume as you two do that is a list of what things are is ontological.

>> No.3385210
File: 30 KB, 500x585, 1358494605208.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385210

You have 10 seconds to prove that God objectively does not exist.

>> No.3385217

>>3385202
You're just wrong, I don't know how else to put this. I already adduced Stanford, which is a very reputable resource, but if you want to imagine some binding strictures to the use of a word that most people (indeed most philosophers) use only in a vague sense anyway you can do so if you like, just realize that it's stupid and if you "correct" a philosopher's "misunderstanding" he'll just stop taking you seriously.

>> No.3385218

>>3384990

>You are asserting his existence so the burden of proof is on you.

Asserting 'burden of proof' when discussing the entirety of the universe seems like a weak crutch, the very practice fails under the weight of such an impossible task.

It really shits me when reddit-tier kids assert 'burden of proof' like it's some final argumentative smackdown when dealing with the metaphysical.

>> No.3385219

>>3385210
Do you even Karl Popper?

>> No.3385222

>>3384985
Yes, very.
Now to believe that God physically exists? Well, there are probably smart people out there who think that, but usually the people who do believe He physically exists are morons.

>> No.3385223

>>3385210
Hey, baby, do you have Alvin Plantinga strapped to your back? Because your ass provides me with evidence for the existence of God.

>> No.3385226
File: 230 KB, 992x1000, winter_night-large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385226

It is the purpose of religion to paint the world in such a way as to motivate its followers toward their best self.

It can be a great source of beauty, there's nothing inherently abject about it.

The issue right now is that our religion is of another time. Of a world that no longer exists.

It sees itself as under threat, and an institution on the eternal defensive is rarely a source for goodness.

It takes a certain kind childhood to draw strength from religion later in life, and those type of people are waning.

I don't think examining these topics as vague blanket conclusions is at all useful or necessary, though.

You all don't meet a lot of people. You don't come to know them with much grace or depth.

You're just not familiar enough with these concepts and their denizens to be able to provide any realistic insight.

>> No.3385231

>>3385217
Well, if you desperately want a quote:
"Existence is a category of human thought", a rather specific clarification from Ferrier on the matter. And while you and the guy jerking you off might only have a vague notion of it, most other people use the terms in meaningful, and so rather specific, ways. The choice for you here is simple, accept you've used a term without understanding it and either: stop using it, or; learn about it.

>> No.3385232

Does it really matter whether god exists or not?

>> No.3385233

>>3385232
No.

>> No.3385236

>>3385232

That depends.

Is all the evil done in his name of no importance?

>> No.3385237

>>3384985
Depends what you mean by God.

Ibn arabi, Plotinus, and various other mystics seemed very intelligent, probably more than Rational Theologians.

>> No.3385235

>>3385232
It doesn't, actually. It only matters when people try to limit other people's rights or harm them because X religion says so.

>> No.3385238

>>3385232
Does it really matter whether it really matters?

>> No.3385240

>>3385235
Rights don't exist.

>> No.3385241

>>3385240
Alright then. The rest of my comment still stands.

>> No.3385242

>>3385236
Sounds like some ad hominem there.

>> No.3385243

There are:
1.) Intelligent atheists
2.) Dumb atheists
3.) Intelligent theists
4.) Dumb theists
5.) Intelligent agnostics
6.) Dumb agnostics.

In ANY group, there will be smart and idiotic peoples.

>> No.3385244

>>3385226

I like you.

>> No.3385247

>>3385231
You're citing a vague, contextless remark from a minor philosopher in the 19th century as authoritative for the use of a term that predate him (and that he doesn't use in the quote you gave me.)

Are you actually trolling me

>> No.3385248

>>3384985
Only if you are a hypocrite.

>> No.3385251

>>3385243
This. To say "hurr durr everyone who believes in god is stuuupid" is a moronic generalization.

>> No.3385252

>>3385243
Will there be idiotic people in the smart group?

>> No.3385256

>>3385247
>You're citing a vague, contextless remark
Read the fucking book. If you want context, he's saying that statements of existence are always epistemological because they are necessarily personal to us. There is no need to go about inventing an unnecessary "Deity" as he calls it. And he coined the terms.

>> No.3385259

>>3385256
Except he's wrong. Existence isn't a category of human thought and it is a predicate. Doesn't matter what Kant or any other anal retentive german from 300 years ago said.

