People with higher IQ 'Less Likely to Believe in God' (2 Viewers)

[TacoTerrorist]

I don't make such assumptions. My point is that I stick to my provisional truths (useful analytical statements / empirical hetero-phenomenological experiences) and say that everything outside of that is meaningless as I simply have no way to construct meaning about any of it, so it may as well not exist, for I can know no better than that it does.

Which I think is stupid. This is the folly of atheism. It is not purely irrational to take a small leap of faith, but it is irrational to think purely rationally.

 

[chaldoking]

Which I think is stupid. This is the folly of atheism. It is not purely irrational to take a small leap of faith, but it is irrational to think purely rationally.

Perfectly said.

 

[chaldoking]

General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview?
by Rich Deem

Introduction

Does everything have a natural cause?

Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.

Rich Deem


This is the first part of a 2 part introduction to the evidence for belief in the God of Christianity. This first part considers what people believe and why. The main point is that we must consider the possibility that our beliefs are wrong, in order to realistically examine the evidence that contradicts our beliefs. This principle applies to both believers and skeptics alike. For myself, having grown up as an agnostic atheist (one who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim that no god exists), I have undergone a couple paradigm shifts as an adult. The first occurred as an undergraduate at USC in the early 1970's, when I went from atheism to deism (a belief that a god created the universe), as a result of my perception that science had failed miserably in its explanation of the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth. My second, more difficult paradigm shift occurred in the late 1980's, when I determined that Jesus Christ was the God who created the universe and life in it. If you are ready to consider the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong, and look directly at the evidence, feel free to skip ahead to part 2. However, I feel it is important for skeptics to recognize that not all their beliefs are based upon physical evidence, and are even consistent with their own worldview.
Do skeptics have beliefs?

Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg's book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth. Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments.
The skeptical worldview

Before we can get started, we need to agree on some principles that govern (or should govern) a skeptical worldview. The first and foremost is that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence. The second principle is that skeptics must be logically consistent at all times. In other words, a skeptic may not believe something to be true if it is contradicted by observational evidence. Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. One must ask the question, "Just because cause and effect overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?" Even in the Bible, which claims to be a record of God's supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described is purely naturalistic. So, even the Bible recognizes that the vast majority of events that occur in the universe have a natural cause. However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.
Problem with the skeptical worldview

Let me point out one major problem with the skeptical worldview in order to get you to the point of recognizing that not all the data really fits your worldview. The data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. Before the 20th century, atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. However, beginning with Einstein's theory of general relativity,1 and early observational evidence,2 it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating back in time revealed that the universe was merely billions of years old. The data eventually led to the "Big Bang" theory, which is virtually universally accepted by modern day cosmologist.3 Attempts to get around the idea4 that the universe had a beginning3 have all met with observational difficulties.5 The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang.6 So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.
The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2). If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

 

[chaldoking]

General Introduction for Non-Believers, Part 2: Evidence for Belief in God
by Rich Deem

Introduction

Is the universe designed?

"Improbable things happen all the time" is the mantra of the atheist. It is certainly possible for improbable things to happen. However, it is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained in order for stars and galaxies to exist.

Rich Deem


Part 1 of the introduction for non-believers showed that strong atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief. However, since there is no direct observational evidence regarding the origin of the universe, why should one believe the equally unobserved hypothesis that God created the universe? Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe. In order to keep this essay brief, much of the supporting information will not be included. However, you can click the links to the full-length articles for the details.
Evidence for design?

The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.
The Big Bang

The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.
Excess quarks

Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. One would expect the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. However, miraculously, quarks outnumbered antiquarks by a ratio of 1,000,000,001 to 1,000,000,000. The remaining small excess of quarks eventually made up all the matter that exists in the universe.
Large, just right-sized universe

Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.1 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger,2 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
Early evolution of the universe

Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.3
Just right laws of physics

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect.
Universal probability bounds

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),4 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:
1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143
So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.
What do cosmologists say?

Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

• "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."5
• "Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."6
• "In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."7

Speculative "solutions" to the design "problem"

The newest "solution" to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:

"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves."8
​

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:

"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."9
​

According to Paul Davies:

"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not�.If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."
​

Theistic solution - measurable design

On the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.10
Who created God?

A common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.11 A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed12 and that God created time,13 along with the entire universe,14 being described as an expanding universe.15 Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.

 

[chaldoking]

General Introduction for Non-Believers, Part 3: Why Christianity?
by Rich Deem

Introduction

Why Christianity?

Many people think that religious truth claims are beyond our ability to test for truthfulness. Although many claims cannot be directly tested (such as claims about morality), nearly all religions make claims about the nature of our world (the creation). Don't throw your hands up in the air in defeat. Test the claims!

