Why are better educated people less religious?

I differ with neo on religious' topics, but I also have differences with all my siblings. I respect them for their beliefs, but question their ability to provide satisfactory answers to the questions posed about their god and beliefs as delineated by their "bible."

My only tools are science, common sense, and logic. Theirs is based on "faith." I continue to miss their "points" for their belief.

It has been proven by research that prayer does not work, but they continue to pray to their god to intervene for their good health, and thank him for the food they eat. I just don't "get it."

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I believe he exists because I have put him to a personal test. And the key to that test is understanding that when you inquire of God he is not required to give you an answer on your terms.

Did God pass your "personal test", then? If you haven't received an answer "on your terms" then you must not be convinced, yourself.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

neologist wrote:
I believe he exists because I have put him to a personal test. And the key to that test is understanding that when you inquire of God he is not required to give you an answer on your terms.

Did God pass your "personal test", then? If you haven't received an answer "on your terms" then you must not be convinced, yourself.

I had to re evaluate my terms. I have seen that not everyone is willing to do that.

0 Replies

Steve wrote

Quote:

saw a card on someone's shelf recently...it said "Relax, God is in control". Its an attractive message, but its also an invitation to be intellectually lazy, and ultimately its unsatisfactory.

I think this well sums up the situation vis-a-vis "intelligence and religion".
Phrases like "personal test" cannot be a satisfactorary basis for organised religion. Introducing a "personal God", has the same intellectual status as "the Emperor's new clothes". Ultimately all concepts, whether they be "gods" or "trees" are merely tokens of communicative exchange. They are our "currency of discourse" and like the "promise" on banknotes their functional "value" lies in social confidence levels rather than nebulous "gold reserves".

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
I believe he exists because I have put him to a personal test. And the key to that test is understanding that when you inquire of God he is not required to give you an answer on your terms.

Did God pass your "personal test", then? If you haven't received an answer "on your terms" then you must not be convinced, yourself.
I had to re evaluate my terms. I have seen that not everyone is willing to do that.

What is different about your new terms that has allowed God to pass your personal test?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
I believe he exists because I have put him to a personal test. And the key to that test is understanding that when you inquire of God he is not required to give you an answer on your terms.

Did God pass your "personal test", then? If you haven't received an answer "on your terms" then you must not be convinced, yourself.
I had to re evaluate my terms. I have seen that not everyone is willing to do that.

What is different about your new terms that has allowed God to pass your personal test?

Example: I was happy to learn that we were meant to live on earth and that such a possibility was open to me. I was less than enthusiastic over learning that I might have to make some personality changes. I could add more, if that doesn't suffice.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
I believe he exists because I have put him to a personal test. And the key to that test is understanding that when you inquire of God he is not required to give you an answer on your terms.

Did God pass your "personal test", then? If you haven't received an answer "on your terms" then you must not be convinced, yourself.
I had to re evaluate my terms. I have seen that not everyone is willing to do that.

What is different about your new terms that has allowed God to pass your personal test?
Example: I was happy to learn that we were meant to live on earth and that such a possibility was open to me. I was less than enthusiastic over learning that I might have to make some personality changes. I could add more, if that doesn't suffice.

I don't understand. How did any of this cause you to become convinced of God's existence?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Phrases like "personal test" cannot be a satisfactorary basis for organised religion. Introducing a "personal God", has the same intellectual status as "the Emperor's new clothes". Ultimately all concepts, whether they be "gods" or "trees" are merely tokens of communicative exchange. They are our "currency of discourse" and like the "promise" on banknotes their functional "value" lies in social confidence levels rather than nebulous "gold reserves".

I dont understand this and would appreciate clarification. Are you saying the concepts of "God" and "tree" are just equivalent communicative exchanges? I've heard of people on a journey finding god, but the result is different from going off the road and finding a tree.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
I believe he exists because I have put him to a personal test. And the key to that test is understanding that when you inquire of God he is not required to give you an answer on your terms.

Did God pass your "personal test", then? If you haven't received an answer "on your terms" then you must not be convinced, yourself.
I had to re evaluate my terms. I have seen that not everyone is willing to do that.

What is different about your new terms that has allowed God to pass your personal test?
Example: I was happy to learn that we were meant to live on earth and that such a possibility was open to me. I was less than enthusiastic over learning that I might have to make some personality changes. I could add more, if that doesn't suffice.

I don't understand. How did any of this cause you to become convinced of God's existence?

As I read this, and I could be wrong, it seems Neo changed the test until god got the answer right. I had a soccer coach in high school who used to help the players out the same way, I guess both Neo and coach got the results they were looking for, but neither of them were offering an actual test of anything.

Joe(come on, you know this, god, I know you do.)Nation

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

..I was happy to learn that we were meant to live on earth...

Have you ever considered the anthropic principle? That is if the earth had turned out completely differently, we would not have evolved to observe it and comment how marvellous it all is?

The use of the word "meant" implies the pre-existence of the Grand Designer, who is either part of the universe he builds, so he builds himself, or is somehow outside of our Universe, in which case he might as well not exist.

This is like the creationists logic, ascribing purpose and design where there is none. We are the product of billions of years of evolution. The Universe, is like it is, because if it wasnt, if for instance sub atomic forces did not allow for the building of atoms and molecules, we would not be here to observe it. Theists and even worse the creationists either cannot or will not understand these concepts. Or so it seems to me.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

I've heard of people on a journey finding god, but the result is different from going off the road and finding a tree.

