12 hours later, here I am back on my keyboard -- not that it proves I am necessarily here, or that my universe exists!
So, your clarifying statements, with which I largely agree:
#1, 2 and 3: I understand that you are oppen to the possibility that there are rational explanations for specific religion; however, until I come across a person with said arguments I have to assume that there is none of such. Even if there is scientific argument to prove the existence of a Christian god - which seems impossible to me - then the Christians have not thought it up yet; you would have to deduce if they had such argument it woulod the basis of any conversion efforts or indeed any casual religious debate. So we a brought back to the realization that no Christians would have such evidence on which their religion is based -- if they claim to have such evidence I would assume they are lying, or at least ignorant. The Christian analogy, I believe, holds for Muslims and any other religion I am aware of.
#5, 6 and 7 I will come back to.
#9: I would like to reintroduce my favourite racism analogy for this one. If a person is racist, does it matter as long as they act in a non-discrimnatory towards said racial minorities? Before you remind me that racism is obviously negative whereas religion is not, I remind you of the scope of my argument, Christianity and Islam. Both religions school predjudice against minorites: the Christians at least refuse to allow women to become ministers (I am aware some sects of Christianity allow this, however, I have already stated my belief that Christianity is based upon the Bible), and Muslims are much more extreme in the persecution of women. So would you see someone who believed in the inferiority of women but acted according to non-discrimination laws the same as one who held women in an equal esteem as men?
I agree with your statement that the analysis of faith is central to this topic; however, I believe you are missing the crucial point of my analysis. The point of my original and subsequent essays was to prove that belief in specific religion does NOT stand up to logical dissection and is therefore based on faith; and that this faith is NOT intelligent. Back to your previous statemnts, then --
#5, 6 and 7: These point illustrate the analysis of faith and is relation to intelligence. Firstly, #5: This is the centre of the discrepancies between our two arguments. I whole-heartedly agree with the statement, however believe it is irrelevant. The point of these essays have been to scrutinize the intelligence of those that believe in specific religions, and thus we must ONLY look at their logical arguments. These arguments are the only ones that we as fellow people can examine, and that have the chance to sway us. To look at any of the three main reasons for choosing religion that you have mentioned inn another argument would be straying beyond the point.
#6: Another statement central to the debate. I whole-heartedly DISagree with this statement, and any like it. We must, in my opinion, dissuade theists and atheists alike of the notion that their on belief based on faith is foolproof (even if they agree it cannot be used to convert others). If we take your statement as gospel, that if you believe something for emotional reasons or intution it is impossible to refute (I'm assuming you mean to refute to that person, not as an overall ideal -- we can still argue religion even if an idividual believes blindly) then consider the following.
I am a 16th century priest. I take the idea that the world is flat as a matter of faith: it is ingrained into my being and I feel its truth. Galilieo is born and atttempts to tell people otherwise using logical reasoning. I tell him that he cannot convert me with logic because this is a belief I hold on basis of faith. I listen to his evidence to the contrary, calmly state that it doesn't sway me in the least because of my gut feeling, and toddle off and convict him of heresay. Say I am alive five centuries later. I still believe the world is flat, because I feel it, although Americans and Russians claim to have been on the moon, and people claim to have circumnavigated the world. I believe it is all lies because to me the world seems flat, and I believe that.
Can you honestly say that neither of these people who believe on the basis of faith have arguments which are irrefutable? If we cannot argue this obvious idiocy, what can we argue? If I claim that I have unerring faith that religious nuts are idiots, would you refute this, or claim it irrefutable because it is my feeling?
The only context of statement #6 which I am prepared to admit make it true, is the pointlessness of arguing with those who accept no logical argument. We have all been in these situations: but this doesn't make their faith less arguable! If they won't listen to reason, that makes them stupid, not justified. Faith is not an essential, grand, romantic thing that the theists will have you believe. It isn't an irrefutable matter of personal choice. It is simply a childlike refusal to accept the possibility of your incorrectness, or an immovable belief in the correctness of your instinct.
In your Matrix hypothesis, you state your faith that the world is as it seems purely for the fact that it is convenient, and other hypotheses (such as the universe we perceive is a Matrix) would not alter your behaivour anyway. Is this faith? "I take these as given because they make sense to me and are consistent with the world I see." This to me, if it is a type of faith, is a different type to that which religious people have.
