Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Kuros]

[Justin Hale]

I was always an agnostic because my inspiration previously was always Kant, but then I discovered the moral and epistemological necessity of rabid atheism.

Anyhow, not one scientific formula contains the variable of god or any supernatural agent and religion has never uncovered a single workable fact about nature or the universe. Not one. What's your excuse for adhering to scripture written by people who thought stars were peepholes for God to watch us (particularly given Christians continue to place barriers against science - modern biology, global warming, birth control, stem cell research and other scientific advances that could save millions of people)?

[Kuros]

[Justin Hale]

[Kuros]

[Yu_Bum_suk]

I'd love to do an IQ test in America of liberal Jews, Episcopalians, conservative Jews, Methodists, Baptists, Penticostals, and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'd be willing to bet a fair bit of money that the rankings would come out in that order.

[Omkara]

[Kuros]

Not to try to topple the standard here by which the atheists revel in their ubermenschenheit, but I have a quibble with the IQ test. Is it really fully reflective of intelligence?

It seems to me the term intelligence tries to unify a lot of disparate activities, and fluency or proficiency at something indicates a kind of intelligence. But intelligence tests are inherently abstract and unapplied. Should we pay much attention to whether a man can score a 150 on a pure IQ test, or should it matter more that a man can create an ultimately viable, if not successful, business from the ground up?

[Justin Hale]

Scientific American, September 1999

[Omkara]

nice work!

[Kuros]

[Omkara]

I agree that IQ here is too narrowly defined. There are intelligences which are not contained in that model of intelligence.

I moreover agree that there are intelligent religious people. They probably get something from religion which is not so dependent on the absurd metaphysics and fantastic claims of the faith. Yet, it is hard for me to see why someone intelligent would cling to a religion when they are presented with the clear evidence that the stories and claims read literally are absurd.

Moreover, I'm not sure that the metaphorical reading of scripture is sufficient for calling oneself a christian. Read thus, they are a set of interesting stories which provide for an interesting kind of insight. But to be a christian entails a certain set of beliefs which are fantastical and nonsensical.

I've thought recently, how might Jesus be saved from religion and placed again properly among mortal heroes? Or, is this impossible?

[Kuros]

[nicholas_chiasson]

[Omkara]

I do think there is much to be learned from the bible. We can learn much from the absurd and credulous way in which the bible has been read. We can learn much about the human mind. We can learn, in addition to other things, from the parables themselves.

The universities do teach this kind of reading. There are a host of theories by which one may discover great meanings. I prefer to read using archetypical analysis and the insights of the psychologists.

Yes, there is much, much to be learned from the bible. But there is a major difference between reading Adam as a literal first man and Adam as the First man, ie, an archetypical form. In the second,it is a story about consciousness; in the first, it is an absurd tale not even up to the epistemological standards of swine.

I'm not so sure, however, that one can be a christian and read the bible but literally.