Intelligence and Religiosity

[Kbertsche]

You're confusing:

1 : Christianity in its entirety is a purely natural product of the human mind

with:

2 : All the concepts used in Christianity are natural concepts

The two are not the same, since 1 can be true even if 2 is false. For example, dialetheism is a non-natural idea, but it's a natural product of the mind insofar as it can be naturalistically explained and one does not need to resort to divine intervention to explain how humans came up with it. So 1 would be true of dialetheism, even if 2 is false of dialetheism.

Yes, I was probably conflating these two statements. Which (if either) do you claim is true?

Please don't attack that strawman. My original claim, as quoted from McCauley, was that the concepts employed by religions are more natural than the concepts employes employed by science. You disagreed with this by claiming that Christian theology is just as unnatural as science. In order to rebut your claim, I don't need to show that every religious concept is non-natural. That's just a strawman you erected.

In support of my claim, I presented a few basic tenets of Christian theology which are indeed "unnatural". In order to rebut my claim, you need to address these concepts directly and show that they are indeed "natural". So far, you have not attempted to do so. You have simply repeated your claim, without addressing the points I've raised which contradict it.

[oxmixmudd]

I believe that the God concepts, dogma, doctrine and beliefs 'can possibly' be explained naturally as being a product of the human mind, and not that they are always or necessarily a product of the human mind. I do not believe that there is a good argument for the 'uniqueness of 'some' Christian beliefs as indicating that the only possible source is revelation from God.

One of the elements of this conversation that is getting lost is that Jichard is not really understanding Kirk's statements, as related by the last post of Kirk's above. I find this to be common talking to people that are rabidly against X. If something I say even could remotely imply X, they minds turn off and they go whole hog after some 'other' thing I never implied or said. And generally it is almost impossible to ever get the bloke out of the red zone long enough for them to realize they are chasing a windmill of their own construction that is only remotely related to the logical element I was debating.

That is basically why I've bowed out of this conversation. I don't see the point in spending post after post to try to get the Bull to realize there is china around of which he is unaware and which he can't help but destroy because he just isn't capable of that kind of self-control or subtle reasoning.

Jim

[Jichard]

One of the elements of this conversation that is getting lost is that Jichard is not really understanding Kirk's statements, as related by the last post of Kirk's above. I find this to be common talking to people that are rabidly against X. If something I say even could remotely imply X, they minds turn off and they go whole hog after some 'other' thing I never implied or said. And generally it is almost impossible to ever get the bloke out of the red zone long enough for them to realize they are chasing a windmill of their own construction that is only remotely related to the logical element I was debating.

That is basically why I've bowed out of this conversation. I don't see the point in spending post after post to try to get the Bull to realize there is china around of which he is unaware and which he can't help but destroy because he just isn't capable of that kind of self-control or subtle reasoning.

Jim

And when you don't have anything of substance to say on a thread's topic, comment on other's posters, and then run off.

Brilliant execution of this stratey, ox.

[oxmixmudd]

And when you don't have anything of substance to say on a thread's topic, comment on other's posters, and then run off.

Brilliant execution of this stratey, ox.

Oh, you're just mad 'cause I wouldn't let you continue your little temper tantrum in one of my threads ...

I feel for you Jichard. I really do. Its just so hard to be the only one that knows anything or sees things clearly.

Really, it is such a burden you must carry.


Jim

[Jichard]

Oh, you're just mad 'cause I wouldn't let you continue your little temper tantrum in one of my threads ...

"temper tantrum"? Oh wait, you mean pointing out scientific points you're unable to address? I guess it burst your bubble to realize that the term "denialist" is a scientific term used in science to acurrately describe certain sorts of positions. How dare virologists, immunologists, doctors, historians, psychologists, climatologists, etc. use terms that make ox feel bad. Buch of meanies.

I feel for you Jichard. I really do. Its just so hard to be the only one that knows anything or sees things clearly.