Your use of my racist analogy was unexpected, however. Could it be fair to call someone with a conditioned knee-jerk reaaction to racial minorities stupid, just because of their bred feelings? Take this example, then. Martin Luther King's (an exceptionally bright man to anyone) mind is raised in a white body, with a heavily racist family. Sure, for the first twenty years of his life he may defend his racism as he is not old enough to think for himself (likewise I refrain from condemning religious people not yet old enough to break free from their nurturing). However, when logical analysis - which is the only tool of the intelligent person - leads him to realise the inadequacies of his beliefs, than has he not changed his feelings? The knee-jerk reaction lasts only as long as you support your parents as infallible. Any person has feelings, but these feelings only derive from what the person accepts for truth. When you have intelligently deducted that racism is wrong, your feel ings have changed. I would be surprised to find a person who logically deduces that religion is illogical, yet still believes in God because of feelings: they deduce that religion is illogical, and subsequently stop believing, or they continue on faith -- which is not intelligent at all.
"There are some people who, after being shown the best possible proof in the universe, will still feel that there is a loving, personal god out there and that Jesus died for their sins. These feelings are part of their being and not subject to cancellation by logic." Sure there exist such people. I remember as a boy deeply believing that I would never grow older, despite evidence of people of various ages around me. I thought I was stuck in some sort of ageless limbo. Was I an idiot? Yes. I refused to accept proof and logical deduction, and instead envisioned the world as existing based on my own personal feeling. I was seven. People are religious all of their lives.
"If a religious person recognizes that religion is based on faith as opposed to reason, it is completely possible for them to be intelligent and logical in their world view, actions, and treatment of others from that point." This is the only other statement of your essay which I disagree with. If a person is a Christian, and believes that women have no place in the ministry and they will go to Hell if they attempt to, then how is it possible to continue their life unnbiased? Their intelligence and reasoning is affected by their beliefs as much as their belief is affected by their capacity for intelligence and reasoning. It is a rare - to me non-existent - religious person who does not strive to act according to their respective scriptures: if you believed you were going to Hell if you didn't destroy sinners, how could you continue to act rationally? I digress from the topic of the argument here, but it is definitely food for thought.
I agree that some people need a god to exist for emotional stability, and these are another of the type to generally avoid having religious argument.
So have I yet proved the religious unintelligent? I realize now that unintelligence is probably too harsh an adjective. After all, if you base your religious conviction on the arguments of those around you and ignore other rational atheist arguments, are you stupid or just ignorant? If you have managed to convince yourself of the afterlife purely because you need to believe to continue with current life, are you stupid or just emotionally unstable and dependant? The second is more shaky: I doubt there is many truly religious people who have managed to convince themselves of their beliefs.
I think you succinctly summarize the point of my essays with your final paragraph; I would even go as far as saying if we were all born with the proverbial 'clean slate', free access to information and sufficient intelligence, we would have an overwhelming majority of atheists, with perhaps a substantial minority of theists of no specific religion. If one of these reasoning adults was given the Bible and Koran and their sources, I doubt they would chose one over neither. So what about our conditions for a basically atheist world? The 'clean slate' idea is easy: people are taught how to think, and later don't have the self-examination skills to dissaude themselves of that notion. Is a lack of self-examination ability stupidity? No, but it is a fine line and can easily seem as stupid to others. Free access to information is also obvious; we see everyday people taught to think a certain way because incorrect or innsufficient data is presented to them, and this certainly doesn't make them stupid.
So that leaves me with the following qualifiers on my earlier generalization: if the religious person has been conditioned into a religion, I may not assume they are stupid until of have seen them capable of examining their own beliefs. Likewise, I may also not presume them lacking of intelligence until I asssess whether they have had access to the logical arguments against their religion. I admit, a person - to my eyes - would have to be quite isolated not to hear debate on religion, and I don't include those whose society enforces a specific religion: no-one can be forced to believe, only to act as they do.
Do you accept these qualifiers -- and their inference, that those who do not fit these are possessed of little intelligence?