Rich Deem


Part 2 of the introduction for non-believers provided a survey of the evidence suggesting that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent. I came to that conclusion in 1973 as a result of my studies as an undergraduate at the University of Southern California (not exactly a bastion of religious fervor). However, it took another 15 years before I identified the Designer. Like many other skeptics, I assumed that one could not determine which god (if any) were correctly described by any of the world's religious traditions. Looking back, the primary reason for my failure to identify the Designer was due to a lack of diligent research on my part. The intent of this page is to get you started on your research.
How does one test religious claims?

When I was a young adult, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos specials on PBS. Sagan had a way to make cosmology interesting even to biologists. I waited all week to watch his program. Later, in his Gifford lectures, Carl Sagan talked about how to test religious truth claims:

"Now, what happened before that [Big-Bang]? There are two views. One is 'Don�t ask that question,' which is very close to saying that God did it. And the other is that we live in an oscillating universe in which there is an infinite number of expansions and contractions. The former of these views happens, by chance, to be close to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view, the latter, close to the standard Hindu views. And so, if you like, you can think of the varying contentions of these two major religious views being fought out in the field of contemporary satellite astronomy. Because that�s where the answer to this question will very likely be decided. This is an experimental question. And it is very likely that in our lifetime we will have the answer to it. And I stress that this is very different from the usual theological approach, where there is never an experiment that can be performed to test out any contentious issue. Here there is one. So we don�t have to make judgments now. All we have to do is maintain some tolerance for ambiguity until the data are in, which may happen in a decade or less." (Carl Sagan, 1985 Gifford Lectures).
​

Guess what? Sagan was right (although it took a little more than a decade). Sagan's second alternative, the oscillating universe model has been discredited by a lack of sufficient matter to cause a contraction.1 It was further discredited by the discovery of dark energy, which shows that the universe is actually expanding at an ever increasing rate.2 So, Sagan's first alternative is the one that turned out to be true. My guess is that he was betting on the second. Of course, the atheists haven't lined up to become Christians, but instead have invented their own form of metaphysics (i.e., religion). The multiverse sounds scientific, but it is really philosophical wishful thinking, since there is no evidence supporting the idea. If one really thinks about it, the multiverse is impossible over the entire period of eternity (which is what atheists would propose for the age of the "invisible" part of our universe - if such a thing exists at all). The problem is that our part of the multiverse has managed to make itself completely inaccessible to contraction and future expansion. If it were possible for one part of the multiverse to become thermodynamically dead, it would be expected to be possible for others. Even if entry into such a state is extremely unlikely, eternity is a very, very long time. Certainly by now (over all eternity), the entire multiverse would have entered into one of these thermodynamically dead zones. So, one would expect the entire multiverse to have suffered thermodynamic death by now. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense that the universe is eternal with the characteristics that we observe. We are left with Sagan's first alternative - God did it. Atheists like to say that there is no evidence for God's existence and pretend it doesn't exist. However, Sagan realized that science could judge between religious claims.
More religious claims

The example of distinguishing between Hinduism versus the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation account is just one of many ways to examine the truth claims of the world's religions. Since most of the world's religions developed hundreds to thousands of years ago, it is a fairly trivial matter to examine their material for scientific and other errors. It would not be expected that ancient peoples would be able to accurately describe all modern scientific principles. Only those individuals who were given divine revelation would be expected to give an accurate account of our world.

Science and LDS scriptures

When dealing with more modern religious traditions, tests of scientific accuracy are more difficult to deploy, since those religions have the advantage of scientific revelation since the Enlightenment. Surprisingly, even some of the more modern religious traditions make claims that can be disproved through the discoveries of modern science. A prime example of this principle can be found in the religious writings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Although calling themselves "Christians," LDS theology is radically different from historic Christianity15 and contains its own set of religious writings (in addition to the Bible). Even though written in the 19th century, LDS religious writings make numerous scientific errors, including astronomical errors,16 archeological and historical errors,17 and genetic/hereditary errors for people groups.18 Because of these problems, the LDS religion can be safely discarded from accurately representing the true nature of God, having been shown to not be divinely inspired.
Christian truth claims

