Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[Polymath257]

If someone said a god has spoken to them, wouldn't we first have to show a god doesn't exist to say they are wrong?

If someone wears a tinfoil hat to prevent the CIA from controlling their thoughts, would we have to prove the CIA doesn't exist to say they are wrong?

 

[We Never Know]

If someone wears a tinfoil hat to prevent the CIA from controlling their thoughts, would we have to prove the CIA doesn't exist to say they are wrong?

In that case we know the CIA exists. We would have to show they are or aren't trying to control their mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If someone wears a tinfoil hat to prevent the CIA from controlling their thoughts, would we have to prove the CIA doesn't exist to say they are wrong?

No, I am not going to be nice, so just ban me or what ever.
There is no objective evidence for other humans being wrong as you use it in this context. AND NO!!!!!!!! We are not going to agree on it, because that is subjective and not objective. No, we are not at a dinner over drinks debating weird exceptions, that has no relevance to everyday life.
Use evidence or state your opinion. You should know better!!!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's illogical. Both of them being correct results in a contradiction.

This was a response to, "It depend on what wisdom level the person has reached, the answer look different on each level, so actually all of them are correct depending on what wisdom level you are at, the "higher wisdom level" the more refined the answer becomes."

Agree, but I don't hear him saying that both results can be true as much as one conflicting opinion is as valid the other, even if they contradict. And I would agree with that in matters people call spiritual (I use the word differently), no belief can be shown to be correct or contradictory beliefs incorrect.

But that's also why I put no value in such statements, and why I don't use the word truth after spiritual. What I call truth is the quality that facts possess, facts being linguistic strings (sentences or paragraphs) that accurately map some aspect of our world determined empirically and demonstrably correct empirically. That is, if two statements are contradictory, and there is no empirical test to determine if either is correct, then it is meaningless to use such words as correct or truth to describe them. Such ideas are divorced from the world, not derived from experience but rather, intuition or believed by faith.

"Not even wrong" is a phrase we see to describe these claims untethered to empiricism. They're also called unscientific and unfalsifiable. Unlike statements about observable reality, they can't even in principle be said to be right or wrong, hence, unlike falsifiable comments that have been falsified and determined to be wrong, these ideas are less substantial than that - they're not even wrong.

All education is indoctrination.

I don't know what you mean by either education or indoctrination here, but I reserve the word education for experiential learning and formal learning as in a school or from an academic textbook. This method involves critical thinking, and in fact is the way it is learned.

Indoctrination, by contrast, is the method of inserting an idea into a mind through repetition without a sound argument or critical thinking, whether this be religious ideas, political ideas, or even advertising.

Contrast these two:

You're a child in Sunday school. You are told that God made the world and the beasts and man in six days. No evidence is given, no argument for why this is correct, just repetition.

Then you grow up, go off to university, and take a introductory course in evolution. The professor tells you what evidence was available to Darwin and explains the reasoning that led him to conclude that the tree of life formed from natural selection applied to genetic variation in the first replicator population (first life) and its descendants over geological time.

Here's another huge difference between these two methods of teaching. Your professor won't ask you if you believe it. He has a different method and a different agenda than the propagandist / indoctrinator.

But perhaps you're using the word education the way I'm using the word teaching - to encompass both methods. If so, I still disagree with you using that definition ; soe education is indoctrination.

As a sufi it is the inward "spiritual" that is important and one hold as few attachments to the physical world as possible.

Again, I don't know what is meant by attachments. Until the pandemic, I was very attached to the physical world, enjoying an active social life being with others several times a week, visiting restaurants, seeing live music, dancing, playing and teaching bridge and going to tournaments, travelling, accumulating art, participating in several "clubs" like Freethinkers and Cosmology Club, and the like. Even now, we are still connected to the world through satellite TV, the Internet, Amazon, online bridge, and Zoom.

Is that the kind of thing you are trying to avoid, and if so, why? Do you think it interferes with right thinking or right living? I don't. There is still room for all things spiritual in the activities of daily life.

