Are believers less intelligent than Atheists? Discuss

[wynn]

Are believers less intelligent than Atheists? Discuss

I used to subscribe to Science Daily's newsletter on several topics, including on spirituality.
I eventually cancelled the subscription because the studies mentioned didn't seem much to have to do with spirituality or religion, even though nominally, they have claimed to measure it. Those studies tend to have as much to do with religion and spirituality as talking merely about the color of a car has to do with cars as such.


One such study, for example, was on narcissism and religiosity -
Narcissism Impairs Ethical Judgment Even Among the Highly Religious, Study Finds.

Apparently, those researchers were working out of the assumption that a person can be "highly religious" and still be narcisstistic. How they have come to that conclusion is unclear.

Further, they only worked with groups of Christians, yet they published their findings as "Narcissism Impairs Ethical Judgment Even Among the Highly Religious" - as if their findings would be true for all religious denominations!

Furthermore, they studied undergraduate marketing students - hardly a representative sample of the human population.


Once one looks into the population sample and the criteria they were studied with, few, if any, studies on religion and spirituality, are scientific or pertinent.

 

[wynn]

IOW the obvious flaw behind these statements is that a little bit of tinkering with the chronology provides environments that clearly spotlight people are for the most part simply talking about cultural institution in a manner as if it was eternally edifying (technical definition of a bigot I guess .

Not just tinkering with the chronology, but also with geography.

For example -
In the context of surviving in a slum, who is more intelligent - the street thug with an IQ of 90 on the standard IQ test, or a white upper class person with an IQ of 120 on that same test?
Of the two, the thug is the one who is more likely to survive in a slum. Shouldn't being able to survive count as the mark of greater intelligence?

"Intelligence," "intellectual quotient" are such relative concepts.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't think you do. Suffice it to say, etymology (in my book) wins here. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and we can waste a lot of KBs arguing about whether we should interpret the word as it was originally meant to be interpreted, or in a manner that makes people feel like they can have their cake (claiming to be a good, logical secular humanist, unencumbered by archaic dogma) and eat it, too (pretend that this isn't a belief in the vein of the very same archaic dogma).

If you want to take it back to the original interpretation then you could have atheist theists... since the term was used to describe people who lived their life as though the Gods did not exist... it was an insult, used for those who had turned their backs on the many Gods of the time. "Without God" meant that you lived your life without the protection of the Gods that you had turned your back on.
It didn't mean you now thought they didn't exist, only that you lived your life as though they didn't. It was a practical position rather than ontological.

These days atheism is a binary position: if you are not theist you are atheist - but only some of those who don't hold a belief in God also believe in the non-existence of God. Yet they would all be atheist.

And yes, meanings do change from their original usage. It's the way of language.

 

[universaldistress]

has an actual definition of intelligence been offered in this thead?
If not why not?

The source thread (link in OP) was talking about intelligence as measured by IQ tests? I have mentioned that this is not necessarily definitive enough to describe intelligence as inventiveness etc. is also a factor. We are talking about a measure of the ability of the human mind to achieve certain tasks, solve certain problems. But of course the exact definition is what the thread is kind of seeking?

has the issue of learning the tools of intelligence been discussed or considered?
has the issue of childhood deprivation of learning those tools of intelligence been brought up?

Can't remember without reading back through every post; I would say yes, but if it hasn't then it should be; so thanks!

If you follow my facebook link and read the whole thing I think I spoke of nurture as a strong factor, which of course would include quality of schooling from a young age.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I would go so far as to say that words attributed to socrates by plato, "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." are a good indicator of wisdom and experience, but not raw intellect.
That wisdom and knowledge have to be accounted for in a thorough explanation of intelligence, otherwise if it only about raw processing power, that must be clearly stated. Obviously raw processing power is not measured by an IQ test, unless you can use one that has no language use or biased symbolism, with about 100 other qualifications for the testing. Apparently women are smarter than men now based on IQ tests. I think discussing sexual difference in populations is probably more valuable than discussing difference between populations who could have any number of factors messing up the results, and even that has a lot of culturally controlled stuff to account for before it could be called fairly reached data.
Some people would boil intelligence down to linguistic facility or symbol facility, since we do very little "thinking" without symbols, if any.

edit - p.s. i don't think universaldistress gets to establish his own definitions, or any discussion is going to have problems. Unless UD's definitions can be explained and agreed upon people aren't really talking about the same thing when they are talking. Also, i don't think that thread referenced is any authority on what atheism means but i think the 4 section UD put up might make sense because it clearly allows for gradation (the arrows), except for the use of the word "gnostic" which already has a definition, or at least refers to a religious sect that has nothing to do with having any type of intellectual knowledge. Also, I am an agnostic theist because i don't "know", but my agnosticism extends to much MUCH more than my religious ideas, so it doesn't have any particular negative or lesser connotation to me, it is just part of the way i think right now.

ahh It reminds me of the famous wisdom:

"It is not what I know that is important for I already know it, it is what I don't know that is most important"
just another version of the same yes?


