Why do people find themselves so smart?

This could just as well go in the science space, but I'm putting it here.

I have read through many posts from non-religious people questioning religion (which is completely find, but should know what they believe), or more commonly they outright attack (personally) people because of their beliefs.

To me there is one common thread that stands out. The failure to understand just how incredibly feeble people and their minds are. This arrogance is incredible. I am not sure how the world became convinced that we can comprehend even the smallest fraction of anything. The fact is that humans do not have an even half way decent understanding of the cosmos, yet we have become so sure of so much. If I ask these saracastically self-proclaimed "heathens" how something incredibly simple "works," say baking a cake, 95% will have no idea what happens to the sugar, flour, butter, etc. The very smartest men in the world cannot figure out (after roughly 5K years of foundation work) how the basic forces in the universe work.
When did people become their own gods? Perhaps it is time to take a step back and see if it is more naive to believe that there is a higher force, beyond comprehension and our views of "reason," or if it is more naive to believe those who claim to know. To paraphrase Plato "those who claim to know, do not."
I know the rebuttle will be "you religious folk claim to know there is a God though?" And this is true. My response would be that I acknowledge there is something absolute, and through my own personal experiences I have concluded without a doubt there is a God.
I am not saying to believe things blindly (as this is the opposite of the purpose of my post) however I think people should realize the actualities of "life." I truly wish I could share my personal experiences with non-believers, but in the end you must take that road yourself.

I could keep going, but this post needs CliffNotes as it is

 

some religions would like us to believe that we are such pathetic creatures as described above. There are various reasons for this, it is easier to control people when they believe they are so lowly and so they had better listen to the priests and the pope or they will go to hell. christians need not be so stupid, they too can seek to understand the world around them. they have brains and should use them more often. maybe this is the most unfortunate consequence of that religion, that the believer numbs their brain with such ideas. you can raise yourself out of the mire.

 

It seems there is no end to human arrogance and blindness. Thats a sad fact, but true.

 

First off, I'm not a self-proclaimed heathen. I'm considered a heathen by Judeo-Christians, because I no longer believe in Christianity (and there is, like all other things, a reason for that).

Off the top of my head, no, I cannot tell you exactly how baking a cake works.

But, what I CAN do, is google it, and tell you 99% of how baking a cake works. The Internet is a database of knowledge. One doesn't need to actually know something, in order to go find it out.

And that is because they almost all agree that, we pretty much can't, because of the limited nature of our perception.

Almost NONE of these "smartest men" disagreed that perceptions are incomplete, they deviate from reality, and can be even illusory. They also agree that, because of this, because we aren't creatures of pure logic, we can't truly understand pure, unadulterated logic.

And that makes sense. We are a finite part of the universe. Since we are just this, how can we know EVERYTHING about the universe?

We make up for some of our lack of ability to know things, by writing them down, so that we can re-learn them when necessary (like the cake example).

When all the other gods that we believed in died.

First off, your argument is against these "smartest men," and you are VALIDATING your argument AGAINST these people, by using those people!

Socrates is famous for saying, "The only thing that I know, is that I know nothing." Plato merely paraphrased what he said.

And, look at your reasoning above. You talk about a higher power beyond our ability to reason. And, most so-called "smartest men" don't dispute that. Many of them acknowledge LOGIC or the universe as this "higher power," in that it's a nonliving power. And, because we can't understand it, it's beyond our comprehension, but we try to understand it anyway.

What of people like me? I was born a Christian, and confirmed a Christian. I honestly DID believe in it, at the time. I prayed and prayed and went to church and did all the things that even other members of the church didn't do; I was an acolyte and I volunteered for the church even. And, I never had any so-called "divine experience" that proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God.

It all comes down to personal experience. You claim to have had experiences that prove to you that a God exists. I don't have experiences like that. Perhaps that is why I don't believe in God in the Judeo-Christian sense. But, your argument is terribly arrogant, it's saying "I know for a fact that I am right, even though you don't have evidence of me being right."

And look again at what Plato said, from your own words: "Those who claim to know, DO NOT!"

Look at your words, and Plato's words again. You use Plato's words to back you up, but in reality, they don't validate what you say at all. They actually go against it.

So let me get this straight.

You bash people like me, and tell us that, even though we think we know some things, we don't. (Edit: And this is something that we have already realized by ourselves!)

Then, you tell us that people should realize the actualities of "life" and that we shouldn't believe things blindly?

