Why Are Religious People (Generally) Less Intelligent?
Understanding the negative relationship between IQ and religiosity
Posted Dec 26, 2013 | Reviewed by Abigail Fagan
I recently dove into a meta-analysis that found a negative correlation between IQ and religious beliefs. At least in my case, the finding holds up: I am highly religious but not very intelligent… or is it the other way around? (Sorry, I’m not smart enough to figure it out).
The paper has very few methodological weaknesses, but as we know, correlation does not mean causation – though correlations do have causes.
The key question, then, is why religious people are generally less intelligent. And the authors did not shy away from the answer, offering three compelling explanations:
1. Intelligent people are generally more analytical and data-driven, and formal religions are the antithesis: They are empirically fluffy and their claims are often in direct contradiction with scientific evidence, unless they are interpreted metaphorically – but maybe intelligent people are not that keen on metaphor. Another way of putting it is that people with a high IQ are more likely to have faith in science, which isn’t religion’s best friends (yes, yes, I do know about Einstein’s quotes).
2. Intelligent people are less likely to conform, and, in most societies, religiosity is closer to the norm than atheism is. Although this interpretation is based on extrapolation, it still makes sense. First, smarter people tend to be less gullible. Second, in most societies, religious people outnumber atheists and agnostics — though global levels of religiosity have been declining, and there is substantial cultural variability in religiosity levels.
3. Intelligence and religiosity are “functionally equivalent,” which means that they fulfill the same psychological role. Although this intriguing argument contradicts points 1 and 2, it deserves serious consideration. Humans will always crave meaning. Religion – like science and logical reasoning – provides them with a comprehensive framework or system to make meaningful interpretations of the world. At times, religion and science are in conflict, but they can also act in concert, complementing each other to answer non-falsifiable and falsifiable questions, respectively. The authors conclude that some people satisfy their desire to find meaning via religion, whereas others do so via logical, analytical, or scientific reasoning – and IQ predicts whether you are in the former or latter group.
It is noteworthy that these three explanations assume that IQ influences religiosity rather than vice-versa, which seems plausible: IQ levels remain very stable after childhood, whereas religiosity levels keep fluctuating. Childhood IQ predicts adult IQ, but childhood religiosity is a very poor predictor of adult religiosity.
However, the authors neglect to consider an important possibility, which is that the relationship between IQ and religiosity could be caused by a third variable, namely personality. Indeed, Openness to Experience, a personality dimension that predicts an individual’s propensity to display higher levels of intellectual curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, and be driven by counter-conformist and rebellious attitudes, is positively correlated with IQ, and, like IQ, stable from an early age. Furthermore, there is also ample evidence suggesting that higher Openness may cause IQ gains in adulthood because open individuals are more likely to invest time and resources acquiring expertise and knowledge.
By the same token, it is feasible to expect open individuals to be less interested in religion. Their hungry mind makes them gravitate towards scientific or factual explanations, and artistic sensations, rather than religious dogma. This would be in line with the positive association between Openness and tolerance for ambiguity – open people can handle complexity and ambivalence – and the negative link between Openness and need for closure – open people are less likely to see the world in black-or-white terms and are generally more comfortable with uncertainty. Since religion tends to eliminate ambiguity and uncertainty, its “utility” or psychological benefits should be greater for less than more open people, which would explain why religion appeals more to less intelligent individuals – who are generally less open. But what do the data say?
Although there are no meta-analytic studies on the joint or interactive effects of Openness and IQ on religiosity, there are plenty of studies examining the relationship between personality and religiosity. The first large-scale review reported that Openness is negatively correlated with religious fundamentalism and formal religious adherence, albeit weakly. However, Openness was positively correlated with spirituality and “mature religiosity,” meaning emotionality and the quest for meaning and community, without strict adherence to formal religion.
In the same study, religiosity was negatively related to Psychoticism – a trait that captures an individual’s typical levels of self-control, law-abidingness, and empathy. To make matters more complex, Psychoticism and Openness are positively correlated, so the relationship between personality and religiosity may not be straightforward.
It also seems plausible that different elements or facets of Openness to Experience are differentially related to religiosity and spirituality. For example, a study found that people’s emotional appreciation of religion was negatively related to the more rational or intellectual aspects of Openness, but positively related to artistic imagination and aesthetic sensitivity, two other facets of Openness. Furthermore, non-linear relationships between Openness and attitudes towards religion can also be expected.