For the age in which it was written, the Bible makes some rather surprising claims regarding the nature of the universe and how it was created. For example, the Bible says that time was created by God when He created the universe.19 Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, demonstrating that time began at the formation of the universe.20 Of course, the biggest coup of the Bible was to declare that the universe had a beginning21 through an expanding universe model.22 The New Testament even declares that the visible creation was made from what was not visible and that dimensions of length, width and height were created by God.23 In addition, the Bible refuted steady-state theory (saying that the creation of matter and energy has ended)24 long before science made that determination. The Bible also states that the universe is subject to decay and will wear out.25 The existence of the second law of thermodynamics, coupled with recent discoveries indicating that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, with an insufficient amount of matter to stop that contraction, guarantees that the Bible is correct on this claim, also.
Besides these stunning revelations about the nature of the universe, the Bible describes several properties of the earth that were not confirmed by science until hundreds of years after the Bible first made the claim. Examples include the claim that air has weight,26 the existence of valleys27 and vents28 on the bottom of the sea, ocean currents,29 and the fact that winds blow in circular paths.30 These are remarkable claims that could not have been directly observed by a bunch on nomadic sheep herders. Where did this information come from?
Christian worldview

A worldview is a set of constructs by which we interpret how the world operates. The Christian worldview operates on the basis of the theology presented in the Bible. Below is an example comparison between a purely naturalistic worldview and the Christian worldview.
Christian vs. Naturalistic Worldview Premise Christianity Naturalistic Materialism31 Purpose of the universe The purpose of the universe is to provide a temporary habitation for human beings to choose to love or reject God.32 The universe has no purpose. It began as some random quantum variation and will likely end in thermodynamic heat death. Value of the human species Human beings are more valuable than any other species of life, since they were created in the image of God.33 Human beings evolved from other species, so they have no more intrinsic value than any other species of life on earth. Purpose of human life The purpose of human life is to bring glory to God34 through loving Him35 and our fellow human beings.36 There is no ultimate purpose to human life. We live and we die and it doesn't matter what we do with our life. Value of individuals All human beings are valuable to God37 and none has any more value than any other.38 Those who contribute more to society are more valuable than those who contribute less. The work of individuals The most valuable work a person can do are spiritual service to God (worship)39 and to humans (good works).40 "He who dies with the most things wins." Wealth and fame will bring you happiness. Rich celebrities win! Morality Moral laws are given by God, and like the laws of physics, do not change.41 Immoral behavior is not justified by circumstances.42 Morality is determined by society and can be changed at any time to reflect current practices. Immoral behavior can be justified to bring about a "greater good." Worldviews can be tested using the following criteria43:

1. Logical consistency
2. Balanced (not too simple or complex)
3. Explanatory power and scope
4. Correspondence to well-established facts
5. Verifiable (truth claims can be verified or falsified)
6. Applicable to real life
7. Fills existential needs

Using the above criteria, it can be seen that Christianity and naturalism exhibit different strengths.

1. Although both Christianity and naturalism are logically consistent within their own spheres, they come to radically different conclusions.
2. Both worldviews are reasonably balanced, although naturalism must resort to extremely complex hypotheses to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
3. The explanatory power and scope of Christianity and naturalism tend to lie in different areas. Naturalism's strength lies in its explanation of the history of the earth and how living organisms function on a physical basis. It has failed to adequately explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the development of human consciousness, altruism and morality. Christianity fails to explain the details involved in much of how the physical world works (although it was never intended to do so). However, much of this information was unavailable to naturalism until the last 50 years. Christianity does address the big questions of origins (the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the development of human consciousness, altruism and morality), which naturalism inadequately addresses.
4. As demonstrated above, Christianity provides some surprisingly accurate explanations of our physical world, even though it was written thousands of years before actual proof of those claims could be experimentally verified. In addition, it is historically accurate, and its prophecies go far beyond what would be expected by chance.
5. Scientific naturalism has always claimed to provide explanations that are verifiable and can be falsified experimentally. However, there has been a recent change in the explanations of those espousing the naturalism-only worldview. As atheists attempt to answer the "big questions," explanations have become more metaphysical and complicated in nature. Explanations such as the multiverse are probably not even falsifiable.
6. One of naturalism's big failures is in its ability to provide application to real life issues for human beings. Explanations of human romantic love and need for interpersonal relationships, our need to create beautiful works of art and music, and our desire to help others (altruism) seem to defy naturalistic explanation. Attempts to fit these realities into the Darwinian evolutionary box have failed miserably. Even the evil side of our natures seems extreme from an evolutionary standpoint. Christianity provides a far superior explanation for why we behave the way we do.
7. The largest problem for naturalism is a failure to provide for the existential needs of human beings. People have a need for meaning, a purpose for living, and a hope for the future. Naturalism provides for none of this. In fact, naturalism destroys the idea that humans have a purpose, and leaves individuals only with the prospect of aging, suffering and eventual death and non-existence. In addition, naturalism says that there is no hope for the human species, since we will be eventually destroyed by an asteroid collision, a nearby supernova event, global warming, or solar expansion. Even if we manage to escape from our solar system to another, the eventual collision of our galaxy with the much larger Andromeda galaxy will cause chaos throughout most of the galaxy. After this time, we can expect that the accelerating expansion of the universe will eventually rip apart the entire universe into its elementary particles as the universe suffers permanent heat death - the end of all life. So much for the "hope" from naturalism. The human need for a spiritual connection causes even most naturalists to go into meditation, study Buddhism, etc. to attempt to fulfill this need. When I was an agnostic, the lack of purpose in my life was eventually disturbing, as my life settled from the franticness of college into the complacency of a steady job. Even though the science in my job was exciting, there was something missing - ultimate purpose.