My definition of a spirituality involves a sense of connectivity to one's world, as well as a sense of awe, mystery, and gratitude. That seems antithetical to avoiding attachment to the physical world. I get that feeling when I'm playing with my dogs. I get that feeling looking at the night sky. With me, it only comes from interacting with the physical world, or contemplating it.

Ya wouldn't think it possible to find a link referring
to half century old thermo textbook, but lo!
Chapter 18 The Laws of Nature
BTW, it was such an excellent textbook that I never
found it useful to attend class....except to take tests.

No doubt, the authors were far more highly educated
in quantum & statistical mechanics than I. But their
education still didn't prevent sky fairy beliefs.

I have a similar story. In the eighties, as a young physician, I found a copy of an internal medicine text (my specialty) from the 1930's. Bacterial endocarditis is an infection of the lining of the heart including the lining of the valves that is more or less uniformly fatal if untreated with effective intravenous antibiotics. When this book was written, there was no such thing. The section under treatment read, "Prayer, or hope for a misdiagnosis."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I don't know what you mean by either education or indoctrination here, but I reserve the word education for experiential learning and formal learning as in a school or from an academic textbook. This method involves critical thinking, and in fact is the way it is learned.

Indoctrination, by contrast, is the method of inserting an idea into a mind through repetition without a sound argument or critical thinking, whether this be religious ideas, political ideas, or even advertising.

Contrast these two:

You're a child in Sunday school. You are told that God made the world and the beasts and man in six days. No evidence is given, no argument for why this is correct, just repetition.

Then you grow up, go off to university, and take a introductory course in evolution. The professor tells you what evidence was available to Darwin and explains the reasoning that led him to conclude that the tree of life formed from natural selection applied to genetic variation in the first replicator population (first life) and its descendants over geological time.

Here's another huge difference between these two methods of teaching. Your professor won't ask you if you believe it. He has a different method and a different agenda than the propagandist / indoctrinator.

But perhaps you're using the word education the way I'm using the word teaching - to encompass both methods. If so, I still disagree with you using that definition ; soe education is indoctrination.
...

Yeah, your 2 examples are relevant for all aspects of education or teaching.

 

[Sheldon]

If someone said a god has spoken to them, wouldn't we first have to show a god doesn't exist to say they are wrong?

Well we are not rationally limited to those options, we can not know as the belief appears to be unfalsifiable, and we can disbelieve the claim.

I can't believe all unfalsifiable clams, as that is rationally and epistemologically impossible, if I were to subjectively believe one or some, then that indicates bias and therefore closed mindedness.

I can disbelieve them all, while admitting I must remain agnostic about them. Withholding belief from a claim is not itself an assertion or claim, disbelief is not a belief. Thus it carries no burden of proof.

 

[rational experiences]

The church was founded on consciousness the head. Human man's spiritual think awareness.

Theist law inferred science just a man who said God O the science state taught him. The advice consciously by his spiritual father adult self known.

The church taught no man is God. Don't give themes god science names or your life will be removed as genesis DNA based on earth rock stone laws.

The founding head crown of thorns irradiation brain burning prickling status.

Just like I endured. Who said holy human mother three selves with baby man self.

The teaching relative self advice i.e.ovah ova ovary. That had been womb female healed in two bodies.....the body heavens immaculate re massed put back. Holy water human mother cell oxygenation.

Put back so baby man DNA could be returned healed reborn. Taught known earth relativity ice water studied theme.

First born baby a boy of father and mother human. Your own human aware life body mind notification.

Mountain law attacked hit by UFO ark. Meteor asteroid broke up hit attack. Ceremony fallen rock. Holy teachings. Irradiated head was reasoned of hearing angel and father's voice.

Heaven records. Life of human and all objects recorded how we were advised visionary.

Old testimonials status first said science will never be allowed again.

One machine one practice was science temple pyramid the status one first testimonial.

Science practice men agreed caused heavy metal dementia removed previous aware teachings. Forgetfulness inability to think irradiation causes.

Intelligence for practice of science re emerged. Life healed.

