Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Do So Many Well Educated People Not Believe In God?

VideoGameJunkie

By VideoGameJunkie
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Analytics Grand Master

Analytics

Posted
Posted

I think that is what I said.  It is possible for different people to look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

 

Sure, it's possible.  But there is a certain rigorous way of thinking, questioning, and observing that science promotes.  When people look at the evidence that way, they will not only come to a consensus about, for example, the fact that electrons really do exist.  They'll also come to conclusions about any number of specific details about the properties of electrons: how many there are here or there, how much they weigh, how they behave on the scales of quantum mechanics, etc.

 

When you approach the issue of "God" that way, what do we find out about God? Can we conclude that God loves Muslims more than the Jews?  That He is going to reward some people and punish other after they are dead?  Who?  That He is really a He and not a She?  That He (or She) has a body?  That He (or She) even exists?

 

The scientific approach is an incredibly powerful tool at observing the subtle points of reality, understanding what they mean, overcoming human biases, substituting facts for appearences, and replacing impressions with demonstrations.  If people really, really, want to know the truth about whether God exists and aren't simply trying to justify the conclusions they are drawn to, they'll apply scientific thinking to the issue of God's existence.  They take this approach because it's the approach that has the best track record of uncovering reality--even subtle points that are counter-intuitive such as the laws of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

 

That approach simply doesn't reveal God. 

 

Of course there are different approaches that can be taken.  In general, other approaches don't have a good track record of conclusively proving what's true and what's not.  That's why in general, you aren't going to here Mormon scientists say, "When approached correctly, the evidence compells me to believe in [LDS Truth Claims] in the same way it compells me to believe in [scientific Theories]."

 

In contrast, what do they say? Here is an interesting Google search:

 

site:http://mormonscholarstestify.org/ "choose to believe"

 

It's almost a cliche for Mormon scholars to say they believe because they choose to.

1
Brian 2.0 Veteran

Brian 2.0

Posted
Posted

Sure, it's possible. But there is a certain rigorous way of thinking, questioning, and observing that science promotes. When people look at the evidence that way, they will not only come to a consensus about, for example, the fact that electrons really do exist. They'll also come to conclusions about any number of specific details about the properties of electrons: how many there are here or there, how much they weigh, how they behave on the scales of quantum mechanics, etc.

When you approach the issue of "God" that way, what do we find out about God? Can we conclude that God loves Muslims more than the Jews? That He is going to reward some people and punish other after they are dead? Who? That He is really a He and not a She? That He (or She) has a body? That He (or She) even exists?

The scientific approach is an incredibly powerful tool at observing the subtle points of reality, understanding what they mean, overcoming human biases, substituting facts for appearences, and replacing impressions with demonstrations. If people really, really, want to know the truth about whether God exists and aren't simply trying to justify the conclusions they are drawn to, they'll apply scientific thinking to the issue of God's existence. They take this approach because it's the approach that has the best track record of uncovering reality--even subtle points that are counter-intuitive such as the laws of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

That approach simply doesn't reveal God.

Of course there are different approaches that can be taken. In general, other approaches don't have a good track record of conclusively proving what's true and what's not. That's why in general, you aren't going to here Mormon scientists say, "When approached correctly, the evidence compells me to believe in [LDS Truth Claims] in the same way it compells me to believe in [scientific Theories]."

In contrast, what do they say? Here is an interesting Google search:

site:http://mormonscholarstestify.org/ "choose to believe"

It's almost a cliche for Mormon scholars to say they believe because they choose to.

+1

Brian 2.0 Veteran

Brian 2.0

Posted
Posted

You can't prove that you've felt the spirit, but I've definitely felt it.

I've often wondered if people would say they "felt the spirit of God" had they not been taught to recognize it as such.

On my mission a big thing was "identifying the spirit". When you can tell someone is feeling something during the discussion you say "what you are feeling right now is the Holy Ghost testifying the truthfulness of the things we are teaching."

Now I see that as a fairly presumptuous statement.

Brian 2.0 Veteran

Brian 2.0

Posted
Posted

Is it always the Holy Ghost that we feel, or is it God's love? Or both at the same time?

Probably impossible to know. There's a bunch if options in the theology.

I've often wondered if there was a distinct difference in having the personage if the HG dwelling inside you vs feeling the power of the Holy Ghost.

Rodeo Community Regular

Rodeo

Posted
Posted

Nonsense. I learned about the Gods of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Indians(Asiatic and American), the polytheistic animal worshipers, and even the God's of Christians, Jews. and Muslims in public schools. I even was forced to listen to KJV only Baptists reading of their Bible at the start of every school day. First Period class was a science class, so it made for quite a show.

