What do the more recent frequenters of Sciforums make of this:
http://www.sciforums.com/group.php?discussionid=46&pp=10&page=1&do=discuss
http://www.sciforums.com/group.php?discussionid=46&pp=10&page=1&do=discuss
Are believers less intelligent than Atheists? Discuss
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
Funny... that.
Much religion starts with a lack of a decent definition of the word "knowledge" and therefore has some serious problems. Of course there are many issues theists have had to deal with over the years to keep these systematic theologies sensible, most have basically failed to do so, and resort to the rule of, "the pastor/pope/guru/lama/sensei/mom/dad told me so, and he knows more than me". When religions become unscientific, as opposed to just non-scientific, they are bound to pose more problems to logical people. But no, believers are not inherently less intelligent, and i think if believers had a basic understanding of epistemology, and were more able than an atheist to rationally accept the truth that we are both learned AND ignorant as a species, it would be a more intelligent position than logical positivism. I'm clearly not saying this is the case as things stand today though, it is more of a hope that religion could get it's act together and find a way for knowledge and faith to coexist more peacefully than it does now in most religion.
EDIT - also, in regards to the other thread, it is clear that a worldview that contains everything an atheists worldview contains plus one more object, i.e. a God, is more complex, not less complex, and requires more thought, not less. if we are talking about the type of religion that allows people to say, "God did it" is the only explanation we need in lieu of science, then that WOULD be less complex, but those religions are going to have to amend themselves sooner or later.
EDIT - also, in regards to the other thread, it is clear that a worldview that contains everything an atheists worldview contains plus one more object, i.e. a God, is more complex, not less complex, and requires more thought, not less. if we are talking about the type of religion that allows people to say, "God did it" is the only explanation we need in lieu of science, then that WOULD be less complex, but those religions are going to have to amend themselves sooner or later.
What do you mean by ''intelligent''?
jan.
jan.
Last edited:
On the whole, I think atheists and believers can be just as intelligent. It's just that believers are less intelligent in one particular area, their belief. Even highly respected scientists can compartmentalize different areas of interest.
You seem to view intelligence by how many variables you have in your world view - that this makes it "more complex, not less complex, and requires more thought, not less"?
If I have a closed box and rattle it around and hear a noise, I could either come to the conclusion that there is an object in the box rattling around, or that there are an army of minute pixies banging into the walls that mimick precisely the motion of an object, and these pixies also make a sound that mimicks a dull thud of an object at each impact, and that these pixies are flying due to the power they get from eating cheese sandwiches.
The latter has more variables in the "world-view" of the closed box... so you would say that it is a more intelligent position to hold than merely concluding that there is an object in the box?
Complexity does not equate to intelligent.
Really? Where is it evident in any particular religion (your choice) that "knowledge" is ill-defined? And why does that create a problem?
I'm curious as to what the difference between unscientific and non-scientific is.
Studies seem to say otherwise. What do you base this claim on?
This does not follow. You're saying that if believers were more rational than non-believers, then belief would be a more intelligent position than logical empiricism. The intelligence of a person does not make their position an intelligent one. William Layne Craig is an intelligent man, but his position that God exists as evidenced by nature is not an intelligent position. Ultimately what it comes to is which position is stronger--that of faith or that of reason. And reason wins every time.
Peacefully coexisting is a nice goal, but this would say nothing of the strength of faith as an intellectual position. It would simply mean that religion backed off of its claim to primacy.
God is replacing an unknown quantity in that worldview, so it is not making the worldview less complex at all, it's simply defining exactly how complex the worldview can ever be.
How is that any different than the worldview that tacks God on as the proverbial donkey's tail? It's science up until the point of the Big Bang, and then it's faith again. Where's the complexity?
When we have finally come to a conclusion on this subject given the information provided in the OP, do you think we can discuss whether black people are less intelligent than white people ... or do you think that would be a matter of poor taste?
When we have finally come to a conclusion on this subject given the information provided in the OP, do you think we can discuss whether black people are less intelligent than white people ... or do you think that would be a matter of poor taste?
It's not the same thing at all, and you should be ashamed for even suggesting that it is. This is the kind of dishonesty and baiting that makes having a serious discussion here impossible.
You're lucky I'm not a moderator, because that post would be deleted and you'd be watching from the sidelines for a week.
You are free to lay out your own definitions and axioms. Read the link and then respond as you see fit
Yes, the issue of high ranking scientists possibly harbouring closet beliefs on god, is an intriguing one.
