a point to ponder as there are highly intellignet traders around what is the view on faith.. religion and god and gambling
i agree to an extent.. we think we are intelligent today - you learn only what you are taught.. if we looked at what we are learning like theories of eveolution then we will realise we are going away from proper knowledge
i agree to an extent.. we think we are intelligent today - you learn only what you are taught.. if we looked at what we are learning like theories of eveolution then we will realise we are going away from proper knowledge
Actually, there is no contradiction between Intelligence and faith. With one caveat ofI think that's a contradictio in terminis.
Highly intelligent and faith/religion/God
That is my point. Faith is the choice to believe something in the absence of evidence. Making this choice has nothing to do with one's intelligence. Faith and intelligence are not related and hence having faith and being intelligent is not a contradiction as has been suggested.PKFFW,
“being that the article of faith is not held in the face of evidence to the contrary”. What about an absence of evidence?
Again, exactly my point. Faith is irrelevant to the definition of intelligence. Hence, having faith in something does not in any way suggest a lack of intelligence.Re the Wikipedia definition: “No where in there is the word or idea of faith mentioned”. Why should faith be mentioned – it may be relevant to this discussion but it’s irrelevant to the definition of intelligence.
What difficulty you have with their position and their justification with that position is a reflection of your idea and position and not a basis for making the judgement that someone holding said position lacks intelligence. If you are suggesting they do lack intelligence by holding said position, you are a making an assertion that there is no evidence for. Hence you are displaying a faith in your own unproven judgement and therefore should consider that you yourself lack intelligence.“The idea faith is contradictory to intelligence is a common misconception”
The difficulty I have is with how a scientist can simultaneously assume two contradictory positions - scientific rationalism and faith. What is the basis for their faith, and how do they justify it to themselves?
Grant.
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood.
I have yet to hear an intelligent argument that convinces me faith is anything other than a result of circumstantial or environmental brainwashing.
To me institutionalised religion, that is the root of most peoples faith, is violent, irrational, intolerant, racist and just another tool for meglamaniacal lunatics to exert influence over a brainwashed mass.
Of course there are many good people who have misguided faith and who do not fall into this category but unfortunately we would be better off if Religion could be eradicated as the maniacs I mentioned do far more to damage to our society than the good elements of religion improve it.
It does not take faith to be a good and compassionate human being but many of those with faith would have you believe it does. They, as far as I am concerned, can go to hell.
I think that's a contradictio in terminis.
Highly intelligent and faith/religion/God![]()
How is intelligence contradictory of faith? If you have the ability to interpret the world to the point of comprehending that there is no higher power, and that is the most logical way to view the physical world, must you also be able to encompass a world in which one exists? Isn't intelligence the ability to see different scenarios given consistent standards with differing variables? A truly open mind is a sign of intelligence. Just playing devil's advocate.....
This is all nonesense. The church holding back the pursuit of knowledge based on sacreligious scientific practices (e.g. autopsy) and theorems (most of which were disproved) has lead to a classic black and white division which does neither side any good.
IMO a belief in a creator of all things in this barrel of cosmic absudities and naturally (re)occuring patterns and mechanics that we call a universe/really is not that irrational. How is it any more rational than for example an animal having an offspring that by statistical probability, undergoes sudden and inexplicable genetic change which is actually beneficial to its survival as opposed to turning it into some sort of retarded mong as has happened in every other recorded instance. Multipy that by the probability that not only does this creature flourish and spread, it the finds a suitable mate and despite mixing genes with a less superior creature (unless it happened twice in the same georaphical area), this gene is not diluted (incest? nope.) and the new species continues on.
Point is I think its naieve to place yourself on either side of the fence that was drawn up by two bunches of idiots years ago. Make your own mind up and don't be swayed by the masses or by stereotypes.
Besides there is nothing "inexplicable" about a statistical aberration
What would be more inexplicable is the fact that no such events exist or have existed...
now maybe but not before the universe existed. Then the probability was 1 lol.