6 ms·

Religion. I was born & raised a devout Baptist Christian (and creationist). But in the past 5 months, I've read about 50 books and hundreds of web pages and dec

Religion. I was born & raised a devout Baptist Christian (and creationist). But in the past 5 months, I've read about 50 books and hundreds of web pages and decided that agnostic atheism [1] and evolution make more sense. Hopefully I didn't just devolve this into a religion argument... [1] "Agnostic atheist" == I can't say for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I will live my life on the assumption he is not there.

yan 17y ago
The above post. I used to think that Dawkins & co's books were just preaching to the choir. Yeah, I found them fun to read and nod along, but I didn't believe they'd change anyone's mind. I assume that this isn't an issue of logic, and when you're not dealing with logic for the most part, no logical argument would be sufficient. Reading posts like these do make me believe that it's possible to change minds, if people are willing. (I'm not saying those books aren't useful; they give a sense of legitimacy to those who don't side with religion and this is important.)
- amichail 17y ago
  Do you think that being a good atheist requires a certain level of intelligence that many people don't have? In particular, the extent to which a person can predict the consequences of his/her actions is probably highly dependent on intelligence. Religion can be viewed as taking some of this unfairness away.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - booksnarf 17y ago
    Well, religion and intelligence have been shown to be inversely correlated. Perhaps 'intelligence' is the wrong word; educational level might be better. For example, only 7 percent of the members in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal god [1]. I forget the numbers for the general public of the US (I don't have the book with me), but it was the vast majority who believed in a personal god. Of course: grains of salt, correlation vs. causation, etc. I don't think being an atheist requires a certain level of intelligence, but I do think that people of a certain level of education have been taught to think critically about everything they read/learn/work with, which probably bleeds over into their personal life. [1] Victor J. Stenger. Has Science Found God? p.78
  - btilly 17y ago
    In my experience and from statistics I have seen there is little correlation between intelligence and religious inclination. For example Donald Knuth is strongly religious. (Evidence: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/things.html http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/things.html. ) But can anyone honestly deny his intelligence? That is not to say that there is no correlation. In general educated people are more likely to be exposed to thoughtful commentary on atheism, and are therefore more likely to consider the idea. But the correlation seems to be with exposure, and not propensity to be convinced by it.
    - amichail 17y ago
      My comment is about the intelligence required to be good. Religion could reduce this and as a result be potentially beneficial to society.
    - req2 17y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence A modicum of research reveals that 'The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.”'
      - btilly 17y ago
        Yes, it is statistically significant. But it can't tell the difference between educated people being more often exposed to the ideas of atheism, and being more likely to find them convincing.
        req2 17y ago
        The furor over creationism vs. evolution indicates that even if the ideas themselves are not well exposed to uneducated people, some of the basic building materials and one of the frameworks of the discussion is there.
Alex3917 17y ago
Same here, only the other way. After being an atheist my entire life, I got more interested in religion over the past few months. After listening to dozens of hours worth of podcasts, and reading a few books and academic journal articles, I've decided that there is such a thing as a "primary religious experience." Furthermore, it's pretty clear that while academia can verify that this experience exists, science can't really go much further than that, at least in its current state. As to whether this experience is caused by contact with god, or the sacred, or whatever, I'd put myself in your same "agnostic atheist" camp. Only I'd say that I'll approach some future experiences on the assumption that God is there. (Not that I'm going to go out and become super religious or anything, but being able to suspend disbelief once and a while is the key to making things fun, whether it's watching Star Wars or reading about Mysticism or whatever.) That's the real take away I think, that in the same way most people don't like math because they were "mathematically abused" as kids, most people don't like religion because they were religiously abused as kids. When actually learning about religion is kinda fun and intellectually interesting.
- araneae 17y ago
  The feeling of "spirituality" is certainly universal; after all, so many people have it that it would be absurd to call it purely a cultural construct. However, as far as we can tell, the generation of these feelings is not associated with any external sensor, the way that the experience of seeing is connected with your eyeballs. In all probability, the feeling of religiosity is mind-bound phenomena, much like love and awe, and are not capable of detecting any real external phenomena. On another note... I'm an atheist, but I wasn't religiously abused as a kid. I just am interested in science. The fantasies of others is considerably less entertaining than understanding the nature of the universe.
  - Alex3917 17y ago
    "In all probability, the feeling of religiosity is mind-bound phenomena, not capable of detecting any real external phenomena." That's an interesting use of the word probability. Can you justify that position using arguments qualitatively different than those used to justify the opposite position? (That the full-blown mystic experience is qualitatively different than anything that science has ever explained before or any experience generated from within the body, and thus there is no reason to believe that it's necessarily scientifically explainable or endogenous.) As I said I'm actually more or less with you, I just see the logic of what the other side is saying.
steve19 17y ago
Christianity != Creationism Agnostic != Evolution Christianity != not(Evolution) Most Christians (globally) care little about how man came into being and do not think either ideas have any impact on their faith. It is the hardcore creationists who like to make out all Christians agree with them, and the hardcore underdog atheists who like to make out that all Christians are against them. I don't know any Christians, and I know many, who believe that evolution and the bible are mutually exclusive ideas. They simply are not. And I wish both Atheists and Creationists would stop claiming that both ideas contradict each other.

