Bw. Pundit,
Nadhani nina muda mchache wa kuzungumzia hoja zako hivyo sitaenda neno kwa neno. Mchango wangu ni kama ifuatavyo:
1. Nakubaliana nawe kuwa suala la kumtaja M/Mungu kwenye wimbo wa taifa ni secondary, la kwanza linalotakwa ni uwepo wa M/Mungu. Hoja yangu nasisitiza hapa kama nilivyosema awali, ili mja aweze kudispute sifa za M/Mungu inabidi kwenye kuwepo na makubaliano kwamba yupo. Hapo ndipo tunaweza kuongelea habari ya omnipotent, all knower, all knowledgeable VS huma freewill. Bila ya kuwa na platform hii, hakuwezi kuwa na muafaka kwani atakayekuwa ana-dispute uweza wa M/Mungu atatumia hoja za uwepo wa M/Mungu, na hapo zoezi litaendelea on-and-on.
2. Pia umetaja kuwa M/Mungu anafeli simple Eucledian Geometry seuze logical test (allegation). Sidhani kama nna msaada mkubwa sana kwako ktk hili. Maana nilishatahadharisha toka posting yangu ya awali kuwa kama unataka kumscrutinize M/Mungu you should be at least in same level as Him. Hapo umejaribu kulinganisha na complex physical phenomenon, I think the two are queit different. Na pia umesema kuwa God's complexity does n't exclude Him from scrutiny, I guess you are right, but kama nilivyosema, provided God exists it is logical to say hakuna bin'adamu mwenye total capacity na tools za kum-scrutinize Muumba wake na kufanya any meaningful probe, hivyo his effort will lead into futility.
Kwa kuongezea, kuhusiana na logic unayodhani ni kila kitu..Chukua mfano wa argument hii.
i. A is less than B,
ii. B is less than C ,
iii. then A should be less than C
This argument is completely logical when looked at its nature. But this logical argument is NOT necessarily true..and it is even fallacious at some conditions. Thats means sometimes you may find illogical arguments to be true too.
Therefore applying uncertain convention of 'human logic' to test Almighty is basically laughable and faulty. The idea of applying 'test' to God is very loose to me. Our Creator deserves better than that because he deserves it.
God is my shepherd,
Abdulhaleem al Masih
The good thing about us is we are more 'skeptical'. With higher intelligence more often then not comes a natural urge to ask questions, to not simply accept the things as they are but to want to understand it. This often (and especially in church dominated times) leads to clashes with the religious establishment.
Kama umechunguza kwa makini utaona naturally inquisitive and skeptical people have a strong tendency to turn their backs to people who tell them to think as they are told and just accept without question (which is what a large part of religion is about unfortunately). It does not mean that these people are actively atheists, just that they don't take the teachings of churches for granted.
In other words: a priest claims something, he better backs it up.
In past times the search for answers on both scientific and religious questions more often then not took the same form. In modern days, these have become more separated and largely because of various churches refusing to accept the most well proven facts (in the past for instance the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, in modern days things like the age of the planet).
When religious people deny such things without even the slightest form of evidence other then a single source that has been orally copied hundreds of times before being written down and copied and translated countless times, these skeptical people turn away from those religious mainstreams.
So: are they religious? probably not, at least not active; do they believe in God? well, most honestly do not know, a few do not and many do. Basically just like the ordinary person.
The big difference is that they chose not to take their doubts to church and simply ignore the question since there is no definite answer and history told them to be wary of religion anyway (in past times, doctors got burned for claiming the blood flows).
Not to mention that it seems an acceptable means to convince people of 'your' religion by threatening, either by force or eternal damnation. Since various religions all claim that they are the only once being right, it still comes down to the individual chose and many of the so called intellectual elite just have not chosen who to believe and most are not easily persuaded to change their ideas because of a threat (in any form).
If religious people want to make believers out of those intellectuals they have beat them with agreements and by far most religious people don't have the ability and/or the patience to even try. In such situations these people tend to oppose whatever is threatening them and in the case of religion that attitude results in a form of atheism.
This however does not mean that more intelligent people are active atheists but much more that they have proposed the question and simply don't think about the existence of God. So with people who consider themselves atheists you need to ask the question of what they mean by that. There is a big difference between denying the existence of God and simply not assuming that God exists.
It is, in other words, not actual intelligence but more a natural urge to keep asking questions and remain skeptical and inquisitive. Those traits however do occur more in people as they are more intelligent.