Not necessarily. The number of people who have been maimed or killed incident upon the "discovery" of god probably easily numbers in the billions.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

. . . As I read this, and I could be wrong, it seems Neo changed the test until god got the answer right. I had a soccer coach in high school who used to help the players out the same way, I guess both Neo and coach got the results they were looking for, but neither of them were offering an actual test of anything.

Joe(come on, you know this, god, I know you do.)Nation

Heh, Heh! No. Neo had to change Neo

echi wrote:

. . . I don't understand. How did any of this cause you to become convinced of God's existence?

It's more a case of each time I reached an explanation of why God would do something in a certain way I would have to try to imagine looking at the issue from God's point of view. For example, many blame God for allowing human misery to continue for thousand of years, thinking (rightly) if Satan was wrong, why not zap him on the spot? The answer lies in God's perception of time and in the several issues raised by Satan in Eden. Should I fault God for the pain humans have suffered and for the untimely deaths of 2 of my grandsons or should I be grateful that he has given us all hope?

Steve 41oo wrote:

. . . I dont understand this and would appreciate clarification. Are you saying the concepts of "God" and "tree" are just equivalent communicative exchanges? I've heard of people on a journey finding god, but the result is different from going off the road and finding a tree.

I understand that not all I talk to are able (or willing) to grasp that hope, and I realize that it cannot be expressed empirically. Nevertheless the hope may be tested.

Er.

Without being maimed or killed.

Setanta wrote:

. . . The number of people who have been maimed or killed incident upon the "discovery" of god probably easily numbers in the billions.

0 Replies

Steve,

I have taken a non-dualiistic line on reality.

To clarify...I am saying that "reality" consists of "concepts" not "things".
This follows the line that "observer" and "observed" are two sides of the same coin called "existence". The concept "tree" is shorthand for a set of expectectations we hold in common with others of possible interactions with "the world" eg "shade" or " visual stimulation" or "hazard" etc. There is NO tree independent of the observer and vice versa. (Consider a bird's relationship with what we call tree..."perchfulness", "nesting potential" etc but since these are not unique to "trees" it follows that "trees" may not exist as a "useful concept" for birds...or ants...etc. By extrapolation "thingness" depends on the nature of the "thinger" and vice versa)

Moving on to the concept "God", it differs from "tree" merely in the type expectations it represents for some, e.g "paternal benevolence", "non-physicality" etc. Atheists have no use for the concept. For them it is equivalent to a banknote from a game like monopoloy.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Steve,

I have taken a non-dualiistic line on reality.

To clarify...I am saying that "reality" consists of "concepts" not "things".
This follows the line that "observer" and "observed" are two sides of the same coin called "existence". The concept "tree" is shorthand for a set of expectectations we hold in common with others of possible interactions with "the world" eg "shade" or " visual stimulation" or "hazard" etc. There is NO tree independent of the observer and vice versa. (Consider a bird's relationship with what we call tree..."perchfulness", "nesting potential" etc but since these are not unique to "trees" it follows that "trees" may not exist as a "useful concept" for birds...or ants...etc. By extrapolation "thingness" depends on the nature of the "thinger" and vice versa)

Moving on to the concept "God", it differs from "tree" merely in the type expectations it represents for some, e.g "paternal benevolence", "non-physicality" etc. Atheists have no use for the concept. For them it is equivalent to a banknote from a game like monopoloy.

brilliant Fres. will re-read tomorrow when not full of "disappointment" re Liverpool

0 Replies

fresco,
You should start a religion.

0 Replies

We don't need no another damn religion. Wink

0 Replies

"Non-duality" is already the basis for Buddhism. Add some meditation, and some ethics. and you are there.

0 Replies

As You wish.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
I believe he exists because I have put him to a personal test. And the key to that test is understanding that when you inquire of God he is not required to give you an answer on your terms.

Did God pass your "personal test", then? If you haven't received an answer "on your terms" then you must not be convinced, yourself.
I had to re evaluate my terms. I have seen that not everyone is willing to do that.

What is different about your new terms that has allowed God to pass your personal test?
Example: I was happy to learn that we were meant to live on earth and that such a possibility was open to me. I was less than enthusiastic over learning that I might have to make some personality changes. I could add more, if that doesn't suffice.

I don't understand. How did any of this cause you to become convinced of God's existence?

neologist wrote:

It's more a case of each time I reached an explanation of why God would do something in a certain way I would have to try to imagine looking at the issue from God's point of view. For example, many blame God for allowing human misery to continue for thousand of years, thinking (rightly) if Satan was wrong, why not zap him on the spot? The answer lies in God's perception of time and in the several issues raised by Satan in Eden. Should I fault God for the pain humans have suffered and for the untimely deaths of 2 of my grandsons or should I be grateful that he has given us all hope?

So, now, instead of testing God, you test yourself? And you are convinced of God's existence inasmuch as you are able to pass the test?
(Am I getting closer?)

0 Replies

echi wrote:

. . . So, now, instead of testing God, you test yourself? And you are convinced of God's existence inasmuch as you are able to pass the test?
(Am I getting closer?)

This is not a decision I arrived at in some moment of emotion. The message I was hearing was sufficiently interesting and different from the pablum I had been taught, that I agreed to investigate. It took several months to reach a point of dedication. But, even now, after over 30 years, I still don't take anything for granted. And I can assure you that I am a poor representative of my faith. That doesn't keep me from trying.

0 Replies

Why are better educated people less religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know