Intelligence and Religiosity

[Jichard]

Yes I did. See my post#157 in response to Roy:

No, you provided no evidence. As I noted:

"So really, its absurd for you to cllaim that people would have never come up with Christian thelogy apart from divine revelation. It seems you simply made that claim up, without any supporting evidence."

Your post to Roy provided no evidence showing that people would have never come up with Christian thelogy apart from divine revelation.

Much more could be added. I claim that these positions are "unnatural" in the sense of your reference. If you disagree, please explain how these positions are all "natural" rather than "unnatural".

You claimed that these positions could not have been come up with without divine revelation:

"(McCauley makes some good points regarding simplistic folk religions. I agree with him that these are natural human constructs. But his discussion does not engage Christian theology, which is much more sophisticated. Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.)"

I disagree and think you just made that up. I supported my position by citing scientific evidence on the cognitive processes behind people's religious beliefs, processes that require no divine intervention. You simply diregarded this evidence.

If you disagree, then actually provide some evidence that humans would not have come up with these positions without divine intervention. Because so far, you've provided no such evidence.

No, I didn't read these papers (though I did read your earlier linked paper on "naturalness" and "unnaturalness".) While your evidence for global warming is based on real science, your anti-Christian claims are based on the "soft sciences", which don't rise to the level of the "hard sciences".

Again, so what? Scientific evidence is scientific evidence, regardless of whether it shows up in "hard sciences" or "soft sciences". Evidence in psychology, for example, doesn't stop being scientific evidence just because it isn't evidence in physics. For you to claim that "soft sciences" aren't real science, is just motivated reasoning on your part and pure bias.

Also, can you drop this nonsense about "anti-Christian claims"? You basically seem to object to to facts you don't like as being "anti-Christian". Facts are facts, and evidence is evidence, regardless of whether it suits your preferred religiosu ideology or not. I am not anti-Christian nor are my claims anti-Christian, anymore than my bringing up evidence on an old Earth would mean I'm anti-Christian

Feynman made some cogent remarks on this topic in his 1974 CalTech commencement address.

Not interested in an appeal to authority; it's irrelevant what Feynman says in a commencement address. What's relevant is what evidence Feynman has for his claims. And Feynman definitely does not have evidence showing that the soft sciences aren't sciences, nor that evidence presented in the soft sciences, doesn't count as scientific evidence.

[lilpixieofterror]

Your usual substance-free silliness.

Your usual hatred, shows itself again.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, you provided no eviden... blah blah blah

You're an even bigger idiot than any of us first thought, huh?

[Jichard]

You're an even bigger idiot than any of us first thought, huh?

That's nice, troll.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's nice, troll.

Troll (jerkard definition): "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!"

You're just angry about being treated as you treat others because you want Christians to be doormats so you can walk all over us. How angry does it make you that I refuse to act like the doormat you wish I would be or will you continue to talk because you can't let me have the last word? Keep digging and remember, never admit you're wrong about anything!

[Jichard]

Troll (jerkard definition): "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!"

You're just angry about being treated as you treat others because you want Christians to be doormats so you can walk all over us. How angry does it make you that I refuse to act like the doormat you wish I would be or will you continue to talk because you can't let me have the last word? Keep digging and remember, never admit you're wrong about anything!

[lilpixieofterror]

Yep, looks like you really need to have that last word. Are you still angry that I'm not acting like the doormat you wish me to be, but treating you just as you treat others?

[Jichard]

Yep, looks like you really need to have that last word. Are you still angry that I'm not acting like the doormat you wish me to be, but treating you just as you treat others?

[lilpixieofterror]

Still wanting that last word, eh Jerkard?

[Jichard]

Still wanting that last word, eh Jerkard?

[lilpixieofterror]

And it continues...

[Kbertsche]

You claimed that these positions could not have been come up with without divine revelation:

"(McCauley makes some good points regarding simplistic folk religions. I agree with him that these are natural human constructs. But his discussion does not engage Christian theology, which is much more sophisticated. Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.)"

I disagree and think you just made that up. I supported my position by citing scientific evidence on the cognitive processes behind people's religious beliefs, processes that require no divine intervention. You simply diregarded this evidence.

If you disagree, then actually provide some evidence that humans would not have come up with these positions without divine intervention. Because so far, you've provided no such evidence.

Let's review.

A number of us were discussing the facts that the modern scientific method was birthed by devout theists (Bacon, Kepler, Galileo) and that over the next couple of generations this method was built upon by more devout theists (Newton, Boyle, etc.), primarily British Puritans. These facts are matters of the historic record, but you repeatedly try to fight them.

In a non-sequitor response to these facts, you presented a link to McCauley's paper where he makes the argument that religious constructs are "natural" and scientific constructs are "unnatural". He does not present evidence for these claims per se; rather, he constructs a logical argument to try to convince the reader of these claims.

McCauley's discussion of religious constructs is restricted to simplistic concepts as found in folk religions. I did not see any discussion in his paper of more sophisticated religious concepts in general or of the central doctrines of Christianity in particular. (If I've missed something here, please present a page number and quote from McCauley's paper.). Yes, McCauley probably intends his conclusions regarding simplistic folk religions to extend to all religions, including Christianity (as you do). But he has not shown that his arguments actually do extend to Christianity.

In response to your view that all religions, including Christianity, are "natural constructs", I briefly presented just a few of the basic tenets of Christianity. These are very sophisticated and "unnatural", similar in sophistication to modern scientific concepts. I have thus presented a logical argument that McCauley's claims do not apply to Christianity. If you disagree with my conclusion, please engage my argument point by point.

[shunyadragon]

Let's review.

A number of us were discussing the facts that the modern scientific method was birthed by devout theists (Bacon, Kepler, Galileo) and that over the next couple of generations this method was built upon by more devout theists (Newton, Boyle, etc.), primarily British Puritans. These facts are matters of the historic record, but you repeatedly try to fight them.

You are missing the early founders of Lucretius and Aristotle. There are other more modern matters of historic record that are relevant to the issues.

I do not believe anybody is trying to fight them, they are dead.

[Kbertsche]

You are missing the early founders of Lucretius and Aristotle. There are other more modern matters of historic record that are relevant to the issues.

I do not believe anybody is trying to fight them, they are dead.

Jichard is trying to fight the facts, not the individuals.

Certainly many elements of modern science were suggested/discovered earlier, i.e. by the Greeks and by medieval scholastics. But these ideas did not catch on. They remained in the background until the birth of modern science with Galileo.

[shunyadragon]

Jichard is trying to fight the facts, not the individuals.

Certainly many elements of modern science were suggested/discovered earlier, i.e. by the Greeks and by medieval scholastics. But these ideas did not catch on. They remained in the background until the birth of modern science with Galileo.

Lucretius was in the libraries of all these early scientists as a matter of fact. He is the founder and first clear message of scientific methods.

These are kind of old moldy facts that do not address the modern problems.