yan 17y ago

The above post. I used to think that Dawkins & co's books were just preaching to the choir. Yeah, I found them fun to read and nod along, but I didn't believe they'd change anyone's mind. I assume that this isn't an issue of logic, and when you're not dealing with logic for the most part, no logical argument would be sufficient. Reading posts like these do make me believe that it's possible to change minds, if people are willing. (I'm not saying those books aren't useful; they give a sense of legitimacy to those who don't side with religion and this is important.)

amichail 17y ago
Do you think that being a good atheist requires a certain level of intelligence that many people don't have? In particular, the extent to which a person can predict the consequences of his/her actions is probably highly dependent on intelligence. Religion can be viewed as taking some of this unfairness away.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- booksnarf 17y ago
  Well, religion and intelligence have been shown to be inversely correlated. Perhaps 'intelligence' is the wrong word; educational level might be better. For example, only 7 percent of the members in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal god [1]. I forget the numbers for the general public of the US (I don't have the book with me), but it was the vast majority who believed in a personal god. Of course: grains of salt, correlation vs. causation, etc. I don't think being an atheist requires a certain level of intelligence, but I do think that people of a certain level of education have been taught to think critically about everything they read/learn/work with, which probably bleeds over into their personal life. [1] Victor J. Stenger. Has Science Found God? p.78
- btilly 17y ago
  In my experience and from statistics I have seen there is little correlation between intelligence and religious inclination. For example Donald Knuth is strongly religious. (Evidence: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/things.html http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/things.html. ) But can anyone honestly deny his intelligence? That is not to say that there is no correlation. In general educated people are more likely to be exposed to thoughtful commentary on atheism, and are therefore more likely to consider the idea. But the correlation seems to be with exposure, and not propensity to be convinced by it.
  - amichail 17y ago
    My comment is about the intelligence required to be good. Religion could reduce this and as a result be potentially beneficial to society.
  - req2 17y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence A modicum of research reveals that 'The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.”'
    - btilly 17y ago
      Yes, it is statistically significant. But it can't tell the difference between educated people being more often exposed to the ideas of atheism, and being more likely to find them convincing.
      - req2 17y ago
        The furor over creationism vs. evolution indicates that even if the ideas themselves are not well exposed to uneducated people, some of the basic building materials and one of the frameworks of the discussion is there.

Alex3917 17y ago

Same here, only the other way. After being an atheist my entire life, I got more interested in religion over the past few months. After listening to dozens of hours worth of podcasts, and reading a few books and academic journal articles, I've decided that there is such a thing as a "primary religious experience." Furthermore, it's pretty clear that while academia can verify that this experience exists, science can't really go much further than that, at least in its current state. As to whether this experience is caused by contact with god, or the sacred, or whatever, I'd put myself in your same "agnostic atheist" camp. Only I'd say that I'll approach some future experiences on the assumption that God is there. (Not that I'm going to go out and become super religious or anything, but being able to suspend disbelief once and a while is the key to making things fun, whether it's watching Star Wars or reading about Mysticism or whatever.) That's the real take away I think, that in the same way most people don't like math because they were "mathematically abused" as kids, most people don't like religion because they were religiously abused as kids. When actually learning about religion is kinda fun and intellectually interesting.

araneae 17y ago
The feeling of "spirituality" is certainly universal; after all, so many people have it that it would be absurd to call it purely a cultural construct. However, as far as we can tell, the generation of these feelings is not associated with any external sensor, the way that the experience of seeing is connected with your eyeballs. In all probability, the feeling of religiosity is mind-bound phenomena, much like love and awe, and are not capable of detecting any real external phenomena. On another note... I'm an atheist, but I wasn't religiously abused as a kid. I just am interested in science. The fantasies of others is considerably less entertaining than understanding the nature of the universe.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  "In all probability, the feeling of religiosity is mind-bound phenomena, not capable of detecting any real external phenomena." That's an interesting use of the word probability. Can you justify that position using arguments qualitatively different than those used to justify the opposite position? (That the full-blown mystic experience is qualitatively different than anything that science has ever explained before or any experience generated from within the body, and thus there is no reason to believe that it's necessarily scientifically explainable or endogenous.) As I said I'm actually more or less with you, I just see the logic of what the other side is saying.

steve19 17y ago

Christianity != Creationism Agnostic != Evolution Christianity != not(Evolution) Most Christians (globally) care little about how man came into being and do not think either ideas have any impact on their faith. It is the hardcore creationists who like to make out all Christians agree with them, and the hardcore underdog atheists who like to make out that all Christians are against them. I don't know any Christians, and I know many, who believe that evolution and the bible are mutually exclusive ideas. They simply are not. And I wish both Atheists and Creationists would stop claiming that both ideas contradict each other.