>> No.3385262

>>3385167
And thus, you've taken "logic" to a place where it does no kinds of good and is therefore pointless and irrelevant. I can also acknowledge these things, I just don't think them relevant in any kind of debate.

>> No.3385263

>>3385259
>Except he's wrong.
Right, whatever, enjoy your brain problems.

>> No.3385264
File: 18 KB, 352x352, 1328392871713.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385264

Is love based faith the same as having faith in god?

>> No.3385268

>>3385263
It's always amusing to see self-thought intellectuals mindlessly kowtowing to authorities, while still telling themselves that they are superior minds who think for themselves.
>muh Kant muhfugga

>> No.3385269

>>3385240
Rights exist when they're enforced. Few things are as real as action.

>> No.3385271

>>3385269
No, they still don't exist. People all agreeing on a delusion are still deluded.

>> No.3385274
File: 97 KB, 700x535, 1342834993284.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385274

How are scientists who look to "logic" to find out the correct way to act any different from people who follow a religious code?

>> No.3385276

>>3385256
>If you want context, he's saying that statements of existence are always epistemological because they are necessarily personal to us
Fine. He's wrong. Do you think someone like Quine or Kripke would agree with that statement? It's ridiculous to say someone is "misusing" a term because it doesn't align with some particular philosopher that no one even reads anymore.

>And he coined the terms.
I think he came up with "epistemology" but he did not invent "ontology"

>> No.3385281

>>3385274
Are you trolling?

>> No.3385284

>>3385274
Logic is a mental category. Therefore what scientists see as logical is just their minds impressing that category onto reality.

>> No.3385288
File: 264 KB, 519x583, 1340784900488.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385288

>>3385281
No. It seems like scientists look to "logic" the same way religious people look to God.

>> No.3385289

>>3385271
An idea is not a delusion and if said idea is acted upon, it becomes - an act, born from consequence and giving birth to consequence, with real tangible outcomes. How could anything be more real than that? When it is ONLY an idea, however, it is not something that exists.

>> No.3385292

>>3385288
Religious people also "look to logic" because it is necessary for intelligibility

>> No.3385293

>>3385281
He's an animu-avatarfag asking idiotic questions on 4chan without giving any kind of context or information about what he's talking about. Ask yourself, is he trolling?

>> No.3385297

>>3384985
This picture...

>Not making a difference between God and religion
>Then not making a difference between religion and Church


It's not possible to be intelligent and blindly follow everything the Church say.

It's - of course - possible to be intelligent and believe in God. Actually, a lot of geniuses did believe in God.

>> No.3385298

>>3385288
Religious people are less inclined to change their view upon receiving more information about it, but scientists are more likely to change their theory when more information about it is collected.

Scientists usually specialise in an area and don't hold a rigid belief in their theories as they know the theory is subject to change.

>> No.3385303
File: 132 KB, 393x424, 1352185396409.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385303

>>3385298
What do you mean by "information"?

>> No.3385307

>3385252

Yes.

However, the idiocy I'm referring to in this comment isn't in the same vein as the idiocy this thread is referring to.

Smart people can make bad life decisions, not keeping in check with what they say, ect., ect...

But either way, this thread is referring to another type of intelligence.

>> No.3385308

>>3385303
empirically deduced data, sometimes combined with a little rationalism.

>> No.3385313
File: 309 KB, 399x500, 1358554620709.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385313

>>3385252

>> No.3385314
File: 61 KB, 500x500, 1347003285891.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385314

>>3385308
But even "empirically deduced data" is subjective due to the bias of our senses. Believing in things like "facts" is just as much of a leap of faith as believing in God.

>> No.3385318

Reworded: Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in God in modern age? Understandably lack of knowledge in our history made even intelligent people fall for false superstitions. Of course with the knowledge we have now it's safe to say if you possess any form of spirituality you're a fool.

>> No.3385320

>>3385314
>facts
>leap of faith
citation needed

>> No.3385321

>>3385318
2/100

>> No.3385323

>>3385314
Yup, it is. and if the subjective bias is so bad in humans, then why did you take the risk of turning your computer on? Did you put too much faith in past observation and foolishly think you could get on the internet again?

I agree with you, but wouldn't follow the rejection of empiricism to the extent where science becomes not worth perusing. Subjectively, these observations seem to make sense and conform to logical rules. I can say I am 90% certain of something and, to me, that is enough reason to see if I can continue observing it to see if I can change that percentage.