Baha'i correct. Why it was stated an event past and beyond Mohammad and Jesus. Was hurt witnessed documented.

New testimonials was virtually the same one science cause event. Old testimonials already said do not repractice temple science.

Hence humanity angered at new testimony as old testimony had owned the social agreement. So there was already a human disagreement about documentation status.

The shroud was kept as the holy brothers Christian evidence. The holy brothers owned a historic established group to not allow the science temple to be rebuilt. Historic also.

The church hence tried to found a new world teaching first against sun theism and failed. As science satanisms were community science supported.

Their buildings for healing applied Phi sounds by structure was stated necessary to assist humanity as per medical aware circumstance outside in nature irradiation effect.

Not lying.

Galileo was wrong. They knew earth as God O light only owned one face. Hence light travelled around the earth not by motion...but by gravity.

The law gravity held the fixed face God light in one position.

They status the earth did not travel around the sun was by relativity not by action.

As the action science stone planet God first was God in darkness not in light as the sun owned the light.

Mass hence travelled was the status as sun mass had blasted converted planet Earth not light.

The way the teaching of relativity was taught was science not motion.

As science did not own motion.

Therefore to live in the past idealising old relativity was taught is not your place today to claim they were wrong as men. They knew what they were talking about.

It is man today who no longer remembers why relativity of God earth was taught in the non Galileo accepted format.

 

[Heyo]

If you believe your child is great and I don't, who is right?

What a person believes is up to them even if others disagree.

I have a feeling your intention is to get a confirmation that your beliefs are OK.
They are not automatically OK just because you believe them.
It is OK to believe them as long as you don't care about being right or rational but then it is just that, an irrational belief.

There is a definitive difference between it being OK to believe something and the belief being true.

 

[Sheldon]

The church was founded on consciousness the head. Human man's spiritual think awareness.

Theist law inferred science just a man who said God O the science state taught him. The advice consciously by his spiritual father adult self known.

The church taught no man is God. Don't give themes god science names or your life will be removed as genesis DNA based on earth rock stone laws.

The founding head crown of thorns irradiation brain burning prickling status.

Just like I endured. Who said holy human mother three selves with baby man self.

The teaching relative self advice i.e.ovah ova ovary. That had been womb female healed in two bodies.....the body heavens immaculate re massed put back. Holy water human mother cell oxygenation.

Put back so baby man DNA could be returned healed reborn. Taught known earth relativity ice water studied theme.

First born baby a boy of father and mother human. Your own human aware life body mind notification.

Mountain law attacked hit by UFO ark. Meteor asteroid broke up hit attack. Ceremony fallen rock. Holy teachings. Irradiated head was reasoned of hearing angel and father's voice.

Heaven records. Life of human and all objects recorded how we were advised visionary.

Old testimonials status first said science will never be allowed again.

One machine one practice was science temple pyramid the status one first testimonial.

Science practice men agreed caused heavy metal dementia removed previous aware teachings. Forgetfulness inability to think irradiation causes.

Intelligence for practice of science re emerged. Life healed.

Baha'i correct. Why it was stated an event past and beyond Mohammad and Jesus. Was hurt witnessed documented.

New testimonials was virtually the same one science cause event. Old testimonials already said do not repractice temple science.

Hence humanity angered at new testimony as old testimony had owned the social agreement. So there was already a human disagreement about documentation status.

The shroud was kept as the holy brothers Christian evidence. The holy brothers owned a historic established group to not allow the science temple to be rebuilt. Historic also.

The church hence tried to found a new world teaching first against sun theism and failed. As science satanisms were community science supported.

Their buildings for healing applied Phi sounds by structure was stated necessary to assist humanity as per medical aware circumstance outside in nature irradiation effect.

Not lying.

Galileo was wrong. They knew earth as God O light only owned one face. Hence light travelled around the earth not by motion...but by gravity.

The law gravity held the fixed face God light in one position.

They status the earth did not travel around the sun was by relativity not by action.

As the action science stone planet God first was God in darkness not in light as the sun owned the light.

