Are People Who Believe in God Stupid?

[devogue]

Indeed, but it is the nature of the interpretation that is fascinating. The "redness" of red - where does that come from? It doesn't exist in the universe outside of our brains/minds. Qualia bother me.

Yes, our brains create what we think of as red - the differentiation between colors. But, the brain doesn't create the differing wavelengths. Those are there whether we are here or not. Our brains don't create differing wavelengths any more than our brains create the chemical compositions of different materials.

"Red" or "green" or "blue" is how our brain interprets the different wavelengths. The wavelengths exist separate from us, but the interpretation ("red", "green", "blue") does not.

So we can define "red" as the brain's/mind's interpretation of light with a wavelegnth of 650nm, but how did that particular interpretation develop - why not perceive light with a wavelength of 650nm as a peculiar pattern, or visual "texture"?

What is the "redness" of "red"?

[hiyymer]

\
I don't know what you mean by "agency." You'll have to define that for me.

This entire sentence is subject to too many varying meanings, I think - it's vague and ambiguous. Is there just a "physical caused reality?" I don't know what you mean by "just?" There is a reality. I can say that much, or at least - from everything I can perceive there is a reality - the universe looks like it has been around for a lot longer than humans have been here, and will be here long after we are gone.

The rest of the sentence - "creates the experience of I deciding as part of the mechanism" is difficult. I'm not sure what you mean. What mechanism? I can say that it appears that the brain creates what we call consciousness - it interprets things from outside of the brain and can decide to do things (and does them, within the limits of what appears to be a physics that exists regardless of what the brain thinks).

Observing that the colors created by our brain in our experience represent something that exists, not does make blue exist outside of our experience.

Agency is the uncaused cause. It is "I deciding" to do A rather then B our of a free choice. The brain does not "decide" in that sense. It is part of a causal net of huge complexity. It's actions are caused by the physical laws of science. The brain's representation of complex physical processes as agents in our experience is analogous to colors. It is a method of discrimination and prediction; a mechanism within the caused reality. The argument against the God experience is that there are no uncaused causes intervening in nature. The same can be said for "I deciding".

[Chuck Jones]

None of that is correct at all.

[devogue]

None of that is correct at all.

Shut up or I'll get DawkBoy.

[Chuck Jones]

That's not true.

[Robert_S]

Indeed, but it is the nature of the interpretation that is fascinating. The "redness" of red - where does that come from? It doesn't exist in the universe outside of our brains/minds. Qualia bother me.

Yes, our brains create what we think of as red - the differentiation between colors. But, the brain doesn't create the differing wavelengths. Those are there whether we are here or not. Our brains don't create differing wavelengths any more than our brains create the chemical compositions of different materials.

"Red" or "green" or "blue" is how our brain interprets the different wavelengths. The wavelengths exist separate from us, but the interpretation ("red", "green", "blue") does not.

So we can define "red" as the brain's/mind's interpretation of light with a wavelegnth of 650nm, but how did that particular interpretation develop - why not perceive light with a wavelength of 650nm as a peculiar pattern, or visual "texture"?

What is the "redness" of "red"?

I think it is misleading to say that the qualia of our senses are created, I'd rather say "derived".

[jcmmanuel]

I think they are. They are obviously gullible, they aren't rational, they lie to themselves to intensify their God delusion and they don't have that feeling of "groundedness" and intellectual calm which I think is inherent in atheists.

I agree, I definitely must be stupid. Sniff.

To prefer the mind to have an open rooftop, set no specific limits to what we know or don't yet know (our epistemology) is stupid.

To consider theism a human intuition on the subject of origin of life and meaning of life must be stupid.

Not to consider theism a lesser idea than the same idea being taken, an 'a' put in front of it and it being re-released as a better idea, must be stupid.

I also presume: not to consider 'belief in God' a matter of blind faith but rather a presupposition or axiom which seems to offer a way of understanding the world which is not in itself bad or illogical, must be stupid.

And to consider hatred and violence a human problem (rather than a specific theistic or atheistic or otherwise interesting rhetorical position for the benefit of binary thinkers), has to be a stupid thing too.

And to consider a theist who wants to learn science from the bible just as much fake as an atheist who wants to understand religion from a science book, must be stupid too.

By consequence, to consider an atheist, who attempts to use a semblance of science as a cover-up for promoting atheism, just as hypocritical as a 'believer' who attempts to use an appearance of science as a cover-up for promoting creationism, must be stupid too.

Needless to say, to consider a belief which is characteristic for adults something entirely different than a belief which is characteristic for non-adults (like Santa Claus) must be really really stupid.

And of course, to consider Genesis 1 an interesting philosophical view whereby the human being is seen as exceptional among the animal kingdom (in terms of responsibility, making history, culture etc), and to study this vision from this point of view rather than formulating cheap judgement from a 21st century perspective and not having the insights of a real historian, - and even to judge about these Jewish books as if they would have been some sort of 'creationists' in their time (a position emerging no sooner than the early 1940s - after 90 years of evolution theory regularly being mistaken by impetuous 'atheists' as incompatible with theism) must be extremely stupid.

