Do Half of Americans Really Believe in Guardian Angels?

[||spoon||]

Theoretical models are the result of a logical sequence of steps, beginning at some sort of self evident axioms (or testable theory).There is no "leap of faith" required to accept a theoretical model.

Dogmatic beliefs on the other hand do not follow any path of logic. There is always at least one (usually many) progression(s) which do not directly follow from what is known to be true.

 

[Nick666]

Angels ? Are they some sort of reptilians ?

 

[cristo]

It is logical to accept theoretical models in place of direct observations?

Observations should not depend upon the observer. Theoretical models of anything should make predictions that are falsifiable, regardless of who conducts the test.

 

[vociferous]

I think that a lot of these people, if they ask themselves, "could what I saw really only be explained by angels/aliens/Bigfoot/et cetera," in most of the cases, the answer is no, at least if they examine their own experiences objectively, and with an eye toward science and skepticism.

Like, say someone who is interested in Bigfoot is hiking in the northwest, and he sees a big, hulking upright primate figure about fifty meters away lumber off into the woods. The most likely and reasonable explanation is that he saw a person, but maybe he works it around in his mind, and becomes more and more convinced that it was a Sasquatch. I am not certain that he is delusional, but he certainly is probably not properly rationalizing his own experience. Human observational ability and human memory are quite fallible.

 

[Bad Monkey]

50% of people are of below average intelligence.


(Are we allowed to make such senseless statements?)

 

[Evo]

50% of people are of below average intelligence.


(Are we allowed to make such senseless statements?)

No, in this case you are making a statement of fact. The article is just an opinion poll.

 

[Bad Monkey]

In that case shall we start a debate on the correlation between (low) IQ and religion?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In that case shall we start a debate on the correlation between (low) IQ and religion?

If you have any related papers published in an appropriate academic journal, sure, but you will have to post a reference first, and then limit the discussion to the facts.

 

[George Jones]

50% of people are of below average intelligence.

This isn't how "average" works. For example, consider the average of 12, 12, 12, 12, 6, 6.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Observations should not depend upon the observer. Theoretical models of anything should make predictions that are falsifiable, regardless of who conducts the test.

How does this apply to claims of personal experience? If I witness a phenomenon, I am not bound to explain it simply by reporting it. My wife isn't bound to demand scientific proof before she believes my story.

 

[PhysicsDilettante]

No, in this case you are making a statement of fact. The article is just an opinion poll.

Looks like George just beat me on this thought, but would it not be a more factual statement that 50% of the population is below median intelligence?

Depending on how it is measured and how that measure is distributed in the population, more (or less) than 50% could be below the average.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are personal beliefs logically bound by the limits of science?

 

[Evo]

Looks like George just beat me on this thought, but would it not be a more factual statement that 50% of the population is below median intelligence?

Depending on how it is measured and how that measure is distributed in the population, more (or less) than 50% could be below the average.

The question wasn't asking if 50% of the population is below average intelligence, the question was if making such a statement without substantiation was allowable here. The answer is no. You could change his post to ask if it was ok to say that 50% of citrus fruit are lemons.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think that a lot of these people, if they ask themselves, "could what I saw really only be explained by angels/aliens/Bigfoot/et cetera," in most of the cases, the answer is no, at least if they examine their own experiences objectively, and with an eye toward science and skepticism.

Like, say someone who is interested in Bigfoot is hiking in the northwest, and he sees a big, hulking upright primate figure about fifty meters away lumber off into the woods. The most likely and reasonable explanation is that he saw a person, but maybe he works it around in his mind, and becomes more and more convinced that it was a Sasquatch. I am not certain that he is delusional, but he certainly is probably not properly rationalizing his own experience. Human observational ability and human memory are quite fallible.

My wife and I experienced what most people would call a haunting. The most significant events, which only happened a couple of times, were tactile. Now, I don't pretend to understand what it was that we experienced, but to deny it would be intellectually dishonest. I know for a fact what happened. I would have to be delusional to convince myself that it didn't happen.