In particular, individuals with higher Openness may be generally more reticent to embrace formal religious beliefs. On the other hand, people who are extremely open would be more able to understand and tolerate individuals who hold such beliefs, even if they don’t share them. In that sense, hardcore atheism and agnosticism are as symptomatic of rigidity and narrow-mindedness as extreme religiosity, and highlight an inability to understand alternative Weltanschauungen or opposite systems of values. In any event, associations between IQ and religiosity are at least in part determined by personality traits and values. And let's not forget that there are plenty of people who are both smart and religious.
Put your beliefs to the test. Click here to find out if you're more religious or scientific.
Be sure to read the following responses to this post by our bloggers:
Hmmmmm
You say that people with higher IQ's tend toward facts and reason. Does archeological evidence count as facts? What about cosmology, the origin of life, NDE's, miracles, and the philosophical argument? Much more than fairy tales, the Bible is factual, quite rational, and about things that we have evidence for.
I'm sorry, but what is
I'm sorry, but what is factual about the Bible? That the "stories" written in the Bible take place during a certain area or timeframe that can be documented? Just because the Red Sea exists does not prove it was parted.
calm down
I'm sorry, but what is factual about the Bible? That the "stories" written in the Bible take place during a certain area or timeframe that can be documented? Just because the Red Sea exists does not prove it was parted.
It is... No, thst's why it was written down...
It's true because it was
It's true because it was written down? ...maybe there is merit to this article
I'm not really sure what this
I'm not really sure what this poster is trying to say, and I do believe in the Bible, not as pure history, but rather history from God's perspective. And I do believe there is a lot of factual truth in the Bible.
But I guess my question is: we believe a lot of things about history that have only been found in one source or in one document; why do we so quickly dismiss the Bible on the same grounds, saying that some of the information is not found elsewhere (even when some of it is)?
I'm not sure that's true just
I'm not sure that's true just like I don't think religion comes from only "one document." Most facts in science have more than one source to support them. The bible on the other hand, is written like a fable.
Believing in science is a religion!
Sometimes we have to be serious. Science is NOT a religion. In fact science is a philosophy which seeks to experience the world through the five rational senses. The Bible is a philosophy which seeks to experience the world through the intuitive sixth sense. Naturally different conclusions will be drawn. However it neither means the truth in one negates truth in the other. Philosophy allows for alternate truth. Religiosity relies on rigidity while spirituality is philosophical.
Fundamentalist Atheism is same as Fundamentalist islam or Christianity. It is rigid and close-minded. The operative word for religiosity is Fundamentalism.
Those who see Atheism as a philosophy and not the TRUTH fare better. Then they understand there are other truths.
I am a spiritual but not religious Christian and I believe the Bible is true. I do not fight over whether another philosophy is true. The light of God shines in all for me. One thing I desire is to see men relent from "four legs good, two legs bad" theories!
Science is not a religion
Science is a method of learning about nature that enforces honesty, logical thought, and free inquiry. Science is not a "belief". A belief is a "conviction supported by no evidence". Your religion is a "belief". If, right this moment we made religion disappear from the planet, and ran human history over again from scratch. Religion would again be invoked at some point to explain things and rule the masses. But it wouldn't be the same religions. They would be different. Depending on who dreamed them up, and at what point. On the other hand. If we suddenly erased all of the facts we've discovered throughout history. If we removed the scientific method from our knowledge base, and ran history over again from scratch. When we finally shook off ignorance and began figuring things out again. We would still discover that E=mc^2, and microbes cause diseases, and according to our DNA we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other primates. That's the difference between science and religion.
Are you so sure about that?
Science is a method of learning about nature that enforces honesty, logical thought, and free inquiry. Science is not a "belief". A belief is a "conviction supported by no evidence". Your religion is a "belief". If, right this moment we made religion disappear from the planet, and ran human history over again from scratch. Religion would again be invoked at some point to explain things and rule the masses. But it wouldn't be the same religions. They would be different. Depending on who dreamed them up, and at what point. On the other hand. If we suddenly erased all of the facts we've discovered throughout history. If we removed the scientific method from our knowledge base, and ran history over again from scratch. When we finally shook off ignorance and began figuring things out again. We would still discover that E=mc^2, and microbes cause diseases, and according to our DNA we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other primates. That's the difference between science and religion.