Sorry man, but, that's not how it works. You certainly don't know any of the "actualities" of life, and in addition to that ...

*you believe things blindly*

And let me prove it. You said that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you believe in God because of your own personal experiences.

And yet, we know for a fact, that personal experiences are VERY, VERY often wrong, because the brain and body go through various states, and because perceptions are never 100% accurate.

So while your personal experience might SEEM like it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, actual ... it's not.

But, because you don't acknowledge the possibility that you MIGHT be fooled by your perceptions, you are having blind faith in your perceptions.

 

I'd just like to say that I feel that this post is horribly judgemental for one reason:
Why are you singling out non-religious people? There are a lot of other religious people who do the same...

I also think it's hypocritical the way you started out basically saying non-religious people are arrogant, and think they pretty much know it all... When right after that, you go on to explain why you think YOU'RE right ...

I question god and religion yes, but is that really a problem if I don't shove my beliefs into peoples faces? You're generalizing one particular group horribly... Not all non-religious people are like that, and not all religious people AREN'T like that.

I'm not going to get into discussion about why I dont think god exists with someone who's religious, I'd just appreciate it greatly if you dont stereotype and generalize.

Thank you

 

Why do people find themselves so smart?

In some cases, they don't have enough to compare themselves to that would enable them to perceive themselves differently.

Consider this: when people are asked if they are good or if they are bad, they often say something along of they lines of "Well...I've never killed anybody." They want to compare themselves to someone who is obviously (at least to their way of thinking) evil. They rarely if ever compare themselves to Mother Theresa or someone who seems obviously (again, at least to their way of thinking) good. It might be too threatening to most people to think of themselves as stupid.

The other possibility is that there are plenty of people who do think of themselves as stupid. I had a friend who bragged about how other people liked him because he was stupid, and he seemed upset and hurt that I told him that I had never really thought of him as being stupid.

 

Let me just point out that it is human nature to defend what you think is right, believe in, etc. so everyone is going to act like they "know" to an EXTENT, at some point in time. However, it is different to think you may know what is right for you, yourself than to think you know what is right for everyone. And, that's exactly the way you worded it: however I think people should realize the actualities of "life."
The "actualities"? Who sounds like they think they know everything NOW?

"or more commonly they outright attack (personally) people because of their beliefs. " and some non-religious people may feel that you're personally attacking them about their beliefs at the moment, especially considering that you're singling us out.

Like I said, I don't feel like getting into the subject of why you believe god, and why I don't... But I do think you should read through your post, and observe the contradictions and hypocrisies you wrote.

All of us, religious or non-religious seem to despise having other beliefs shoved in our faces and the personal attacks and what not... so at least we can agree on something. However, if we're all irritated about this, then why do we keep fighting fire with fire?

"If I ask these saracastically self-proclaimed "heathens" how something incredibly simple "works," say baking a cake, 95% will have no idea what happens to the sugar, flour, butter, etc." Enlighten me. You seem to know a lot [which is exactly what you're post is saying you're irritated with...]

 

I hear what you're saying somethingwitty.

One thing I've found out since I started talking to people on both sides of the fence is that non-belief is it's own religion (complete with unsubstantiated traditions, rediculous dogma, and a tendancy towards blind faith in what ever sounds easiest for them to accept) and it's adherants are just as quick to fly off the handle if you challenge it and just as reluctant to answer simple questions, even if it's just to say "I don't know", as the fanatics of any other faith.

 

i am rather smart, i'm a fucking genius and not afraid to admit it. :H


songwriting-wise, that is. i tend to have no opinion on religion anymore... being stoned for about a month straight will do that to ya. :H

 

that may be the most spiritual thing anybodys ever said in here.

 

well, i am jesus' son. :H

 

that must be cool;
"Hey Dad! Can I borrow the chariot of fire tonight? I got a date".
"Ok son, but have it back by Armagedon".

 

First off, like I said (rather incoherently now that I re-read it *sorry*) I think people should NOT believe things blindly. I am not saying humans are pathetic, I am saying we have severe limitations on our possibly knowledge which "modern man" for lack of a better term, has chosen to pretend we do not.


"But, what I CAN do, is google it, and tell you 99% of how baking a cake works. The Internet is a database of knowledge. One doesn't need to actually know something, in order to go find it out."

Haha, I hope you re-read your statement a few times for the irony. You do EXACTLY what you criticize me for, you believe blindly, and not even based on your perceptions, but %100 on someone who you don't know, and whom in all likelihood, simply believed someone else. You have no intuitive, scientific, or mathematic explanations for it, you just believe.