 

I have no problem with teaching the Bible as literature, along with the other creation myths out there.

Do you think the creation is a myth?

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Well educated doesn't mean more intelligent. Well educated just means being told a lot of things by a lot of people, but there is still a lot more to be learned, especially when a well educated person hasn't even been told why they should believe in God. And yet, being told there is a God doesn't mean they're going to believe it because, as I said, well educated doesn't mean more intelligent.

 

The lack of a good education isn't predicated on lack of intelligence. Lack of intelligence means an inability to make use of that good education. Learning should be a lifetime effort and in the LDS faith an eternal one.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Do you believe LDS creation is a myth?

 

Depends. If you mean do I believe all the creation stories that have largely come down to us from other Christians. No I do not. IE; Do I believe Eve was literally made from the rib of Adam? Nope. Do you believe simply putting a stripped stick near sheep, goats, and cattle produce different colored sheep, goats, and cattle. Do you believe the earth is flat and has four corners? Do you believe Pi is equal to exactly 3? If not why not?

Rodeo Community Regular

Rodeo

Posted
Posted

Depends. If you mean do I believe all the creation stories that have largely come down to us from other Christians. No I do not. IE; Do I believe Eve was literally made from the rib of Adam? Nope. Do you believe simply putting a stripped stick near sheep, goats, and cattle produce different colored sheep, goats, and cattle. Do you believe the earth is flat and has four corners? Do you believe Pi is equal to exactly 3? If not why not?

Do you believe the creation story taught by the LDS church to be a myth? Please just answer

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

Brigham Young thought it was myth-ish

Didn't he call a lot of the garden story a "fairy tale"?

IIRC, he called Genesis "baby stories" which is not quite the same thing.

BlueDreams Grand Master

BlueDreams

Posted
Posted

Sure, it's possible.  But there is a certain rigorous way of thinking, questioning, and observing that science promotes.  When people look at the evidence that way, they will not only come to a consensus about, for example, the fact that electrons really do exist.  They'll also come to conclusions about any number of specific details about the properties of electrons: how many there are here or there, how much they weigh, how they behave on the scales of quantum mechanics, etc.

 

When you approach the issue of "God" that way, what do we find out about God? Can we conclude that God loves Muslims more than the Jews?  That He is going to reward some people and punish other after they are dead?  Who?  That He is really a He and not a She?  That He (or She) has a body?  That He (or She) even exists?

 

The scientific approach is an incredibly powerful tool at observing the subtle points of reality, understanding what they mean, overcoming human biases, substituting facts for appearences, and replacing impressions with demonstrations.  If people really, really, want to know the truth about whether God exists and aren't simply trying to justify the conclusions they are drawn to, they'll apply scientific thinking to the issue of God's existence.  They take this approach because it's the approach that has the best track record of uncovering reality--even subtle points that are counter-intuitive such as the laws of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

 

That approach simply doesn't reveal God. 

I was watching a Ted talk the other night about endangered cultures. It was showing these distinct and beautiful viewpoints that are being lost throughout the world. One was of a tribe who had Id'd 17 (I believe, it's going off of memory) plants that an outsider would observe to be the same plant. The guy asked how they could tell the difference, and they looked at him oddly and said "don't you know plants?" They then explained that they would go out at night on certain days and the different variations would sing to them differently. When I told my roommate - who studied biology - this she found it fascinating and the first thing she said was "I wonder if they are real 17 different subspecies/variations of plant, has anyone studied the plants to see?" I told her she was missing the point....what makes something real? For these people these 17 plants held a definite distinction, were utilized differently, and held different significance for them. The 17 distinctions were very real, with or without science to back it up.

 

The problem that I have with what you've mentioned isn't that I don't think electrons don't exist because there's no way to really see them, its the value and assumption behind these points. For example your first sentence mentions that there is a "rigorous" method to science. Which is generally true. But it assumes that there is a) there is not a rigorous way to differing methodologies to knowledge and experience and b) that a rigorous methodology is a good if not better method to conduct a pursuit of absolute knowledge. It's a way. A way that I personally don't consistently find all that useful in my own life...and not only in faith but in so much more, such as my field that is people focused and how I view and see the world around me. For me life is better described as a living pulse or clay, molded and altered by how we touch and interact with it. Some things won't change, but so much can that focusing on the rigorous properties of the clay material in the art of life seems like missing the point to it all. One may take one's own value structure for truth as a rigorous focus on observable data and apply it here to note that it doesn't really matter, because I'm one individual against the very real and observable universe. But to me what's mentioned doesn't make sense, since what is observed is still through the assumptions and lens of another human who simply has a differing value structure and method in interacting with one's world.

