First off...i study philosophy and religion, but am a complete layman when it comes to a lot of the in depth studies that some arguments take. I went to high school with a friend who was (is) the most intelligent person i know. He was an atheist at the time, as well as through college, but about a year ago i had heard that he converted to Judaism. I found this very puzzling at the time, especially since i didn't know much about Reform Judaism, which is more like being a Deist than a fundamentalist orthodox jew. After a few chats with him i felt that he was actually just a Reform Jew and not actually practicing any orthodoxy. I knew that he had married a jewish woman and this was partly due to his conversion, but i felt he was a little too intelligent to have that as his only basis. I then asked him and he told me that he leaned more philosophically towards reform judaism, but (here's the curve ball) he actually belonged to one of the strictest orthodox sects for interpreting the torah and rabbinical writings.
He is a professor now at a VERY prestigious college, sitting as the associate professor of philosophy of logic and mathematics. So i asked him about what it was philosophically that could have changed his mind. I have read michael shermers book "why people believe weird things," and have read the chapter on how intelligent people can believe non-intelligent things because they are very good at arguing through their specific field of knowledge. My friend is no different, because he constantly baffles me and leaves me speechless when he answers some of my questions. He went on to tell me about how he had read Wittgensteins book "On Certainty" and that had partial meaning to him because we are just not biologically set up to be 100% certain of anything. Well, i read the book and aside from all the redundancy, i can say that it didn't really sway me one way or the other and i felt that Wittgenstein was actually stating, in a way, that asking questions about gods existence isn't important anyway since it deals with the supernatural and that is something our minds cannot grasp anyway...fair enough.
Secondly, he is a philosophy of logic professor, and i have noticed that there is a great deal of difference in belief systems that certain philosophers hold along with scientific colleagues. Those dealing along the lines of biology, physics, religious philosophy, and things that are more naturalistic tend to be less inclined to believe in a god or creator, but i have also noticed that Logicians and Mathematicians are sometimes (but not always) prone to believe in god because of all the mathematical patterns that they see. One example, which he did not give me, but i did see it was part of his curriculum was that of Godels Ontological Argument. This is modal logic and its mathematics tend to bog me down because i am just not good in this particular field of study, and quite frankly it is very boring, but i can see how someone of great intelligence, especially dealing with mathematics and logic might deduce from all the patterns that there was something out there that could have created us.
I am an atheist to all world religions. I am agnostic to the idea that something could have created this universe, i don't feel that it is necessary, but i cannot simply say one way or the other because no one knows: no theist, no atheist, no deist, and certainly not myself. It is something that is just not within our current grasp as well as scientific and technological ability to understand, and honestly...can we ever understand the supernatural and know what is not part of the natural?
My main question in all of this is wondering if anyone understands Modal Logic, and also wondering if anyone might have some insight into why this seems to be more of a trend with people that are very intelligent when it comes to mathematics and logic, because i certainly cannot win an argument with them because i have no idea what they are talking about most of the time, haha.