Really, it is such a burden you must carry.

Now you're trolling. You have nothing of substance to say on the thread's topic, so you decided to lie by pretending I said the I am "the only one that knows anything or sees things clearly". I thought you'd be above that; thanks for showing otherwise.

Let me know when you have something of substance to say on the thread's topic, though I won't hold my breath.

[David Hayward]

Recent research conducted by Barna Group on behalf of the Church of England, Evangelical Alliance and HOPE includes (pdf booklet) these figures on Page 7, in the top-right table entitled "Level of Education":

This is a poll, of course, rather than a scientific study. What it seems to show is that among the English, practising Christians are 1.84 times more likely to have a university degree or equivalent than the general population. Another way of expressing the same figures is that only 19% (only about a fifth) of English practising Christians do not have a university degree or equivalent. Looks like English practising Christians are a brainy bunch, and markedly brainier than English nominal- and non-Christians.

[oxmixmudd]

"temper tantrum"? Oh wait, you mean pointing out scientific points you're unable to address? I guess it burst your bubble to realize that the term "denialist" is a scientific term used in science to acurrately describe certain sorts of positions. How dare virologists, immunologists, doctors, historians, psychologists, climatologists, etc. use terms that make ox feel bad. Buch of meanies.



Now you're trolling. You have nothing of substance to say on the thread's topic, so you decided to lie by pretending I said the I am "the only one that knows anything or sees things clearly". I thought you'd be above that; thanks for showing otherwise.

Let me know when you have something of substance to say on the thread's topic, though I won't hold my breath.

Trolling - no. Trying to help you see your hubris - yes. A waste of time, I know. But you can't blame a fellow for trying.

(let me guess, being able to laugh at yourself is not one of your strong points? )


Jim

[Duragizer]

Now you're trolling. You have nothing of substance to say on the thread's topic, so you decided to lie by pretending I said the I am "the only one that knows anything or sees things clearly". I thought you'd be above that; thanks for showing otherwise.

He's not claiming that you literally said that; that's the underlying message he gets from reading your posts -- ie. from reading between the lines.

Perhaps his understanding's wrong, but that doesn't make him a liar.

[Jichard]

He's not claiming that you literally said that; that's the underlying message he gets from reading your posts -- ie. from reading between the lines.

Perhaps his understanding's wrong, but that doesn't make him a liar.

It's lying to claim that someone thinks something that they clearly don't think and that they've told you they don't think.

[Jichard]

Trolling - no. Trying to help you see your hubris - yes. A waste of time, I know. But you can't blame a fellow for trying.

(let me guess, being able to laugh at yourself is not one of your strong points? )


Jim

It's so sad that you've resorted to faux psychoanalysis, instead of addressing the thread's topic. I've encountered quite a number of folks like you on the Internet. They're usually conservative Christians who, when they're called on their false claims or shown facts they don't like, tend to comment on the hubris of other people. For example: conservative Christians who start ranting about the hubris of intellectuals and scientists, when those folks discuss evolution. It's really sad behavior to see.

ox, it's blatantly obvious that you can't actually address the thread's topic, So you've decided to make the thread about me. Keep doing that if you want; I'm not going to ban you from the thread simply because you're troll who can't address the thread's topic. I'll let you have your temper tantrum here. But let me know when you're finally able to address the thread's topic, as opposed to simply insulting other people. Faux psychoanalysis is not a substitute for intelligent thought.

[Jichard]

Yes, I was probably conflating these two statements. Which (if either) do you claim is true?

I told you what my claim was in the post you're response to.

In support of my claim, I presented a few basic tenets of Christian theology which are indeed "unnatural".

First, that doesn't support the claim for which you were actually asked to provide evidence.

Second, it doesn't address the evidence you were showing that Christianity employed more natural concepts than science (ex: concepts from folk psychology).

