No its not the same. the burden of proof is on the claimer. If you believe that unicorns exist, it is for you to prove to me that they do, not the other way around. You can't claim that unicorns exist and ask me to prove to you that they don't exist. If you can't prove it, it is safe to assume that you are delusional. Sadly, when many people are delusional, it becomes religion.
Faith is not superstition. I have faith in gravity because of the proof for it. Gravity isn't superstition. Faith based on good reasons is no more superstition. Atheism on the other hand is usually just empty slogans and based on misinformation and so closer to a superstition than theism is, which is supported by contemporary science
Religion is the wilful delusion of the naive and the ignorant. Religious people aren't more stupid, but stupid people are more religious.
Education means nothing.You messure IQ versus religion, not DIPLOMA vs Religion.Every test ever done proofs that lower iq's are attracted to Religion.
Thought I should add, as a comment on the comments made. Atheist, is a word that describes someone that is non religious. Christians mainly, have difficulty understanding facts. With all due respect to Christians, I am not calling them out. I am pointing out a well known fact. If Christians were able to question their beliefs, they would know that not only has much of what is considered religious doctrine has been debunked ie: Codex Sinaiticus, It is obviously to difficult for most Christians to allow themselves to question their beliefs, because if they did, they would have no other choice other then to question the Bible itself. Which would surely confuse as well as contradict everything they believe in. Atheist, have no intention to disrespect Christians. Atheist simply ask for the same respect they give Christians in allowing them to believe what they feel is best to shape their lives around. Let's not forget that atheist, aren't responsible for much of the worlds distrust of others. In fact, in my personal opinion, atheist aren't responsible for any of the worlds distrust of others!
These so called studies are ridiculous. First of all, referring to atheist as a group that follows a belief system is flawed. Thus there is no way to study atheist. Let's get something straight. Atheist, are simply people that do not believe in religious doctrine. It's not possible to study atheistism, it isn't an ism. There is no known system of beliefs that can be connected to being an atheist. Apparently descriptions can be found all over the place ( Websters, etc... ) But most if not all are complete fabrications. Humans apparently believe that everything has a meaning and or description. Well this is one word that simply describes a person without religious beliefs. Attempting to go any further explanation is without merit. Mr. William Lane Graig, may have good intentions. But the fact of the matter is, his research is without question flawed. It uses data that is simply can not be applied, thus the study falls short of any value at all. The real problem is, most religious " Christians " aren't able to comprehend another human that exist without some sort of a belief system. Thus, they believe being an atheist must have some sort of purpose behind it. Well, it doesn't ! It serves no purpose what so ever other then to free the person from responsibilities that he or she does not wish to accept. I know some of you are asking, what does he mean, free them from responsibilities? I am talking about the responsibilities that come along with being a Christian. For example, believing in a God or in the Jesus as the son of...God or that there ever existed a women called Mary that conceived a child without the help of a male partner. For atheist, the belief system is based on science and known facts one can refer to, that can be verified. You don't need a high or low IQ to be an atheist. You don't need anything to be an atheist. The personally accepted fact that God is no more then a myth, is how all Atheist, think! Next fact, Atheist have absolutely no issues or problems with Christian, Muslims, Jews, etc... Atheist have no agenda what so ever. Atheist, believe in the freedom of all to come to their own conclusions... All atheist ask for is to be allowed the right to not participate in religious doctrine. That's it ! The next time you hear someone say, atheist are... remember, atheist aren't is the real answer ! Atheist aren't Christians, Muslims, etc.... they are just people that wish to live their lives helping, others... I've never met a cruel or unjust atheist, have you?
I agree with you, Adam, that people like Boris are pitiful trolls. But I believe there is more to it than 'craving for attention'. The British journalist and Christian, Peter Hitchens (who is the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens - and the very opposite of him) once suggested that people (like Boris) who attempted to haunt his own blog were by definition, because of their constant and prolonged presence, unconsciously fearful of such concepts as ultimate accountability and of an absolute truth which they cannot bring themselves to properly confront - within themselves or with others. They are, as Peter Hitchens described with an old English term - 'simply fret'.
