I am curious if anyone ever wonders how can this really smart person believe in God? I consider myself a really open minded person but I just can’t understand it. I’m just curious as to other people’s opinion so please share your thoughts. Thanks !
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
53 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.A couple off the top of my head:
- Childhood indoctrination
- Social/Cultural - wanting to belong to the Mormon clan, the Jewish clan, etc.
jujuofthesea
Level 7
July 15, 2018
1
some people give more credence of faith - even some smart ones. I happen to agree that the more intelligent often want actual proof. But I know a few people I would consider intelligent who still maintain faith.
JeffMesser
Level 8
July 15, 2018
0
I suspect it almost always starts in childhood and just becomes what they call "faith"... that thing you just cannot reason with. The person cannot think any differently. For those with whom it starts in their adult years, I seems it's usually triggered by some calamity where the new-found faith is a crutch and an insurance policy... just in case. People can be "really smart" about many things, but still make a huge exception for their "faith" simply because it's safer than taking a chance and being wrong. And there's something soothing about the notion of "forgiveness" and a better next world. And it's just more socially acceptable to be some sort of a believer. How many atheist politicians do we know of?
mtnhome
Level 7
July 15, 2018
2
Politics has made me realize just how common it is for two people to look at the same thing and see somthing completely different, really drives it home.
ArdentAtheist
Level 8
July 15, 2018
1
Some people are more rationally minded rather empirical.
This often will lead the rationalist to simply assume premises that might not seem justified to an empiricist. It’s been a debate that has played out since the time of Plato and Aristotle: Plato being the rationalist and Aristotle being the early empiricist. This is usually the disconnect between types like myself who are empiricists ( probably why I gravitated towards studying physics at Uni) and the more rational types such as pure mathematicians and other philosophical branches. As far as I know, and I could be wrong about this ( I really am most likely wrong ), these are the two broad classifications that epistemologies fall into.
Here’s a nice little story my thermodynamics professor told us that gets to the heart of he difference between what a scientist and say a mathematician do:
Do you know how electrical resistance works? It’s simple really as the voltage biases the current forward the little electron bump around and into each other losing energy and momentum along the way because no collision is perfectly elastic (conserving both energy and momentum). So there you have it: that’s how electrical resistance manifests and the beautiful thing is that is logically self consistent... except that it’s completely wrong at a fundamental level. Why? Quite simply electrons are not classical particles, they are quantum objects. What actually causes electrical resistance is a combination of thermal noise in materials and material defects.
So there you have it, if you want to describe the natural world, then you need an empirical basis for your assumptions in any given model.
A rationalist would respond to this by saying:
“ Ah yes, that is true, but the nature of [insert conceptual object here] is not physical and; thus, I need not provide an empirical basis for my assumption!”
To which I would respond:
“Does this offer any predictive capabilities or explanatory power for the natural world?”
To which they’d either say:
“Yes, just look at how this corresponds with what has happened” (basically some correlation) which I would say:
“Correlation does mean causation/implication”
Or they would say:
“no, but it doesn’t need to because I’m talking about something more than the natural world”
to which I’d say:
“cool story bro, don’t care about that”
Sorry if that was kind of long, but I really like that story 
Wavefunction
Level 5
July 15, 2018
1
I would caution you about using quantum anything in this context. If electrons are not "classical particles" then what is? I do agree that a rationalist assumes that the model is correct, and that an empiricist is more inclined to assume that it is not. Both sides have benefits and drawbacks. For example what is an "outlier" in a data set. Do such things exist?
@RavenMunnin Not to worry, there is no quantum woo here. An electron is a quantum “particle” I say particle simply out of linguistic convenience. An electron exhibits wave-like behavior as well as particle-like behavior: it just depends on what interactions the electron goes. The true nature of the electron is much more complicated than a little ball which has classical circular orbits around a proton in the hydrogen atom. Classical particles obey Newton’s Law but quantum “particles” obey Schrödinger’s equation which by its nature is a wave equation: the solutions it emits depends on both the boundary conditions imposed on the Schrödinger equation and the given potential under consideration. Also the solutions that newton’s 2nd emits are actual positions of a given particle whereas he solutions of the Schrödinger equation represent a probability density once you multiply the solution by its complex conjugate.That is the main difference between classical particles and quantum particles.