Third, you didn't provide a shred of evidence that those concepts were unnatural

In order to rebut my claim, you need to address these concepts directly and show that they are indeed "natural". So far, you have not attempted to do so.

False. Here were your claims:

I think you'll find that this shows up in every major tenet of Christian doctrine. Here are a few examples:

Nature of God:
Transcendent and yet immanent (shared by Judaism, but not much else)
Trinity: three persons in one essence (unique to Christianity)

Nature of Christ:
Both fully God and fully man (unique; similar in sophistication and "unnaturalness" to the nature of a photon as both a wave and a particle)

Nature of man:
Created in God's image
Fallen, completely unacceptable to God, able to do nothing to please God
Yet so deeply loved by God that He sacrificed His own Son to save man

Salvation:
Undeserved, unable to be earned or merited by man in any fashion
A completely free gift of God

I already address those:

Second, plenty of other religions have people who engage is self-sacrificial behavior, and plenty of other religions have deities who come in the form of an animal, including a human.



[...]


Second, Christian theology does not discard the concept of law, in neither the divine command tradition nor the natural law tradition. Christians might take a different stance on the law then, say, their Jewish predecessors. But that's not the same as thinking they discarded the law. If you really think the concept of "law" was discarded by Christianity, then you'd think Christianity did away with laws in a legal context, and laws in a moral context. And it clearly didn't, given how often many Christians talks about behaviors like lying, adultery, etc. as going against God's law (including the law God [supposedly] wrote onto people's hearts.


[...]


Second, Christianity is not novel when it comes to the subject. If anything, Christianity doesn't go nearly as far as vrious other religions. For example, various Buddhists and Jains push the doctrine of non-violence/pacifism to even greater lengths, even when that pacifism is towards people who've harmed one. Similarly, various Buddhists and Jains ask people to show consideration for even those who've harmed them.

Third, in actual practice, Christians usually make sure to interpret Christian theology in a common-sensical way. For example, Christians usually won't make the claim that if someone is physically attacking you to take your money, then you should show them love by not fighting back and by giving them even more of your money in order to benefit them. So the whole "seek out the well-being of those that have hurt us", stuff, doesn't block self-defense. Nor does it, apparently, involve opposition to the death penalty. Or opposition to killing people in wars. Or... In actual practice, it seems to boil down to seek out the well-being of those who are mean to you, as long as doing that doesn't risk much for yourself or those you care about. And that's not that counter-intuitive an idea. It's called forgiveness, and it's found in plenty of other religions, where people forgive those who've wronged them (even if those people haven't repented) and treat those people nicely, up until the point that nice treatment becomes a risk to oneself or those one cares about.

[...]

Second, you run into the same problem I mentioned above: Christians usually make sure to interpret Christian theology in a common-sensical way, that does not involve them making non-common-sensical sacrifices.

Third, there are plenty of other religions that involve sacrifice, and there are plenty of other religions who've seen that forgiveness makes sense. Otherwise, one would end with a never-ending, trans-generational cycle of retribution.

And in fact, my sources address those anyway. To recap:

Plenty of religions have deities that exist in other spheres of existence, but which come down to exist in the human sphere of existence. This is just slight modification of the folk psychological concept of an agent, modified to make the agent bodiless, yet able to aware of all that's going on.

Trinitarian Christianity basically falls in line with forms of polytheistic Hinduism, where the central deity has multiple aspects. Trinitarian Christianity also lifts from Platonic notions of substances and essences. These arise from the commonsensical, dualistic presuppositions that appear in many cultures, where mind and body are two different things, such that the min can exist separately from the body as a different substance.

Plenty of religions have deities that created humans, and plenty of religions say that humans are like the gods in some way, such as in being able to make moral choices. That's just making the deities act like caring humans; i.e. applying commonsensical human moral psychology to deities.

Plenty of religions have deities make sacrifices for humans. That's just making the deities act like caring humans; i.e. applying commonsensical human psychology to deities. That's why, for example, there's a long tradition in psychology that notes how Christianity makes God out to llok much like a human father; Christianity applies natural notions of what an ideal father would be, and then applies them to God.

