Posted on 03/05/2010 10:26:58 AM PST by SeekAndFind
IF YOU'RE one of those committed atheists in the Richard Dawkins mould who dreams of ridding the world of religious mumbo-jumbo, prepare yourself for a disappointment: there is no good evidence that education leads to secularisation.
In fact, the more we learn about the "god instinct" and the refusal of religion to fade away under the onslaught of progress, the more the non-religious mindset looks like the odd man out. That is why anthropologists, psychologists and social scientists are now putting irreligion under the microscope in the same way they once did with religious belief (see "Where do atheists come from?").
The aim is not to discredit atheism but to understand how so many people can override a way of thinking that seems to come so naturally. For that reason, atheists should welcome the new scrutiny.
Atheism still has a great deal to commend it, not least that it doesn't need supernatural beings to make sense of the world. Let's hope the study of atheism leads to new insights into how to challenge such irrationality.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
From a recent Bible study in we came across the greek word ‘rhema’ relating to the ‘word of God.’ At first it struck me odd b/c in John 1 it reads that the “Word was with God and the Word was God” where ‘word’ in this context was translated from ‘logos’ or logic.
Then it struck me that surely God is saying inferentially that He is the ‘Logos God’ or the God of logic, science, and nature, but also the ‘Rhema God’ or the God of the unseen wind, miracles, and super-natural.
Think about it sooner or later your gonna read a scripture and say “but that’s impossible.”
“All things are possible with God” and “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” - wow what an awesome God who constantly refreshes and renews me.
I think the saying goes, “A God small enough for me to understand isn’t big enough to help me.”
Shalom.
Yes, I know. I’ve seen that test. Too bad that some who have posted back to me think that people of today are more literate and more intelligent than people were during the 1700’s and 1800’s. I believe there is no contest.
I think we are all missing the point, because we are too focused on our own society (Western society, in this case).
In Japan, the higher your IQ the more likely you are to be a Christian.
In Russia, the higher your IQ the more likey you are to be religious and favor free markets and capitalism.
In China, the higher your IQ the more likely you are to favor individual rights.
In the USA, the higher your IQ the more likely you are to be a big-government socialist.
What do all these have in common? We are talking about holding a view that is not traditional in that country.
Japan: traditionally non-Christian.
Russia: traditionally (at least under USSR) atheist and communist.
China: traditionally group oriented (the rights and needs of the group come ahead of the rights of the individual).
USA: traditionally small-government & individual rights.
All this really means is that people with high IQs are more open to non-traditional ideas—and nothing more.
And “more likely to believe” is different thant “everyone believes”. We’re talking a small percentage of people, not a wholesale stampede.
The next time someone drops the “smart people are atheist” (or liberals) argument you can reply: “Not in Russia. In Russia the smartest people are religious, favor free markets and capitialism, and individual rights over group rights.” The ask them if they understand why.
Then we should study mindset of a monotheist vs hinduist vs zen budhist etc. Atheist or zen monk both are equally different from a Christian
bumpus ad summum
You're starting too big. It's quite possible that a designer life form need not be all that complex to meet some reasonable definition of "life." There are projects underway to do just that.
More interesting, though, are the logical implications of success in such a project. Here we have a hypothetical new life form ... which required an intelligent creator to bring it into being.
It would not support the atheist view of the universe, to say the least.
Right. Too bad that so many forget that educateed people in those times had not only read all the French and English classical works of the time and were widely read in both Modern Latin and Classical Greek. Now people learn Spanish and imagine they are educated - somehow, while they busily do their sums on some fashion of a caluclator.
I couldn’t possibly agree more! Everything you’ve stated here is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying for some time. An age of enlightenment? Hardly.
I recently had a discussion with a colleague in an offshoot of the entertainment industry who claims he is a closet atheist. He suggested he hasn’t “come out” because of the backlash he’d suffer...from colleagues...in the entertainment industry.
I wrote him recently about how I didn’t feel atheism could stand philosophically, because it would demand a universal knowledge of something no one has proof of. His response to me was “ill take science and reason over superstition any day—!
I love this response. He completely misunderstood or ignored everything I said about philosophy and recognizing logically what can and cannot be proven...and genuinely believes he’s on the side of reason. And I continue to be unfamiliar with the science that disproves the existence of God that he mentions.
No, we are living in a dark, dark age, where sound bytes have replaced knowledge. People believe something, but cannot define why they believe it, or even adequately defend their beliefs. I believe posterity will mark this time period as relativism run amok, where every man could believe whatever he chose, and be justified in knowing nothing.
-B
A lot of people believe that the insanely specific combination of conditions on earth for life is just some random accident, as are we, as are the stars, all starting with some mystical “big bang” of all matter and energy that exists. I always ask them what existed before the “big bang” and get a blank stare.
All of the science courses I took in college only served to convince me more deeply that this order from chaos is not possible without a Supreme Being who I call God.
I think science makes a compelling argument for God, not against him. At the end of the day, unprovable, it falls in the realm of faith and there is nothing I can say to the agnostic that makes sense to them. Pity.
So true.
Atheists have been trying to mass murder and oppress people who express beleif in God for a long time now. You would think, they would start to question their own lack of belief. Everyone is crazy but them?
The fool hath said in his heart,there is no God.
Ps. 14:1, Ps. 53:1
They don't "get to". They HAVE TO! Or else they go INSANE! LOL.
All that lovely LOGIC flies right out the window!
“One Side Can Be Wrong” - Rebuttal of Dawkins/Coyne Evolution Opinion Piece
FreeRepublic.com | September 10, 2005 | DaveLoneRanger
Posted on 09/10/2005 8:03:12 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1482093/posts
Excellent!!!
I just discovered that while debating an atheist. Compared to the knowledge that is known and the knowledge that’s not known, we know almost nothing. Couldn’t convince her of that.
Absolutely!! Not long ago I saw a test for grade school class from about 100 years ago. I can’t remember any of the questions, I just remember being astonished at what they were teaching those kids at that time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.