God Does Not Demand Superstition

[Aetixintro]

When we say that religious people are superstitious, we can mean a number of things.

Such as putting unknown stuff into the religious domain, for when we think about it, it can't be the barbarians who were the geniuses!

So maybe, the explanation is this:
"When I don't know of the entire workings of nature, I say that is with God and that I, at the same time, undertake inquiries into those same workings! Maybe I can find out something!"

Similarly, it's "by grace of God" when we actually produce good descriptions of nature!
That science represents God's ways in the World and to know science, is then to know the mind of God!

Still, today, insofar religious people are superior in terms of understanding, "it's by God" because it can't be the evil people who are doing it because they are known to be idiots!

By God!

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 2 by otseng]

Question for debate:
Is it not true that religious people have always been on the forefront of science and discoveries? I think it's the religious who have been the drivers of development. They have been the sophisticated people.

[Difflugia]

Is it not true that religious people have always been on the forefront of science and discoveries?

In one sense, yes. Among scientists there have always been at least some religious people. I think, though, that you're trying to imply that religious people are overrepresented among scientists. That's objectively false:

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public. Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

I think it's the religious who have been the drivers of development.

If you mean that scientists are disproportionately religious compared to the general public, then you're just wrong. If you mean something else, you'll have to explain what that is.

They have been the sophisticated people.

That might be true, but I'm not sure that sophistication in this context necessarily correlates with improved scientific ability over a nonbeliever, even an unsophisticated one. For one thing, it's much more difficult to reconcile scientific thinking with an unsophisticated theology. Achieving any sort of balance between religious dogma and scientific open-mindedness requires a higher level of theological sophistication than normal. As we've abundantly seen from the various forms of creationism, though, sophistication doesn't necessarily imply the ability to correctly evaluate evidence.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 4 by Difflugia]

Thanks for the nice answer.

I'm aware of the connection "Atheism" and scientists. However, I think we're about to witness a shift toward religions when people get to know these "Atheist" scientists better and compare them with religious people who tend to be trustworthy people if they exist whatsoever.

You may point to statistics and I don't blame you, but I give you character in terms of religious people and that's what I'm trying to say. Ok?

[Difflugia]

I'm aware of the connection "Atheism" and scientists. However, I think we're about to witness a shift toward religions when people get to know these "Atheist" scientists better and compare them with religious people who tend to be trustworthy people if they exist whatsoever.

I'm trying to figure out what your argument is. You asked if religious people had been the drivers of scientific development, presumably more than nonreligious people. I argued that they hadn't been, that there's been, at least in modern times, a higher correlation between being nonreligious and being a scientist.

It sounds to me like your response is that religious people hadn't actually been the ones driving scientific advancement before, but are soon to become so. Is that what you're saying?

You may point to statistics and I don't blame you, but I give you character in terms of religious people and that's what I'm trying to say. Ok?

I don't know what that means. I think you're saying that religious people have better character than nonreligious people even if it's not statistically apparent, but I don't know how you think that applies to your claim that religious people are somehow more responsible for scientific advancement or perhaps will be soon.

[Aetixintro]

I'm aware of the connection "Atheism" and scientists. However, I think we're about to witness a shift toward religions when people get to know these "Atheist" scientists better and compare them with religious people who tend to be trustworthy people if they exist whatsoever.

I'm trying to figure out what your argument is. You asked if religious people had been the drivers of scientific development, presumably more than nonreligious people. I argued that they hadn't been, that there's been, at least in modern times, a higher correlation between being nonreligious and being a scientist.

It sounds to me like your response is that religious people hadn't actually been the ones driving scientific advancement before, but are soon to become so. Is that what you're saying?

Yes. It's clear to us by knowledge of World history that the religious people have built civilization and not the barbarians! Then a period of some territory for "Atheism" by the scientists and their intellectual worries justified! Yet again, we're at a point in time when religious people can gain lost ground and become all because all important answers concerning life views have then been answered. Ok now?

You may point to statistics and I don't blame you, but I give you character in terms of religious people and that's what I'm trying to say. Ok?

I don't know what that means. I think you're saying that religious people have better character than nonreligious people even if it's not statistically apparent, but I don't know how you think that applies to your claim that religious people are somehow more responsible for scientific advancement or perhaps will be soon.

See my answer above in this posting, but you follow my argument even though I used too few words perhaps. So let's see what happens in the World together the next few, 5 years or so. Ok?

[Difflugia]

Yes. It's clear to us by knowledge of World history that the religious people have built civilization and not the barbarians!

I'm pretty sure that the "barbarians" of the past were just as religious as those that "built civilization."

Then a period of some territory for "Atheism" by the scientists and their intellectual worries justified!

I'd argue that's because atheism is correlated with being able to correctly evaluate evidence. Scientists aren't scientists because they're atheists, they're atheists because they apply the same skills to religion that they do to science. I'd argue that anyone that's religious has, for one reason or another, accepted poor evidence in at least that one particular area. If they also accept bad evidence in other disciplines, they're likely to come to improper conclusions in those, as well. That's such a handicap that the completely areligious, though only 4% of the general population, make up more than 40% of scientists. As long as the scientific method continues to be involved in social progress, atheists will continue to be overrepresented.

Yet again, we're at a point in time when religious people can gain lost ground and become all because all important answers concerning life views have then been answered. Ok now?

Well, I suppose if we ever hit the point that all of the science has been done, then being able to evaluate scientific evidence won't offer any sort of advantage.

See my answer above in this posting, but you follow my argument even though I used too few words perhaps. So let's see what happens in the World together the next few, 5 years or so. Ok?

Yes. Let's.

[Purple Knight]

Is it not true that religious people have always been on the forefront of science and discoveries?

Of course it's true. Historically the religious have been over 95% of people.