|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 21, 2024 3:42:48 GMT
Nowadays? Maybe. But remember that most great scientists, writers, philosophers and artists in human history have been religious. Yeah but that's only because people in general back then were more religious (you would be hard presesed to find an atheist before the 1900s or so). And even then there were varying degrees of how religious they actually were (many great thinkers/scientists/artists were deists/non demoninational theists that rejected organized religion and dogma) In any case, this is not about cognitive abilities. There are people who have a predisposition for unreasonable belief - it doesn't matter if that's God or the viability of Socialism. And most people instinctively gravitate towards a system of belief which makes them feel special. |
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jun 21, 2024 3:52:45 GMT
Not sure. Facile attempts to broadly categorize groups as more or less intelligent on average don’t usually underline the sharpest knives in the drawer, though. 250 of the top ranked universities, not one of them in a Muslim majority nation. At least as of a couple of years ago. I haven’t checked the latest rankings. Richard Dawkins says that religion is the beginning of unreason. |
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Jun 21, 2024 4:00:45 GMT
Only dozens? Most scientists I know have written dozens of treaties the size of books and read several hundred.
Not only can science be taken literally, it must be taken literally, otherwise it's not science. That means it requires no great skill to "read" it. It's quite literally simply what it is. Writing it takes a little more doing, but not much. Science tends to ignore other factors in order to focus on one (ceteris paribus). The beauty of simplicity. Yet did you know science cannot address any moral issues? Did you know most issues in politics cannot begin to be addressed by any science? It's true.
Meanwhile scriptures do address issues in morality, which it turns out developed over a rather long time amidst some controversy.
If your only source for "religion" is one book, you are a missing a rather significant source of wisdom, revelation. Maybe you read that part about the "comforter" who would keep you current on the news.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Jun 21, 2024 4:04:04 GMT
If you had any idea at all how either science or religion works your opinion might have more value. Since you have no idea, it really doesn't matter what you think or say at this point.
Since you are a rabid religious lunatic and ignoramus your opinions have ZERO value.
Everything you say is pure garbage and absolutely irrelevant.
Now go back to your Church duties.
If all people were no smarter than you, tadpoles would take over the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Jun 21, 2024 4:16:25 GMT
Not sure. Facile attempts to broadly categorize groups as more or less intelligent on average don’t usually underline the sharpest knives in the drawer, though. 250 of the top ranked universities, not one of them in a Muslim majority nation. At least as of a couple of years ago. I haven’t checked the latest rankings. Richard Dawkins says that religion is the beginning of unreason.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason the world is as messed up as it is. Your concept of religion is based on people who can't read it. I would pay good money to hear Dawkins discuss how "unreasonable" slavery was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jun 21, 2024 4:19:51 GMT
Since you are a rabid religious lunatic and ignoramus your opinions have ZERO value.
Everything you say is pure garbage and absolutely irrelevant.
Now go back to your Church duties.
If all people were no smarter than you, tadpoles would take over the world.
If all people were no smarter than you, tadpoles would take over the world. |
|
|
|
Post by cinemachinery on Jun 21, 2024 14:54:06 GMT
Not sure. Facile attempts to broadly categorize groups as more or less intelligent on average don’t usually underline the sharpest knives in the drawer, though. 250 of the top ranked universities, not one of them in a Muslim majority nation. At least as of a couple of years ago. I haven’t checked the latest rankings. Richard Dawkins says that religion is the beginning of unreason. Do I need to repeat the statement? 😜 |
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jun 21, 2024 15:13:10 GMT
250 of the top ranked universities, not one of them in a Muslim majority nation. At least as of a couple of years ago. I haven’t checked the latest rankings. Richard Dawkins says that religion is the beginning of unreason. Do I need to repeat the statement? 😜 There comes a point where the evidence is so compelling that to ignore it would be ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by teh on Jun 21, 2024 15:16:24 GMT
250 of the top ranked universities, not one of them in a Muslim majority nation. At least as of a couple of years ago. I haven’t checked the latest rankings. Richard Dawkins says that religion is the beginning of unreason. Do I need to repeat the statement? 😜 It's literally what Harry does, yet he repeats others' statements... not sure what all that is about. |
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jun 21, 2024 15:51:10 GMT
Yeah but that's only because people in general back then were more religious (you would be hard presesed to find an atheist before the 1900s or so). And even then there were varying degrees of how religious they actually were (many great thinkers/scientists/artists were deists/non demoninational theists that rejected organized religion and dogma) In any case, this is not about cognitive abilities. There are people who have a predisposition for unreasonable belief - it doesn't matter if that's God or the viability of Socialism. And most people instinctively gravitate towards a system of belief which makes them feel special. Back then it was far more gaps in our knowledge about how the world works.
It's the old God of the Gaps argument: We don't understand x, therefore God. That was more compelling back then than it is now.
|
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 21, 2024 15:56:06 GMT
In any case, this is not about cognitive abilities. There are people who have a predisposition for unreasonable belief - it doesn't matter if that's God or the viability of Socialism. And most people instinctively gravitate towards a system of belief which makes them feel special. Back then it was far more gaps in our knowledge about how the world works.
It's the old God of the Gaps argument: We don't understand x, therefore God. That was more compelling back then than it is now.
None of that makes Aristotle or Newton less of a titan. |
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jun 21, 2024 16:13:26 GMT
Back then it was far more gaps in our knowledge about how the world works.
It's the old God of the Gaps argument: We don't understand x, therefore God. That was more compelling back then than it is now.
None of that makes Aristotle or Newton less of a titan. Nope.
I don't know about Aristotle, but Newton made his discoveries in order to be closer to God. To understand his workings, that's something that today's church has rejected.
Today though, the churches (at least those in the US) are hellbent on denying science.
|
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 21, 2024 16:21:32 GMT
None of that makes Aristotle or Newton less of a titan. Nope.
I don't know about Aristotle, but Newton made his discoveries in order to be closer to God. To understand his workings, that's something that today's church has rejected.
Today though, the churches (at least those in the US) are hellbent on denying science.
You moved the goalposts a little, I think. The question was not necessarily about the modern churches. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2024 16:30:09 GMT
Back then it was far more gaps in our knowledge about how the world works.
It's the old God of the Gaps argument: We don't understand x, therefore God. That was more compelling back then than it is now.
None of that makes Aristotle or Newton less of a titan. No, but it's interesting to think how they would have responded to Darwin's work on evolutionary biology. |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 21, 2024 16:32:57 GMT
None of that makes Aristotle or Newton less of a titan. No, but it's interesting to think how they would have responded to Darwin's work on evolutionary biology. That's for sure |
|
