Are atheists smarter and better educated than Christians?

[123321]

Does 2 +2 =4 b/c it really equals 4 or is it 4 because we define it that way? if one wanted to be facetious, we could say our belief in something as pure a science as math (or any science, for that matter) is a matter of faith, because we put our belief in it and don't question if 4 is actually the answer to the equation of 2 +2

 

All due respect but the underpinnings of math are much more rigorous than this, unlike some "sciences".

[TheFinalWord]

xkcd: Purity

 

LOL Oh yeah, my quantitative methods profs literally laughed at the logic in our homework assignments. It's humbling

 

reduces the likelihood of religious belief but increases the likelihood of participation in all sorts of social activities including church attendance.

 

Can you point me to that study? Academia has killed my social life I want to go to that school

 

PHD Comics: Happening outside

 

PHD Comics: Dec. 26th

 

I do agree with you though. I'd like to see how they quantified spirituality. Church attendance? Number of prayers? Was it just yes/no belief in God? I don't think many people have an absolute yes or no. It's more of a continuum, at least for me. Plenty of times I've doubted. On a scale of 1 to 10 I wouldn't say its 1 on most days, but it's not a full on 10 every day of my life.

Edited July 26, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[Robert Z]

Does 2 +2 =4 b/c it really equals 4 or is it 4 because we define it that way? if one wanted to be facetious, we could say our belief in something as pure a science as math (or any science, for that matter) is a matter of faith, because we put our belief in it and don't question if 4 is actually the answer to the equation of 2 +2

 

Not really. Here is the definition of addition in arithmetic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

 

Addition

Addition is the function + : N × N → N (written in the usual infix notation, mapping elements of N to other elements of N), defined recursively as:

 

For example,

a + 1 = a + S(0) = S(a + 0) = S(a).The structure (N, +) is a commutative semigroup with identity element 0. (N, +) is also a cancellative magma, and thus embeddable in a group. The smallest group embedding N is the integers.

 

From this we can deduce that 2 + 2 = 4

Edited July 26, 2012 by Robert Z

[Forever Silent]

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. There are highly educated people of all religions and those with no religion. One's religious beliefs are not a measure of intelligence.

 

And to answer your question, I am a Christian with a Bachelor's Degree who will be getting my Master's Degree next year, with a 4.0 GPA as a graduate student. Many other Christians I know have achieved advanced college degrees, and are highly intelligent people. Faith and intelligence are not mutually exclusive.

 

Yo congrats on the 4.0, that is truly worth mentioning even if it is totally off-topic. I hope you pursue further education.

[wuggle]

Your beliefs are limited only to scientific theories? I seriously doubt that.

 

I never said that, why would you want to put words into my mouth ? I was asking the OP what he believed to see if HIS beliefs countered his educational 'upbringing' ?

 

... Science is the most limiting construct ever devised. Not meeting the highest standard for proof or evidence does not exclude existence.

 

Agree, this is why it is the most reliable tool we have at our disposal, rather than faith (ie belief in something we cannot prove and have no evidence for). Science itself rarely says that something exists or not, at best it will say that "there is no proof that it exists at the moment of our understanding, and it does not fit with the model we have constructed, which seems correct and is for the most part verifyable by repeated and repeatable experiments".

 

 

...There is a difference between knowledge and beliefs. Beliefs can be based on personal experience and a choice for faith.

 

Again I agree, belief and faith are IMO interdisposable...both allow the end user to accept something for which there is no evidence, a postulation that cannot be objectively verified.

 

... Also, science doesn't even address the question of God because by definition the concept lies outside of the boudaries of science.

 

Agree and disagree. Science does address certain big questions like "why are we here", "how did the universe originate" , what caused the universe to originate" etc. Untill a universally agreed definition of what humanity means by "god" emerges (which is never going to happen) it is not possible or fair to say that science does not attempt to address the question of god.

 

 

....If we had evidence for a God we would never recognize it because by definition we would assume there is another explanation.