Humans are falllible, but we also surivive by depending on our senses. They are generally quite reliable.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Humans are falllible, but we also surivive by depending on our senses. They are generally quite reliable.

I won't say that they are generally reliable, they are most of time wrong, but we rely on them nevertheless, cause these are our only means to investigate this world.

 

[||spoon||]

Are personal beliefs logically bound by the limits of science?

No, people can believe whatever they want. But whether that belief is rational or not is another matter.

Also, on another note, why are tgere specific guidelines on this forum with regards to religion? There are non with regards to political systems or sports teams...

Religon is simply an opinion about how the world works, why should this have special guidelines which supersede those (that don't exist) regarding peoples political opinions? Or any other philispphical opinions etc.

-spoon

 

[Moonbear]

I won't say that they are generally reliable, they are most of time wrong, but we rely on them nevertheless, cause these are our only means to investigate this world.

Most of the time? Usually, the senses work just fine. It's really just once in a while that something happens that "fools" the brain and can't be processed correctly, leading to an unreliable perception. An example would be optical illusions. Perhaps the reality is a drawing of static symbols, but the person perceives motion, or the reality is a 2-D sketch, but the person perceives 3 dimensions, or the drawing is nothing but a bunch of dots, but the person perceives a solid image. When someone sees something without context, another person with them could help provide the context, even if they are doing so inadvertently.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

It depends on how do you look at it, your perception of the light spectrum doesn't cover it in its entirety so you can't claim something according to your sight, that it's correct to all living beings, so how do you know that this sense is correct?

So as I said we can do nothing without the senses, but they are most of the time wrong, even when we think they are working properly, we can't trust them wholeheartedly, we need our reason to guide us through our senses, without reason we're just machines.

 

[Lisa!]

You mean 50% of American doesn't believe in my existence?

 

[cristo]

If you have any related papers published in an appropriate academic journal, sure, but you will have to post a reference first, and then limit the discussion to the facts.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=82c88cd709652a9a24d1a902d8106a8f is one such abstract, entitled 'Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations.'

 

[cristo]

My wife isn't bound to demand scientific proof before she believes my story.

But the fact that your wife believes you is neither here nor there. However, I would expect that others demand scientific evidence before believing a 'supernatural' explanation of such a sighting.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry for the long delay - got caught-up in politics.

But the fact that your wife believes you is neither here nor there. However, I would expect that others demand scientific evidence before believing a 'supernatural' explanation of such a sighting.

It is entirely the point for my wife. We are talking about justification for personal belief, not scientific proof. My point is that there can be a difference, and this a personal choice. [btw, this was just a hypothetical, though we really did experience a "haunting"]

The flawed logic found here is that personal belief is only justified by sufficient scientific evidence. If that were the case, then personal belief would have a higher standard than our courts of law - given that we execute people based on legal evidence, and not necessarily scientific evidence. Now, one may choose to set such a standard, but this is hardly a requirement of logic. Logic also tells me who I might believe based on my knowledge of that person. And I am certainly logically free to base my beliefs on direct personal experience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, people can believe whatever they want. But whether that belief is rational or not is another matter.

That does not suggest that beliefs based on personal experience, or trust in others, is irrational.

Religon is simply an opinion about how the world works, why should this have special guidelines which supersede those (that don't exist) regarding peoples political opinions? Or any other philispphical opinions etc.

-spoon

We can talk about religion, but no bashing or promotion of specific beliefs are allowed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Most of the time? Usually, the senses work just fine. It's really just once in a while that something happens that "fools" the brain and can't be processed correctly, leading to an unreliable perception. An example would be optical illusions. Perhaps the reality is a drawing of static symbols, but the person perceives motion, or the reality is a 2-D sketch, but the person perceives 3 dimensions, or the drawing is nothing but a bunch of dots, but the person perceives a solid image. When someone sees something without context, another person with them could help provide the context, even if they are doing so inadvertently.

