"...but intelligent people believe in God" Analysis, Discussion, and Debate

[George-ananda]

The video was about how a person could be intelligent and believe in God. One path is to get to them before they are intelligent enough to question the god claims, beginning with their parents, and followed/reinforced by a church structure, local social structure, and culture at large that all reinforced what was introduced by indoctrination and took root long before this person became educated and able to think well in other areas. At that point, he's an intelligent person who believes in god, but not because he's intelligent. His intelligence didn't bring him to that place of belief.

I am arguing that the modern generation to me does not have sheeple beliefs and that died out a few decades back when people defaulted to their traditional family denomination. I certainly don't see much of that with the modern generation. I think the argument above is very weak for modern western people. As I said I might have thought the above argument was stronger like 75 years ago,

Intelligence argues against faith based thought. Faith cannot be a path to truth. Any idea or its polar opposite could have been pounded into the central character's (Marcus') head when he was young. How can that be a path to truth? And if it isn't, how can intelligent people endorse it?

In think more in modern time is not so much a matter of faith as the best understanding. People today look at evidence and argumentation and not just 'I was told so'. Intelligent people can also believe in some type of God concept because they see intelligence in the universe.

When I read the title of the thread, and before I saw the video, I was actually thinking of people from the past like Newton. The further back you go in time, the more reasonable the god hypothesis appears. I believe that I would have been a theist in Galileo's time, and a deist until Darwin (and maybe Hubble). The first wave of scientists presented us with a clockwork universe, excusing the ruler god, but not the designing creator god. The second wave excused that god and gave a firm foundation to atheism. But intelligent people of centuries past would be expected to be theists even without external pressure.

What else could you reasonably think before these scientific revolutions? Before there was evidence for it, what we now know to be the truth was unthinkable. How could the universe build itself, or the tree of life get here naturalistically? Now we know. Then, we couldn't give the idea serious thought.

Really, we know why there is a universe at all, how life and DNA forms, what consciousness is, why observation should effect quantum behavior, etc. etc...

Personally I believe Consciousness/God/Brahman is fundamental and the universe is a derivative of the fundamental as mystics and modern post-materialist scientists are telling us. And the reason behind those beliefs is not that I was indoctrinated at a young age.

Many intelligent people believe in God for reasons not presented in the video. Basically, I think the video was an atheist's attempt to 'explain away' why there are intelligent people that believe in God. I think the video side-stepped the more challenging issues and just focused on indoctrination and reinforcement reasons.

 

[Skwim]

Intelligent people, compared to whom?

How about compared to the person who posted ⤵

A post from: The Bible by the Numbers of pi

The First occurrence of the number 66 in a Verse: 66 souls

Genesis 46:26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were Sixty-Six; 72 - Hebrew Total 3858

72/6 = 12 Tribes

3858th vs. Numbers 7:7 Two wagons and Four oxen he gave unto the sons of Gershon, according to their service. 14

Two+Four = 6

~

The Second and Last occurrence of the number 66 in a Verse: 66 days

Leviticus 12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean Two Weeks (14 days), as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying Sixty-Six days. 17 - Hebrew Total 4493

17 = 7th prime

4493rd vs. Numbers 26:3 And Moses and Eleazar the priest spake with them in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, 29

~~~



46:26

07:07

12:05

26:03

46+26+7+7+12+5+26+3 = 132

66*2 = 132

~~~

Genesis 46:26
כל הנפש הבאה ליעקב מצרימה יצאי ירכו מלבד נשי בני יעקב כל נפש ששים ושש

Hebrew - Word Value
1 כל 50
2 הנפש 435
3 הבאה 13
4 ליעקב 212
5 מצרימה 385
6 יצאי 111
7 ירכו 236
8 מלבד 76
9 נשי 360
10 בני 62
11 יעקב 182
12 כל 50
13 נפש 430
14 ששים 650
15 ושש 606

-> Total 3858

Leviticus 12:5
ואם נקבה תלד וטמאה שבעים כנדתה וששים יום וששת ימים תשב על דמי טהרה

## Word Value
1 ואם 47
2 נקבה 157
3 תלד 434
4 וטמאה 61
5 שבעים 422
6 כנדתה 479
7 וששים 656
8 יום 56
9 וששת 1006
10 ימים 100
11 תשב 702
12 על 100
13 דמי 54
14 טהרה 219

-> Total 4493

Yad 10 Hey 5 Waw 6 Hey 5 = 26 YHWH

1+5+6+5 = 17

Baruch HaShem


Hebrew Bible

 

[pearl]

But how often does that happen?
Here in the USA we have legal freedom of and from religion. Secular education system and a vast array of sources of information. I think that the huge majority of people never change more than the particular variety of their parents beliefs. A Lutheran switching to Methodism isn't really much of a change.