Also it isn’t that an empiricist assumes the model is incorrect so much as they tend to be more skeptical and need justifications for assuming certain premises are true before continuing on. Basically what I mean here is that an empiricist won’t say “okay let’s just assume p is true, what follows is the proof of [insert whatever thing]” there will always be a reason why that assumption is used.
The answer to that question depends on any number of things in an experiment: did you control for all possible other variables? Is this outlier reproducible? What factors lead up to the manifestion of this outlier? It could be that it was simply a malfunction or it could be a new phenomenon that takes place under special conditions: special in that they are not everyday circumstances which leads to the phenomena being outliers according to a dataset. Of course the outlier itself might worth study even if it is just a mistake.
@Wavefunction what I meant was it sounds like you question the existence of matter when you say the electrons are not particles. The issue I am trying to point out is that the concept of 'classical' and 'quantum' are convenient ideological boxes we created so that we can still talk about these things. The ideas in quantum physics is so new and shaky that using them in this example is not going to help things as neither side really has anything more then a story to explain observations. I will try and restate my comment so it makes a bit more sense.
Quantum reality seems to be so different from the reality we experience that trying to describe it with the concepts we understand fails miserably. For this reason scientific thought around this realm has not been on solid ground with no good reasons to reject or accept very strange theories.
This brings me to why I started to talk about outliers. In essence you must either accept them as part of the model or reject them. The decision to do so is usually based on how accurate the model you are using predicts an outcome. Today Newtons laws still predict 99.99% of scenarios just fine. It was deposed because we eventually realized that the outliers were not outliers but actually part of a more complex model. This decision happened because we could grasp how they fit into a new model, and take measurements that allowed us to see that this model was more then just a story. So for me weather you stay with a model (what I am taking as a rationalist mindset) depends on if you can see the outliers as something else, it is not a mindset, rather a view that inevitably happens on a case by case basis. Religious people see the world as an exciting place where humans can't grasp what the causes for things are so they can treat outliers as part of the religious model (think miracles), they don't seek an alternate explanations. Its lazy but that is how I see them (to be fair we all do this with some things). Wanting to explain the outliers will force you to discard the old model as happens in science all the time. I will stop here its already to long.
“what I meant was it sounds like you question the existence of matter when you say the electrons are not particles.”
It might sound that way but that’s not what I am I’m fact saying: the nature of matter just simply isn’t as simple as matter existing a little point particles.
“The issue I am trying to point out is that the concept of 'classical' and 'quantum' are convenient ideological boxes we created so that we can still talk about these things.”
No they aren’t ideological boxes, they are separate physical theories that describe how matter behaves at different mass scales. If you perhaps meant that they are man made categories made to describe nature then sure that’s true, but they are natural distinctions to make: they aren’t arbitrary categories.
“The ideas in quantum physics is so new and shaky that using them in this example is not going to help things as neither side really has anything more then a story to explain observations.”
Well being almost a century old is not really that new in terms of physics unless you’re talking about field theory which emerged in the 50s-60s (you could really maybe push it to the 30s if you want to count Dirac’s attempts at QFT). The ideas are unusual yes but not shaky. A theory is much more than a story: a story can’t make predictions whereas a theory can. Also the whole point was that a classical picture of electron behavior in the context of explaining electrical resistance is logically self consistent, but the issue is that the premises upon which this model rest are incorrect: individual electrons are not governed by newton’s law, they are governed by the Schrödinger equation (at least those that aren’t relativistic anyway). This is why despite being a self consistent explanation of electrical resistance, it doesn’t correspond to other knowledge gained by science; thus, it is not a scientifically accurate description. This means that it’s predictive capability is rather limited and not as useful as the quantum description. Quantum perturbation theory will yield much more information about the system than treating the electrons as little bouncy balls that collide with the material.
