I think this fails when you think of it on Bayesian grounds.
If we want to use the large number of intelligent religious people as evidence for the truth of religion, we need to show that P(intelligent believers|religion true) is greater than P(intelligent believers|religion false); that intelligent people are more likely to believe religion if it’s true than if it’s false.
But at most one religion can be true. Therefore, all other religions are false. But lots of people, many intelligent, believe both (for example) Christianity and Hinduism. If (for the sake of argument) we’re wondering whether Christianity is true, then we cannot explain all the smart Hindus without admitting that people are just as likely to believe a false religion as a true one.
But if people are just as likely to believe a false religion as a true one, then lots of people believing a religion is no evidence that it is true.
There is an argument for shifting views towards general religious feelings, since that can’t be disproven so easily. And I do shift my views a little in that direction. But remember that you can’t double-shift. You have to shift them from the place they would be if no one believed in religion at all. IE, imagine a world where everyone was a scientific materialist, and imagine the credence you would give to this new hypothesis someone just dreamt up that the world was created by supernatural beings six thousand years ago. Then you can multiply that credence by whatever factor you want to use for the high level of belief people have in it. But the original credence is so vanishingly low that even the extra believers can’t save it.
Also, re: Einstein and God. Richard Dawkins answers this better than I do. I suggest you read his work on the subject. The summary is that Einstein liked to use the word “God” as a metaphor for “physics”, but wasn’t a believer per se. Newton was, but he was also a believer in alchemy...
But I’d still like to thank you for bringing up this topic. You’re using rationalist methods to support religion, which is exactly how all religious people should be doing it and which is something rationalists should take seriously. I’m a bit sad you’re getting downvoted as much as you are, compared to some inane comments about how stupid all religious people must be that tend to be voted up. I predict most atheists will be overconfident in their rejection of religion, simply because most people are overconfident in any politically charged topic they feel strongly about. It’s good to occasionally have to listen to intelligent rationalist arguments in favor or religion to avoid an echo chamber effect.
“You’re using rationalist methods to support religion”
Thank you very much for the compliment. However, it is totally undeserved. Being essentially an atheist (well, agnostic to be precise), supporting religion was the last thing on my mind. What I really wanted to do is to test how rational and intelligent people, which I hoped would be overrepresented on this forum, would react to arguments that go against their preferred view.
It is interesting that everyone seems to assume that I am a religious person myself, though I thought the contrary should be pretty obvious from the post title. Personally, I have yet to meet people who would call their beliefs “irrational”.
I call plenty of my beliefs irrational… at least during the window between where I realize I have them, find the basis for them, and then fix them. ;-)
“It is interesting that everyone seems to assume that I am a religious person myself, though I thought the contrary should be pretty obvious from the post title.”
“But at most one religion can be true. Therefore, all other religions are false.”
This is the single biggest reason why I can’t understand why anyone believing any specific religion. Dawkin’s classic response when asked “What if you’re wrong?” is simply to repeat the question.
The question religious people should ask themselves is this: of all of the thousands of religions there have been in human history, what is the probability that you just happened to be born in a family who just happened to believe in what just happens to be the correct interpretation of what just happens to be the specific version of what just happens to be the only holy book which gets you into heaven?
This point is made more valid by the fact that almost all religions are very clear that they are an exclusive club—if you pick the wrong religion (or even the wrong denomination within a religion) you don’t get Eternal Life.
This point is made more valid by the fact that almost all religions are very clear that they are an exclusive club—if you pick the wrong religion (or even the wrong denomination within a religion) you don’t get Eternal Life.
This is not universally true of any of the major contemporary religions (as practiced, and according to the scripture of at least some), and probably not true of most of the thousands of religions there have been. In fact, I believe many tribal pagan religions don’t claim the nonexistence of their neighbors’ deities—they’re just “not our way,” so to speak.
Also, nitpickingly, not every religious person has retained the faith they were raised with.