To consider 'sin' a religiously 'tainted' word which nevertheless relates to 'evil' in a way we all still understand (okay, maybe not everyone - if you don't know that in secular countries 2 children are sold in the sex trade every minute, you are obviously not thwarted by too much understanding of your world) - is, no doubt, stupid. (To 'weigh' the meaning of religious terminology and ideas against reality is, in itself, of course, already too stupid for words - imagine you may find some good reason in there, wouldn't that be embarrassing if you're devoted to, for instance, Dawkins' breed of dogmatic atheism?)

To think of non-believers and believers as essentially the same human beings, all together being in the same boat - and yet believe in God as a mystery, yet an interesting mystery, must be stupid. It's always better to have your mind made up and settled on that stuff, then tell the world that you have the right vision on all the difficult questions of life (don't forget to add "I don't need a Santa Claus").

Hmm.... ehm, I was rambling, so sorry. But you know, God is not excluded from my mind, so it's clear: I'm brain-damaged.

[Coito ergo sum]

Observing that the colors created by our brain in our experience represent something that exists, not does make blue exist outside of our experience.

What we call blue is a certain wavelength of light. The wavelength of light exists outside of our experience. That's what "blue" is.

Agency is the uncaused cause. It is "I deciding" to do A rather then B our of a free choice. The brain does not "decide" in that sense.

Yes, it does. That's where the deciding takes place, in the structures of the brain. There is nothing else doing any deciding.

It is part of a causal net of huge complexity.

The brain.

It's actions are caused by the physical laws of science. The brain's representation of complex physical processes as agents in our experience is analogous to colors. It is a method of discrimination and prediction; a mechanism within the caused reality. The argument against the God experience is that there are no uncaused causes intervening in nature. The same can be said for "I deciding".

Yes, the actions of the brain are within the physical laws of the universe. The brain acts as it does, and one of things it does is thinks and another thing it does is decides. It does other things. There is no evidence of anything outside the brain that decides things for the brain.

[Coito ergo sum]

Indeed, but it is the nature of the interpretation that is fascinating. The "redness" of red - where does that come from? It doesn't exist in the universe outside of our brains/minds. Qualia bother me.

Yes, our brains create what we think of as red - the differentiation between colors. But, the brain doesn't create the differing wavelengths. Those are there whether we are here or not. Our brains don't create differing wavelengths any more than our brains create the chemical compositions of different materials.

"Red" or "green" or "blue" is how our brain interprets the different wavelengths. The wavelengths exist separate from us, but the interpretation ("red", "green", "blue") does not.

So we can define "red" as the brain's/mind's interpretation of light with a wavelegnth of 650nm, but how did that particular interpretation develop - why not perceive light with a wavelength of 650nm as a peculiar pattern, or visual "texture"?

What is the "redness" of "red"?

It's like other senses - like touch. Things are the way they are whether we are here or not. Our brains, however, interpret a breast as "soft" and "smooth" based on the information received from the nerves in the hands. We don't create the shape and texture of the breast any more than we create the wavelengths of light. The brain just interprets the information in a useful manner -- not necessarily the most useful and not necessarily the most complete. Our brains are just the way they are because of natural selection.

Why not perceive the light in a different way, indeed? Perhaps there are many ways to perceive light, but our brains evolved this way.

[Coito ergo sum]

And to consider a theist who wants to learn science from the bible just as much fake as an atheist who wants to understand religion from a science book, must be stupid too.

I've read a few different versions of the Bible, and I can tell you one thing for sure: there is no science to be learned there. None. Only someone who has not cracked the binding of a real science book could think the Bible has any "science" in it. It has some assertions about reality, yes, but that's not science.

And, I've never met anyone who ever said that they want to understand religion from a science book. I'm an atheist, and I learn about religion from reading religious books.

Needless to say, to consider a belief which is characteristic for adults something entirely different than a belief which is characteristic for non-adults (like Santa Claus) must be really really stupid.

Then take Zeus instead of Santa Claus. The analogy holds because there is the same lack of evidence for Zeus as there is for any other god.

I don't think believers in god are "stupid," by the way, because they are believers. I do, however, think they wrong.

And of course, to consider Genesis 1 an interesting philosophical view whereby the human being is seen as exceptional among the animal kingdom (in terms of responsibility, making history, culture etc), and to study this vision from this point of view rather than formulating cheap judgement from a 21st century perspective and not having the insights of a real historian, - and even to judge about these Jewish books as if they would have been some sort of 'creationists' in their time (a position emerging no sooner than the early 1940s - after 90 years of evolution theory regularly being mistaken by impetuous 'atheists' as incompatible with theism) must be extremely stupid.

Evolution is not necessarily incompatible with theism. It's incompatible with some theism, particularly Biblical "literalists."

Evolution, however, is evidence that things in the universe can proceed just fine without the need of divine intervention. The absence of evidence of divine intervention is what one would expect in a godless universe.

To think of non-believers and believers as essentially the same human beings, all together being in the same boat - and yet believe in God as a mystery, yet an interesting mystery, must be stupid. It's always better to have your mind made up and settled on that stuff, then tell the world that you have the right vision on all the difficult questions of life (don't forget to add "I don't need a Santa Claus").