>> No.3385324

>>3385318
Well, if this "modern age" is restricted geographically, then... still yes. There's really nobody that claims that you're either completely stupid or completely intelligent. The world allows for all kinds of circumstances and contradictions.

>> No.3385331

>>3385318
>spirituality
>religious
You can pick one and not the other. Go ahead and tell me that Lao Tzu was unintelligent, and mean it.

>> No.3385335

>>3385324
With modern technology/education you cannot believe in God and be intelligent at the same time

>> No.3385341

>>3385331
Did you miss the whole "modern age" point of the post?

>> No.3385343

>>3385335
With modern education you cannot fail to punctuate correctly and be intelligent at the same time.

>> No.3385349

>>3385335
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29

>> No.3385351

>>3385341
I did. If Lao Tzu still isn't unintelligent by today's standards, what difference does it make? That a person would even try to argue in this way, for such a viewpoint, without even understanding what spirituality is or just failing to appreciate how it differs from religion and faith, shows just how advanced the mental processes of us modern people have become.

>> No.3385352

>>3385252
>>3385313
I admit I laughed.

>> No.3385353

>>3385343
What is the point of proper punctuation if you only write one sentence? Is it to give yourself credibility? On an anonymous image board?

>> No.3385359

>>3385349
An amount of religious scientists you can count with your fingers is closer to zero than any other important number.

>> No.3385360

>>3385353
What's objectively unintelligent about a faithful person who also acts and contributes intelligently in certain situations?

>> No.3385366

>>3385351
>If Lao Tzu still isn't unintelligent by today's standards, what difference does it make
He would have been exposed to some form of education and made the easy conclusion that believing in the divine makes you retarded

>> No.3385370

>>3385360
Anyone can act intelligently in certain situations. A monkey can act intelligently in certain situations.

>> No.3385381

>>3385359
>An amount of religious scientists you can count with your fingers is closer to zero than any other important number.
That is completely irrelevant when the claim was "With modern technology/education you cannot believe in God and be intelligent at the same time" Clearly, even if the number is low, you can.

>> No.3385386

>>3385381
Regardless it doesn't prove they are fully intelligent people. Sure they may have contributed scientific discoveries but their religion may have developed from some kind of mental incompetence such as Alzheimers or some traumatic event in their childhood.

>> No.3385401

>>3385366
Lao Tzu never alluded to anything divine, but was a thoroughly spiritual individual. The two aren't necessarily connected. Spirituality has nothing to do with belief in some greater power. They are divided into religion, faith and spirituality for a reason, they are not one and the same.

>> No.3385402
File: 86 KB, 720x720, Atheism_7328df_2046191.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385402

>> No.3385403

>>3385370
And yet the monkey is unintelligent? What about, say, Bob Dylan?

>> No.3385404

What a crass question.

Please see: Emmanuel Swedenborg, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, Soren Kierkegaard, Arthur Conan Doyle, Helen Keller, John Milton, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, William Blake, Carl Jung, Israel Regardie, Ralph Waldo Emmerson, Henry Fuseli, W.B. Yeats, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Allen Ginsberg, Terence McKenna, Cornell West and so on and so on and so on.

>> No.3385405

>>3385386
What the fuck is a "fully intelligent" person?

>> No.3385406

>>3385405
A 100% logical individual

>> No.3385411

>>3385406
Nevah been dun befo'.

>> No.3385413

>>3385406
as opposed to 23% logical individual? only a little intelligent? partially intelligent?

>> No.3385421

trolled by /sci/ autism

stay classy /lit

>> No.3385424

Probably. To say otherwise would imply that ever human is immaculate which is far from true. Just look at Newton. His beliefs don't make his scientific work any less valid nor do they give theology any more credit in the eye of the skeptic. People aren't perfect.

>> No.3385428

>>3385402
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV8x5WWDcNg

>> No.3385429

>>3384985

Any above average philosopher would shit all over your face

that fucking picture, my sides

>> No.3385435

>>3385429
Scientists are grade A plebs. Only the plebs judge the truth or merit of a thing based on how efficiently it can increase the production of useless plastic shit and supply burgers to more and more people.

It's no coincidence that pragmatism is the only philosophy to originate in america.

>> No.3385440

>>3385289
scifaggot detected

People on agreeing something doesn't make it true.