No, they're just sheep. Being blindly led off of a cliff.
Please explain the difference between superstition and "reasonable faith". Faith is by definition superstition.
This low-life troll apparently enjoys lurking around these comment boards engaging in mudslinging and nasty personal attacks - perhaps it might be better to just ignore it. It seems to be craving for attention.
There are so many inaccuracies and deliberate distortions in this post that it's hard to believe the author is not a troll.
This is just ridiculous pseudo-intellectual posturing without substance. A theist could quite easily propose exactly the same thing about atheists using grammatical opposites. It leads nowhere.
What absolute nonsense when put into context with the reality and significance of openly declared affiliation and interest in religion amongst the very young.
Try factoring into whatever loaded equation being used people who have actually had time to live a life and to subjectively evaluate it from that perspective. Perhaps you should consider such devoutly Christian people as the Oxford University Professor of Mathematics, Dr. John Lennox. Or the Cambridge University Professor, Alister McGrath. There are a multitude of other such brilliant people - not least your own fellow American, the scientist, Dr. Francis Collins - head of the Human Genome Project.
Boris's grasping at stupid, irrelevant, straws indicates quite the opposite of what he is attempting to convince himself of.
To assume the materials of the universe - namely matter, energy and time itself - have an infinite past track record is both scientifically and philosophically analogous to the fantasy of perpetual motion. Namely impossible. No matter how long might be a line of dominoes - or how diverse the multiplicity of different lines there might be ever be at any given moment, a conscious being must first conceive of the domino itself and flick that first finger. Without a background of consciousness you would not only have an obsolete universe, every form of existence within it would become obsolete the very moment it became contemporary. In fact the very word existence would literally have no meaning. That is logically inexorable.
Ironically, what many atheists are blind to is that it is their beloved, 'silver shilling under the pillow', concept of 'infinity' which actually becomes the escapist dream of the contents of Santa's sack and of the Spaghetti Monster's bowl.
'Boris' should come to my own country, the UK, and team up with the ilk of Richard Dawkins and Polly Toynbee et.al. However many additions to the various examples of small minded, swivel eyed, idiocy there might ever be, it will always make for an interesting, self-defeating, spectacle.
Religious people aren't necessarily stupid, they're just willfully blind. They avoid uncomfortable facts and lines of thought that contradict what they already think. The bottom line is that religious people are not truth seekers-- they do not follow reason wherever it leads them. They're too busy defending what they already believe to be the truth.
As in "Dr." Jason Long...the pharmacist? LOL. Dear Boris, you shouldn't be on this blog. You should be busy writing to Dawkins and Harris and Kraus and Rosenberg and Price and Spong and all the rest of those real scholars and telling them how stupid they were to debate Dr. Craig when YOU were there all along, ready to easily succeed where they miserably failed. I, for one would LOVE to see you in a debate...
"Nearly three-fourths of all studies since the 1920s that investigated a correlation between intelligence and religious affiliation have found that the proportion of atheists, agnostic individuals, and deists increases dramatically as you move up the scale in school grades, exam scores, and IQ tests. The remaining fourth of the studies show no correlation; zero reviews suggested that people in organized religions are more intelligent than those with secular beliefs. The apparent conclusion to draw from the data is that people who are more intelligent tend to disbelieve religious superstitions." - Jason Long
I would crush Craig in a debate. I'd make him cry like a little girl. He hasn't got the guts to respond to any of my posts because I know that Craig knows that I know he's a liar.
One of the creationist’s favorite unethical tactics is tomisstate what their critic’s have really said or in William Craig’s case whatthe current scientific consensus really is. Craig constantly repeats the liethat scientists and atheists insist the universe came from nothing. The truthis that only theists claim the universe came from nothing. The currentconsensus in cosmology on the other hand is that the materials the universe ismade of, matter and energy have always existed in one form or another. Whatreason do we have to believe that a state of nothingness is ever possible? Ofcourse there is no good reason at all to believe this. That is unless you aretrying to suppress the truth.