 

Completely disgaree. This is the nature of modern scientific endevours, and through brave, open minded people like Einstein, Darwin, Bohr, Fenyman etc if the evidence points to one thing, even if it runs counter to everything you 'believe' or currently 'thought' to be true then they accept that that is the best truth we have, and revise their understanding.

 

Excellent post. The last time I checked, there are numerous methods of proof.

 

Here are just a few:

1) Scientific method (this is considered the ONLY method by many ill-informed chaps)

2) Court system (ie, evidence, "beyond reasonable doubt", etc)

3) Historical manuscript "witnesses" (ie, comparing ancient documents to each other to look for evidence of inconsisency)

4) Historical documentation

5) Personal testimony (especially among large groups of unrelated individuals who are not aware of each other's testimony)

 

This is just waffle.

 

 

Science itself is based on many unprovable assumptions.

 

Untrue. As I stated earlier, the basis for modern scientic study is the hypothosising of a model, which at first glance seems to fit the available evidence. This model MUST be tested and not found wanting, repeatedly and repeatably. If any experiment to test any part of the model indicates that that part (or the whole) of the model is incorrect , it is either discarded or Modified to fit the new evidence, Even if this runs counter to the lifetimes experience of the scientist involved. This is why the scientific method is valid, it can be tested REPEATEDLY and REPEATABLY and OBJECTIVLEY , unlike faith or belief , both of which rely on subjective experience without any externally validated or validatable proof or evidence.

 

A good scientist does not invest his\her ego in the model. If the model is proved to be incorrect, they revise their opinion, even if they have spent a lifetime defending it. A theist on the other hand invests all their ego and spends a lifetime defending a model for which there is no objective proof.

Edited July 26, 2012 by wuggle

[thatone]

and furthermore that answers the question in the next thread, "what gives christians a bad name?"

 

trying to pass off belief as theory and vice versa is nothing more than a shady political stunt, a blatant lie to try and dupe people into following political causes of the church. it has NOTHING to do with religion, and everything to do with political power and money.

 

so check with the part about "thou shalt not bear false witness" and get back to us when you start practicing what you preach.

[M30USA]

Wuggle,

 

You said "untrue" to TheFinalWord's comment about much of science being based on assumption. How can you deny this?

 

1) Evolutionary theory is based on the assumption that the prehistoric world had the same properties of physics and biology as our current world. This MAY be true but it's still an assumption.

 

2) Did you know that physicists are starting to question whether the speed of light, itself, is a constant. There are new theory models which now propose that in the early universe the speed of light was different. You should check it out.

 

3) Carbon dating has long been thought to be constant. But we now know of at least 2 variables which affect it: atmospheric pressure and atmospheric humidity.

[thatone]

the laws of physics are constant.

 

everything here came from a star.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1019/How-are-planets-born-LkCa-15-could-give-scientists-first-ever-peek.

 

you are grasping at straws.

[M30USA]

the laws of physics are constant.

 

everything here came from a star.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1019/How-are-planets-born-LkCa-15-could-give-scientists-first-ever-peek

 

you are grasping at straws.

 

I didn't say "laws". I said properties. Meaning the physical and biological properties at the time.

[wuggle]

Wuggle,

 

You said "untrue" to TheFinalWord's comment about much of science being based on assumption. How can you deny this?

 

1) Evolutionary theory is based on the assumption that the prehistoric world had the same properties of physics and biology as our current world. This MAY be true but it's still an assumption.

 

2) Did you know that physicists are starting to question whether the speed of light, itself, is a constant. There are new theory models which now propose that in the early universe the speed of light was different. You should check it out.

 

3) Carbon dating has long been thought to be constant. But we now know of at least 2 variables which affect it: atmospheric pressure and atmospheric humidity.

 

M30, Please go back and read my comments, you are doing exactly what TFW did, you are misquoting me then arguing against my misquote. This is very unfair.

 

TFW said "science itself is based on many unprovable assumptions" - this I argued was incorrect and I stand by it. it is incorrect. Science is based on testing and veryfying or rejecting assumptions. The whole basis for science is deciding objectively whether an assumption is correct or not by proving or disproving it.