Welcome to what may be my longest response ever! Here we go...
Regarding arguments for specific religions: I really don't like to cite other people's work on this board, but if you would like to see examples of arguments for Christianity, take a look at some of Lee Strobel's books -- The Case for Christ, for example. I don't agree with his arguments, and I think that they are seriously flawed, but I could see an intelligent person being swayed by them (or at least having their beliefs reinforced by them) under certain conditions. In fact, if I remember correctly, the author says he was converted to religion by these arguments.
Back to the racism analogy. You ask whether it matters if a person is racist if they act non-discriminatory towards racial minorities. Well, that depends on whether they act racist at other times and how they feel about their own racism. It is possible to be emotionally racist but realize that these feelings are wrong.
Regarding your discussion of prejudice in religion, I'm going to get really picky on you
But the real question you have for me is whether I think that someone who is sexist but acts according to non-discrimination laws is the same as someone who is not sexist. No, I don't. First, you can act sexist without breaking the law. But even if you are asking whether someone who is sexist but doesn't act sexist is the same as someone who isn't sexist, I'd still answer no. Really, though, this is beside the point. The point is that if a person is sexist at their core, you can't necessarily do anything about it. You can change their behavior, but you can't argue them out of their emotions. Fortunately, if you can change their minds their emotions may follow. And if you can get them to change their behavior, their children are less likely to be sexist and the problem is taken care of in a generation.
You reiterate your point that, "The point of my original and subsequent essays was to prove that belief in specific religion does NOT stand up to logical dissection and is therefore based on faith; and that this faith is NOT intelligent." Yes, I understood this to be your point. Where I think you are incorrect is that you do not draw a distinction between "not rational" and "not intelligent." My son's love for his imaginary friend is not rational, but I wouldn't say that makes him unintelligent. However, if he started trying to use science to prove that his imaginary friend existed and refused to examine scientific evidence to the contrary, that (depending on the specifics) might be evidence of unintelligence. However, it might also be a sign that there are emotional issues disrupting the logical processes in an otherwise intelligent individual.
Now we come to our big disagreement. You say, "The point of these essays have been to scrutinize the intelligence of those that believe in specific religions, and thus we must ONLY look at their logical arguments. These arguments are the only ones that we as fellow people can examine, and that have the chance to sway us. To look at any of the three main reasons for choosing religion that you have mentioned inn another argument would be straying beyond the point." I think you are unintentionally constructing a straw man here. You say that we can only examine the intelligence of people who have logical arguments for their religion, and then you seem to apply the results of that examination to all religious people. You also seem to only want to consider logical arguments that are compelling to outsiders; that is, ones that are intended to convert people to a specific religion. The problem is that there are plenty of people who are religious without having been swayed by a logical argument, or who are religious for personal reasons that are not compelling to others.
You say that looking at non-logic-based reasons for choosing religion is beyond the point, but these reasons are my point. I'm saying that even if you can prove that everyone who attempts to use logic to prove religion is unintelligent, you can't use that to prove that all religious people are unintelligent. I feel that this would be akin to an argument in which someone said, "There is no logical reason for humans to be vegetarians, therefore someone who is a vegetarian because eating meat makes him sad is unintelligent." (Not that I think it's necessarily illogical to be vegetarian, but I think you see what I mean.)
You disagree with my statement that emotional reasons for faith are impossible to refute. If someone says, "I believe in God because I can feel his love all around me," I think you're going to have a heck of a time refuting that belief. At best, you could argue that the feeling is all in the person's head and meaningless, but then you get into the problem (one that theists love to bring up, by the way) that love can be refuted the same way. You can, of course, point out that the feeling isn't sufficient proof of God's existence, but in a way that's just defining faith.
Your example of Galileo is an excellent one. Let's look at this priest who takes the earth's flatness as a matter of absolute faith. This example is a little unanalogous to the belief in god because it can be tested, but I think it works for our purposes here. Assuming that the priest is able to understand Galileo's argument, should that argument have changed the priest's feelings? I say, not necessarily. The argument should at least have shown the priest that an intelligent person can have a difference of belief on this matter and made him realize that his own belief that the planet is flat is based on faith alone and is therefore not compelling. So even though logic might change the way the priest acts in regard to his belief, it can't necessarily change an ingrained emotion. The priest may feel "in his heart" that the earth is flat to the end of his days.