You have simply repeated your claim, without addressing the points I've raised which contradict it.

No, when you actually tried to make claims that rebutted the evidence provided by Barrett, Boyer, and so on, I address those claims.

[Kbertsche]

I wanted to reply to more of Jichard's recent long post, but ran out of time the other day.

I agree that God shares these traits with humans. But there is more than one possible explanation for this commonality. Here are two possibilities among many:
1) Jichard's explanation(?): the biblical God is purely a projection of the human mind, so God shares some characteristics of human personality
2) the biblical explanation: God created man in His own image, giving man some characteristics of God's personality

Explanation 1 is better than explanation 2, on the criteria of inference to the best explanation.

How so? How do you determine that explanation 1 is "better" and explanation 2 "worse"? To determine "better" or "worse", we need some sort of metric for comparison. You do not define your metric, but it seems to be inextricably linked with your assumption that God does not exist. It seems to me that you are assuming your conclusion.

2 is just God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where one tries to introduce God into some gap in one's knowledge.

If you think this, you misunderstand explanation 2. Explanation 2 does not merely say that God made man in some way that we can say nothing about. It says much more; God made man in His own image. This means that there are a number of similarities between God and man. This opens the rich field of theological study of the imago Dei (image of God).

Perhaps you would have a point if this similarity in personality were the only (or the major) reason for believing God to exist. But if we already know that God exists, your claim fails. We are not introducing God to explain any gaps; God is already here.

Anyway, 1 is a better explanation than 2 for a number of reasons. For example, 1 is more ontologically parsimonious than 2. 1 has more borne out predictions. 1 has more explanatory power, since 1 can offer a more detailed explanation of the phenomena, beyond the obscurantism of God did it. So 1 can, for instance, provide psychological details on the mechanisms behind the projection, the brain regions involved in the projection, and so on. In contrast, 2 has no such relevant detail, and instead follows in the religious traditions of stealing explanatory power from naturalistic explanations (by saying things like God did X via natural means Y), or by having no real explanatory detail at all, beyond saying God-did-it [which has about as much explanatorily detail as saying the drug induced sleep due to the drug's dormative virtue]. 2 also runs into the problem that: there isn't actually any scientific evidence for the biblical account of creation, let alone the idea that God stepped in at some point to make humans.

Explanatory power and simplicity (Occam's razor) are useful tools in science for deciding between two otherwise equivalent explanations, when we don't have other information about which is actually true. These (explanatory power and simplicity) are general principles, not infallible absolute laws. They don't determine truth.

It is true that if God is a man-made construct, then studying how religious thoughts arise can explain something of man's psychology. But if God made man in His own image, then studying God and the Bible can also explain something of man's psychology, as well as inviting us to study the "imago Dei".

Thus both explanations have explanatory power. But the realms in which the explanations lie are different; explanation 1 tries to explain things in terms of human psychology, explanation 2 in terms of theology.

[Kbertsche]

In support of my claim, I presented a few basic tenets of Christian theology which are indeed "unnatural". In order to rebut my claim, you need to address these concepts directly and show that they are indeed "natural". So far, you have not attempted to do so.

False. Here were your claims:

I think you'll find that this shows up in every major tenet of Christian doctrine. Here are a few examples:

Nature of God:
Transcendent and yet immanent (shared by Judaism, but not much else)
Trinity: three persons in one essence (unique to Christianity)

Nature of Christ:
Both fully God and fully man (unique; similar in sophistication and "unnaturalness" to the nature of a photon as both a wave and a particle)

Nature of man:
Created in God's image
Fallen, completely unacceptable to God, able to do nothing to please God
Yet so deeply loved by God that He sacrificed His own Son to save man

Salvation:
Undeserved, unable to be earned or merited by man in any fashion
A completely free gift of God

Good, you can read and quote my claims. But do you respond to them? No. Do you even understand what I'm claiming?? I'm not sure.