I understand where you are coming from but your statement makes assumptions about a chain of events that might not occur if the tape was rewound before the DNA came into existence. Science is about looking at the past, i.e. how were humans created, how were primates created, how was DNA created, how were planets created, how were galaxies created, how was the universe created, how were particles created and so on. It's all very well to do this detective work to put together the past history of the universe we live in but it tells us nothing about why a universe was created in the first place and whether or not other forms of universes could have been created from which could arise totally different outcomes.
Science
Thank you for replying to my post Ken. You are correct that science is capable of telling us many hard facts concerning our universe. As to the question of "why" our universe was created. It does have some relevant things to say. The current thinking is that our universe is a pocket of inflated matter and energy caused by a quantum energy cascade of the ground state energy of a small region of what is essentially an infinite realm of almost infinitely high potential called the false vacuum. (if I have all of those concepts in the right order). The thinking is that since current Quantum Theory can support this process with solid mathematics to back it up, that the speculative assertions of the hypothesis that are based on the as yet untested "M" Theory could be correct. You will notice the "could be" there, instead of "are". That's pesky old science, forcing us to stick to what's provable and observable. If M theory is ever confirmed as being anything close to an accurate model of reality, it's other predictions will have to be taken seriously as well. M theory holds that there are infinite number of these regions in that sea of false vacuum in all phases of inflation and expansion through to their end, where they thin out and re-merge with the sea of energy that gave rise to them. Nearly every one of these alternate universes would have a slightly different set of physical laws, which may or may not permit the existence of the sort of environment within that could support any kind of life, or even matter. For that matter. (No pun intended, but I'll take it, I'm not too proud.) You will notice I said "Nearly everyone. Being "infinite" in number, it nonetheless doesn't follow that they could ever be infinite in variety. There are a finite number of boundary conditions, and when the variance along the finite range of their finite number of starting variables has been exhausted they will have no choice but to repeat. The current thinking about the number of different types of universes that are possible before a repeat is a certainty is 10^500. Again, M theory is unproven. It could be hogwash. But then several other Cosmological hypotheses also strongly hint that ours is not necessarily the only universe. That's fun to think about. As to the hard question of "why" any of this may be true, or "why" our universe came to be, or even "why" we came to be. Does there really have to be a reason? What if the "reason" is simply "That's how it is, because if it wasn't that way, it would be some other way." I like to think that the "infinity" part has to be true, regardless of any of the rest, because if the whole shebang weren't infinite, what would lie beyond the border? Nature abhors a vacuum. Even a false quantum one.
Its OK not to know
Thanks Jeff. I would love to know what a cow thinks about the origins of the universe. Does a cow ever take a break from grazing to look up into the sky and wonder what that big hot shiny thing is that moves across the sky? Does it ever take a look at its hoof and wonder what its hoof is made from? I suspect it doesn't, but I don't know it doesn't. And yet DNA wise there is little to distinguish cows from humans. A cow just gets on with its business of turning grass into cow pats, seemly oblivious to the universe around us, which is just fine by the universe. We humans postulate this theory and that theory about the origins of the universe, but the universe doesn't mind, that's just fine by the universe, we can get on with turning the planet into cow pats, so to speak. Although I am being somewhat facetious the serious bit is we are just rearward facing detectives at this point in our evolution. Maybe humans will evolve another quantum leap from consciousness to "super" consciousness so we can finally answer those "big" questions without having to resort to complex theories and unimaginably large numbers that don't really explain anything. I wonder what humans will look like in 10 million years time?
Our future
I suspect you are correct Ken. For us to comprehend any of the larger implications of existence will require more brains than we possess at present. Natural evolution won't solve the problem due to a lack of actual "individual" survival value of intelligence in our modern society. The average dumb as a post human has more than enough brains to secure the basics of survival and produce as many more average mouths to feed as they wish. Families of eight or ten aren't uncommon. In our hunter/gatherer days, a mated pair of humans would have had to possess a very real and distinct survival advantage to secure resources for that many kids. For "evolution" to operate, and result in a further increase in brain power over what we already have would require some type of selection process to take place, "weeding out" those below a certain intelligence threshold, and allowing those above that level to eventually dominate the gene pool. That isn't what's happening. We're all having babies at the same prodigious rate and we're all caring for and nurturing those who aren't doing as well as we think they should. Our compassion is our most admirable trait, but from an evolutionary perspective we're shooting ourselves in the foot. The way out of this dilemma might be staring us in the face however. Everyone seems to be wringing their hands worrying about what might happen if someone builds a self aware computer, and it turns on us. I don't know if it's possible to build a self aware machine, because consciousness , at least to me , seems to hinge on the ability of a system to observe it's own functioning in actual real-time. In other words, we contemplate our own thoughts as they are occurring, therefore we deduce our own existence apart from those thoughts from one moment to the next. If it isn't possible to build a machine that does this, it might just hold true that our own way forward from an evolutionary perspective is to "augment and enhance" our own mental capabilities by interfacing our minds with add-ons and upgrades of a non biological nature. Preserving our creative "core consciousness" as the only part a pure machine can't emulate, our mental capacities could aspire to the infinite. As to what we might "look like". That wouldn't have to change, with wide band wireless cluster networks offloading the processing tasks, the only tech we would need inside our heads would be a network interface. We could even cluster the minds of people, or a whole society into a super mind. Yeah,.. it smacks of the Borg collective, but handled benignly it could be our greatest survival advantage in a mutltiverse that is at best indifferent to our survival. (wow sometimes I really scare myself). Take care Ken. Resistance is futile eh?