When we have finally come to a conclusion on this subject given the information provided in the OP, do you think we can discuss whether black people are less intelligent than white people ... or do you think that would be a matter of poor taste?
Well we all know the data on the intelligence of black people, and the fact the causes of lower quotients is unclear. We also know that oriental people score higher than white people, but it didn't stop the inventiveness of Europe/European blood. This issue is complex and could be caused by nurture more than nature? Black people are clawing their way up monetarily, and nothing will stop them. I see them as the next wave to peak . . .
But of course the differences are palpable. Religion is cross-race. I find the data from the source thread intriguing. I wouldn't say that it definitely means that less intelligent people somehow flock to religion. IQ test scores can be malleable, and also improved as one develops from child to adult. Nurture has to be heavily involved in any psychological analysis equation?
I recently argued/debated on IQ here: http://www.facebook.com/JasonWadeHoward/posts/10151976821645694 (an exploration of ideas on the subject).
But the issue/variable of religion into the mix raises some new questions . . .
I would suggest that religious belief often gives people an excuse to throttle their intelligence. It isn't {necessarily) that believers are less intelligent but they don't always use their intelligence, especially in areas where they think faith might give a "better" answer. If you don't use it, it can appear in studies as if you don't have it.
For sure, that's a factor.
I personally believe that there are religious ideas that are damaging to intelligence, (e.g. fundie churches attack philosophizing with the verse "do not be carried away by vain philosophy", and promoting groupthink) and that those ideas have to be removed so we can move forward.
about the complexity thing - i was just pointing out that the original thread had a problem with section 2a according to its own definition, and therefore is not valid. A better definition of intelligence is necessary. There are other factors as well. Perhaps religion thrives more in places where people have less money and feel more dependent on a higher power, which would account for correlation in I.Q. or testing scores based on income level of parents, and scholastic opportunity - perhaps religion is not an actual factor greater than the statistical margin of error. Also, adding God in the worldview becomes more complex by definition, because it does not take away one iota of data, while it adds some. Of course adding any number of things would make the worldview more complex, but making calculations about things that don't exist isn't more intelligent on a meta-intelligence level, just more raw processing being done for no reason. Again, a better definition of intelligence is required. Processing, accordance with logic, and/or what?
the smart guy in the article that was posted on facebook, who says he isn't so especially smart is pretty damn smart when he says that. Obviously somebody who sits around reading philosophy and science is going to have the appearance of being more intelligent than someone who uses their raw processing power to fry eggs all day long. If a person were to sit around all day thinking about this shit and some other guy doesn't, and therefore they can pull out a quote from some famous philosopher, or provide an explanation based on some data, or make a functional connection between two ideas, does that mean they have more raw mental processing power? No clearly not.
@balerion - knowledge is clearly ill-defined when people call belief "knowledge", which is very common, even more so by religious fundies than by atheist fundies (although the contest is a close one) - it even seems that, according to your post on the other thread, you yourself have "knowledge" of the afterlife, which seems a bit odd to me. I actually AM saying that "I don't know" is a more intelligent use of the word "know" than "i know", and that we should reserve the word "know" for things we know, which are very few.
about the complexity thing - i was just pointing out that the original thread had a problem with section 2a according to its own definition, and therefore is not valid. A better definition of intelligence is necessary. There are other factors as well. Perhaps religion thrives more in places where people have less money and feel more dependent on a higher power, which would account for correlation in I.Q. or testing scores based on income level of parents, and scholastic opportunity - perhaps religion is not an actual factor greater than the statistical margin of error. Also, adding God in the worldview becomes more complex by definition, because it does not take away one iota of data, while it adds some. Of course adding any number of things would make the worldview more complex, but making calculations about things that don't exist isn't more intelligent on a meta-intelligence level, just more raw processing being done for no reason. Again, a better definition of intelligence is required. Processing, accordance with logic, and/or what?
the smart guy in the article that was posted on facebook, who says he isn't so especially smart is pretty damn smart when he says that. Obviously somebody who sits around reading philosophy and science is going to have the appearance of being more intelligent than someone who uses their raw processing power to fry eggs all day long. If a person were to sit around all day thinking about this shit and some other guy doesn't, and therefore they can pull out a quote from some famous philosopher, or provide an explanation based on some data, or make a functional connection between two ideas, does that mean they have more raw mental processing power? No clearly not.