Where we get into trouble is when someone sends someone off to be executed based on a belief such as this. Because faith-based belief isn't compelling, it can't be the basis for punishing those who do not hold it.
Continuing, you ask, "If I claim that I have unerring faith that religious nuts are idiots, would you refute this, or claim it irrefutable because it is my feeling?" I would say that I disagree with you and I would try and show you that you should not act on these feelings because they may not reflect reality. However, I can think of no argument against how you feel if your feeling is purely emotional. Similarly, if you are afraid of moths I might argue that your fear is irrational and I might try and help you overcome that fear, but there are no words I can say to convince you that you are not afraid of moths.
To clarify my position, I am not saying that something someone has faith in should be treated as true, or that faith is any kind of proof for anything. I am just saying that we need to draw a line between faith and science/rationalism and keep ideas on their correct "side of the fence." I also believe that the vast majority of things in the world fall outside the realm of faith, and that those that belong in the realm of faith are good for comforting individuals and that's about it (atheist bias showing here).
You say that it is pointless to argue with those who accept no logical argument. Entertainment value aside, I agree. But then, I would never get into an argument in which I tried to use logic to counteract faith. The fact is, though, that almost nobody who approaches me to argue religion does so on the basis of faith. They usually want to argue using science or logic, and because I am fairly knowledgeable about this issue, they are pretty much doomed to failure. But the reason they are doomed is that they are not making statements of faith, but statements of science and logic. Those I can argue against.
You say that if someone won't listen to reason, "that makes them stupid, not justified." I know I say this a lot, but I think it's important to remember (particularly since some of the concepts here are pretty hairy) that someone can disagree with -- or just plain not understand -- an argument and not be stupid. They can just be ignorant or unable to deal with the implications of the argument.
You're right that faith isn't a grand, romantic thing. I'd say it's something we need to minimize, as your Galileo example illustrates. You're also right that it's not an "irrefutable matter of personal choice" -- if it were a choice, then the reasons for that choice could be argued with. I have often had theists tell me that I will see the rightness of religion if I'll "just believe" in Jesus. Well, I can't. I can't turn on an emotional belief in Jesus any more than a religious person can turn it off. Emotions aren't light switches.
By the way, I was raised religious, and although I am much happier now that I'm free of the baggage, I can still sort of feel the remnants of my upbringing rattling around in my head sometimes. I don't feel the need for religion anymore, but I do remember what it felt like and I remember how long it took to get rid of. I also find it very interesting to watch how my son behaves, since he is the first generation in my family who is atheist from birth. His thinking is, interestingly, much more like yours in that he doesn't understand how intelligent people can believe in religion (or Santa Claus, for that matter). I'm not trying to imply that your thinking is "child like" or anything like that (because it isn't) -- it's just interesting to me.
Now, where were we.
I think your statement that faith, "is simply a childlike refusal to accept the possibility of your incorrectness, or an immovable belief in the correctness of your instinct" does not apply to everyone. Certainly it applies to the creationist who has to go to greater and greater lengths to distort the insurmountable scientific evidence that their beliefs are incorrect. But I don't think it applies to someone who can't help but feel that God exists, particularly if that person admits that they might be wrong.
Regarding my Matrix analogy and faith: I think there are plenty of religious people who have faith because it makes sense to them and is consistent with the world as they perceive it. There are also plenty of religious people who have faith and try to rationalize the world as they see it to fit their faith. It's these latter people I think you should be concentrating your disdain on, since they are the ones crossing the faith/science line.
I disagree with your statement that a racist person's knee-jerk reactions last only so long as they think their parents infallible. Emotional development is much more complex than that, and I have met people who have to fight very hard to get past prejudices they were raised with. Can a person's feelings change in the face of reason? Sure. But they may not, and even if they do, it can take a long time. I think you are incorrect when you say that once someone knows intellectually that racism is wrong their feelings change. Intellect and feelings are not always in sync -- there are plenty of people who stay in relationships because they need them emotionally long after any reasonable person would have left.