"And that is because they almost all agree that, we pretty much can't, because of the limited nature of our perception.

Almost NONE of these "smartest men" disagreed that perceptions are incomplete, they deviate from reality, and can be even illusory. They also agree that, because of this, because we aren't creatures of pure logic, we can't truly understand pure, unadulterated logic.

And that makes sense. We are a finite part of the universe. Since we are just this, how can we know EVERYTHING about the universe?"

I am not saying this is a lack of perception, I am saying it is a lack of the ability to comprehend. Your statement implies that giving more senses we could figure out the universe. My view is that we do not have anywhere near the brain power, language, math, etc. to ever hope to understand the very basic ways the world works.

"We make up for some of our lack of ability to know things, by writing them down, so that we can re-learn them when necessary (like the cake example)."

I see very little difference in this view on science compared with religion and the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc.

First off, your argument is against these "smartest men," and you are VALIDATING your argument AGAINST these people, by using those people!

I never validated anything by saying anything about the "smartest men." I paraphrased someone else to show my own view point is nothing new. I also said that people should be suspect of ALL people who claim to know, including religious people.

Socrates is famous for saying, "The only thing that I know, is that I know nothing." Plato merely paraphrased what he said.

Actually NONE of Socrates teachings survived except as written by Plato in his dialogues, and it was common practice of the day to attribute your own views to your teacher; my statement was correct, your's is not.

And, look at your reasoning above. You talk about a higher power beyond our ability to reason. And, most so-called "smartest men" don't dispute that. Many of them acknowledge LOGIC or the universe as this "higher power," in that it's a nonliving power. And, because we can't understand it, it's beyond our comprehension, but we try to understand it anyway.

I agree, many people feel this view is correct. Again, I never laid any validity of my post on these men, I'm not sure where you're getting it from. I never said something like "Newton believed in God, so you should too" did I?

What of people like me? I was born a Christian, and confirmed a Christian. I honestly DID believe in it, at the time. I prayed and prayed and went to church and did all the things that even other members of the church didn't do; I was an acolyte and I volunteered for the church even. And, I never had any so-called "divine experience" that proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God.

It all comes down to personal experience. You claim to have had experiences that prove to you that a God exists. I don't have experiences like that. Perhaps that is why I don't believe in God in the Judeo-Christian sense. But, your argument is terribly arrogant, it's saying "I know for a fact that I am right, even though you don't have evidence of me being right."

I never said anything close to that. I posed the question why do people ASSUME in an ontological fallacy that because modern science has apparently given some answers, that humans are capable of understanding everything. This assumption is, in my opinion, the foundation for so many of the attacks on religion I see here.

I was simply pointing out that it very likely is more naive to believe in the power of man, than in a higher power such as God. (I can totally understand believing in something "titled" other than God, however that is what I choose to call It) You know how the rose quote goes.

So let me get this straight.

You bash people like me, and tell us that, even though we think we know some things, we don't. (Edit: And this is something that we have already realized by ourselves!)

Then, you tell us that people should realize the actualities of "life" and that we shouldn't believe things blindly?

Sorry man, but, that's not how it works. You certainly don't know any of the "actualities" of life, and in addition to that ...

*you believe things blindly*

Haha, I think I've already shown that you mis-read and assumed quite a few of my statements, as well as illustrating you're own completely blind beliefs.

Again, in your arrogance you see me saying that my personal belief in God (which I explicitly stated was MY personal belief, based on MY observations, and NOT applicable to anyone else). Then from this post you say that I don't know anything of life, I'm sorry that's ludicrous and not worth an arguement.

I am trying very hard not to take your attack on me personally, but did you even read my post???

And let me prove it. You said that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you believe in God because of your own personal experiences.

And yet, we know for a fact, that personal experiences are VERY, VERY often wrong, because the brain and body go through various states, and because perceptions are never 100% accurate.

This is exactly what I am talking about, you assume that perceptions (keep in mind I said EXPERIENCES, not perceptions) are false, while reality is real, justified through science, based on the fact that people now assume they can know everything. And how can you rule out "perceptions?" That is a self-destructing fallacy since all human functions (including science and math) are merely "perceptions." That is a very poor arguement.

Bleh, it is exhausting trying to get people to think outside of this extremely time and ego-centric ontoligy.