@balerion - knowledge is clearly ill-defined when people call belief "knowledge", which is very common, even more so by religious fundies than by atheist fundies (although the contest is a close one) - it even seems that, according to your post on the other thread, you yourself have "knowledge" of the afterlife, which seems a bit odd to me. I actually AM saying that "I don't know" is a more intelligent use of the word "know" than "i know", and that we should reserve the word "know" for things we know, which are very few.
Why the desire to move forward with religion at all?
Adding God removes the potentiality for other data, so in that sense it's actually less complex than what is likely to be discovered as time goes on and the sciences advance. And in this context complexity is not a benefit to the matter or an indicator that those who hold it are more intelligent because their belief has more data. Quite the contrary, because it stifles skepticism by claiming to be the ultimate answer and relies upon faith rather than the rational mind to be accepted. Since you can't posit God through any known data, you must posit it based upon scripture.
I think we know enough to make an educated guess. I can at least say that I know the paradise scenarios laid out in the holy books are hogwash, because I know the holy books are hogwash. All it takes is some scholarship to know that. But I could even say that based on the little we know about consciousness--which so far only amounts to the notion that it is a function of the brain--that there's no reason to believe any sort of consciousness beyond brain death is possible. Sure, you could still ultimately say "I don't know," but that seems a rather dishonest tact given the things we do actually know.
- well, religion needs to be protected from the types who used it in the past to damage others. Avoiding the application of the word "knowledge" would be a good start toward keeping people from killing each other for their beliefs, or using their "beliefs" as a way to dehumanize a people group they wanted to enslave or take the capital goods of. There are many reasons, not the least of which being the idea that humans may actually need something outside of humanity to intervene in this mess, like a savior or bodhisattva, to continue moving forward. Maybe we are too screwed up to get out of this mess with no help. Maybe not. Perhaps, in the pursuit of the king of birds, we will find that we can together BE the king of birds - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conference_of_the_Birds How am i supposed to know?
- i don't know what data God "removes" - please give an example. I don't see how an idea of God "stifles skepticism". I have to deal with multiple layers of my own skepticism on the pros and cons of many ideas that wouldn't exist if I had no metaphysical philosophy, yet any actual category of postulates you have in your world is included in mine, as far as i can tell. Of course you have many specific ideas floating around, like your hometown's tree-line or whatever, and vice versa. You could insist on calling the whole of metaphysics specific subjective information if you wanted to, although i think it warrants a category, seeing as so many people over the years have devoted study to the category and so very few have devoted study to each of our specifics.
- i would say that your opinion on the holy books is nothing more than an opinion. I have looked at a bunch of "scholarship" and i don't "know" that the holy books are hogwash, as you say i should. Perhaps there are things people think one person said, which were said by someone else. Perhaps there are pieces of it that should be ignored and other rejected pieces put back in. Perhaps there are ideas in it that have been interpreted in ways which are illogical. OK. So what? If only one of the metaphysical ideas in there is valid and can be interpreted in a way that is meaningful and ultimately correct, then it isn't hogwash. If any interpretation is reasonable and good the book is valid. Les miserables is no less valuable because i got bored and put it away after a few hundred pages. Maybe if i was french it would have changed my life.
- i agree that a continuation of consciousness beyond the one i am experiencing would at least necessitate some getting used to, and it probably wouldn't look the same as this type of consciousness, but that doesn't preclude it's existence. Saying, "a bunch of people thought x, maybe there is a reason behind that, i will try to find out," is not dishonest. They may have found something good. I am not the one pretending to "know".
- i don't know what data God "removes" - please give an example. I don't see how an idea of God "stifles skepticism". I have to deal with multiple layers of my own skepticism on the pros and cons of many ideas that wouldn't exist if I had no metaphysical philosophy, yet any actual category of postulates you have in your world is included in mine, as far as i can tell. Of course you have many specific ideas floating around, like your hometown's tree-line or whatever, and vice versa. You could insist on calling the whole of metaphysics specific subjective information if you wanted to, although i think it warrants a category, seeing as so many people over the years have devoted study to the category and so very few have devoted study to each of our specifics.
- i would say that your opinion on the holy books is nothing more than an opinion. I have looked at a bunch of "scholarship" and i don't "know" that the holy books are hogwash, as you say i should. Perhaps there are things people think one person said, which were said by someone else. Perhaps there are pieces of it that should be ignored and other rejected pieces put back in. Perhaps there are ideas in it that have been interpreted in ways which are illogical. OK. So what? If only one of the metaphysical ideas in there is valid and can be interpreted in a way that is meaningful and ultimately correct, then it isn't hogwash. If any interpretation is reasonable and good the book is valid. Les miserables is no less valuable because i got bored and put it away after a few hundred pages. Maybe if i was french it would have changed my life.