Mass hence travelled was the status as sun mass had blasted converted planet Earth not light.

The way the teaching of relativity was taught was science not motion.

As science did not own motion.

Therefore to live in the past idealising old relativity was taught is not your place today to claim they were wrong as men. They knew what they were talking about.

It is man today who no longer remembers why relativity of God earth was taught in the non Galileo accepted format.

I'm relatively new here, are these posts some sort of windup?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm relatively new here, are these posts some sort of windup?

Was thinking exactly that about yours tbh

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I've seen it said to people here on numerous occasions that they are not highly educated if they believe in a god.

No, this is not "true." A person's level of education can vary widely with or without their holding a religious belief.

I've seen it said to some that claim that a god has spoken to them that they are possibility suffering of mental illness.

You mention here only a "possibility" that they are suffering mental illness. I would say that if one is hearing voices they expect are coming from the ether, then yes, there is at least that possibility.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm relatively new here, are these posts some sort of windup?

The particular person to which you were responding tends to make very little sense. The wording of posts is very mechanical/robotic... a lot of articles and transition words left out. The first several times I read through them I wondered if it wasn't some sort of bot. I remain unsure what is going on there, and I tend to just ignore these posts, as they are seldom cogent, and parts or even only specific words end up being tangentially relevant.

 

[Sheldon]

Was thinking exactly that about yours tbh

Nope, anything specific you didn't understand?

Only I have read rational experiences's posts and can't fathom what any of them mean.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correct, academia may very-well be loaded with idiots.

And then there's the question...
What kind of education?
A PhD in theology or medieval art might offer belief
statistics different from one in physics or engineering.

 

[Suave]

And then there's the question...
What kind of education?
A PhD in theology or medieval art might offer belief
statistics different from one in physics or engineering.

Perhaps somebody with a bachelor's degree in finance from Northwestern University might be more of a genius than somebody with a master's degree in literature. ...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Was thinking exactly that about yours tbh

Would this be coming to the defense of post #107? Perhaps you can read it and give us your take on it?

And if you are not intending to defend post #107, then all I can see is that you are basically just blindly striking out at @Sheldon, implying that their posts are somehow disingenuous. Likely just because you are a theist and "don't like them." And you likely don't like them because they call into question a lot of the beliefs you, yourself hold, but can't provide a lick of solid foundational support for. Sound about right?

Here's where you accuse me of blindly striking out at you. And I'll admit, you wouldn't be entirely wrong about the striking part... but I don't think I am quite as blind. Perhaps you can persuade my opinion otherwise?

 

[RestlessSoul]

And then there's the question...
What kind of education?
A PhD in theology or medieval art might offer belief
statistics different from one in physics or engineering.

Interesting. You don’t think atheists can appreciate art?

And you think there are likely to be a lot of atheist engineers? What about carpenters?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Would this be coming to the defense of post #107? Perhaps you can read it and give us your take on it?

And if you are not intending to defend post #107, then all I can see is that you are basically just blindly striking out at @Sheldon, implying that their posts are somehow disingenuous. Likely just because you are a theist and "don't like them." And you likely don't like them because they call into question a lot of the beliefs you, yourself hold, but can't provide a lick of solid foundational support for. Sound about right?

Here's where you accuse me of blindly striking out at you. And I'll admit, you wouldn't be entirely wrong about the striking part... but I don't think I am quite as blind. Perhaps you can persuade my opinion otherwise?

You give such a convincing impression of a person with entrenched opinions that no, I don’t imagine I could persuade you to question them even for a second. You can’t change a closed mind.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Nope, anything specific you didn't understand?

Only I have read rational experiences's posts and can't fathom what any of them mean.

Sorry, mate, genuinely thought you were on the wind up. Your avatar might have had something to do with that. Didn’t realise you took your own posts seriously.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting. You don’t think atheists can appreciate art?

I like (some) art.
So no.

And you think there are likely to be a lot of atheist engineers? What about carpenters?

I found it common among engineers & carpenters I know.
But my pesonal sample might not represent the whole.
I'll stick with just the claim made earlier.