 

So to take a value-laden assumption to what is a better method to attain knowledge or truth and applying it to everything, seems like folly.

 

Of course there are different approaches that can be taken.  In general, other approaches don't have a good track record of conclusively proving what's true and what's not.  That's why in general, you aren't going to here Mormon scientists say, "When approached correctly, the evidence compells me to believe in [LDS Truth Claims] in the same way it compells me to believe in [scientific Theories]."

 

Again, this is heavy with underlying assumptions and almost circular. It's assumed that a rigorous, quantifiable methodology is the best value because the best way to understand the world is to understand its consistent quantifiable and material nature. And with that assumption of better value it's assumed that it should be applied in other areas such as faith....that faith should match up with the better value of science. Why? because science is good because it relies and seeks for those things that are quantifiable,  because we deem that to be good. It makes no sense to someone who doesn't buy into the idea that the best knowledge is that found by quantifiable evidence. 

 

In contrast, what do they say? Here is an interesting Google search:

 

site:http://mormonscholarstestify.org/ "choose to believe"

 

It's almost a cliche for Mormon scholars to say they believe because they choose to.

 

Haha, probably true....but also probably in reaction to the expectations of one's peers. A very common expectation that I've heard from multiple atheists is an assumption that one's belief structure is inherited. One that I still remember when I was a teen was using this to contrast the sense of uniqueness and strength in his own path, because he really chose it (compared to all the theists he was surrounded by). So it would be no surprised to me at least that that would be a point they'd make. 

 

With luv,

BD

2
EllenMaksoud Grand Master

EllenMaksoud

Posted
Posted

It seems so many atheists are well educated and intelligent in science and academics. Even Stephen Hawking is an atheist. Why is that? I'm not calling believers uneducated, I'm just saying a lot of atheists are very well educated.

Steven Hawking got more than his share of trials. I am sure that God understands that. We can't judge those who do not believe in God. God knows them intimately.

Ahab Grand Master

Ahab

Posted
Posted

BD, I really love the way you think and how you see things, even though I don't always agree with you. Your post above is just a beauty to behold, and I want to hear a lot more from you.

1
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

Brigham Young thought it was myth-ish

Didn't he call a lot of the garden story a "fairy tale"?

 

No.  As I remember it he said as the sectarians teach it.

Nofear Grand Master

Nofear

Posted
Posted (edited)

Brigham Young thought it was myth-ish

Didn't he call a lot of the garden story a "fairy tale"?

 

Parley P. Pratt put it this way, and to my understanding it is in line with Brigham Young's thinking (though I don't have specific quotes on hand):

Man, moulded from earth, as a brick! A Woman, manufactured from a rib! Thus, parents still would fain conceal from budding manhood, the mysteries of procreation, or the sources of life’s ever flowing river, by relating some childish tale of new born life, engendered in the hollow trunk of some old tree or springing with spontaneous growth, like mushrooms, from out the heaps or rubbish. O Man! When wilt thou cease to be a child in knowledge? (Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, p 55)

Edited by Nofear
Brian 2.0 Veteran

Brian 2.0

Posted
Posted (edited)

I've been trying to find the Brigham Young "fairy tale" quote.  This is as far as I got, from the FAIR website as it goes over possible explanations for Adam-God, but it doesn't have a footnote so I can't find a source:

 

Some basis for this assertion may rest in the fact that Brigham Young stated that Moses was using "dark sayings" with regard to his story of the rib in Eve's creation, and the fact that President Young dismissed those stories of Adam's and Eve's creations as childish fairy tales. He himself may have practiced the same types of "dark sayings" following a tradition that he believed was started by Moses, by veiling what he was talking about in confusing language.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

Edited by Brian 2.0
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Do you believe the creation story taught by the LDS church to be a myth? Please just answer

 

Again depends on what story you want me to believe. BTW Most myths are based on some reality. IE; King Arther, of round table fame, most likely really did exist in early English history. The stories of some of his exploits probably have no basis in reality.

Rodeo Community Regular

Rodeo

Posted
Posted

Again depends on what story you want me to believe. BTW Most myths are based on some reality. IE; King Arther, of round table fame, most likely really did exist in early English history. The stories of some of his exploits probably have no basis in reality.

The story taught by the LDS religion will do

Brian 2.0 Veteran

Brian 2.0

Posted
Posted

The story taught by the LDS religion will do

Rodeo, you have to be more specific or his answer will me "some I do, some I don't"

You can believe that there was a a literal Adam and Eve and even a garden, but that the creation of Eve from a Rib and other topics are not literally true.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...