World's most intelligent man believes in God

This disproves the atheist mantra that religious people are just stupid or uneducated, believing in a Higher Power is actually way deeper than simply having a "lack of belief".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID),[20] a professional society which promotes intelligent design,[21] and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002.[22] Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[23] In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, a collection of essays that question evolution and promote intelligent design, edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.[24]

Asked about creationism, Langan has said:

I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.[14]

Langan explains on his website that he believes "since Biblical accounts of the genesis of our world and species are true but metaphorical, our task is to correctly decipher the metaphor in light of scientific evidence also given to us by God". He explains

In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.[25]

Langan has said elsewhere that he does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he "can't afford to let [his] logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma."[14] He calls himself "a respecter of all faiths, among peoples everywhere."[14]

 

Langan certainly deserves respect for his views. They are highly complex, much like my own religious views as an apathetic atheist. Albert Einstein believed in Spinoza's God. Either way, the idiosyncrasies of religious, moral, and ethical philosophy cannot be put into absolute terms, nor can or should they be constrained by theory, scientific or not.

 

I would point out that there are many different kinds of intelligence, and that all an IQ score really tells you for sure about someone is how well they can do on an IQ test. Not saying this Langan fellow isn't a smart guy, but "world's most intelligent man" is a tricky title to be handing out.

This brings up an interesting semantic question, I think. What exactly do we mean by "God"? Langan uses the word 'God', but his definition (based on a quick skim of the wiki page) wouldn't be exactly the same as the definition used by someone of another faith. Not saying there's a clear 'correct' definition that we should all use, mind you, but it's an interesting question, I think.

 

Doesn't sound too smart to be honest. IQ test are well known to be highly inaccurate. Nice try.

 

I certainly agree, yet there is no reason not to conclude from such that Langan is unintelligent. Like you, I do not appreciate the empirical jab SpaceCricket is trying to make at atheists. It assumes that we as a group are highly polarizing, militant adherents, when that is not true. We are a group of diverse viewpoints and theoretical frameworks with various degrees of empirical substantiation. Our views, like those of theists, should be given equal respect in the conversation on divinity, spirituality, morality, and religion.

 

Plus he sounds confused. He believes that the story of creation in the Bible is true, a metaphor and allegory. So in other words, he believes that it's not true at all?

 

He is stating that the story of creation in the Bible is true, but uses metaphor and allegory to portray its truths. At the same time, he believes that we as a society must decipher the metaphorical and allegorical language to substantiate and correlate to in the scientific sense. In other words, the Bible provides a figurative description of how the universe came to be. I do not think this is a bad position to take. First and foremost, his stance is rather Pantheistic in nature, attributing the divine and nature to each other. Second, if he is an honest man of science, then he will determine, upon deciphering the allegorical and metaphorical nature of the bible, whether such is true, and if so, to what extent the empirical substance in relation to the aforementioned is logically sound, and to what extent it is not.

 

"Creation" is not only allegorical but a very concrete fact. Some things are without any evolution. For example: A circle (= Circumference diveded by diameter is pi) was since the very first beginning of the universe a circle - although the universe never had enough place to notice somewhere the complete value of pi (3,141592654 ...). A simple circle is indeed a transcendent miraculum. Without this [and other] miracle we would not even be able to do natural science.

http://youtu.be/2u0XXpVGUwk

 

Oh good, he believes in evolution. Score for science!

 

Science has already disproved the account of creation in the Bible.

 

SC79 wrote: World's most intelligent man believes in God

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... he ain't no dummy."

 

Evolution is a natural law. What do you call "belief" in this context?

http://youtu.be/exuj_wO0vlY

 

Not everyone is able to be as intelligent as a tank (=Panzer). Do you have any other argument than "everyone who believes in god is an idiot"?

http://youtu.be/pddW-HeHAwo

 

Please show me how science backs up the Biblical creation story at all.

 

What do you call "science" about 6000 years ago? What are you comparing if you are comparing an old text of the bible with what exactly?

http://youtu.be/9-DuC0tE7V4

 

Can't do it I take it.

 

I guess you are thinking this is an intelligent answer. And to be honest: My motivation to speak with a Nazi about science and god is nearly not existing. Very short: You are able to see knowledge as a row of approximations. The first step is always a new quality - afterwards we are able to find quantitative laws. While some hundred years ago some philosophers called Christians idiots because everyone knew that the world was existing since ever a bishop got the idea to find a new method to decide this question. He calculated 6000 years for the date of creation. Starting from this first step of approximation we reached today a point where we are thinking the date was 13.7 billion years ago.

http://youtu.be/2rALVgdoMHk

 

The most intelligent people realise that intelligence has nothing to do with whether one believes in the existence of God. Think about that.

 

I don't think all religious people are stupid and uneducated so I guess I'm either not actually an atheist or (and this might be a difficult concept) you're wrong about that being an "atheist mantra".

The intellectual depth of something isn't measured in the conclusion but in the manner of getting there. There are shallow theists and deep theists just as there are shallow atheists and deep atheists. As it happens, I suspect this person's views on the issues are much deeper and more nuanced that Wikipedia can encompass. That doesn't stop me disagreeing with some of the conclusions he's reached.

Of course, after all that, he doesn't even describe himself as religious at all. There is a world of difference in believing in the existence of some divine creator and building a whole temporal religion around it.

 

Spacecadet as been scratching around for week to find an equal (in his mind) to Einstein, since recent threads have shown Einstein not to be a god-botherer. This box-ticking expert would seem to be his best shot.

 

...and a fail.

A chancer then, by our standards.

OP, the World and the US are different.

This man seems to be making it up as he goes along, in every area of "research"... The Emperor has no clothes.

 

It sounds like he has started with a conclusion (the Bible is right) and is looking for evidence to support it. Hardly a rational approach.

Sounds like he tests well in some areas, like an autistic savant might, but I doubt he's intelligent in more than just one area.

 

making fire, cloths, and doing the queer up the rear to an liars that claims, bible is science.

lots of books older than babbles.

Science enables truth, bible thumpers continue lying!

 

Please: Natural science is natural philosophy. The roots of natural philosophy is the ancient greek culture - not the bible. The christian religion as "the" greek religion was important for the rebirth of the ancient greek philosophy that became modern natural science.

Truth is completly independent from science. Science is only an instrument. And I'm not interested in your hate against Christians.

http://youtu.be/cFid-6nC4n0

 

Your point is what? Even Charles Darwin believed in a God.