“Quantum reality seems to be so different from the reality we experience that trying to describe it with the concepts we understand fails miserably.”
It doesn’t just seem that way, it is that way. I disagree with your assertion that trying to describe QM with any concepts we understand fails miserably. Describing QM using the language of math works quite well and gives insight that can’t imparted by watching a pop-sci program. If you’d like a decent introduction to QM, then Griffiths is a good introductory text and in fact is what I used in my undergraduate QM courses.
“For this reason scientific thought around this realm has not been on solid ground with no good reasons to reject or accept very strange theories.”
Umm what do you mean by this? While there are some unresolved issues with quantum theory, it is on pretty solid ground overall.
“This brings me to why I started to talk about outliers. In essence you must either accept them as part of the model or reject them. The decision to do so is usually based on how accurate the model you are using predicts an outcome. Today Newtons laws still predict 99.99% of scenarios just fine. It was deposed because we eventually realized that the outliers were not outliers but actually part of a more complex model”
Yes, and for a well established model a more general model is sought out to explain outliers: a model such that when appropriate limits are taken we can recover the old model. I’m not sure what you mean by Newton’s laws predict 99.99 percent of scenarios but yes Newton’s laws are still accurate in their regime. Newton’s laws weren’t deposed, their boundary of application was simply found and it was recognized that we needed a more general theory.
“This decision happened because we could grasp how they fit into a new model, and take measurements that allowed us to see that this model was more then just a story. So for me weather you stay with a model (what I am taking as a rationalist mindset) depends on if you can see the outliers as something else, it is not a mindset, rather a view that inevitably happens on a case by case basis.”
As I said outliers could simply be methodological errors, or they could be new avenues of investigation leading to the need for a more general theory( maybe even both!): it just depends on the specifics of the situation.
“Religious people see the world as an exciting place where humans can't grasp what the causes for things are so they can treat outliers as part of the religious model (think miracles), they don't seek an alternate explanations. Its lazy but that is how I see them (to be fair we all do this with some things). Wanting to explain the outliers will force you to discard the old model as happens in science all the time. I will stop here its already to long.”
Right, this is exactly why some religious people are pure rationalists. I disagree that we all don’t seek alternative explanations for some things. I always try to entertain alternative ideas because that’s how you discover truth: dialectics are a wonderful tool for seeking out alternative explanations. As far as science goes, you don’t discard a theory: you simply recognize its limitations and attempt to come up with a model that reduces to other models in certain limits (correspondence principal).
Edit: apologies for block quoting but there was a lot to respond to here and I had to organize my thoughts.
@Wavefunction this is an interesting conversation, unfortunately I feel like this is a bit cumbersome for what we require to explain ourselves correctly. I feel we are talking past each other a bit perhaps another time we can continue this discussion.
@RavenMunnin That is fine and understandable, good chat though.
I think there can be much confusion caused by a poor understanding of the difference between intellect and emotional security. A person who is emotionally secure is a sort of person who can question the existence of God and accept that God does not actually exist. A person of great intellect can I have a good understanding of the science of the universe and still be emotionally insecure and need a God figure to cope. Atheism does not necessarily imply that a person is smart or stupid any more than an emotionally secure person might be understanding of the laws of physics.
Tompain1
Level 7
July 15, 2018
1
In one word indoctrination. The Jesuits use an expression.............”.Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man”. This could apply to all religions. If children’s minds were never interfered with, how many people do you think would choose to believe in God? A few probably, but I would wager not too many with any degree of intelligence. The application of critical thought sometimes does lead to more intelligent people losing their faith and I would say that is how many on this site came to reject the teachings of their childhood.
Marionville
Level 10
July 15, 2018
2
Otherwise intelligent human beings believing in anything without real evidence is astounding to me. Whether it's believing in an imaginary friend in the clouds or astrology, numerology, Ouija boards, leprechauns, walking on water, omens of black cats and cracks in sidewalks, and the existence of Mr. Clean, I find it all dumbfounding.
evidentialist
Level 8
July 15, 2018
0
Show me one group of people coming from any culture that didn't believe in gods of their area. When many cultures around the world have the same basic look of what we only have read about or watched movies or tvs shows about. When they have so many similarities, so many different cultures, then we can believe at one time anything from any mythology, folklore,fables and fairy tales once existed. Literature of these are considered the highest level of education. How is wind made, we don't see it. Sometimes we feel it and hear it, but we know it's there. It's ok to believe in something, it's when certain people feel everyone should be like them is the problem. Again variety is the key of a healthy brain.