 

re your points above, point 1 is silly I am not even going to bother responding to your argument. On point 2, scientists have ALWAYS questioned this and everything else. they always SHOULD, that is the whole point of science. Objectivity. But they haven't found any evidence to contradict it. When they do they will say "we were wrong" revise their model and keep on being objective. re point 3, yes carbon dating has certain variables which affect it which is why when dating artifacts scientist will try wherever possible (which is nearly always) to cross reference the find against other measurables (e.g other fossill records, tree-ring records etc)

 

Objectivity is key.

Edited July 26, 2012 by wuggle

[M30USA]

Wuggle, follow me here...

 

1) Modern scientists and people like yourself believe that the scientific method is the way by which all things must be proven.

 

2) Fair enough.

 

3) But one of the many criteria of the SM is repeatability.

 

4) Evolution cannot be repeated.

 

5) Sure, you can replicate the process of evolution under current circumstances.

 

6) But to do this is to ASSUME that the same thing happened in the past.

 

7) Therefore anything that happened in the past is disqualified from being subjected to the scientific method.

[Robert Z]

Wuggle, follow me here...

 

1) Modern scientists and people like yourself believe that the scientific method is the way by which all things must be proven.

 

2) Fair enough.

 

3) But one of the many criteria of the SM is repeatability.

 

4) Evolution cannot be repeated.

 

5) Sure, you can replicate the process of evolution under current circumstances.

 

6) But to do this is to ASSUME that the same thing happened in the past.

 

7) Therefore anything that happened in the past is disqualified from being subjected to the scientific method.

 

There is a clear path of adaptation and progression. No it can be replicated over the time we have. But the evidence for it is overwhelming. To simply deny this evidence on faith is irrational. It shows that your beliefs are based on your desires and not evidence.

[wuggle]

3) But one of the many criteria of the SM is repeatability.

 

7) Therefore anything that happened in the past is disqualified from being subjected to the scientific method.

 

M30 Follow me here..

 

Point 3, with regard to the formulation and advancement of evolutionary theory by the scientific methodolgy, ie repeatability. In this regard the repeatability comes not in the ability to repeat a particular set of circustances that happened in the past, that is just silly rhotorical argument. The repeatability that proves (to the best of our current scientific understanding) that our evolutionary theory or model is correct is the MILLIONS of pieces of historical record (fossils, current anatomy, dna etc) , not one of which counters our current understanding. Not one fossil, or one peice of anatomical structure or one pice of DNA counters the theory of evolution.

 

re point 7, come on stop being silly, that is beneath you. If you have a masters in science at least make it interesting.

 

Assuming that you do not believe in the theory of evolution (and really I don't want to put words in your mouth, you own will suffice) (do you deny it by the way ?) what other things did you 'learn' when getting your masters in science that you have now decided (against all the evidence that all the other scientists have found) you know better about (even though you have not one shred of proof and rely on purely subjective reasoning).

 

If I was in charge of education I would strip you of your masters, not because you don't believe all the scientific evidence (that is actually quite in the spirit of science), but on the grounds that you choose to replace all the evidence with your own subjective reasoning - totally unscientific.

[Robert Z]

the laws of physics are constant.

 

Actually, we don't know that. One of the assumptions made in Quantum Mechanics is that space is homogenous and isotropic, but we don't really know that. We can't test for that everywhere. We assume it to be true. And there is some indication that the value of some physical constants have changed over time, the speed of light being the prime example.

[dreamingoftigers]

I am LDS. have been for 10 years.

 

Before that I was raised Catholic by a Catholic and an atheist, dabbled in the occult for a few years. Became a Pentecostal Christian, discovered missing pieces and became a Jehovah's Witness. Had a brilliant student of spirituality break me away from that.

 

Later on I became a Mormon.

 

I have a year of technical school. I have audited four years of master's in Military and Strategic Studies courses and I have attended first year degree courses.

 

I maintain a 3.9 average.

 

I am currently upgrading to gain more prerequisites for the field I want to go into. I just finished all three courses six weeks early. My grades speak for themselves in these courses as well.