 

I don't think it's wrong to not believe in G-d or be part of a religion. I don't think it's wrong to believe in G-d, etc etc. I think it's wrong to look down at other people for their beliefs, or lack of them.

I don't really have an issue with Atheists or Christians, everyone is different and that's cool. I have a problem with Atheists who call me stupid for believing in G-d. I have a problem with Christians who call me immoral for not excepting Christ. I am neither stupid nor immoral.

If someone comes up to me and says they believe something different than me, than I'll have no problem. If somebody comes up to me and tells me I'm wrong or evil or stupid for believing something different than they do, we're going to have words.

 

i dont understand why people use g-d instead of god. just type the damn word.. what are you doing, trying to hide that you're talking about him? he'd know anyway.

 

Ok, so believing in things blindly is a mistake. We as humans suffer these severe limitations, our senses can't be relied upon and even the most brilliant among us seem to be worms in comparison to the brilliance of the universe. It seems that the best stance to take is to acknowledge our ignorance first and foremost. You say you believe in a God. How does that work, following your admission of ignorance? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply allow for the possibility of a God?

Yes, but the information is there for those who are curious. I also am not familiar with the science of cake-making (i am, however, very familiar with the process ). The point is, any person could inquire of the science and put it to test themselves for their own proof. Confirm the theory.

I don't quite understand how your view and his view differ. You state that we lack the brain power to completely comprehend our existence/universe. He states that if we had more brain power we [may] gain that ability. Does that not follow or am I missing something?

I can see the similarity...

So, I question the cake. I search google and find a cake science site, copy down the theory, put it to test in my own cake laboratory. My findings agree with those stated, thus I agree with the theory stated.



I question God. I search the Bible/Torah/Koran and read about other people's experiences. I imitate their motions, lives, and either: a) experience the same experiences, or b) do not experience the same experiences. In case of (a), I agree with the stated theory of God. In case of (b), I do not agree.

I think that the questionable part about the way you're describing first your philosophy ("We are unable to fully understand our environments and existences") seems to contradict the following, ("I have concluded without a doubt that there is a God.") .....What??

Haha, I seem to recall the same thing. Socrates' thoughts we know of, we only know of through the work of Plato. zoink!

So..... are you saying, Logic could equal God? Nature could equal God? Something not a person, not existing as a personal entity could equal God? Many would disagree. Every Christian, for example, would state that Nature and God are not at all the same. Most believers in God also believe that a religion follows, with rituals and myths involved, the existence of muddy things like souls and spirits too.

If you're saying that the term "God" could be applied extremely broadly to that enormous area of existence outside of our own personal beings; everything we experience and acknowledge to be 'real', and everything that we thus depend on, then I'd totally agree. A word is just a word, after all. To have "faith" in Life itself seems like the ideal 'religion'....

Is your point here that people who call themselves "atheists" are in the wrong? I call myself an atheist and an agnostic.... I know that I don't know; at this point I don't have faith in an external God figure. I think that people who claim to know of the existence of God (in terms of the usual God entity) are ignorant. Likewise, those who claim to know of the non-existence of God are also ignorant. The only thing we can claim to know is that we don't.





Peace,

Sophia

 

good god that was a long post.

 

The only thing I can add to this thread is the fact that NOTHING is absolute. It is impossible for such a thing to exist; SOMETHING has to contradict it, somehow.

Ying and Yang, karma, polytheism... that is what I believe in.

 

Perhaps it is time to take a step back and see if it is more naive to argue points from ignorance (i.e. LACK OF EVIDENCE) against the better judgment of science and reason which have helped describe the way we live our lives and explain the various "mysteries" of the past without boogeyman and gods.

Perhaps we need to see if it is more naive to discard human progress in favor of realizing that since we don't know EVERYTHING, we can't KNOW anything.

Perhaps we need to dismiss that science has overturned the false beliefs of religions that have given us volcano gods, flat earth, wars, human sacrifices, crusades, inquisitions, racism, sexism, blatant contradictions of logic, and promotion of blind faith over reason.

Based on personal experience? Thus, negating "God" to a mere subjective idea and not an objective one (of which you'd need objective evidence!)

Then what faculties do you use to form these beliefs?

#1- What are these "actualities" of life you speak of?
#2- Personal experience is subjective and cannot be sufficient evidence for anything "absolute" (as you mentioned earlier).

 

That's why you *search google* and get MORE than a single result, foo'!

You look at ALL of the good results, and come up with your OWN interpretation or opinion, and then test it to see if it works!