@IceManBNice420 -- I didn't say anything at all about the history of belief or how these things were generated, did I? I merely gave my reaction to those who manage these solid beliefs in the imaginary today. We all use beliefs in mundane issues to permit us to navigate through each day, but those mundane beliefs are transient and easily cast aside when evidence to the contrary arises.
The beliefs that become fixed in spite of the evidence are what we're talking about here and it doesn't matter whether there is an organized dogma to be followed or whether it is enforced. Black cats and cracks in sidewalks being just a couple of examples. Please, tell me about that 'key of a healthy brain,' it sounds interesting.
@evidentialist Believing in something, and having it run your life are two separate issues. Only those people who have a blurry line between the two are the ones to worry about. Or just to stay away from them.
@IceManBNice420 -- Oh so wrong.
Some of the smartest people I've ever met were religious, but as soon as I engaged them on religion they were less smart. So, I've come to believe that belief in religion doesn't come from the rational part of the brain but the emotional child-residue part. I'm sure it's complicated, but essentially that's what it is.
David1955
Level 8
July 15, 2018
2
I've come to realize that the intilectual aspect of a person really doesn't come into play here. They have a fear of the unknown and have not come to terms with that. It brings them comfort to know that if they choose to believe the whole God story, they don't have an unknown to fear, even though they still do. They can be rational about everything else yet choose to ignore the inconsistencies of religion for the sole purpose of avoiding have to face an unknown. It's a crutch for them to get through life.
Captain747ex
Level 7
July 15, 2018
1
My mother was an accountant who started school taking pharmacy, and represented herself in court numerous times even winning against the oil companies. Her favorite hobbies were mind puzzles, crosswords, sudoku, etc. Yet she was christian, and believed in reincarnation, practiced palmistry, and handwriting analysis, as well as she had a quija board...
Inversely I have met some outright dimwits who happen to be atheists or agnostics. So it's not as simple as smart people reject supernaturalism and only lower intelligent people believe or have faith
PolyComrade
Level 6
July 15, 2018
0
Smart is a kind of loaded term. To most people that word means you are competent at something. It does not imply you are good at reasoning, nor does it imply you have had a good education. Most people I consider "smart" are people that will eventually become Athiest or Agnostic, this is a process though as you have to essentially invalidate axioms that you were given. It's not easy, and some people never do, but the more curious you are and able you are of holding and understanding different concepts, the more likely you are to loose "faith" in the standard view of religion. Most cases where this does not happen, I feel, is a lack of examination of the religion in question.
RavenMunnin
Level 4
July 15, 2018
0
When I was studying for the ministry I thought I was smart. On the god question I always told myself it was a no brainer. All these older than me people had believed their entire lives, and they are smarter than me. Even today as an atheist I find all these theists who cannot betray the beliefs of their grandparents and every other believer in the past. I think that's why some of them hang onto it.
Believers crack jokes about agnostics and atheists taking "logic classes." They write books like "The Atheist Who Wasn't There." The big problem is their logic is flawed and the bible cannot be evidence of something. They don't get it.
I have religious friends who keep trying to wrap daily worldwide events together with that book of Revelation to show how right the bible is. OK. Let's throw in the Easter Bunny and Casper the Friendly Ghost. Is he the Holy Ghost? I bet his sheet is worn out by now. They seem to miss the fact that imaginary and make believe creatures have no part in anything and they are stuck where they are because they have to have answers to everything. The bible is one big book that was made out of all the smaller books that were allowed. Many books were not allowed because the "miracles" were too bizarre. When it was decided to bind them all together it was done as a "beginning and an ending" thing. Presto! Believers now have all the answers. Even so, Revelation almost didn't make it.
