Intelligence and Religiosity

[Sea of red]

Did you notice the qualifiers in your quote, which I highlighted? Your quote is not a definition, but an apologetic argument for similarity between pantheism and atheism.

Here is a dictionary definition for pantheism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pantheism

Source: dictionary.reference.com

pantheism
[pan-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1.
the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2.
any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, a pantheist may be similar to an atheist in many ways. However, a pantheist believes in a god; an atheist does not. A pantheist is a type of theist, not an atheist.

Claims that Einstein was an atheist are simply wrong. You might as well try to claim that 2+2=5.

Einstein did not believe in a creator, or any kind of being that one could interact with in the universe. He found first-cause arguments lacking but remained agnostic towards the idea itself. In fact, he found the idea of conscience beings controlling natural law to be childish and outdated. Did he call himself an atheist? No. But then again, most scholars think Hume was an atheist and he never (as far as I know) called himself one. Einstein wanted to distance himself political atheism and communist red scare tactics in the western world.

Like Hawking, he didn't want to upset the public by proclaiming non belief.

For the record: I do not hold to the idea of atheism being a lack of belief in god like the New Atheists do. I hold that atheist is someone that believes there are no gods, like myself.

Pantheism applies to both atheistic and theistic worldviews.

[klaus54]

Ebenfalls bin Ich ueberzeugt dass der Herrgott nicht wuerfelt. - A. Einstein

"In any case I am convinced that the Lord-God does not toss (dice)."

Doesn't sound like an atheist to me.

[lilpixieofterror]

I already read that scientific paper before you made your post; I've seen other science-denying Christians cite it, though most of those Christians didn't actually read the paper.

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/34...c4716.full.pdf

Have you read the paper? If you have, then please tell me the last sentence ofthe paper (the sentence that appears right before the "REFERENCES AND NOTES" section of the paper? I don't think you'll be able to tell me that since I don't think you read the paper.

Let me get this straight... you want me to post the last sentence of the paper, to 'prove' I read it? Why couldn't I just use something like bug me not, copy the last sentence of the article, and use that to pretend I read it all? I have no idea what the end sentence in Orthodoxy is, despite having read the book over half a dozen times. Seriously, stop being dumb because this is just silliness.

BTW I do not 'deny science' you stupid twit, but I don't care for fundy atheist (IE you) who try to misuse science, to press their own agenda's because they hate religion.

By the way, the paper does nothing to support your claims.

What are my 'claims'?

I'll repeat myself as many times as it takes you to address what I said:

"Which is irrelevant since the research in question was replicated multiple times using multiple techniques, as you would know if you read the paper."

So to recap, your source does nothing to support your claim, since your source is about scientific research that has not been replicated, while the research from the OP has been replicated multiple times using different techniques.

Translation: "I can't answer, so I'm going to act all smug and hope my smugness makes up for my lack of arguments!"

Sorry sweety, but you made the arguments and it is your job to support them. Not mine to refute them. Now answer the questions please:

What is the education level of the people tested? If the education level is given, what is the major field of study these people can be divided into?

It is a simple question that is rather important, in this context. Why such avoidance?

I didn't completely read the press piece, since the press isn't the most reliable place to get information on science. But I read the scientific paper long before that lik was poted. Have you read the scientific paper?

Not my job to support your idiotic claims since the article that OBP quoted comes from a scientific paper itself. You're just ignoring it because you didn't bother to read it because it disagrees with what you want to believe. Keep trying,

Your friend,
lilpix

[lilpixieofterror]

"God does not exist" is not a religious belief, anymore than "magic does not exist" is a supernatural belief. Basically, you're equivocating on the term religious belief. By your logic, I might as well say that you have a magical belief, since you believe that leprechauns don't exist.

Furthermore, one can be an atheist without believing that "God does not exist".



Well, you could actually read the studies to see the evidence on this. So...