>> No.3385442

>>3385435
>Scientists are grade A plebs.
Lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5JXbyw1C0

>> No.3385447

>>3385435
>Confusing scientists and capitalists
Shiggy-diggy don't

>> No.3385448

>>3385308
>implying empiricism is true

Have you even read Hume? About the only thing you can prove existent in empiricism is that you yourself exist, which is also doubtful since you'd only be relying on sense experience for that too.

>> No.3385449

Postmodernism is garbage and the New Atheist movement is just cultural capitalism in disguise. The quicker you realize this the more rich and fulfilled your life (and indeed spirit) will become.

>> No.3385454
File: 22 KB, 491x224, laughter2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385454

>>3385449
>cultural capitalism

It's best to just disregard the opinion of anyone who says things like this.

>> No.3385457

>>3385448
That was not implied. Read the follow up post:
>>3385323

>> No.3385461

>>3385402

It is quite sad how you think that is a valid argument.

1. It's not a sincere representation of modern cosmology.

2. It has little to do with atheism.

3. Our universe is really that weird. More queer still than what is written on that picture. To try to make an argument from intuition, concerning cosmology in this day of modern physics, is quite revealing of the background knowledge you have concerning this field. And by that I mean to say that it shows that you failed middle school physics.

>> No.3385464

>>3385447
>implying in the postmodern world there's a difference between scientists (academia) and capitalists

Scientists, professors and all members of western Academia capitulate to capitalism.

>> No.3385466

The theologist has the ultimate burden in the end.
Let's say you could prove that there is something akin to a god, maybe scientists will one day prove that there has to be an "otherwordly" force in this world.

Fine and dandy, but what makes this
1)a god
2)God
3)Your God
?
Couldn't it be whatever? The combined consciousness of all humans past, present and future? A consciousless force?
A rainbow shitting unicorn?

>> No.3385467

>>3385449

>cultural capitalism

Does it net over $170B a year? That's just what the Catholic Church makes and that's only in US.

>> No.3385469

>>3385466
Forgot to add:
Yes it is possible, which is very unfortunate. There are some great minds, great philosophers and apologists- all believing in God.
It would be foolish to say that they are stupid or not intelligent, it's just that they use their gift for utter foolishness.

>> No.3385470

>>3385323
Science is inherently pointless because it is constantly changed, every few years they decide that the old 'objective laws of reality' were wrong and here are the new ones. All you do is push 'the real' further and more distantly into mental abstractions. The process will continue until science has no connection with reality at all, while still claiming to.

Everyone would be better off if science never existed.
>>3385457

>> No.3385473
File: 494 KB, 500x374, consider.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385473

>>3385454
>MUH SUPERFICIALITY
>MUH VIDEO GAMES
>MUH HOLLYWOOD
>MUH LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR MUSIC
>MUH SPORTS
>MUH MATERIALISM
>MUH LACK OF ANY SORT OF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

>> No.3385477

>>3385467
>$170B a year

Try 15094.0 USD Billion on for size.

>> No.3385478

>>3385466
Opinion. Like every scifag you take the metaphysical and epistemological postulates of 'science' as given facts, not once reflecting philosophically on whether actually are true.

>> No.3385480
File: 52 KB, 600x450, breathersphere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385480

>>3385466
There is no 'proving' there is just suspecting.

I suspect that a universe spontaneously popped into existence, here's why...
I suspect that a God created everything, here's why...
I suspect that our universe is one of an infinite set of multiverses, here's why...
I suspect that 3 dimensional reality is structured like pic related, here's why...

>> No.3385487

>>3385470
>Everyone would be better off if science never existed.

That is quite possibly the most ignorant statement I have ever read.

>> No.3385484

>>3384985
ugh. I can't stand those pop sci educated 'intellectuals'. They literally are the worst.

>> No.3385490

>>3385262
>you've taken

You see, I haven't taken logic anywhere. This is what logic is. I'm not inventing my own opinion on what logic is contrary to what the word actually means, that is what you are doing.

>> No.3385496

>>3385478

Well for one, they are testable. Or at the very, least they seem to work.

I can't say the same of any theological or religious belief.

Perhaps this computer I'm using to communicate with you is just some sort of illusion. I don't know for sure. But I know that if prayed for God to relay this post to you, it would not seem to work.

While solipsism dictates that nothing can be for sure, it sure doesn't give any theological notion more or equal credit to a scientific one.

>> No.3385497

>>3385470
>Everyone would be better off if science never existed.

Yeah, I hear you, brother. Lets reject everything gained through the scientific method. Lets burn our computers, strip out our lightbulbs. Lets ban the 4 stroke engine, blow up our satellites, and dismantle the printing press. Fuck medicine, you can't prove tuberculosis or cancer, lets smash MRI scanners, and lynch midwives. We can build a huge fire and burn every book.

>> No.3385499

>>3385473
>wake up sheeple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> No.3385505

>>3385487
>That is quite possibly the most ignorant statement I have ever read.

Of course it is. It's an obvious troll post.

>> No.3385508

>>3385499
>sage
>using the word "sheeple"

You may as well have just typed "you know, you're absolutely right."

>> No.3385511

>>3385030
I don't believe Aquinas wasn't a smart motherfucker and perspective is important. Do you think today with the access to science we have now he'd have been a believer?

I hate it too when people look back and call people pre-Newton "not that clever" because they could understand f=ma and think it entirely intuitive

>> No.3385521

I know of two types of "intelligent" religious people.

There are those who have never invested a thought in what they believe. Some even refuse to do so and avoid the subject matter. Some of these are employed in intellectually demanding fields so going by that I can say they are probably intelligent more than the average person.

There are also a lot of, excuse me for this, /lit/fags. They read a lot of philosophical /lit/erature and are invested in their beliefs. While I'm sure that they are vastly more educated than the common man there is little that would grant me the liberty to judge them as intellectually superior to the common man. Most of them are middle school teachers, librarians or priests.

>> No.3385539

Is it wrong of me to be an atheist who plans to raise his children with religion? I'm not going to shove it down their throats, but I think children should be exposed to it early and draw their own conclusions as they grow up.

>> No.3385541

>>3385521
> Most of them are... <drivel snipped>
And of course, you, like the intelligent, rational man who believes in science, did the proper sampling and statistical analysis to arrive at this conclusion.

>> No.3385559

>>3385539

Both wrong and illogical.

Wrong because if you give them "religion" as an exception to logic, you leave them hopelessly foolish and easy prey for all other types of snake oil. You should in my opinion try to explain the skeptic philosophy to them. Leave religion out of it. Let them encounter and judge it by themselves as it happens.

Illogical because you are choosing a side for them in the guise of a neutral position. Besides, there is absolutely no pragmatic way in which you can expose your children to all the idiotic beliefs, theological and otherwise, for them to sort through and make an independent opinion.

Heck that's what academic progress is for. That's why we read dissertations about why democracy is superior to monarchy. We don't throw our children in Saudi Arabia to let them decide for themselves between monarch and democracy.

>> No.3385560

>>3385478
I do reflect "philosophically" though.
Yes, even the realist, has to make a 'leap of faith' to assert that their observed 'reality' is in fact real.
Of course, it woul be nicer if one didn't have to make any leaps of faith, but so far this one leap of faith, which basically everyone HAS to make ("What I see is real, at least I treat it like it is..."), has served me quite well and not only me but I'd say the whole world. Science in particular "uses this leap of faith" to make the world an (objectively) better place for everyone.

However I wouldn't assert the leap of faith in God the same importance and credibility as the most basic one on which everything else builds off.

At the end of the day, everything could be just a dream dreamed by a floating, giant hyperspace bug, but why should I pursue this thought? Why shouldn't I live the way I life and why shouldn't I see "my reality" as "the reality", when it works just fine?

>> No.3385570
File: 307 KB, 1264x2492, 1358851824462.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385570

>> No.3385592
File: 2.25 MB, 200x200, 1344329455874.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385592

>>3385559
>comparing monarchy and feudalism to spirituality

>> No.3385594

>>3385570
Gave me goosebumps. Fun read.
God still does not exist.

>> No.3385597

“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”
― Charles Bukowski

>> No.3385606

"To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

>> No.3385638

>>3385606
“The technique is don’t believe anything. If you believe in something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite.”

>> No.3385641

>>3385404
>Kant

huh? come again?

>> No.3385669

Everyone in this thread is fucking retarded, especially those who believe in God, and even more especially those who don't, with specific speciality in reference to the OP.

>> No.3385681

I think OP is a fucking retard, but I'm actually curious as to how anyone living in the 21st century can justify believing in 'God'.