Some do, but I don't think more than single digit percentage. I think that the video is simple enough for an intelligent 8 year to grasp. But sharply pointed and accurately describes the normal reason for the dominance of religious beliefs.
Tom

There are a number of adult conversions. I think everyone at some point needs to ask why they remain in a particular religion. We have three adult children, the oldest daughters faith is simplistic, strong, but has no use for organized religion. Our son found community in the Baptist church, our youngest daughter, very active in church growing up believes there is a wholly Other but does not express that through any particular religion, for a while she was impressed with Native American spirituality. They were raised Roman Catholic.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I must have missed that.

Where does he say that the truth is known in full?

That's why I qualified with "(even if only slightly)." It basically implies that "the truth" is something other than any of the religions represented. And a judgment like that comes from a place of at least claiming to know what is "more true" than those religions' beliefs. After several of the points are made, "TRUTH" ends up being portrayed throughout most of the rest of the video. But how is anyone to know what that "TRUTH" is? It seems to imply that this truth can be at least partially known, and therefore juxtaposed against the religions in order to know that they are not part of that "truth".

 

[YmirGF]

Hats off to @CogentPhilosopher and @It Aint Necessarily So

You have both raised excellent points and have shown how deeply ridiculous thinking is embedded in people's minds right here on RF. Well done.

 

[McBell]

I would like to see people of a variety of viewpoints analyze and discuss this video by DarkMatter2525.

I do find it interesting how the video relies so heavily on the assumption that the ridiculous claim has to be wrong.

What if the ridiculous claim is actually true?

IMO, being true or not is actually irrelevant.
Some of the methods used to reinforce the claim are simply wrong.

 

[columbus]

What if the ridiculous claim is actually true?

Young Earth Creationists often ask this question.
Tom

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Intelligent people, compared to whom?

A post from: The Bible by the Numbers of pi

The First occurrence of the number 66 in a Verse: 66 souls

Genesis 46:26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were Sixty-Six; 72 - Hebrew Total 3858

72/6 = 12 Tribes

3858th vs. Numbers 7:7 Two wagons and Four oxen he gave unto the sons of Gershon, according to their service. 14

Two+Four = 6

~

The Second and Last occurrence of the number 66 in a Verse: 66 days

Leviticus 12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean Two Weeks (14 days), as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying Sixty-Six days. 17 - Hebrew Total 4493

17 = 7th prime

4493rd vs. Numbers 26:3 And Moses and Eleazar the priest spake with them in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, 29

~~~



46:26

07:07

12:05

26:03

46+26+7+7+12+5+26+3 = 132

66*2 = 132

~~~

Genesis 46:26
כל הנפש הבאה ליעקב מצרימה יצאי ירכו מלבד נשי בני יעקב כל נפש ששים ושש

Hebrew - Word Value
1 כל 50
2 הנפש 435
3 הבאה 13
4 ליעקב 212
5 מצרימה 385
6 יצאי 111
7 ירכו 236
8 מלבד 76
9 נשי 360
10 בני 62
11 יעקב 182
12 כל 50
13 נפש 430
14 ששים 650
15 ושש 606

-> Total 3858

Leviticus 12:5
ואם נקבה תלד וטמאה שבעים כנדתה וששים יום וששת ימים תשב על דמי טהרה

## Word Value
1 ואם 47
2 נקבה 157
3 תלד 434
4 וטמאה 61
5 שבעים 422
6 כנדתה 479
7 וששים 656
8 יום 56
9 וששת 1006
10 ימים 100
11 תשב 702
12 על 100
13 דמי 54
14 טהרה 219

-> Total 4493

Yad 10 Hey 5 Waw 6 Hey 5 = 26 YHWH

1+5+6+5 = 17

Baruch HaShem


Hebrew Bible

You are not helping your cause.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Hats off to @CogentPhilosopher and @It Aint Necessarily So

You have both raised excellent points and have shown how deeply ridiculous thinking is embedded in people's minds right here on RF. Well done.

Speaking of ridiculous claims. . . .

 

[YmirGF]

Speaking of ridiculous claims. . . .