“By predicating a First Cause [God the uncaused Cause], thetheist removes the mystery a stage further back… Such a belief is a logicalabsurdity, and is an example of the ancient custom of creating a mystery toexplain a mystery… Moreover, if it is reasonable to assume a First Cause ashaving always existed, why is it unreasonable to assume that the materials ofthe universe always existed? To explain the unknown by the known is a logicalprocedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theologicallunacy.” – David Brooks (1902-1994)
William Craig takes the first premise of the CosmologicalArgument [that whatever begins to exist has a cause] to be self-evident, withno other justification other than common everyday experience. That’s the typeof experience that tells us the world is flat. However physical events at theatomic and sub-atomic level are observed to have no evident cause. Craig countersthat quantum events are still “caused” just caused in a non-predeterminedmanner, what he calls “probabilistic causality.” So Craig is admitting that the“cause” in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous,something not predetermined. By allowing a probabilistic cause he destroys hisown case for a predetermined creation. But what would you expect from a man whoclaims animals don’t feel any pain? Yeah they shoot horses with a broken legfor the fun of it I suppose.
The First Cause Argument fails because it relies on thelogical fallacy of Special Pleading. If God could have always existed so couldhave mass-energy. But here is the final nail in the coffin of this stupidargument: Even if we grant this argument everything it asks the atheist couldstill easily assume that the First Cause is a purely natural event, a quantumevent such as vacuum fluctuation. Quantum events have a way of just happening,without any cause.
Why attack Christianity? It's going away very nicely all by itself.
You do realize that your comments have actually no intellectual value whatsoever and your words merely show how utterly bereft you are of engaging in a dialogue with people. "Faith is a vice, skepticism a virtue - there is no such thing as reasonable faith" - and your arguments for such statements are? And do you even know what the "Buybull" (nice childish comment there, Boris - keep it classy and hold your head held high, you should be proud how you come across to people) says? Or should we just take Boris' words as gospel (no pun intended) :)
Your previous comment that WLC "demonstrates his stupidity everytime he opens his yap" is a very fine and cogent ad hominem attack - but do you have anything of any substance to say in defense of your statements or your worldview? Or is that all you can think to say to defend your position with actually nothing of substance to back your claims? Because if you are presenting an alternative to Christian belief through your comments here, then quite frankly, I don't see how anyone can rationally choose the alternative you represent. Honestly, your comments are welcome because it shows just how shallow atheists can be these days. If what you represent is the atheist worldview, then by all means, keep commenting. Your comments are a way for people to see how weak the attacks are on Christianity.
Faith is a vice, skepticism is a virtue. Exactly the opposite of what the Buybull teaches. So there is no such thing as reasonable faith.
I think William Craig demonstrates the stupidity of Christians every time he opens his yap.
Please don't advertise. Flagged.
This has nothing to do with superstition so your point is invalid. The very name of the site is reasonable faith, not superstition.
Yet, what is a society made up of?
Well, you're not smart enough to understand that he wasn't talking about the individual, or you to be exact, but rather society at large. No offense.
As a Christian pretty sure that I'm smart considering on going into the Medical Field I need to be.
I agree, intelligence and education are not synonymous, but then you'd have to at least be literate to take an IQ test. I think Peter brought up great points
I agree, intelligence and education are not synonymous, but then you'd have to at least be literate to take an IQ test. I think Peter brought up a great points
Intelligence cannot be altered with study as you suggest. Even though there are ways to improve intelligence, like exercising short-term memory, study alone won't. That misses the point any way. Even if we pretend you can improve your intelligence with study, if you are a serious apologist and you are asked a question that involves intelligence/stupidity you have to show your audience your seriousness and your commitment by addressing the question as it is proposed.