In any event, anecdotal, personal experience doesn't rebut scientific evidence. And before you resort to this claim of your's:
note that the research in question has been replicated multiple times. That's part of the power of the meta-analysis: it's going over multiple studies that have replicated the relevant findings.

"Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief"
http://math.as.uky.edu/sites/default...20Thinking.pdf

"Divine Intuition: Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God"
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~d...reene_2012.pdf

And analytic thinking is better than intuitive because...

[lilpixieofterror]

Is telling the truth difficult?

Let's open door number two...

I was busy watching my three year old and made a mistake where I mixed up the first and second link.

Nah, that makes your opponent look good, so you can't have that and thus anybody who dares to question you, must be lying! Yep, that is the only answer that you like because it tells you stuff you like hearing.

[lilpixieofterror]

^^^ Substance-free rant.

That pretty much is what your post is. You sure like to rant, don't you? Your 'arguments' are pretty dumb (even for you):

So let me restate them again, so you'll answer them:

1. I made a mistake in which I mixed up the first and second link because I was busy taking care of a 3 year old in the process of writing my post. Hey though, if a simple mistake makes you feel better about your lack of arguments... hey go with that!
2. Education level is not the same as asking what degrees and area of study each person was part of. You do know there's a difference between education level and degree earned, right?
3. I have known and met scientist and nope, they do not act like the arrogant jack ass you act like at all (in fact, we have a few on tWeb that are both atheist and Christian). They answer questions asked of them and don't just throw up a bunch of 'studies' and pretend as though that is answering arguments or questions about their claims. You are not a scientist, but a parody of one and a dumb one at that. If you want to be a teacher, act like one and actually try teaching people instead of being lazy and pretending that giving a bunch of links is the same thing. If I wanted a bunch of links, I'd search Google and read what the results say. If I wanted somebody to actually discuss things they post, I come here. Now answer the questions already because I'm not reading 50+ pages worth of material if you're not even going to bother to answer a few questions about it. I have a life beyond reading your links all day.

[lilpixieofterror]

Science is not a popularity contest.

This whole thread is profoundly stupid.

Scientific method cannot prove or disprove theism.

Period.

P.S. Since we're judging theism by percent of scientist who were/are, I offer Lamaitre, one of the two scientists who proposed the Big Bang hypothesis (the other being the atheist, Friedman.)

The whole thing sounds rather silly myself. Just like him pretty much trying to make the claim that analytical thinking is better than intuitive thinking. In reality, most of us tend to favor one over the other (I tend to favor intuitive), but neither is 'better' than the other and both are important in their one ways and something we both use.

[Sea of red]

That pretty much is what your post is. You sure like to rant, don't you? Your 'arguments' are pretty dumb (even for you):

So let me restate them again, so you'll answer them:

1. I made a mistake in which I mixed up the first and second link because I was busy taking care of a 3 year old in the process of writing my post. Hey though, if a simple mistake makes you feel better about your lack of arguments... hey go with that!
2. Education level is not the same as asking what degrees and area of study each person was part of. You do know there's a difference between education level and degree earned, right?
3. I have known and met scientist and nope, they do not act like the arrogant jack ass you act like at all (in fact, we have a few on tWeb that are both atheist and Christian). They answer questions asked of them and don't just throw up a bunch of 'studies' and pretend as though that is answering arguments or questions about their claims. You are not a scientist, but a parody of one and a dumb one at that. If you want to be a teacher, act like one and actually try teaching people instead of being lazy and pretending that giving a bunch of links is the same thing. If I wanted a bunch of links, I'd search Google and read what the results say. If I wanted somebody to actually discuss things they post, I come here. Now answer the questions already because I'm not reading 50+ pages worth of material if you're not even going to bother to answer a few questions about it. I have a life beyond reading your links all day.

Did he claim to be a scientist?

[shunyadragon]

This is nonsensical doublespeak. What is a pantheist if not a type of theist?!?