My statement does not imply that giving more senses would give us more capacity to understand the universe. More WAYS to understand it, yes, but with every new sense we add, we understand the universe less through each individual sense. Like how deaf people are better with their eyes, good enough to make up for the lack of hearing ...

You say we don't understand the most basic of ways that the world works ... but look how far we have come! Do we truly NEED to understand absolutely everything? I am content with trying to understand everything, and only understanding down to the quark level ...

Then let me enlighten you. The difference is, if we write something down scientifically that is wrong or stupid, we can go back and test it to correct it. In the Bible and Torah and Koran, you can't reduce what is written down into a basic form that can be validated or corrected, and because you can't do that, people will war over the same issues forever, instead of one day being able to truly figure out the answer.

You quoted Plato's words in that "those who claim to know, do not." You said NOTHING about being suspect of people who claim to know ... but that's okay, because it is implied in what you said.

My point is ... you are saying that the smartest guys around should be questioned. And, these guys themselves *agree* with you. Look at the Buddha: He said, do not blindly believe in what I say. Instead, listen to what I say with an open mind, and decide for yourself if it makes sense.

I agree with you that nobody can be trusted 100%. But, that is not what you were originally talking about. Instead, you were bashing all people who claim to be smart, and bashing them using a quote of wisdom FROM one of these people.

So, in other words, you're saying, Socrates said them, Plato adopted them and re-said them, and wrote down what he re-said.

In that case, my statement is just as correct as yours. You, Plato, AND Socrates all said similar things. In some of Plato's other works, Plato has written down exactly what Socrates said, and then paraphrases/modifies that quote throughout his other dialogues (like what you are referring to).

You said, according to Plato (one of these "smart" men you are bashing), "those who claim to know, DO NOT."

But, as you pointed out, even Plato's words should be evaluated. I think Plato is wrong. I think, "those who claim to know, MAY NOT." This statement seems more accurate.

You didn't say "Newton believed in God, so you should too," but what you implied was something along the lines of, "Plato said smart people are wrong, so you should too."

This actually has nothing to do with what you were originally talking about, at this part of your post.

You trailed off and started talking about how you "know for a fact there is a God" because of your own personal experiences.

You were INDEED talking about personal experience.

Regardless, nobody really believes humans are capable of understanding everything. You merely ASSUME that we believe this. What we really believe, is that we can understand MOST things (which we can), but not all things.

Your assumption of this belief is also ...

(I turned "religion" into "science" in this quote from you.)

I think it's incredibly arrogant how you make attacks on non-believers, make false assumptions about us, and then hypocritically do the exact same thing you tell us not to.

Who said all of us believe "in the power of man?"

FFS, look at my signature. "I believe in God ... only I spell it Nature."

You have these twisted assumptions that we don't believe in a higher power, when we just don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh (or many other gods, such as the pagan gods).

I love it. You claim that we need to realize the "actualilties" of life, which implies that we don't know it and that you do.

Secondly, you did not EXPLICITLY say anywhere that your personal believe based on your observations was not applicable to anyone else.

You said that you "KNOW FOR A FACT" that God exists.

If it is a FACT, then it is APPLICABLE TO EVERYONE ELSE.

Read what you say from now on. Or think before you say it.

I don't mind if you take my attack personally ... see ... you have already personally attacked all of the people who don't believe in God, by calling it arrogant and a slew of other things.

So I am personally attacking you back (and you specifically, not just "all people who believe in God or a higher power").

OMFG. Dude. LISTEN TO WHAT I AM SAYING.

I did not ASSUME that perceptions are false! I said, that they are OFTEN not ENTIRELY accurate to reality!

All personal experiences ARE perceptions ... by definition ... because we are INCAPABLE of experiencing something from a point of view that is not our own.

Also, I did not rule out "perceptions," I specifically said that we should not blindly believe in perceptions. I did not say we should put NO faith in perceptions, I said we should not put TOTAL faith in perceptions.

You have put total faith in your perception, and come to your own admitted conclusion that there is, WITHOUT A DOUBT, factually, a God.

But you have not accounted for the POSSIBILITY that your perception is flawed (which isn't necessarily PROBABLE, but it's POSSIBLE), and because you have not accounted for this possibility, you are blindly believing in your perceptions.

Feh. You call my thinking "ego-centric" and "arrogant" and expect me not to make a personal attack against you?

Sorry buddy, that's not how it works.