- i agree that a continuation of consciousness beyond the one i am experiencing would at least necessitate some getting used to, and it probably wouldn't look the same as this type of consciousness, but that doesn't preclude it's existence. Saying, "a bunch of people thought x, maybe there is a reason behind that, i will try to find out," is not dishonest. They may have found something good. I am not the one pretending to "know".
The solution is to rein in religion, rather than oppress expression. If you want to say you have divine knowledge, you should have the right to say it. And anyway, good luck getting religion people to stop. Best bet is just to create a society that does not tolerate oppression, either for or against. I mean, the US is one of the most pious countries in the world, yet you don't see the sectarian violence here that you do elsewhere in the world. I mean, we have plenty of violence otherwise, but the point is that you don't see Catholics and Protestants shooting each other in the streets of Idaho.
I can't, because we don't know it yet. Try to follow: If we posit a God at the start of the Big Bang, then we've posited the ultimate, final answer. There is nothing before God, therefore no more data to be added to the equation. But supposing we were to find out that M-theory is true, or something. That's probably quite a few levels of complexity tossed out the window because we'll never find them now that we've found the "true" answer in God.
Same answer as above. If you have the final answer, what's to be skeptical about? And if you're going to be skeptical of God, then why posit it in the first place? It's either the last answer you'll ever need or a useless piece of wishful thinking.
It's not my opinion that they aren't true, it's a fact that they aren't true. They are lies and folk tales dressed up as holy instruction. Hence, hogwash. If you find some value in them, good for you (or bad for us, depending on what exactly you glean) but that doesn't make the books valid. The answers they give are false, the history they represent is false, and the morality they preach is in fact immoral.
Who are you agreeing with on that point? I certainly never made it. Consciousness itself relies on the function of our brain, and when the state of our brain is changed, so is the state of our consciousness. This does not logically lead to "Well, yeah, so obviously no brain = different consciousness." No, it actually leads to "No brain = No consciousness."
It sure seems to. How many people are conscious following a traumatic brain injury? Have you ever been knocked out cold?
You're being dishonest by saying that what we know of consciousness doesn't preclude an afterlife. It precludes that exactly. Now, do we know all there is to know? Of course not. But what do know does imply that there is no consciousness beyond brain death.
i agree that religion should not intertwine with powers of state, and in america we have a problem with it being too involved
ok i TRY to follow, but can't wrap around the idea that we are supposed to stop looking for answers because God exists. That is not even sensible. I am of the opinion that God gave us brains to use. In addition, if God were to be at the start of the Big Bang, I am quite sure that being or whatever it is would be pretty damn complex, and require some serious study. Perhaps that is what the bible means when it says people in heaven just stand around worshipping God all day. Maybe they are studying God. I am open to possibilities.
If you choose to interpret the bible as a fundamentalist christian would, then say "that is bullshit", that is your problem, not mine. You don't interpret the bible the way i do, that is clear, and in my opinion, and in your opinion, your interpretation of the bible is not logical. It is contradictory and unsupportable and not meaningful. Your interpretation is not valid in my opinion, because it destroys itself.
Here is a simple truth, the bible contains a passage in which Jesus, the top authority in the new testament, says, "love each other and love God, above all else." I am not sure how anyone reading that and using the bible to justify harming another can be called logical or sensible or good. I am also not sure how anyone can say that those words or any action that could be taken in accordance with those words are immoral.
To say there is no way some type of consciousness could exist without the apparatus that appears to us while we are inside said apparatus is perfectly reasonable. To say that everything we believe must coincide with testable data, is reasonable. I just happen to think it is incorrect, because i see our perspective as extremely limited right now. You might see human's view as looking through a clear window, and i see it as a very unclear one and reserve judgement for a later time.
Again, religion is not science, it is up to interpretation. Your interpretation of religion destroys itself, mine does not. My interpretation allows for the validity of metaphor and unknowns, yours does not. I see your interpretation of religion as illogical, and agree that your interpretation is UNscientific because it is anti-historical and anti-science. My interpretation is just chock full of "i don't know", and if you think you can disprove an "i don't know" you have a LONG road ahead of you creating a new logic. Also, if you think you must be positive before you can speak on an idea, you can find wittgenstein in the recycled philosophy bin.
I thought Isaac Newton was pretty smart.