I already address those:

Second, plenty of other religions have people who engage is self-sacrificial behavior,

Agreed. Asceticism is fairly common among various religions. Self-sacrifice by adherents in order to gain God's acceptance is a very "natural" notion.

But Christianity says something very different from this and very "unnatural", as I claimed above. The adherents can do nothing to gain God's acceptance. The God of the universe, the creator of all, the one who was wronged by man, has sacrificed Himself to save mankind.

This sacrifice by God Himself is the Christian concept which is "unnatural", and you have not addressed it. How is this concept "natural"? How do you explain its origin through "natural" processes?

and plenty of other religions have deities who come in the form of an animal, including a human.

I agree that many religions have deities who come in the form of animals or humans. I don't think there is anything particularly "unnatural" about this. This generally takes one of two forms:
1) the deity remains full deity and simply adopts the appearance of an animal or human. He does not actually become animal or human, he just makes it appear that way. This view of Christ is called "docetism" and was rejected as heresy by the early church.
2) the deity becomes some sort of melded combination of deity and animal or human, e.g. a 50-50 combination of each, partly one and partly the other, but not fully either one. This view of Christ was also rejected as heresy by the early church.

But Christianity claims something different from either of these. As I said above, Christ was both fully God and fully man. Not 50-50, or 60-40, but 100-100 of each. This is a very "unnatural" concept, and it took some time for the early church to work this out. As I pointed out above, this concept is similar in sophistication and "unnaturalness" to the nature of photons or subatomic particles which are both fully particles and fully waves.

This full dual nature is the Christian concept which is "unnatural", and you have not addressed it. How is this concept "natural"? How do you explain its origin through "natural" processes?

Second, Christian theology does not discard the concept of law, in neither the divine command tradition nor the natural law tradition. Christians might take a different stance on the law then, say, their Jewish predecessors. But that's not the same as thinking they discarded the law. If you really think the concept of "law" was discarded by Christianity, then you'd think Christianity did away with laws in a legal context, and laws in a moral context. And it clearly didn't, given how often many Christians talks about behaviors like lying, adultery, etc. as going against God's law (including the law God [supposedly] wrote onto people's hearts.

[...]

Second, Christianity is not novel when it comes to the subject. If anything, Christianity doesn't go nearly as far as vrious other religions. For example, various Buddhists and Jains push the doctrine of non-violence/pacifism to even greater lengths, even when that pacifism is towards people who've harmed one. Similarly, various Buddhists and Jains ask people to show consideration for even those who've harmed them.

Third, in actual practice, Christians usually make sure to interpret Christian theology in a common-sensical way. For example, Christians usually won't make the claim that if someone is physically attacking you to take your money, then you should show them love by not fighting back and by giving them even more of your money in order to benefit them. So the whole "seek out the well-being of those that have hurt us", stuff, doesn't block self-defense. Nor does it, apparently, involve opposition to the death penalty. Or opposition to killing people in wars. Or... In actual practice, it seems to boil down to seek out the well-being of those who are mean to you, as long as doing that doesn't risk much for yourself or those you care about. And that's not that counter-intuitive an idea. It's called forgiveness, and it's found in plenty of other religions, where people forgive those who've wronged them (even if those people haven't repented) and treat those people nicely, up until the point that nice treatment becomes a risk to oneself or those one cares about.

[...]

Second, you run into the same problem I mentioned above: Christians usually make sure to interpret Christian theology in a common-sensical way, that does not involve them making non-common-sensical sacrifices.

Third, there are plenty of other religions that involve sacrifice, and there are plenty of other religions who've seen that forgiveness makes sense. Otherwise, one would end with a never-ending, trans-generational cycle of retribution.