I think this fails when you think of it on Bayesian grounds.
If we want to use the large number of intelligent religious people as evidence for the truth of religion, we need to show that P(intelligent believers|religion true) is greater than P(intelligent believers|religion false); that intelligent people are more likely to believe religion if it’s true than if it’s false.
But at most one religion can be true. Therefore, all other religions are false. But lots of people, many intelligent, believe both (for example) Christianity and Hinduism. If (for the sake of argument) we’re wondering whether Christianity is true, then we cannot explain all the smart Hindus without admitting that people are just as likely to believe a false religion as a true one.
But if people are just as likely to believe a false religion as a true one, then lots of people believing a religion is no evidence that it is true.
There is an argument for shifting views towards general religious feelings, since that can’t be disproven so easily. And I do shift my views a little in that direction. But remember that you can’t double-shift. You have to shift them from the place they would be if no one believed in religion at all. IE, imagine a world where everyone was a scientific materialist, and imagine the credence you would give to this new hypothesis someone just dreamt up that the world was created by supernatural beings six thousand years ago. Then you can multiply that credence by whatever factor you want to use for the high level of belief people have in it. But the original credence is so vanishingly low that even the extra believers can’t save it.
Also, re: Einstein and God. Richard Dawkins answers this better than I do. I suggest you read his work on the subject. The summary is that Einstein liked to use the word “God” as a metaphor for “physics”, but wasn’t a believer per se. Newton was, but he was also a believer in alchemy...
But I’d still like to thank you for bringing up this topic. You’re using rationalist methods to support religion, which is exactly how all religious people should be doing it and which is something rationalists should take seriously. I’m a bit sad you’re getting downvoted as much as you are, compared to some inane comments about how stupid all religious people must be that tend to be voted up. I predict most atheists will be overconfident in their rejection of religion, simply because most people are overconfident in any politically charged topic they feel strongly about. It’s good to occasionally have to listen to intelligent rationalist arguments in favor or religion to avoid an echo chamber effect.
“You’re using rationalist methods to support religion”
Thank you very much for the compliment. However, it is totally undeserved. Being essentially an atheist (well, agnostic to be precise), supporting religion was the last thing on my mind. What I really wanted to do is to test how rational and intelligent people, which I hoped would be overrepresented on this forum, would react to arguments that go against their preferred view.
It is interesting that everyone seems to assume that I am a religious person myself, though I thought the contrary should be pretty obvious from the post title. Personally, I have yet to meet people who would call their beliefs “irrational”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
I call plenty of my beliefs irrational… at least during the window between where I realize I have them, find the basis for them, and then fix them. ;-)
“It is interesting that everyone seems to assume that I am a religious person myself, though I thought the contrary should be pretty obvious from the post title.”
Guilty as charged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
I didn’t. I assumed you were making a valuable point but using a poor argument while doing so.
“But at most one religion can be true. Therefore, all other religions are false.”
This is the single biggest reason why I can’t understand why anyone believing any specific religion. Dawkin’s classic response when asked “What if you’re wrong?” is simply to repeat the question.
The question religious people should ask themselves is this: of all of the thousands of religions there have been in human history, what is the probability that you just happened to be born in a family who just happened to believe in what just happens to be the correct interpretation of what just happens to be the specific version of what just happens to be the only holy book which gets you into heaven?
This point is made more valid by the fact that almost all religions are very clear that they are an exclusive club—if you pick the wrong religion (or even the wrong denomination within a religion) you don’t get Eternal Life.
This is not universally true of any of the major contemporary religions (as practiced, and according to the scripture of at least some), and probably not true of most of the thousands of religions there have been. In fact, I believe many tribal pagan religions don’t claim the nonexistence of their neighbors’ deities—they’re just “not our way,” so to speak.
Also, nitpickingly, not every religious person has retained the faith they were raised with.
Of course, the general point is good.