I just keep in mind today that if it wasn't for Adam and Eve living so long, a talking snake, (the serpent) and incest, there would be no need whatsoever for Jesus. Believers still think god had a perfect plan. Zeus, Thor, and others were left out in the cold.
DenoPenno
Level 9
July 15, 2018
1
If someone is afraid it doesn't matter how smart they are they're going to believe what they need to believe in order to get through life
Drsmash253
Level 7
July 15, 2018
1
A lot of Christians & Catholics believe in the bible. The King James bible, started in 1604, completed in 1611 The oldest manuscript known to mankind is The Epic of Gilgamesh. Translated from carvings on vases from Mesopotamia thousands of years before the bible in ancient Egypt. I have read novels translated into English of The Epic of Gilgamesh. A historical ruler is described as, two third god one third man, and he was bisexual. His mothers' body was inhabitant by a goddess; his father,all human,was the ruler before him. This book is required reading in colleges and universities, along with Homer's The Iliad & The Odyssey, Greek Mythology. Most people believe what they read, Intelligent people are educated people. The bible is also there for students to read. Being smart is using your intelligence to your advantage in a conversation, but you have to be humble and admit when you don't know much of a certain topic.This is where those that are Trump supporters, they only believe what they hear, for the most part, that don't read much. They only read certain parts of the bible they want, it's called cherrypicking. They lack variety which is part of a fully functional brain. Bottom line an educated, intelligent person can believe in godS, it's how their lives are influenced by what they want to believe is their god and his /her teachings. Some people just don't want to better themselves.
IceManBNice420
Level 4
July 15, 2018
0
Ouch! You said "better" and signified a norm on a competitive scale.
@IAJO163 Thank you, I think ?!
@IceManBNice420 I refrain from using the word "better" these days as it creates a standard that must be met. There's no better, just different.
I would have thought it's a combination of what you're brought up to believe and nothing happens to challenge it, there's almost a subconscious disconnect between god and reality, but I think the majority of people just don't scrutinise and question it because they don't need to.
ipdg77
Level 8
July 15, 2018
0
"Religion makes smart people dumb" is my motto. The brainwashing starts at an early age and later in life they find it hard to break free. I truly don't get it myself since there are so many signs that prove this stuff was made up, like there is nothing mentioned about dinosaurs, plus the many natural disasters of old which are explained as acts of god, chariots of fire (meteorites). They must conform to their beliefs or go to hell and they believe it. They're prisoners to their own belief system as are so friggin many others.
Partyhawk
Level 7
July 15, 2018
0
We've been taught that belief in a god transcends intelligence, that god is a given so use your intelligence for other endeavors. Also, it's not socially acceptable be seen as anything other than a believer. As foe me, there may or may not be a god, but that is irrelevant. I'm on Earth for a certain number of years and then I'm gone. Nothing else matters. When an intelligent person turns his/her attention their existence, issues may become clearer.
TheDoubter
Level 9
July 15, 2018
0
Actually there have been many professional studies on the issue, and the results have been consistent...
The more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to be a theist...
A similar relationship has been show regarding educational levels, and financial/material status.
camne
Level 7
July 15, 2018
0
If someone thinks differently than me on something, I assume only that. They think differently. I don’t make judgements or assumptions on their intelligence.
indirect76
Level 7
July 15, 2018
3
@CoastRiderBill Thanks. It’s a view I try to have. It is difficult to not make judgements to be honest.
I just ruminated this hypothetical example: Intelligent people who live within in-tact moderate religious social constructs can maintain them if they have no reason to examine those religious constructs. Their intellect can be applied to lots of practical, secular activities without ever wandering into the philosophical,spiritual domain. If their social support system disintegrates due to tragedy, betrayal, apathy, etc, then they will have the opportunity to examine what the function of those constructs were and become agnostic about philosophical/spiritual things.
If the religious social constructs they subscribe to are extreme then they can’t be intelligent.
Jagnostic
Level 6
July 15, 2018
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Christopher Hitchens Fans
80 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.