As a person who originally followed a naturalistic-only worldview, I have found the Christian worldview to be a far superior explanation for human life. This doesn't mean that I have completely rejected the science behind naturalism. As a fulltime research scientist, I still find the biological sciences fascinating and captivating. However, unlike those who follow a naturalism-only worldview, I have not rejected a priori the possibility of supernatural phenomena. For more information on testing the Christian worldview, please see A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.
Worldviews and moral choices

Three recently published studies show that worldview beliefs influence moral behavior. The first study showed that atheists were less likely to consider certain moral choices as being "very important", especially patience, forgiveness, and generosity. A second study showed that teens who were not exposed to religious teaching were significantly more likely to be involved in negative behaviors than those who attend church. A third study showed that belief in the atheistic concept of determinism is correlated with an increased tendency to cheat. Even a short reading of a passage denying free produced more cheating behavior among randomly-selected subject groups. These studies show that the promotion and prevalence of atheism in society can be expected to result in negative consequences to societies.

 

[HNAKXR]

don't copy paste nobody can be fucked reading that at this time.

 

[Enteebee]

Which I think is stupid. This is the folly of atheism. It is not purely irrational to take a small leap of faith, but it is irrational to think purely rationally.

Oh I agree... I personally view rationality as flowing from your choice of epistemology. The reason why I find it irrational to take the 'small leap of faith' in favour of God is that there's no reason to also take such a small leap in favour of any of the other things which exist outside of our provisional reality.

If you'd like to believe in all such possible things then fine, but that seems to leave you rather nutty.

 

[chaldoking]

Thanks to:
http://www.godandscience.org/

The Answers to God's existence and the flaws of Atheism explored.

Cheers!

 

[chaldoking]

don't copy paste nobody can be fucked reading that at this time.

Its proof. Read it - thats the problem people are unwilling to search!
http://www.godandscience.org/

 

[HNAKXR]

If you'd like to believe in all such possible things then fine, but that seems to leave you rather nutty.

maybe so but i need some Raison D'Etre.

 

[HNAKXR]

Its proof. Read it - thats the problem people are unwilling to search!
http://www.godandscience.org/

All that philosophy can teach
The lore of justice and of leech,
I've master'd, ah! And sweated through
Theology's deserts, too,
Yet here, poor fool! For all my lore,
I stand no wiser than before.

 

[studentcheese]

There is only a small proportion of kids from selective schools who believe in God. Probably because we overthink things - thus we are agnostic. I don't think smart people can be convinced so easily.

 

[BackCountrySnow]

Its proof. Read it - thats the problem people are unwilling to search!
http://www.godandscience.org/

OMG thanks so much.
This website removes all doubt that god exists. Science, in all its entirety, is simply wrong.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Nah bro we've all read Neitzsche eh

 

[obimoshman1234]

define higher IQ i mean what is a higher IQ what range anyone??

 

[zstar]

Most scientists are liberals and marxists.

 

[BackCountrySnow]

what did you expect?
Neocons?

 

[PrettyOddProlix]

So... people with higher IQ 'less likely to believe in God'...

 

[reh]

God is love. God is truth. God is wisdom. God is hope.

Not an argument at all...
The Bible is an human creation. It is not God's word.

The use of nature is not proof of God's presence. As Darwins theory of Evolution shows. (and in science, theory = law until proven otherwise, so don't bring up the "but its only a theory" crap). In 200 years, in which time man has been to the moon, split atoms, created the internet and television - to name a few creations of SCIENCE, darwins theory has not been proved wrong.

The article merely suggests that scientists (who are considered to have a high IQ), are less likely to believe in a God. It doesn't suggest that people who believe in God have a low IQ, and neither does it states that all high-IQ people don't believe either.
Furthermore, the study refers to the environmental and historical factors for which the study cannot account for.

I would propose that this study reveals more quantifiable data than the Bible.

on a side note, i love the convoluted and incredibly subjective argument that chaldoking puts forward.
I love christians trying to PROVE their FAITH.
thats like giving quantifiable data to something that is intangible
BAH

 

[Patar]

im not bothering to read all these posts - I'll add my 2 cents.

People with higher IQ tend to question things when they get "GOD IS TRUTH" thrown in their faces with no real reason to believe why this is so.