[M30USA]

Wuggle,

 

You have just admitted that evolution cannot be proven by the scientific method exclusively. You have admitted that it needs to be aided with supporting evidence of fossil records. Therefore, evolution can never pass the stage of theory if you are being strictly scientific.

 

I rest my case.

[wuggle]

Wuggle,

 

You have just admitted that evolution cannot be proven by the scientific method exclusively. You have admitted that it needs to be aided with supporting evidence of fossil records. Therefore, evolution can never pass the stage of theory if you are being strictly scientific.

 

I rest my case.

 

That's it ?

 

That's the whole of your case ?

 

Rested ?

 

(bangs head aginst wall of closed minded subjectivity )

 

No counter to any of the things I actually said ?

 

No acknowledgement of the total replacement of objective scientific analysis with your subjective model of reality ?

 

No answer to any of the questions I asked about your education etc ?

 

Seriously ?

 

Rather than go over the same futile arguments I will let others read the threads then and decide what they think sounds right..the discussion was aimed at more open minded people anyway..cheers..

Edited July 26, 2012 by wuggle

[M30USA]

Yep, take some time to learn what the scientific method is (specifically the criteria) and then get back to me. Otherwise I'm not wasting more time.

[Tulsy]

Your beliefs are limited only to scientific theories? I seriously doubt that. Science is the most limiting construct ever devised.

 

Completely wrong. Science is without limits. It was not "devised"...it's there to be discovered.

 

Not meeting the highest standard for proof or evidence does not exclude existence.

 

Ridiculous. I read this as "Just because God can't be proven, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist", or "Sure there's no proof of God, BUT, there's no proof there ISN'T a God either"....that doesn't amount to proof at all. And besides, there is a series of books in every religion with numerous fictitious stories of supposed "proof" which can be verified as false, thus rendering much of the premise as flawed.

 

There is a difference between knowledge and beliefs. Beliefs can be based on personal experience and a choice for faith.

 

No kidding. And belief isn't a science.

 

Also, science doesn't even address the question of God because by definition the concept lies outside of the boudaries of science. If we had evidence for a God we would never recognize it because by definition we would assume there is another explanation.

 

See, that is the problem. Scientifically, there is no evidence for a God. Unfortunately, blind faith in something we can only research about in a series of seemingly "story books" doesn't help persuade most open minded people these days.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Sometimes, I have wished there was a God. That would be nice. A divine creator of all, and something waiting to meet us one day. Unfortunately, I need some kind of proof that one exists in order to believe in it. The bible and other religious texts...I can't take these seriously. I have read the bible numerous times as a child, teenager and young adult. I WANTED to believe it. I was raised to have faith. I just need more than that.

 

I'm sure Christians understand needing more than faith in the unknown...I just don't understand why they don't need it for themselves. How can religious people be content with so much uncertainty?

 

I guess the most I could hope for is a higher power. Maybe science could prove something like this one day. Right now, I don't hold out hope. I still think in possibilities and probabilities.

[TheFinalWord]

M

TFW said "science itself is based on many unprovable assumptions" - this I argued was incorrect and I stand by it. it is incorrect. Science is based on testing and veryfying or rejecting assumptions. The whole basis for science is deciding objectively whether an assumption is correct or not by proving or disproving it.

 

ou are doing exactly what TFW did, you are misquoting me then arguing against my misquote. This is very unfair.

 

Ok wait, I don't think I've ever responded to you in this thread???

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong though. There is a back and forth about things I said, and a lot of *assumptions* (couldn't resist) about me built into those comments. I would appreciate in the future if I could just respond to my own comments.

 

I did make that statement, but if you read my other posts I said it was probably an unwise choice of words I think it got blown way out of proportion. I felt bad b/c I see that as a one-liner which I tend to hate. It's as maddening as atheist saying "you worship a 2k old day laborer". It takes an entire philosophy and reduces it down into a strawman that is impossible to defend. Anyway, I digress...

 

I'm not a mathematical philosopher, but I do believe in the intuitionist approach. This chap describes it better than me...

 

I am open to changing my mind, so maybe you can show me where this is wrong?

