This is most certainly contrary to what I have seen from any vocal atheist. People like Hitchens don't want there to be a God, and they scoff at anyone that thinks otherwise.

So does an all loving God have to agree with you on everything in order to be considered all loving and/or exist?

The fact that Hitchens' claims he doesn't want there to be a God does not contradict my point that humans are wishful thinking, teleological, agency biased creatures, which means they are biased towards believing in a God(s) and wanting him/her to exist.

Back to Hitchens. I have heard him say those words that he wouldn't want there to be a God, but it is always in the context of the Abrahamic conception of God. He has also stated that he wouldn't want to go to heaven, but again he is referring to the Abrahamic conception of heaven.

On whether or not Hitchens' would want there to be a truly All-loving God and a heaven more to his liking (Lots of scotch and cigarettes I imagine), we cannot say. AFAIK, he has never addressed that.

Yeah I knew I was falling into a trap here, and I really don't see a way out of it. I will simply have to say that my conclusion that he is not an all-loving God is irrational. Nevertheless, I am powerless to change that belief.

I understand that if we accept the premise that God is all-knowing at math, and then God says 2+2 = 5, I should still believe God is correct and that I am somehow wrong, if I want to be logically consistent. But I can't do it.

There are large groups of people that believe that the holocaust didn't happen. Since it is impossible that people are even prone to that type of behavior "Impossible!" even, then the truth is that the holocaust didn't happen....
If you think the holocaust did happen, then you must think the above claim is false ( not necessarily a lie, perhaps just some necessary self-delusion of it's own).
What's your position?
Mine is that the holocaust did happen and the large groups of people that believe otherwise are not insane, but are intensely, self-delusional.

I have only read one reply to my op so far, it got way to long too fast. Sparknotes anyone? Should I read it?

Whether you should read this thread or any thread in RGT depends mostly on how much of a masochist you are.

It's an illegitimate appeal to authority unless you can show that there is a connection between intelligence and knowledge of the existence of God and that ss people have used their intelligence on this issue in a way that is superior to the average believer. Intelligence matters concerning subjects like math and physics - appealing to a Ph.D. in math on a question of differential calculus is a legitimate appeal to authority. But why would that math guy have a better knowledge concerning the existence of God or the truth of a particular religion?

Knowledge of God isn't a subject like math or physics. There's no sample space on which you can calculate probabilities. If God exists and wants everyone to come to know Him, it should be obvious that such knowledge CAN'T depend on IQ. Objective arguments and evidences may be somewhat dependent on IQ but most people can get these basics as well, they have been developed by very smart people, and I know of no refutation of them.

If you think smart people won't believe in God because they're smart, there must be a reason why their intelligence allows them to see the falsehood. You can't be one of them because you haven't examined the evidence or as far as I know considered the arguments. So which smart people have examined it - which have refuted the arguments? If they've done neither then your appeal to authority is even more egregious.

orly?

How about if everything about Jesus was basically made up?

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...redibility.htm

cliffs:

It is crucial to remember:
(a) that these words appear in an essay carrying the Church's approbation;
(b) that they were written by a scholar whose works were endorsed by the Ecole Biblique; and
(c) that Ecole Biblique is the institution that we were referred to by Vatican authorities.

Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors.

Brown goes even further, calling into question the reliability of large sections of the New Testament. He encourages his readers to face the possibility that portions of Matthew and Luke "may represent non-historical dramatizations."

Brown's most extreme statement in this regard, appearing in the same essay, suggests that the Pope himself might reject the historicity of the resurrection altogether.

Brown mentions the possibility that "early Christians" might have imported a mythology about virginal conception from "pagan or [other] world religions," but never intended that that mythology be taken literally.

Alternatively, Brown also considers the possibility that Christianity's founders intended to create the impression that an actual virginal conception took place. Early Christians needed just such a myth, Brown notes, since Mary was widely known to have delivered Jesus too early: "Unfortunately, the historical alternative to the virginal conception has not been a conception in wedlock; it has been illegitimacy."

From what I can see, Brown's main methodology was higher criticism. I'm surprised anyone still uses this method - I thought it was put to bed in the early 20th century.

C.S. Lewis had some interesting comments on higher criticism:

Smart people are more likely to give an accurate probability that a winning blackjack player is cheating. Or that a story is a hoax. Compared to a less smart person who has sudied the subject equally. That is all I'm saying.

Now it's impossible for us to know what you mean by 'logic' and 'reason'; so you need to explain. You refuse to grant these skills to Noam Chomsky, yet suddenly bestow them on your favorite theologian with no apparent justification. (Other than: he's your favorite theologian.)

Let me just say again: there is huge discipline (cognitive science) in which Chomsky has SET THE BAR for what counts as well-reasoned. Read any book by a cognitive scientist, and she is certain at some point to orient her readers by explaining where she stands relative to Chomsky. (Add to this the fact that Chomsky is one of the most formidable moral and political philosophers on the planet.)