We agree that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. His view of God was more pantheistic (as you say), similar to Spinoza's view of God. But he was a theist nonetheless.

Perhaps you need to look up "pantheism" in a dictionary to see that it is, indeed, a form of theism?

There is a possible application of the broad definition of 'theism' to include all forms of beliefs in the existence or non-existence of Gods. In tis view atheism and agnosticism would be other 'isms' included in this broad definition. Nonetheless Einstein clearly endorsed Spinoza's Pantheism, which proposes that our physical existence is Spinoza's God, and there are no other Gods. This is a matter of fact aversion of atheism/agnosticism. Einstein clearly sided with a strong agnosticism in that he clearly stated that he does not believe there is no possibility that Gods do not exist.

Einstein was certainly not a Christian. But this is not the same as an atheist, even from a Jesuit perspective. Perhaps he was overstating the case to distance himself from the Jesuits, or perhaps he was not clear on the distinctions. In any case, he frequently referred to God in his speaking and writing, e.g.:

Source: Einstein

The theory {of quantum mechanics} says a lot, but does not bring us any closer to the secrets of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice.

The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not.

I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.

What I'm really interested in is whether God could have made the world in a different way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all.

© Copyright Original Source

You most definitely need to cite more complete quotes by Einstein concerning the existence of Gods.

[cite=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein][cite=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein]

[Kbertsche]

... Nonetheless Einstein clearly endorsed Spinoza's Pantheism, which proposes that our physical existence is Spinoza's God, and there are no other Gods. This is a matter of fact aversion of atheism/agnosticism.
...
Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized.

Yes, this is exactly what I've been saying.

... Einstein clearly sided with a strong agnosticism in that he clearly stated that he does not believe there is no possibility that Gods do not exist.
...
He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being".

And this is consistent with what I've been saying.

Perhaps there is confusion due to the fact that Einstein did not believe in a personal god; perhaps some people think that this makes him an atheist. But it doesn't. Theism is just belief in a god, any god, not necessarily a personal god.

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps there is confusion due to the fact that Einstein did not believe in a personal god; perhaps some people think that this makes him an atheist. But it doesn't. Theism is just belief in a god, any god, not necessarily a personal god.

The clarification is what is described as, 'any god,' the belief of Einstein as in the pantheistic of Spinoza would only be much closer to atheism than any other belief, because this in and of it self is an atheist belief and literally there are not 'any gods.' His reservation to believe in agnosticism affirms in humility he ultimately does not know, which is in a way similar to my philosophy, I do not know, but I go farther that IF there is a God, than God is more universal than any one religion or belief system, therefore I chose a theism with a more universal context of God than any one ancient religion.

[Jichard]

Let's open door number two...

I was busy watching my three year old and made a mistake where I mixed up the first and second link.

Nah, that makes your opponent look good, so you can't have that and thus anybody who dares to question you, must be lying! Yep, that is the only answer that you like because it tells you stuff you like hearing.

Why would I give a rude, unpleasant person like you the benefit of the doubt, when you didn't do the same for me?

Since I said I read the SECOND link you gave and didn't claim I read the FIRST link you gave, you have a reading 101 comprehension failure. Try actually READING what your opponents say vs what you want them to say, ok sweety? Now, answer the questions already and stop screaming for others to 'read your links'. Prove that a large percentage of the studies cited gave the data I said they needed to provide or you could always just keep saying that others didn't 'read 50+ pages of material' while showing that you haven't read it yourself.



No, you threw our blind accusations and said the studies said what I asked, without actually quoting where at (as well as accusing me of lying when I never claimed I read your first link, but just read your second link, but I guess making false accusations is all you have left when it keep showing that you haven't actually read what you demand others to read).

If you're going to accuse me of poor reading comprehension and blind accusations, when I pointed out what you actually wrote (something you denied writing, even though you wrote it), then you better be darn sure you can take what you get in response, without complaining.