Of course this is often a default explanation given even if it contradicts the alleged facts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=82c88cd709652a9a24d1a902d8106a8f is one such abstract, entitled 'Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations.'

Too bad I can't read it. What was the journal?

The first question would be whether this relates to education. If the IQs are known, then it must be that formal education has already influenced beliefs. As is evident on this forum, people in academia have a strong bias against religion, so it is logical to assume that this bias carries through in lower education.

Is there any correlation between IQ and status of a nation? ie. Do people in developed nations generally have higher IQs than people in underdeveloped nations?

Also, I have seen several discussion that suggest that IQ is not a valid measure of intelligence. In fact I think this is generally accepted now. So it makes me wonder if IQ tests are selective for people who are proof oriented; or even people who are inordinately distrustful of others.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

You mean 50% of American doesn't believe in my existence?

I believe you exist, but your'e no angel.
But you can be the devil if you only want to. (-:

 

[K.J.Healey]

Too bad I can't read it. What was the journal?

The first question would be whether this relates to education. If the IQs are known, then it must be that formal education has already influenced beliefs. As is evident on this forum, people in academia have a strong bias against religion, so it is logical to assume that this bias carries through in lower education.

Is there any correlation between IQ and status of a nation? ie. Do people in developed nations generally have higher IQs than people in underdeveloped nations?

Also, I have seen several discussion that suggest that IQ is not a valid measure of intelligence. In fact I think this is generally accepted now. So it makes me wonder if IQ tests are selective for people who are proof oriented; or even people who are inordinately distrustful of others.

It was published by "Intelligence" :
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620195/description

What's funny is that USA is fairly outside of the trend. (Being both average intelligence and God believing).

Try to find somewhere to get the article, it was pretty good. It did not seem to attempt to make any accusations against religious people and their intelligence, it merely put forth the data and correlations for however many countries. If I were more religious and one those capable of analysis without being defensive due to pride, I would not be offended by this article.

 

[muppet]

Of course this is often a default explanation given even if it contradicts the alleged facts.

By the "alleged facts" do you mean the evidence of an eyewitness? I take the point of your allusion to the scientific method: if a model can't accommodate evidence, then the model is wrong.
However, the point of acknowledging that humans are fallible is that a model that precludes the possibility of the supernatural can accommodate isolated incidents that none of us could explain were we in a position to see them. Hume's maxim:

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless its falsehood be more miraculous than that which it pupports to be true.

Take quantum mechanics. I don't think anyone really believes the interpretation of the two-slit experiment when they first hear it. There's a chain of thought which rules out all the possibilities we could think of based on our classical experience- bouncing off the walls of the slits, etc. Then, when you accompany this strange new idea with its power to predict the results of so many different experiments performed by different people in cases where our intuition fails us, and with the fact that quantum mechanics also tells us why we don't observe macroscopic quantum effects, it becomes more likely that the full generality of nature's rulebook isn't observed on a day-to-day basis than it is that so many people and such a comprehensive set of rules could be wrong.

I'd also be wary of basing conclusions about academia by people on this forum. Scientists are more likely than the general public to be atheist (I read that something like ~85% of practicing scientists in the US are atheist) but I don't know that that will translate across to arts subjects- a great many of those scientists will reject religion because they perceive that there is a lack of evidence to believe it, wheras most other disciplines aren't so intrinsically sceptical. Nor do I think you can argue that it filters down into lower education. School teaching is intrinsically different to academia- it's more about the kids you work with than the subject you teach. The mindset and environment are different.

 

[Damascus Road]

I deleted a couple of posts that were insults to people of faith. While it is understandable that some people find religious or faith based beliefs logically offensive, please refrain from making personal insults.

I just wanted to make the comment that all people are people of faith. Much of our science and what we think we know is based on assumptions.
Many people here likely believe that only what they can see is real, and that our modern science is mostly true - but its still a belief.

 

[ForMyThunder]

I believe in God. And I believe in angels. Why does this alarm and offend so many people?