There are no people trying to disprove theism, because no form of theism was ever been proven in the first place. When one of the 3000 forms of theism is ever proven, let me know. For the time being, the burden of proof rests on the theist.
Knowledge doesn't make anybody arrogant. Arrogant people will be arrogant regardless of how much they know. I even notice the opposite phenomenon. Knowledge cause people to feel self confident about what they know, and they only people confident about their knowledge are ignorant. There's an inversion of confidence and knowledge.
The more superstitious a population is, the more ignorant it is. This is Sociology 101.
Bro...that's silliest thing I've ever heard. 1st, intelligence and education DO have some correlation. Just like athleticism and playing a sport are correlated. You don't even know ones athletic limits UNLESS they play a sport (generally speaking). Also, the exercise itself produces more athleticism, just as study sharpens the mind. Secondly, You're making some vague statement that has no support (or at least you offer none). What study are you citing? At least Dr Craig references something.
What you also fail to realize of that the basic truths regarding Theism are not difficult to grasp, so it doesn't require "profound" and difficult truths to be understood. This is exactly what we ought to expect if God were appealing to everyone. And not just the "intellectual elite". Of course, atheists lament this is they like to feign themselves smarter and better than the masses. Some of the greatest minds this world has EVER SEEN have been theists, and Christians in particular. Many of them responsible for laying the foundation of scientific investigation, which, ironically, is what pseudo intellectuals like to use to "disprove" theism.
Knowledge makes your arrogant, but love edifies. Even IF it were true that the smartest people were atheists or agnostic, that could very well be explained by arrogance, which is not a characteristic inherent to being bright. It is a trait, however, of one who fails to realize how small he/she really is, and how little we actually understand about the world. Good day.
Had you actually examined those studies for yourself, you'd know that they're highly criticized for cherry picking. They conveniently ignores outliers like in the Nyborg study where Anglicans and Jews outperformed atheists and agnostics in the IQ tests, and where data contrary to their conclusions was ignored, such as atheists being 12th in household income despite their theory predicting that their higher IQ would result in higher social success. They ignore competing explanatory factors, such as the Flynn effect, were criticized for choosing non-representative samples, and for treating IQ differences as being significant despite these differences falling within the margin of error for the sample size.
But there are more important problems than that with the studies. All forms of intelligence tests are culturally biased. They test only for what the tester thinks is representative of intelligence, and will reflect the biases and assumptions of the tester. In fact, an examination of the biases of the researchers whose work on religiosity and intelligence that have been widely publised in popular media, Lynn, Hamilton, Nyborg, and Kanazawa, show that they are using the same research methods to support the racist savanna theory, and to advocate that women are less intelligent than men.http://www.edrev.info/essays/v...http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...
Additionally, new research is showing that there are biases within the academy when it comes to selecting for hiring new professors, with implications on other selection processes such as selection for graduate studies.
I think the point he was making is that it is more than just education and intelligence, and that the culture and history of a nation also figures into the mix. His answer was quite interesting to me.
If you only read one book this year, this one should be it.
Dr. Cragi, Where could I find the original research paper?
Of course, education and intelligence have nothing to do with each other. So Dr. Craig's approach is misleading, and ultimately he's not even addressing the question. For him to address the question he would have to check statistics that deal with the correlation between intelligence and religiosity, which clearly show the people with the higher IQ or intelligence tend to be irreligious, and the other way around.
Receive our free Newsletter
Get Dr. Craig's newsletter and keep up with RF news and events.
Get the free Reasonable Faith App for iPhone, iPad, & Android!
Scholarly ArticlesArticles published in peer-reviewed journals
Popular ArticlesIntended for a general audience
DebatesSelect transcriptions of Dr. Craig's debates
Q & AWeekly question and answer
Video / AudioDebates, Talks, and Interviews
Reasonable Faith PodcastConversations with William Lane Craig
Defenders PodcastClass on Christian doctrine and apologetics
Current Events BlogAudio commentary on current events
Copyright Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide. Reasonable Faith is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.