[Jichard]

That pretty much is what your post is. You sure like to rant, don't you? Your 'arguments' are pretty dumb (even for you):

^^^ Substance-free rant.

So let me restate them again, so you'll answer them:

1. I made a mistake in which I mixed up the first and second link because I was busy taking care of a 3 year old in the process of writing my post. Hey though, if a simple mistake makes you feel better about your lack of arguments... hey go with that!

You're the person who said I had poor reading comprehension when I pointed out what you actually said, when it turns out you were too dumb (to use your term) to remember what you actually wrote. So you really have no room to talk.

2. Education level is not the same as asking what degrees and area of study each person was part of. You do know there's a difference between education level and degree earned, right?

You claimed that the studies did not control for education level.

"We do not know anything about the people being studied, from their individual beliefs, to their education levels, etc to be able to see if the comparisons are even fair to begin with."

That's false. For example:

"The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations"
http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Rel...planations.pdf

pages 8, 12-14

Seriously, do you think I'm going to fall for what you're saying, when you obviously haven't read the studies you claimed you read?

3. I have known and met scientist and nope, they do not act like the arrogant jack ass you act like at all (in fact, we have a few on tWeb that are both atheist and Christian).

^^^ Unintentional irony.

Who's the "arrogant jack ass"?

They answer questions asked of them and don't just throw up a bunch of 'studies' and pretend as though that is answering arguments or questions about their claims.

Already addressed:

"Virtually every scientific paper written by a scientist, cites previous studies that provide evidence for their claims. So please don't pretend you know what scientists do.

No, if a scientist is answering a scientific question in the peer-reviewed literature, they will cite the scientific research that supports their answer. This is really basic stuff.

[...]

I highly doubt you have any idea how scientists actually act. The way scientists talk when they're talking to Christian laypeople who don't know much, is not the same way scientists talking when providing evidence for their claims in their writings."

You are not a scientist, but a parody of one and a dumb one at that.

And now you've gone back to making up falsehood. How do you know whether I'm a scientist or not?

If you want to be a teacher, act like one and actually try teaching people instead of being lazy and pretending that giving a bunch of links is the same thing.

It's hard to teach willfully dishonest people who call other people arrogant asses and pretend they read things they actually hadn't read, while lying about scientific research they haven't read.

If I wanted a bunch of links, I'd search Google and read what the results say.

I quoted the studies and gave you page numbers. Pelase stop pretending I only gave you links. That's dishonest.

If I wanted somebody to actually discuss things they post, I come here. Now answer the questions already because I'm not reading 50+ pages worth of material if you're not even going to bother to answer a few questions about it.

I already answered your question and rebutted your false claim about the paper you pretend to have read. Once again:

You claimed that the studies did not control for education level.

"We do not know anything about the people being studied, from their individual beliefs, to their education levels, etc to be able to see if the comparisons are even fair to begin with."

That's false. For example:

"The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations"
http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Rel...planations.pdf

pages 8, 12-14

Seriously, do you think I'm going to fall for what you're saying, when you obviously haven't read the studies you claimed you read?

So you can stop pretending otherwise.

I have a life beyond reading your links all day.

And that life apparently includes pretending you read things you've never read.

[Jorge]

Why would I give a rude, unpleasant person like you the benefit of the doubt, when you didn't do the same for me?

If you're going to accuse me of poor reading comprehension and blind accusations, when I pointed out what you actually wrote (something you denied writing, even though you wrote it), then you better be darn sure you can take what you get in response, without complaining.

Looks like I'm not alone ... I mean, it does seem like Terror has the same
behavioral patterns with someone else as she does with me, and this one's
an Atheist. Oh well, ya got'ta grant that Terror is consistent.

Jorge

[Jichard]

And analytic thinking is better than intuitive because...

Did I ever claim that analytic thinking was better than intuitive thinking? Please stop attacking a strawman you erected.

In any event, analytic thinking is needed for science, philosophy, and subjects like that.