The Brain
Jeff, I agree that as long as 'civilised' societies hand out social security payments to support the breeding programmes of the disadvantaged among us then natural selection will play no part in our evolution. Fortunately we now don't need to rely on death to improve the species but we can begin to make our own selective improvements possibly via the manipulation of DNA once we know how to make up the DNA sequences to add or subtract from our existing DNA using technologies much as Crispr 9. With this type of technology it may be possible to give us all a brain boost and drag the collective intelligence of the human race up to a new level to become even more imaginative. This brain boost may as a side effect also decrease discrimination and bigotry in the world which will much improve everyone's lives. The other understanding we are sorely lacking at this point in time is, as you have pointed out, our lack of understanding of consciousness, which stems from our very high level understanding of the brain and how it functions. When we have a detailed design manual for the brain rather than just the glossy sales brochures we currently have then we can really start to understand how we can make design improvements to the brain and implement them using DNA manipulation techniques. And if we do start an industry in designer brains I think I would like the top of my skull to be transparent and my brain to be fluorescent blue. Just kidding! Fluorescent red actually...
Transparent skull domes.
I'm with you there. Red definitely. I would also like some sort of matching back lighting for my eyeballs, so that they would be visible in the dark along with the skull dome. That would be scary as hell. Your assertions concerning DNA editing are right on the money. It would open a path to make humans, eventually, not unlike the proverbial "gods" in terms of cognitive function. Not to mention our being able to adjust ourselves to be immune to sickness and even aging itself. We would be immortal unless we got careless and stepped in front of a bus. I would love to live for millennia. This universe is so huge that to see even a tiny part of it would require millions of years, but think of the awe inspiring wonders there are to see out there. The only thing standing in the way of a future like that is the belief that manipulating human DNA is "morally" wrong. There is nothing to suggest this. It would be "morally" wrong to create a race of dull minded slaves to serve an elite class. But there are similar mine fields scattered over the entirety of human advancement. I assert that at the least we won't be really capable of seeing the solutions to the quandaries these new technologies produce, until we use them to make ourselves smart enough to figure out the answers. Taking the first plunge, with technological and or DNA upgrades will never happen as long as the decision rests with those fearfully mired in fictitious dogma rather than hard science. I want my future to stretch into the millions, or even billions of years, (can't imagine being alive for billions of years). There are new things to learn, and there will never be a shortage of new things to do and see, as long as we can get over this little "hump" in our development.
correct
i agree with you and to say you are correct
turtles all the way down
"*Suspicion of scientific men*. Out of the consciousness of their truth, both suspect truth in the naive form of scientific knowledge. They do not doubt the methodological correctness of scientific insight. But Kierkegaard was astonished at the learned professors; they live for the most part with science and die with the idea that it will continue, and would like to live longer that they might, in a line of direct progress, always understand more and more. They do not experience the maturity of that critical point where everything turns upside down, where one understands more and more that there is something which one cannot understand. Kierkegaard thought the most frightful way to live was to bewitch the whole world through one's discoveries and cleverness--to explain the whole of nature and not understand oneself. Nietzsche is inexhaustible in destructive analyses of types of scholars, who have no genuine sense of their own activity, who can not be themselves, who, with their ultimately futile knowledge, aspire to grasp Being itself."
--Karl Jaspers, from_Kierkegaard and Nietzsche_, Walter Kaufmann_Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre_
science as it is now is a
science as it is now is a joke, corrupted to serve a political ideology.
religion as it is now is a criminal organization.
honest in science? what rock are you living under? pack of scheming liars.
free inquiry?...obviously your talking about another planet. "safe places" in those anti-intellectual indoctrinations centers formerly known as academia is proof otherwise.
science as it is now is a
You use science hundreds of ways everyday. It has vastly improved and extended your life. You only dismiss it when science that contradicts your bible....
Louis Pasteur
How do you account for deeply religious scientists like Pasteur and Ampere?
A student saw Pasteur praying on the train. Assuming he was a simple peasant, the student told the old man "Please let me enlighten your superstitious mind...today we have science explaining everything, not religion." Pasteur said, "Please tell me about this science!!" The student asked to have the man's address. Pasteur gave him his card...
You mentioned lives saved by science...take a wild guess.
Historical scientists
Deanna, the explanation as to why Pasteur and Ampere were religious is quite simple. They lived in a period where they did not believe they had a choice. Even Darwin struggled with giving up on religion, despite his own studies being counter-intuitive to the very idea of religion. Fast forward 100 or so years and put Pasteur and Ampere in the same room as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and I believe their intellect and the availability of a choice would land them in the non-religious. The strongest argument against the existence of a God is the very nature of religion's own evolution, in that it has never spontaneously erupted elsewhere throughout the world. Missionaries and explorers never arrived in any remote civilisation to be greeted by tribal leaders who said, "Ahhh yes, that (Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha...insert whichever imaginary friend you like) fellow, we are also followers of this great person". Challenge your own beliefs, read some Hitchens, Harris, Dennett or Dawkins, and grow up...unless you still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, then you may as well keep whichever other imaginary friend you have.
your summing up
For a sharp critique at 3 am with a highball in hand...very good. My Dad used to record those great moments!
The problem is that we have to find meaning in our life...which means some faith. It's not that you're wrong, (God knows you ARE correct), but that you don't go on with positive choices. Unless the reader wants to join the scheming corporate liars, criminal churches and charities, and the joke that is now academia upheld by tenure, what is the alternative?
This may be the first time in history that society gives NO incentive to virtue. Pastors are fired, whistle blowers ruined, inventions buried while the no-goods wax fat around us in every profession.
This reminds me of Montaigne's remark, "In a time of debauch one gets a reputation for virtue at a bargain price."
Even Montaigne took for granted that some would respect virtue...
Education
Lol - I couldn't care less about a fanatic's stinky hatred of academia and education. I don't care if anyone has a safe space either or any refuge or anything to rely on
Beliefs are generally supported by evidence
This makes false assumptions in its definition, showing the bias of the writer.
He takes the word "belief" & equates it w faith & then erroneously defines it as not based on evidence.
However we all have a lot of things we believe & most of them ARE based on some evidence.
We believe a chair will hold us up based on past experience w chairs & on observation. & then we project that past info to apply to other similar things & our beliefs about them.
So "belief" is not just a religious thing but an everyday part of life. We all have various beliefs about life based on various things including past experience as well as what we have been taught by others.
btw, for most of us, belief in certain scientific principles is also based on authority & what we have been taught as most of us are not scientists & have not run the experiments ourselves. & science itself is based on experimentation & observation & drawing conclusions from that. Some of which may be more valid than others.
We believe things about certain people based on either personal experience w the person or 3rd party accounts. Now that is where it can get messy--witness the very different attitudes toward political candidates conditioned mostly by pre-conceived ideas & by media reports. & obviously for those of us who are not post modernists, those sources of info on which people base opinions are not all equally valid as people have come to widely differing views.
At any rate belief when it relates to religious faith is the rather similar to other belief. We believe based on various factors & evidence. Since there are widely differing views, the evidences or sources are not all equally valid.
As far as biblical faith or belief, it is based on evidence, & on authority & experience & it may progress as we grow & gain more knowledge of the great amount of supporting evidence that most people never even hear about.
But it's out there for those who are open to exploring truth & really seeking to find rather than just some ethereal eternal search w never finding.
Of course 1 of the greatest thing about biblical faith is that it brings in all of our person. We are told to love God w all our heart, souls, strength & mind.
We do not have to put our brains on a shelf we use them in exploring the riches of God's truth.
I learn of God from the bible & from those teaching the bible both in a church setting as well as an academic setting where we looked at what skeptics have said & compared it to evidence.
Much of the criticism of biblical faith, including by so-called biblical scholars starts out w anti-supernatural presumptions.
But the bible is a supernatural book so by throwing that element out w out actually looking at it shows a bias that skews conclusions.
The bible shows an all powerful Creator who created the earth & everything in it & the whole universe. As such, doing small things like causing a donkey to talk in a particular instance is small potatoes for Him.
The bible is NOT teaching that donkeys talking is normal. No, it is presented as a miracle.
So the scoffing about such things is ludicrous as it totally fits in w the picture of an all powerful creator who is able to do whatever He wants, but who normally works w in the everyday scientific order He created.
There are various forms of evidence for the truth of the bible as well as the nature of Cod.
There is internal evidence. For the one who really studies the bible, we can see that it all fits together. The supposed contradictions are just that--supposed & most have ready explanations.
There is archeological evidence that backs up biblical history.
There is w idem was of fulfilled prophecy. A statistician Peter Stoner wrote a book called Science Speaks where he took just a very few biblical prophecies & w his students, they calculated the odds of them just happening. I think he took about 5-7 of them.
When they calculated the probability of them naturally happening it went into a power of many digits.
To help people grasp it, he compared it to spreading silver dollars or maybe it was quarters over the state of TX to a certain depth--maybe 1', marking 1 of them & stirring it in & asking a blindfolded person to find it.
Now obviously the odds are quite different whether it was a dollar or quarter & the depth, but even if it was only 2" deep it still is a mind blowingly small odds of finding it.
But there are hundreds of prophecies that were fulfilled--such as Cyrus being named as a future leader of Babylon or Persia about 200 years before.
& many prophecies of Jesus that were fulfilled when He came to earth. & even the skeptics agree that the OT was completed several hundred years before Jesus' birth.
Isaiah 53 contains quite a picture of Jesus that most would recognize is talking about Jesus if you don't tell them where it is found. When they find out it is in Isaiah, then it butts up against their ideas.
I also see evidence about God's nature by looking around me. I see beauty & a lot of variety & color in nature around me. & if look close, there is intricate design in little things like a flower, or how about the way that spiders build those circular webs.
That tells me that our Creator loves beauty & color & variety. & look at all the varieties in people. Looks like God likes different colors in people in skin, hair color & texture & all sorts of other things.
& im told that the precise alignment of the planets allows this earth to be habitable for life as we know it. A little bit closer to or further from the sun wouldn't work, etc.
I also recently read that the guy who intended String Theory & who is described as an agnostic is asking questions about design in the universe & whether God or the designer is a mathematician.
Response to Kathi's Comments
Kathi, thanks for continuing the dialogue of comments. I think continued discussions of these topics are critical.
I wanted to offer a brief response to some of your statements. First, I reread the article and I did not see an instance or inference by the author of equating belief with faith. The only time he brings up these ideas is in the first point, where he discusses a faith in science.
Based on your response, it sounds like you would agree that faith is belief without evidence. However, you go on to discuss what amounts to personal beliefs based on personal evidence rather than reproducible scientific evidence. Yes, a chair that you sit on is evidence -- and it's scientific and reproducible. But interpreting what you feel and see or otherwise sense is personal. I may not feel the same way about the "evidence" you cite in this context as evidence for a god. The biggest difference here is that science is reproducible and doesn't require faith or belief. You actually could run all of the experiments yourself, so to speak, and you'll come to the same conclusions as centuries of scientists. On the contrary, belief without unbiased reproducible evidence requires faith. No matter how much you want to believe, you cannot reproduce the accounts of the bible. There is no such thing as internal evidence. The personal recounts and stories are just that. Any historical facts that are supported by archaeological records support only information that is already scientific in nature -- geography, astrology, etc. This information is not the same as talking donkeys. Accepting talking donkeys as miracles requires faith and contradicts science.
When you speak of understanding god through the bible, which god are you talking about, and which bible? There have been approximately 4,000 gods described in various historic texts, and there are hundreds if not thousands of versions of the bible. Are other so called holy texts wrong? Do you refute other gods than your own? If so, why? By your logic, those other religious accounts and other gods, which were known by faith as well, are just as valid as your god and your bible.
Thanks,
Tom
Truth?
How can you call religion "truth" when all religion is based on
faith? Religion never shows any proof of truth, and has
nothing to back a claim for any of it being true.
As for a 6th sense, you are claiming that as proof of religion?
Even people without any belief of religion can experience a
"6th sense".
I'm glad you believe what the Bible says
24 When Saul’s servants told him what David had said, 25 Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.
26 When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, 27 David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.
In What Crazy World......
In what world did you get the impression I believed anything
that old book had to offer? To me, the Bible, and religion in
general, is as real as the entire Harry Potter series.
You know the Bible was invented/created as a tool to keep
the ever expanding masses in line, hence whenever the
word "sheep" is mentioned, you know it has to do with
religious followers.
atheism isnt philosophy.
atheism isnt a philosophy - it addresses what is believed.
its simply not accepting any of the current god models due to lack of evidence.
it is simply a single stance on one question - do you believe a god or gods exist.
Freedom of believe
Listen. I totally respect and understand your point of view, belief about it. Have you ever asked a question in yourself beside the where and what question words like how, why, who, etc? I am not arguing with you and want you to believe in me, for example - just having a simple conversation. If you cannot understand my point of you and want/force to prove for those that you are right it will not work. Acceptance, love, righteousness does regardless of beliefs.
I can assure you that the
I can assure you that the bible is not written like a fable. Fables have very specific patterns that they follow. I study fables.
The Bible
The Bible is written as a complete fantasy.
Well Then...
I can assure you that the bible is not written like a fable. Fables have very specific patterns that they follow. I study fables.
..You'll know that the stories of the Bible are actually just copies of the Assyrian fables of Gilgamesh.
If you really studied fables you'd know that.
God is dead
We killed god!
God is really dead
We killed god!
"God's perspective?" the
"God's perspective?" the bible was written by people, not a god.
wot m8
Tell that to the Mormons.
Mormons
Mormons are certifiably insane.
I would caution that approach
To say that we believe a lot of things that have only been referenced in one document is not accurate. More and more, legitimate scholarship demands a qualifier that "this story cannot be corroborated." The bible has been taken for fact for centuries, but in the modern information age, we have ready access to documents that should be able to corroborate the bible and yet don't. The exodus, for instance. Egypt was meticulously documenting their history at the time of the Great Exodus and yet there is no corroboration. In fact, there is more evidence AGAINST the exodus taking place than for it taking place. Additionally, corroboration for Jesus' existence. There were multiple historians at that time, documenting great ppl of that time and there is absolutely no mention of Jesus at all. I would venture to say that, other than the fact that this was something we are told to believe as children and so we just take for granted it is true, if this information was presented in any other fashion, it would be dismissed as lore of an ancient society and not fact.
bible authenic history
In 1978 a team of scientists set out to prove that the Shroud of Turin kept in a church n Turin Italy was a fraud. They got permission to run tests , most were atheists. They used NASA camera equip. did blood tests etc etc. They found it to be 1st century and the figure on the shroud was a 3D image. They couldnt determine how image got on cloth. They found the account in the Bible to b accurate. Read " VERDICT ON THE SHROUD" by Greg Habermus. Scientists were convinced theres a 10 million to 1 chance that the shroud was NOT Jesus's.
Turin shroud
I think Greg Habermus has sold you a load of c***. Don't know about this team of scientists but it has now been established that the shroud is medieval. . .But people believe all sorts of things that have little or no basis in science. . .isn't that what this article is about? (As for the "less intelligent" thing, what I have noticed in my own experience of religious people is that they tend to be a certain type of personality: rather suggestible, rather too keen on magical thinking, and the type of person who likes to be told what to do/think. I've know religious people with high IQ, lots of paper qualifications, etc, but they all seem to have this kind of personality.
Bible Facts
Here are some Bible facts: The Gospel of Thomas was originally not to be in the Bible, in FACT the "church" tried to destroy it, but then someone found a copy. Then they canonized him wrote other things contradictory sayings(lies) in his Gospel and claimed Thomas wrote...Thomas was the one Jesus told the secrets to. Here is one obvious lie the church wrote: "When a woman becomes like a man, she may enter the kingdom of heaven" Maybe this is how the transgender thing started. Further along in the Gospel Thomas wrote: "When a man becomes not a man and a woman becomes not a woman, they may both enter the kingdom of heaven" that may not be the exact wording, but it is the exact idea. An obvious lie, trying to change Thomas' Gospel and they didn't even have the intelligence to cut the original out. The Bible is full of lies like that and lets not forget that the Bible was written by MAN not Jesus or God...man has a tendency to embellish what he writes...and also there was the Council of Nicea 325 years after Jesus was nailed up...Emperor Constantine, who is responsible for the writing of the Bible by the way, only wanted the Gospels or Books as they are known, that made Jesus seem supernatural and not as a man. 40 books or more were left out of the Bible for that reason...including the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Jesus' wife.
The Bible does have truths in it but are often in the form of metaphor and shouldn't be taken literally. In the end there is only one truth Pure Love, the Love that is God...there is nothing else.
Bible Facts
Here are some Bible facts: The Gospel of Thomas was originally not to be in the Bible, in FACT the "church" tried to destroy it, but then someone found a copy. Then they canonized him wrote other things contradictory sayings(lies) in his Gospel and claimed Thomas wrote...Thomas was the one Jesus told the secrets to. Here is one obvious lie the church wrote: "When a woman becomes like a man, she may enter the kingdom of heaven" Maybe this is how the transgender thing started. Further along in the Gospel Thomas wrote: "When a man becomes not a man and a woman becomes not a woman, they may both enter the kingdom of heaven" that may not be the exact wording, but it is the exact idea. An obvious lie, trying to change Thomas' Gospel and they didn't even have the intelligence to cut the original out. The Bible is full of lies like that and lets not forget that the Bible was written by MAN not Jesus or God...man has a tendency to embellish what he writes...and also there was the Council of Nicea 325 years after Jesus was nailed up...Emperor Constantine, who is responsible for the writing of the Bible by the way, only wanted the Gospels or Books as they are known, that made Jesus seem supernatural and not as a man. 40 books or more were left out of the Bible for that reason...including the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Jesus' wife.
The Bible does have truths in it but are often in the form of metaphor and shouldn't be taken literally. In the end there is only one truth Pure Love, the Love that is God...there is nothing else.
History of the Bible?
The bible was written from word of mouth stories transmitted during 50 years. There are no originals of this writings, no other evidence and a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions between their copies. No known authors, modified versions of the stories, no witnesses of the accounts narrated. Can we trust the historicity of the bible?
Hah good one!
It's true because it was written down? ...maybe there is merit to this article
Lmao that was hilarious. It is because it was written down... Wow who could be so Dang gullible... Oh nvm. Great comeback!
Your contention on your
Your contention on your strategy is ill advised dear anonymous. The bible is a two-thousand year old book. There ARE facts about it. But before the stories were all written down, they were merely told, passed along by generations of Jewish people.
They were all written down officially eons after Adam and Eve's death. So, yes. You may doubt the bible for it's unsuitable language and confusing limericks and undesirable conditions it places upon Christians, Jews and Islams altogether. We certainly don't build our religion based on facts though. We build them based on faith. And it's hard trusting a God you don't even know actually exists. We cannot prove through Science that God exists in your ways.
He is an omnipotent being that knows how to cover his tracks good and well thought of.
But science can't really prove the non-existance of a God either. Like it cannot prove that we are the only universe to exist. Or how the state of other universes may dwell on, either by third dimension or fourth or fifth. Or if there is a void where time and space cannot work with stable conditions. Where space cannot predetermine where you are, or if you cannot resolve where you are on the timeline.
So really, I am not drawing a line where atheists and the religious debate whether God exists or not, I am simply saying the book has some goddamn facts, you bastard.
Facts
"I am simply saying the book has some goddamn facts, you bastard."
You didn't mention any specific fact...
"He is an omnipotent being that knows how to cover his tracks good and well thought of."
Don't you get it? Any evidence that contradicts Christianity is batted down and chalked up to the notion that "God works in mysterious ways." Anything contradicting their faith is explained away because many religious people are very ignorant to how much science actually has. They don't realize that scientific findings are tested through research and peer review. They've been raised around arbitrary rules and beliefs their whole life, so that is what they think science is. Religious people can't objectively examine any evidence presented to them because most of them have been raised to believe that their faith deserves the same credibility and consideration as scientific evidence. They don't understand why this is false.
So...
...by your logic, everything on the internet is true because it, too, is all written down.
The Internet is a Universe all of its own!
The Internet is a Universe all of its own!
LOL
If you guys were attending schools and was taught what the differences are between literally and figurative meanings then it would be easier to understand and see the bigger picture easier.
Also science has nothing to do with faith - especially if it is proven. If it proved, for example a very simple examples here Na+Cl ---> NaCl, from here it does not matter that you believe it or not.
Furthermore, if someone is strongly arguing about the existence of God, and spending his or her whole life time to deny it, then it's a fact, a proven thing that it's not peaceful.
DNA
Computer is coded information . DNA is coded information... Get it?