 

Mathematics is based on assumptions, totally. Like you say, most of standard mathematics is basically derived from ZF or ZFC.

You even have to rely on assumptions sometimes, but I guess you know that already as you mention Gödels Incompleteness theorem. A famous example is the Continuum hypothesis which can neither be proven wrong, nor right, within the bounds of ZF or ZFC. So in order to work with it you have to either assume it's true or not.

But: There is a reason for the current Axioms being the way they are. They simply feel right to a lot of people and they seem to capture reality correclty - i.e. they seem to ground a theory which can be applied to real things (like, say, calculations in physics or in computing).

Do also have a look at this question: Was mathematics invented or discovered?.

 

All mathematicians, regardless of whether they use standard mathematics (that is, accept the axioms grounding standard mathematics) or non-standard mathematics (which means: other axioms and rules, they reject the mainstream axioms and do not think that they feel right) do accept that current state of the art, with respect to the chosen axoims, is correct, i.e. is true - thus there seems to be something which allows people to falsify the correctness of a statement with respect to arbitrary axioms. And: They come to the same conclusion.

In short: there seems to be something which allows you to reason about truth. This something is not violated in mathematics (nor in philosophical debates). I'd even go that far and say that mathematics is something which originates in the human mind (that said, I think that mathematics is the way it is because of the way the human mind is).

Whether this something is reason, whether there are other minds, and in what way all of these things work is subject to another discussion. However, I believe that ultimately everything ends up in believing and assuming.

I for example believe in my existence and assume that there are other, real people out there, who, if given a set of axioums, derive the same mathematics as I do, when I do. But there's no way to ground any of this whatsoever.

 

Regarding model specification, I don't disagree with anything you said and I think the assumptions are valid.I use them all the time myself I think we're arguing semantics. My main point is that there are many truths that are inaccessible to the scientific method but that we are all perfectly rational in accepting. Cheers!

Edited July 26, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[Lobouspo]

Francis Collins is a devout Christian who mapped the human genome along with Craig Venter and is one the most respected and accomplished scientists in the world. He is way effing smarter than any of us here on LS, including all the religious athiests that post here. I would encourage believers and non-believers to read The Language of God that he wrote a few years ago.

[thatone]

I didn't say "laws". I said properties. Meaning the physical and biological properties at the time.

 

there is nothing to suggest that the properties of particles were any different 2000 years ago than they are now.

 

again, grasping at straws.

[dreamingoftigers]

I personally don't get involved in creation vs evolution debate because I believe it to be a false choice.

 

I also believe that as limited beings we may not understand the nature of Hod and how he functions. I would hate to try to explain even high school biology to my 3 year old. She might grasp the concept of certain body parts but that's about it.

 

Thirdly, if God created the Universe etc, I'm sure he could duck from being recognized in science if he so chose.

 

Who could really prove it? I wouldn't surmise a loving god to be up to game-playing tricks, BUT science in itself has changed monumentally throughout the ages, I don't expect it to stop changing and the theories to alter.

 

I really am not so arrogant to think that I know it all, no matter which source told me it was true.

[thatone]

Francis Collins is a devout Christian who mapped the human genome along with Craig Venter and is one the most respected and accomplished scientists in the world. He is way effing smarter than any of us here on LS, including all the religious athiests that post here. I would encourage believers and non-believers to read The Language of God that he wrote a few years ago.

 

i would encourage you to read it before suggesting it. even though it is religious, and therefore wrong, it seems to suggest that the earth and the universe are in fact billions of years old, as we know, and that evolution is real, as we also know. it's nothing more than attempt to spin it and maintain theism despite overwhelming evidence against.

 

it also very blatantly rejects the 'intelligent design' political movement.

[M30USA]

there is nothing to suggest that the properties of particles were any different 2000 years ago than they are now.

 

again, grasping at straws.

 

Where do you keep getting the 2000 years ago number? I've been talking about evolution!

 

And by the way, if you want to hear one physicist who wrote an entire book on why the speed of light was possibly different in the early universe, read "Faster Than The Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo.