Has there been any scientific data which shows that people who believe in determinism are more intelligent than people...

Has there been any scientific data which shows that people who believe in determinism are more intelligent than people who believe in free will?

its the same answer with do people who believe in maths and causality are more intelligent than people who believe in magic and skydaddy.

I wish

Yeah, fuck religious people and mystics.

people who belive in both determininsm and skydaddy are the master race.

Newton master race

mysticism inherently goes against progress, because it implies there's no reason to find an answer, which is why it needs to be abandoned. We will never understand how consciousness works if we just say it's because of supernatural forces. We will never understand how anything works if we just say that it happens because of supernatural forces.

>tfw the world's most famous logicians and mathematicians were highly religious

Dark memer, your fedora doesn't quite point in the direction of the winds of history.

Have you ever actually taken the time to study what mystics believe? Mysticism doesn't imply, "welp, that's magic. I'm done." In fact, most mystic religious sects seek explanation through mystic tradition. You don't even need to expend that much effort: just Google the word "mystic." Its definition involves the apprehension of truths.

Of course, you're only looking to have your opinion validated by the echo chamber of your angsty, self-illuminated, underachieving peers, so you wouldn't care if what you say is patently false.

>what is a correlation?

Yeah, the very definition of mysticism is knowledge that is only known to the initiated. You know what they call knowledge that is only proof to the people who think it? Bullshit.

nope,

you may separate both:

instead of taking science as a tool of finding truth, use science as a tool for creating models with high predictive capability, focusing not in a science to "understand" the universe but to make useful predictions about the universe. This use of science as a useful tool instead of the understanding of science as some "truth" will give you enough space to fill with non-scientific beliefs that can't interfere in the scientific pursuit while those beliefs don't prove to be more useful than the current scientific models. This view of science would stop religion and mystic belief from delaying techno-progress since it's based on usefulness, but at the same time don't stop any individual from holding non-scientific beliefs.

False. Mysticism is the belief that there exists knowledge outside of the natural intellect that may only be obtained by surrender to something greater than the intellect. You're confusing mysticism with gnosticism (there is also gnostic mysticism).

Mysticism inherently involves effort seeking further explanations of the world around us, as with any rational inquiry. The difference is that the mystic doesn't rely on intellect alone.

example:

Is Newton's model of mechanics true? You may say "no", since Einstein's has more predictive capability. But who knows if there will be even better models with even better predictive capability in the future? By avoiding the question of "what is true" you'll get a science that favors the most useful theories instead of wasting time with non-productive questions.

>who is Bertrand Russell
>who is Albert Einstein
>who is Stephen Hawking
>who is Voltaire
Jesus dude, you can't even appeal to authority correctly. That was just off the top of my head.

>seeking explanation through tradition rather than experiment
Into the it goes

Sharing a single trait with a couple notable dudes from 400 years ago doesn't make you a genius by proxy

You may belive that the Illuminati control the world, that God will come back in the year 2060 and that the earth is flat, but none of those beliefs would interfere with your science since they have no predictive capability what would destroy their model usefulness.

>Mysticism is the belief that there exists knowledge outside of the natural intellect that may only be obtained by surrender to something greater than the intellect
So in other words it's absolute bullshit. Yeah, let's convince ourselves that we're right and by self serving bias think we actually are. I'm having a mystical experience right now, wait, wait! I see a mystical correlation between your post and pure feces, I can almost sense the feces! It's like a sign or something, I think I'm experiencing the essence of pure bullshit! You must have been right!

>science as a tool of finding truth
only physics freshmen do that though, most people realize that the scientific methods has its limits

not exactly...

most of the christfag groups are brainlets, but Anglicans are the master race:

>jews are also winning against fedoras

Who gives a shit? Does it change anything

If Stephen Hawking is proof that atheism is right, then I can easily say that Isaac Newton is proof that theism is right

>who is Newton
>who is Liebniz
>who is Euler
>who is Guass
>who is Riemann
>who is Faraday
>who is Maxwell
>who is Mendel
>who is Planck
>who is Church

There's also the whole bunch of deist philosophers of the 18-19th century that essentially formed the entire body of modern mathematical logic and philosophy.

I can also cherrypick. My claim was that many famous intellectuals of history were Christian. This is not an appeal to authority, but rather a direct refutation of your claim that "people who believe in maths and causality are more intelligent than people who believe in magic and skydaddy."

You speak of bias, but you're the one speaking from bias. I've merely given you the definition of mysticism, and you're going on about sniffing fecal matter. Calm down, catch your breath, and then read the dictionary definition of the word "mystic."

You seem to be clinging to the thought that mysticism is a blind rejection of thought; it's not. Here are the premises:

>the human intellect is limited
>there exists something greater than the human intellect
>that which is greater than the human intellect may allow the human to understand more

Mysticism, as defined, has nothing to do with seeking 'mystic experiences' to validate belief. Mysticism has everything to do with seeking unknown truths by all means available to us.

> the world's most famous logicians and mathematicians were highly religious
Your exact words bro.
And don't think I didn't notice that only two of those guys contributed anything within the past 100 years. Newton did a lot of work trying to mathematically analyze the Bible and studying demons. He thought that the philosopher's stone was a real thing and actively tried to make it through alchemy. Should we just give credence to any old thing some philosopher from the 1600s believed?

x is more intelligent than y
so everything x say is true and everything y say is false

this is a crazy way to think

You claim that these individuals are somehow irrelevant because they lived hundreds of years ago; this doesn't change the fact that their contributions were fundamental and required considerable intellectual capacity.

For the record, the only reason why I didn't list any of the many contemporary Christian philosophers, logicians, and mathematicians is because you genuinely have not convinced me that you're educated enough to be able to recognize any modern popular figure in academia outside of the layperson memes you see on Facebook.

My point is that you can't reject or predict an individual's intellectual worth based upon their beliefs. Since Newton gave a major intellectual contribution, you must recognize his capacity. What you're doing is attempting to belittle his importance because you've become to conflate rejection of religion with intellectual ability.

But, to oblige your stated interest in modern figures in mathematics and logic who were religious (since this topic is also of interest to me), here are a few:

>Ernst Zemelo
>Cantor, who, like Newton, sought to establish a connection between God and mathematics
>Abraham Fraenkel, religious Zionist Jew
>Alfred Whitehead, long-time collaborator of Bertrand Russell
>Godel, tried to prove God exists in a first-order language

I think that's pretty clearly not the point I was making, but I'll leave that to the rest of the thread to decide.
>I know all these super great genius philosophers that you've probably never heard of and anyway you couldn't even comprehend them so I won't even post them or tell you who they are something something facebook
Alright dude, whatever.
I don't know if you know this, but we still use some of Newton's ideas to this day. Specifically, we use the GOOD ideas that he had. There's a reason nobody teaches Numerology 1001 at Uni.

Main point is this: Blanket saying "this guy had some good ideas, let's just uncritically accept everything they ever said about any subject" is beyond retarded

It's a good thing that I'm not saying "this guy had some good ideas, let's just uncritically accept everything they ever said about any subject."

I'm saying this: this guy had some good ideas that others before him couldn't understand; let's not write everything else off because we don't understand it.

For the record, I was blessed to have the opportunity to attend an extremely prestigious university; our mathematics department actually regularly has special topics courses like numerology. You would be surprised at how intricate some numerology systems are.

Also, many numerology systems have direct connections to the movements of celestial bodies, so they are interesting from a physical perspective as well.

Terrible thread, delete your account.

People who say they don't believe in determinism are trying to convince you that one's own eyes and ears can't be trusted to provide an educated guess as to outcomes.