None of this addresses any of the "unnatural" Christian concepts that I've claimed above. I did not claim "unnaturalness" for law, or self-defense, or sacrifice, or forgiveness.

And in fact, my sources address those anyway. To recap:

Plenty of religions have deities that exist in other spheres of existence, but which come down to exist in the human sphere of existence. This is just slight modification of the folk psychological concept of an agent, modified to make the agent bodiless, yet able to aware of all that's going on.

Already addressed above in detail. The "unnatural" Christian concept is that Christ is both fully God and fully man, which is very different from these other conceptions.

Trinitarian Christianity basically falls in line with forms of polytheistic Hinduism, where the central deity has multiple aspects. Trinitarian Christianity also lifts from Platonic notions of substances and essences. These arise from the commonsensical, dualistic presuppositions that appear in many cultures, where mind and body are two different things, such that the min can exist separately from the body as a different substance.

No, these concepts are very different.

So far as I understand, the polytheism of Hinduism is essentially the same as the polytheism of other cultures, including the ancient near eastern cultures in which Israel lived and the Greco-Roman culture in which Jesus and the apostles lived. Polytheism says that there are multiple, independent, separate gods. Often these gods disagree or fight among themselves. They are not at all "one god" as is the God of the Bible.

Christianity makes the unique and "unnatural" claim that God is one in essence and substance, a unity with no disharmony or disagreement. Yet God exists as a "complex unity", with three separate persons.

This Christian concept of the trinity is "unnatural", and neither you nor your sources have addressed it. How is this concept "natural"? How do you explain its origin through "natural" processes?

Plenty of religions have deities that created humans, and plenty of religions say that humans are like the gods in some way, such as in being able to make moral choices. That's just making the deities act like caring humans; i.e. applying commonsensical human moral psychology to deities.

Agreed. But this does not address any of the "unnatural" Christian concepts that I've claimed above.

Plenty of religions have deities make sacrifices for humans. That's just making the deities act like caring humans; i.e. applying commonsensical human psychology to deities. That's why, for example, there's a long tradition in psychology that notes how Christianity makes God out to llok much like a human father; Christianity applies natural notions of what an ideal father would be, and then applies them to God.

Agreed. But I did not claim that sacrifice per se, or even divine sacrifice per se, was "unnatural".

As I stated above, the Christian concept goes far beyond either of these. Christianity claims that God sacrificed Himself for rebellious creatures who did not deserve it.

This Christian concept is "unnatural", and neither you nor your sources have addressed it. How is this concept "natural"? How do you explain its origin through "natural" processes?

You have simply repeated your claim, without addressing the points I've raised which contradict it.

And I stand by this statement. Neither you nor your sources have addressed the "unnatural" concepts that I've noted within Christianity.

Please look again at my claims, which you have quoted above. I pointed out some very unnatural Christian concepts involving the nature of God, the nature of Christ, the nature of man, and the nature of salvation. In all of your repeated words, YOU HAVE ADDRESSED EXACTLY ZERO OF MY CLAIMS!. You have ignored all of the concepts that I claim to be "unnatural"!

Either you misunderstand my claims (if so, please re-read them and ask for clarification as necessary), or you have no answer for them (if so, please admit it).

[Roy]

In all of your repeated words, YOU HAVE ADDRESSED EXACTLY ZERO OF MY CLAIMS!. You have ignored all of the concepts that I claim to be "unnatural"!

This is not true. Jichard did address the concept of the trinity. Whether or not you agree with his statements about the trinity, he did not ignore it.

[Kbertsche]

This is not true. Jichard did address the concept of the trinity. Whether or not you agree with his statements about the trinity, he did not ignore it.

No, he did not address the Christian conception of the Trinity. He addressed polytheism, which is very different. Christianity is not polytheistic; it is strongly monotheistic.

(ABE: perhaps Jichard honestly confuses the Christian concept of the Trinity with polytheism. This would not be too surprising; other non-Christians such as Mohammed have made the same mistake.)