>> No.3385772

>>3385681
define 'God'

>> No.3385778

>>3385772
The belief in anything. Morals. Herd Instinct.

>> No.3385786

>>3385606
This implies that life = religious beliefs. By removing thoughts about religion from your life God is meaningless.

>> No.3385790

>>3385772
I'm referring to the Abrahamic God, you anal little weasel

>> No.3385797

>>3385778
Wow, an edgy nihilist is in da house!

>> No.3385800

>>3385790
How is the Abrahamic God different from the Hellenic God, or the Nordic God, or Han Chinese God?

>> No.3385804

>>3385800
It's different in the sense that people still believe in it nowadays, which is what my original question was about.

>> No.3385807

>>3385778
>Herd instinct
>Following Nietzsche's philosophy on /lit/
I think you ought to know that you're part of the herd right here. Make your own philosophy if you're going to throw nihilistic anti-hero romanticism around, faggot.

>> No.3385808
File: 13 KB, 240x210, 1356552630447.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385808

>>3385778

>> No.3385811

>>3385804
Sorry little bro, I'm not gonna let you off the hook by circularly defining 'God'.

Please explain what you mean by 'God' before continuing to shitpost.

>> No.3385812

>>3385778
This is not the guy who asked this: >>3385681
question.

Let's all calm down.

>> No.3385818

>>3385807
If I believe in gravity am I just an edgy Newton poser? Morality = herd instinct is a scientific fact

And your stupid metaphor "being part of the herd" is completely unrelated from herd instinct

>> No.3385823

>>3385811
What are you even talking about? I asked how people can justify in believing in 'God' in the 21st century. I've already said that I was referring to the Abrahamic God, even had I not said that, there's no need to justify belief in something nobody believes in, so that rules out the Helenic Gods and Nordic Gods and whatever.

I just want someone to answer the fucking question Jesus Christ, is that so hard? I'm not even criticising, I'm just curious.

>> No.3385826
File: 28 KB, 512x512, azlc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385826

>>3385818
>Morality = herd instinct is a scientific fact

>> No.3385829

>>3385826
Then explain the evolutionary reason for morality.

>> No.3385830

>>3385818
>poser
you mean poseur?

>> No.3385833
File: 596 KB, 240x160, 1356826067494.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385833

>wake up
>get to /lit/
>see this thread
>billion replies

Come the fuck on, /lit/. I was expecting more of you.

This will auto-sage soon though

>> No.3385834

>>3385833
We can only hope so.

I think we need a hideable, stickied 'religion' thread, so r/atheism can channel their bullshit there and leave the rest of us alone.

>> No.3385838
File: 62 KB, 250x250, onlythedeadcanhopeyou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3385838

>In The Year of Our Lord 2013
>atheists not realizing that science is just as dogmatic as religion can be

>> No.3385840

>>3385833
You know as well as I do that as soon as this thread goes into auto-sage, another one will rear it's head... Possibly worse than this one.

>> No.3385841

>>3385838
It's also correct, or, at the very least, closer to correct than Religion. I have no particular problem with dogma that revolves around seeking the truth.

>> No.3385843

>>3385830
no, poser retard
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=poser
it's software

>> No.3385849

>>3385838
No. Science is impartial and constantly changes it's theories. The atheist philosophy students on this board are dogmatic, not the field of science.

>> No.3385852

>>3385841

>correct

lol

>> No.3385857

>>3385849
But surely if science is impartial and mercurial (as it surely is) then wouldn't those who follow it dogmatically, by extension, be impartial and mercurial too?

>> No.3385855

>>3385838
The difference is that science goes "this may be the truth: here's why". Religion goes "this is the truth, you can't deny it sinner!"

>> No.3385862

>>3385855
There are a thousand differences, besides the shallow one you just used, which is straight out of Reddit.

>> No.3385863

>>3385862
Name 1

>> No.3385868

>>3385852
Hence why I added the little sub-clause
>or at least closer to correct than religion

I mean, shit. At least Science is based on observation and reason, rather than superstition and coincidence.

>> No.3385870

>>3385857
How would that change the point at all?

>> No.3385932

>>3385276
>I think he came up with "epistemology" but he did not invent "ontology"
If you're using the terms "epistemology" and "ontology" in any way where they're related to each other, you are using Ferrer's terms. Even things like Quine's "Epistemology is psychology" is ultimately traceable to Ferrer and his thought. Maybe you're using ontology as something completely unrelated to epistemology, but even then it's always been used in the sense of the characteristics of existence, not existence itself (with the exception of some Wiki-scholars).
>Do you think someone like Quine or Kripke would agree with that statement?
Neither would categorise "God exists" as ontological. For that line of philosophy, ontology is pretty much always characterised by "how" and not "what". Why do you think that Quine is called an "ontological relativist"? Do you think he believed that, if to you Homer's Gods exist, you go to the top of Mt Olympus and they're there showing off fire and playing with your life? Or maybe it refers to how people are able to think of existence, and that all Quine is interested in is something like our models of the world (that would be ontology right there). It isn't a case that if you believe it hard enough it's real for him. Not a bad educated guess though, choosing positivists, but Quine is really very similar to Ferrer when it come to epistemology and ontology.

Kripke's a little different, but it's still ultimately talking about possible worlds. The statement "God can exist" is ontological here, still not "God exists". Again, it's characteristics of existence: "What kinds of thing can exist" not "What exists". He also definitely doesn't have a pre-established universe either.

>philosopher that no one even reads anymore
Milk and brain fluid are blasting out of my nose. My sides are now in space. There is also no substitute for reading something other than Wiki-sites on these terms, get over yourself.

>> No.3385966

Would you believe me if I told that an anteater that liveing on the outskirts of the galaxy in a teapot is the one and only true god?

>> No.3385974

>>3385966
*that lives

>> No.3385981

>>3385966
Why would you lie to me?

>> No.3386012

>>3385226
you blew a door right off its frame, in my mind; You opened up a parallel of understanding that i somewhat previously grasped, and yet couldn't fully ascertain.

however, i like you, and you have changed my life. Which is part of my personal miracle that God created us to experience life subjectively and learn from others.

>> No.3386076

>>3385264
well, God is all loving, so in a way, yes?

>inb4 "God killed so many people"
>mfw nobody considers the psychology of God himself. He loves us all, but he is also about Justice.

It is not our fault that we are the way we are, but what we do when self awareness takes over is up to us.

>> No.3386079

>>3385966
How big is the teapot?

>> No.3386100

Why is this thread even here? Seriously, what the fuck. It has been a while since I ever saw a discussion like this. Newfags? Usually they still, at the very least, come from Hitchens, Dawkins or Bible threads which are /lit/ nevertheless. You know, books.

Honestly, if you are over 16 and still discuss this as "u bliv in god? y? wher evidence?" and "u no bliv in god? y? u edgy?" you don't know shit about God or atheism... You are not helping yourself or others by perpetuating these prejudices and getting preachy about it. I speak as a guy who went into these arguments as a teenager as well.

Be more patient and read more. Stop clinging to "opinions" and you'll see there is much more to this discussion than this shit.

But if you're a newfag and reading this, just get the fuck off my /lit/ you bloody idiot.

>> No.3386164

>>3385386
with your logic, i imagine you to be 14. or retarded. Either way, your opinion makes me want to pat you on the head and send you back to the sandbox.

>> No.3386231

Is it possible to be intelligent and still believe in immaterial entities?

>> No.3386235

>>3386231
No. And one day science will discover atoms of justice, ethics, value etc. and everything will be objective.

>> No.3386243

Anti-intellectual edgy teenager drivel and baseless speculations are not on-topic contents here. Inane babble belongs on >>>/b/ >>>/r9k/ >>>/soc/ >>>/reddit/ >>>/9fag/

>> No.3386272

>>3386100
Welcome to postmodernist decadence filled with brainwashed and self-approved teenage geniuses having fruitful debates about God's existence and the authenticity of evolution, usually exceeding over 9000 messages on das YuTubes!

Nagel, in his Mind and Cosmos covers the anti-intellectualism of neoatheists wonderfully

>> No.3387134

bump :)

>> No.3387144

"God exists" still an ontological statement

never 4get

>> No.3387147
File: 997 KB, 300x169, z220125614.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3387147

>>3386272
>Mind and Cosmos
Top tier book.

>> No.3387401

>>3387144
>"God exists" still an ontological statement
pfffft, it never gets to being an ontological statement because you stop at "god" and never look back

>> No.3387708

That guy OP posted is kinda cute.

>> No.3387720
File: 50 KB, 400x360, 1222460427k70rMd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3387720

>>3385218
>facts and logic are a crutch