Obviously I don't expect you to read, much less understand, much less find failures of reason in Chomsky's work. You're not remotely sophisticated enough. (Not being mean---neither am I.) But I do expect you to explain the criteria for 'logic' and 'reason' that allow you to judge Boyd more favorably than Chomsky.

Honestly, I don't believe you have any criteria at all for these concepts (other than: agrees with Jibninjas); but you can easily prove me wrong.

I just want to point out that there is no evidence suggesting a positive correlation between intelligence and arrogance. So please stop transmitting this false meme.

Here's a well-produced pushback to such memes. (Not sure why he spent time listing atheist actors, but w/e.)

The problem with the way this thread has developed is that it is just a more complex version of "theists are stupid". Whether it is true or not that many or most of the top scientists, smart people, are atheistic, the way to convince a religious person that he is wrong is not to just call him stupid. He's not going to respond to that positively and will respond naturally how they have in this thread. Just like a theist trying to convince an atheist has to do more than say: trust me and believe. So really the line this thread is following leads nowhere good.

I that video so much.

But note that the sophistication gap between Chomsky and bigpooch is much larger than the intelligence gap between bigpooch and Splendour. In particular, bigpooch is incapable of emotional investment in any domain that is not strictly logical or strictly religious. (Emotional freedom is, obviously, the better part of sophistication.)

I agree to an extent. However, when you leave personal experience out of it, and it just comes to examining the Bible and making a judgment on it's historicity, would you agree that an intelligent person is more likely to get it right? Or how about when a faith healer claims to be healing the sick, who would you want to evaluate that claim to see if he's a fraud or the real deal? That's a religious claim that a smarter person is more likely to correctly evaluate.


But it DOES depend on IQ! According to you, knowledge of God is easier for those that are less intelligent.

I believe you're thinking of only one of the many types of higher criticism, radical criticism, which was put to bed in the late 19th century. The other types of higher ciritcism, namely source, redaction, etc. are still viewed as valid. As is lower (textual) criticism.

Validating a text relative to other texts of the time (before, at the same time, and recently after) and motives for alteration are the only options other than treating the Bible as the inerrant word of God which isn't very scholarly.

The appeal to authority isn't an either/or logical category like for instance the law of non-contradiction. It's more like a sliding scale with subjective elements. It can even be a necessary course as in a trial where someone qualifies as an expert - appeal to his authority is not only allowed but required.

I think the way DS uses it is way towards the fallacious side of the scale. His argument takes the form:

1. Some people are super smart.
2. Super smart people are better at figuring out problems than others.
3. The existence of God is a problem.
4. Super smart people don't believe in God.
5. Therefore, the probability of God's existence is low.

What's wrong with this is treating the existence of God as a problem that is better solved by ss people. Also questionable is the idea that there is some kind of poll that shows ss people don't believe in God. Also questionable is the idea that ss people who say they don't believe in God have arrived at that position by a problem solving method. I could probably come up with some other reasons why it's fallacious reasoning.

Even granted a threshold bias in favor of ss people who say they don't believe in God there's no reason to think an average person can't come up with as good an answer - the necessary knowledge is not necessarily esoteric or difficult so even if it's a "problem" to be solved it may not require expertise. An average person can solve many problems as easily as a ss. So to just stop with the kind of argument DS makes is highly superficial - especially when you consider the importance of the question.


Some areas of theology and philosophy are easier for high IQs. Knowledge of the original languages, archeology, sophisticated philosophical arguments, etc. But the Bible claims anyone can know God because God's action is necessary for that knowledge and He gives what each person needs - that claim can be tested by anyone and requires no special IQ level. Also, many things relating to religion are not difficult and can be understood by anyone capable of graduating high school.

Finally, the way DS makes his argument lacks any support or detail. When you look at the history of apologetics and theology it is absurd to think you can dismiss it all just by citing a non-existent poll of ss people who have done no work in the relevant areas.

Cool, so you can imagine hypothetical scenarios where DS's argument wouldn't apply. But your imagination is irrelevant. In reality, elite scientists are almost never devout. In reality, we have no reason to think they use a different method for evaluating God and religion than other topics. So the argument holds.

If questions about God are relatively simple, there's even less reason to assume the most sophisticated people get them wrong. (Although we can easily imagine average people being blinded.)

Utterly false. Name one significant problem that has been solved by a person who wasn't brilliant. You give way too much credit to the skill of understanding what is already known. This is always trivial compared to the skill of creating understanding out of mystery. (Compare learning to play a virtuosic trumpet solo and composing the solo.)

Care to substantiate this claim? Oh, and assumptions don't count.

There was no claim, there was absence of a claim. If someone uses the same method for evaluating all other subjects there has to be a reason to use a different one for the subject of god.

Read what I wrote: "we have no reason to think they use a different method for evaluating God and religion than other topics." I did not make a claim here. I merely pointed out that WE HAVE NO SUCH REASONS. (Because um...we don't.)

And are you going to reply to my post here?

It's true.