As our dear friend @Mestemia pointed out a ridiculous claim is not necessarily a false claim.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That's not what I got from your comments about 'just some random person's opinion.' His argument was rational. Did you care to rebut it?

And why exactly should I care about what you get from my comment? I think I know my own thoughts better than you do.

But please go on and tell me all about this "ridiculous claim" in the video, then proceed to act like you can read my mind, because that is super rational.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

As our dear friend @Mestemia pointed out a ridiculous claim is not necessarily a false claim.

People live on the Sun.

It is called "ridiculous" because based on what we can know it is ridiculous. The fact that it "might" be true, does not really change that.

 

[YmirGF]

People live on the Sun.

It is called "ridiculous" because based on what we can know it is ridiculous. The fact that it "might" be true, does not really change that.

I have a backhoe for rent if you would like to keep digging.

 

[McBell]

Young Earth Creationists often ask this question.
Tom

and?

Cow magnets are magnets force fed to cows to collect metal from their stomachs.
Sounds like a ridiculous claim until you find out it is true....

Interestingly enough, just like your example, no one is killing people over not believing it....

 

[Jeremiahcp]

If people actually think this video is an informational piece about how beliefs are formed and held throughout a person's life, then they are being ridiculous.


And me stating that, does not mean I am rejecting or even disagreeing with the conclusion in the video, it is a realization that human beliefs are a lot more involved than the overly gross simplification of that video. Anyone who just accepts that video in a factual sense because they subjectively perceive it as a rational argument is being stupid. Even “rational” arguments should be questioned.


The video itself gives a thesis on, what the narrator believes, how human belief function, but makes no reference outside his own views to support his assumptions. Even though a thesis is not a hypothesis, it is still expected to be support by outside references. Anyone that has any type of formal education should know this.


All arguments should be probed and questioned, especially ones that appear rational, as those are the ones with greatest potential to be misleading. There is nothing wrong with asking for further validation and supporting testament for an argument regardless of if that argument appear rational or not.


I think some here in this thread are displaying a double standard toward religion, when it comes to religions claims they willing to employ a great level of skepticism but when comes to something that sounds agreeable to them suddenly that level of skepticism vanishes.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I have a backhoe for rent if you would like to keep digging.

Careful with that one it is an antique.

 

[McBell]

If people actually think this video is an informational piece about how beliefs are formed and held throughout a person's life, then they are being ridiculous.

No more than if they take your above quoted claim as anything other than your opinion.

And me stating that, does not mean I am rejecting are even disagreeing with the conclusion in the video, it is a realization that human beliefs are a lot more involved than the overly gross simplification of that video. Anyone who just accepts that video in a factual sense because they subjectively perceive it as a rational argument is being stupid. Even “rational” arguments should be questioned.


The video itself purposes a thesis on, what the narrator believes, how human belief function, but makes no reference outside his own views to support his assumptions. Even though a thesis is not a hypothesis, it is still expected to be support by outside references. Anyone that has any type of formal education should know this.


All arguments should be probed and questioned, especially ones that appear rational, as those are the ones with greatest potential to be misleading. There is nothing wrong with asking for further validation and supporting testament for an argument regardless of if that argument appear rational or not.


I think some here in this thread are displaying a double standard toward religion, when it comes to religions claims they willing to employ a great level of skepticism but when comes to something that sounds agreeable to them suddenly that level of skepticism vanishes.

so what, EXACTLY, is your beef with the video?
That it is merely an outline?
That it does not go into as much detail or gets as in depth as you would want it?
something else?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hats off to @CogentPhilosopher and @It Aint Necessarily So

You have both raised excellent points and have shown how deeply ridiculous thinking is embedded in people's minds right here on RF. Well done.

Thank you kindly

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Einstein didn't believe, he quantified; which was the reason to list all mathematicians/physicists, as we're dealing with the question of the fabric of a reality.

Listing a load of man made religions, which have 'ridiculous claims', as their concepts of God are illogical in many places, is a 'ludicrous claim'.

None of them claimed or showed evidence to prove the existence of a deity.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

To repeat, the video is simplistic. "religion" does not "act", some religious people act in a certain way and others don't. Oversimplifying a complex situation is an error and might even on balance be a lie by your definition.

But if you want to talk about how "religion" "acts", include members of a church who go to New Orleans to rebuild houses after Katrina, Mother Teresa spending her whole life serviing the poor, interfaith of all kinds including a pope who gathered members of different religions together.

No one said that religion does not also do good things.