You say that you would be surprised to find a person who knows that religion is illogical but still believes in God because of feelings. I have known many such people (this may be a difference in experience due to our different cultures). Most of these people eventually stopped feeling the need for a deity, but it took time. I would not call these people unintelligent just because their emotions didn't agree with their intellect.
You say, "If a person is a Christian, and believes that women have no place in the ministry and they will go to Hell if they attempt to, then how is it possible to continue their life unnbiased?" I don't know if there is a religion that has this set of beliefs. For example, Catholics don't allow women to be priests, but they also believe that you don't have to be a Catholic to avoid going to Hell, so a woman who preached would not be accepted as official by the church, but she wouldn't necessarily be damned. It's also important to ask whether a church in which only men can be ministers is biased against women. In some cases (in fact, the majority of them in my experience), they are. But it is possible to have a religion that divides roles by gender but does not imply that one gender is better than the other.
I agree that religion will impact someone's thinking. But I think it is possible that an intelligent religious person can live an examined life within the context of their religion. Such a person would know what parts of their beliefs they have because of faith and what parts are based on reason, and act accordingly. If their faith tells them that they can't do work on Saturday, then they don't do work (so far as their religion defines it) on Saturday, but they also don't try to use the law to force those with differing beliefs to take Saturday off because they realize that their beliefs aren't compelling.
Looking at your extreme example: "if you believed you were going to Hell if you didn't destroy sinners, how could you continue to act rationally?" Well, to be brutal, the rational thing to do in this situation is to destroy sinners. But if a person with this belief knows that it's based on faith, then that person realizes that others with different religions could have the same belief and that he might be one of the sinners targeted. Thinking like this has caused religions to change over the centuries, and although it hasn't stopped people from being religious, it has changed how they are religious.
You say it is a rare religious person who does not strive to act according to their scriptures. I'm going to be really, really cynical here and say that it is far more common in the U.S. for people to look to their scriptures for justification for their actions than to look to these books for inspiration. These people are not even being intellectually consistent within their own religions, and that's just tragic.
You mention avoiding arguments with people who need religion for emotional stability. The problem is, from my perspective, that most religious people fall into this category, and most of them aren't interested in arguing with us, either. At least not in a worthwhile way.
You make some qualifiers on your earlier generalization. I agree that you can't judge someone stupid until you know that they have the tools to examine their own beliefs. At least in the U.S., these tools are sorely lacking. The educational system is set up to disseminate facts for memorization and does a very bad job of teaching people to think critically. And even when critical thinking is present, people here are not in the habit of applying it liberally to all areas of their lives. It's tragic, really.
I also agree that the person must have access to knowledge and logical arguments before being judged unintelligent. Again, this is not nearly as common as we might hope. There are plenty of arguments for and against religion out there, but the vast majority of them that I run into in daily life (outside of when I'm seeking such things) are very weak on both sides of the issue. Most religious people only hear atheistic arguments from other religious people, so these arguments are presented incorrectly or in a biased way. Other than that, all they hear from atheists are protests over religion-based laws and discrimination, which may actually make them resistant to atheism.
I'd still hesitate to blanketly say that anyone who is religious and meets these qualifiers is unintelligent until I heard what they had to say. I would be very surprised, however, if they had extreme religious beliefs or if they tried to say that their religion was based on reason alone.
To your qualifiers I'd add that the person must not have any emotional issues that are preventing them from applying logic and reason to the subject of religion. There are people who feel that they need religion just to get through the day, and they will become very defensive in the face of arguments for atheism just as a starving man would fight if you tried to take his bread away. These emotional issues need to be dealt with before we start assessing intelligence.
As an aside to all this, I want to point out that there are plenty of atheists in my neck of the woods who are atheists for irrational reasons. I know people who are atheists because they had a bad experience in church or they are mad a their parents for taking them to Sunday school. I have met atheists who condemn or disdain religious people as a group without trying to look at the subject rationally as you do. I have met atheists who don't just think that the Bible isn't holy, but actively hate it to the point that they refuse to recognize it as a cultural source or an important historical document. I'd say that these people are just as bad as religious people who do not examine their beliefs rationally. They aren't doing anyone but themselves any good.