It's generally the believer whose mind is "made up." It's the believer who repeats, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." That kind of nonsense.

It's also a tad laughable to have a believe say that nonbelievers are ones who need to treat believers and nonbelievers as essentially the same human beings. It's believers who tend to be the ones saying nonbelievers are incapable of being good without god, and that sort of nonsense.

Hmm.... ehm, I was rambling, so sorry. But you know, God is not excluded from my mind, so it's clear: I'm brain-damaged.

What god? Do you have any evidence or reason on which you base your belief in this god?

I mean that's what it boils down to really. If you believe in your God, why not some other god? On what basis do you reject other gods but not your God? Do you have a non-arbitrary basis for making that choice?

[hiyymer]

And to consider a theist who wants to learn science from the bible just as much fake as an atheist who wants to understand religion from a science book, must be stupid too.

I've read a few different versions of the Bible, and I can tell you one thing for sure: there is no science to be learned there. None. Only someone who has not cracked the binding of a real science book could think the Bible has any "science" in it. It has some assertions about reality, yes, but that's not science.

And, I've never met anyone who ever said that they want to understand religion from a science book. I'm an atheist, and I learn about religion from reading religious books.

Needless to say, to consider a belief which is characteristic for adults something entirely different than a belief which is characteristic for non-adults (like Santa Claus) must be really really stupid.

Then take Zeus instead of Santa Claus. The analogy holds because there is the same lack of evidence for Zeus as there is for any other god.

I don't think believers in god are "stupid," by the way, because they are believers. I do, however, think they wrong.

And of course, to consider Genesis 1 an interesting philosophical view whereby the human being is seen as exceptional among the animal kingdom (in terms of responsibility, making history, culture etc), and to study this vision from this point of view rather than formulating cheap judgement from a 21st century perspective and not having the insights of a real historian, - and even to judge about these Jewish books as if they would have been some sort of 'creationists' in their time (a position emerging no sooner than the early 1940s - after 90 years of evolution theory regularly being mistaken by impetuous 'atheists' as incompatible with theism) must be extremely stupid.

Evolution is not necessarily incompatible with theism. It's incompatible with some theism, particularly Biblical "literalists."

Evolution, however, is evidence that things in the universe can proceed just fine without the need of divine intervention. The absence of evidence of divine intervention is what one would expect in a godless universe.

To think of non-believers and believers as essentially the same human beings, all together being in the same boat - and yet believe in God as a mystery, yet an interesting mystery, must be stupid. It's always better to have your mind made up and settled on that stuff, then tell the world that you have the right vision on all the difficult questions of life (don't forget to add "I don't need a Santa Claus").

It's generally the believer whose mind is "made up." It's the believer who repeats, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." That kind of nonsense.

It's also a tad laughable to have a believe say that nonbelievers are ones who need to treat believers and nonbelievers as essentially the same human beings. It's believers who tend to be the ones saying nonbelievers are incapable of being good without god, and that sort of nonsense.

Hmm.... ehm, I was rambling, so sorry. But you know, God is not excluded from my mind, so it's clear: I'm brain-damaged.

What god? Do you have any evidence or reason on which you base your belief in this god?

I mean that's what it boils down to really. If you believe in your God, why not some other god? On what basis do you reject other gods but not your God? Do you have a non-arbitrary basis for making that choice?

Funny. I don't recall ever saying those things, nor would I.

[hiyymer]

Yes, the actions of the brain are within the physical laws of the universe. The brain acts as it does, and one of things it does is thinks and another thing it does is decides. It does other things. There is no evidence of anything outside the brain that decides things for the brain.

Our actions are determined by the brain/body following the physical laws of science. If a banana plant bends towards the sun as it grows, would say that the banana plant decided to grow in that direction and there is nothing outside of the banana plant that determined the direction that it grew? If the brain/body's actions are determined by the laws of science, there is no difference. The brain is just another link in the causal chain.

[Chuck Jones]

Having skimmed casually over the last few posts and having barely read them, I can say for sure that the atheists here are wrong on all counts. All hail Chuck Jones. You may aswell, I'm the only thing that unites us all.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, the actions of the brain are within the physical laws of the universe. The brain acts as it does, and one of things it does is thinks and another thing it does is decides. It does other things. There is no evidence of anything outside the brain that decides things for the brain.

Our actions are determined by the brain/body following the physical laws of science. If a banana plant bends towards the sun as it grows, would say that the banana plant decided to grow in that direction and there is nothing outside of the banana plant that determined the direction that it grew? If the brain/body's actions are determined by the laws of science, there is no difference. The brain is just another link in the causal chain.

Bananas don't decide. They don't have brains. The banana plant reacts. It's not a clean analogy.

[Coito ergo sum]

Funny. I don't recall ever saying those things, nor would I.

You're right - my bad -- typo. I should have attributed those quotes to

but now it's too late for me to edit.

Can an administrator make that correction, perhaps? Or, a moderator?

I do apologize. It was inadvertent.