Humility and wisdom are essential to an effective intelligence..IMO
and it is often necessary to remind ourselves that often confidence is mistaken as arrogance and vise versa....

 

[Yazata]

I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist

So would I.

...so you don't know if you don't believe in God? This is how most people describe themselves, but it is simply a contradiction: either you believe God exists, you believe God does not exist, or you don't know the answer. The problem is that "atheist" (literally, without God") is a binary term: there aren't scales. Describing yourself as "open to the idea", but still atheist is a bit of a copout.

My agnosticism isn't about whether or not I believe in "God". Though in real life, how I answer that question would depend on how the word 'God' is defined. The Biblical 'Yahweh' and the Quranic 'Allah' seem inherently unlikely to me, while some unknown philosophical 'ground of being' may indeed exist. So I'm inclined to effectively deny the existence of Yahweh and Allah, but I'm more non-committal about initial origins and ultimate grounds of being. Those are views about ontology.

But that isn't where the agnosticism comes from. That's based on my doubts about whether human beings have epistemological access to knowledge of transcendent things, assuming that any transcendent things exist. That's a view about epistemology.

It seems to me that there are countless things that I don't know. The unknown is an unbounded set, simply by its nature, since we have no way of knowing what its far boundaries might be. Having said that, it just seems vanishingly unlikely to me that whatever ultimate unknowns might exist will turn out to be identical to a character taken from Hebrew, Islamic or whatever mythology. It's like my entering a room alongside a schizophrenic and not knowing what lies beyond one of the room's far walls. It's conceivable that the schizophrenic is right when he tells me that there really are CIA agents over there, swarming around a... machine... devoted to beaming crazy thoughts into the schizophrenic's head. I have no way of conclusively eliminating that possibility, since I don't know what's beyond the wall. But I'd feel very confident in disregarding that possibility in practice.

So I'm effectively an atheist in believing that it's highly unlikely that the ultimate mysteries of being are accurately described by Hebrew (or any other) mythology. This despite the fact that I have no way of actually knowing what the answers to the mysteries are.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

Though in real life, how I answer that question would depend on how the word 'God' is defined.

The answer to that is simple.

God is the Supreme Absolute Truth (The Greatest)
God is one without a second.
Everything emanates from God.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Yazata,



The answer to that is simple.

God is the Supreme Absolute Truth (The Greatest)
God is one without a second.
Everything emanates from God.

jan.

Gibberish

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Why?

jan.

Makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't really tell you anything about it.

 

[Emil]

Position on the existence or not a god is just a particular case.
The problem should be analyzed more generally.
Are you a believer in general, or just your position on the existence of a God is a belief?

Belief-Wikipedia

The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

I believe that intelligence can relate to correct decisions.
The problem is how to take this decision, way of making these decisions.

Decision making

Logical decision making is an important part of all science-based professions, where specialists apply their knowledge in a given area to making informed decisions. For example, medical decision making often involves making a diagnosis and selecting an appropriate treatment. Some[which?] research using naturalistic methods shows, however, that in situations with higher time pressure, higher stakes, or increased ambiguities, experts use intuitive decision making rather than structured approaches, following a recognition primed decision approach to fit a set of indicators into the expert's experience and immediately arrive at a satisfactory course of action without weighing alternatives. Recent robust decision efforts have formally integrated uncertainty into the decision making process. However, Decision Analysis, recognized and included uncertainties with a structured and rationally justifiable method of decision making since its conception in 1964.

I advocate pragmatism. Pragmatism-Wikipedia

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition centered on the linking of practice and theory. It describes a process where theory is extracted from practice, and applied back to practice to form what is called intelligent practice. Important positions characteristic of pragmatism include instrumentalism, radical empiricism, verificationism, conceptual relativity, and fallibilism. There is general consensus among pragmatists that philosophy should take the methods and insights of modern science into account.

Central pragmatist tenets

Primacy of practice

Pragmatism is based on the premise that the human capability to theorize is necessary for intelligent practice. Theory and practice are not separate spheres; rather, theories and distinctions are tools or maps for finding our way in the world. As John Dewey put it, there is no question of theory versus practice but rather of intelligent practice versus uninformed practice.

 

[universaldistress]

So would I.

Thanks for the backup Yazata

My agnosticism isn't about whether or not I believe in "God". Though in real life, how I answer that question would depend on how the word 'God' is defined. The Biblical 'Yahweh' and the Quranic 'Allah' seem inherently unlikely to me, while some unknown philosophical 'ground of being' may indeed exist. So I'm inclined to effectively deny the existence of Yahweh and Allah, but I'm more non-committal about initial origins and ultimate grounds of being. Those are views about ontology.

But that isn't where the agnosticism comes from. That's based on my doubts about whether human beings have epistemological access to knowledge of transcendent things, assuming that any transcendent things exist. That's a view about epistemology.

It seems to me that there are countless things that I don't know. The unknown is an unbounded set, simply by its nature, since we have no way of knowing what its far boundaries might be. Having said that, it just seems vanishingly unlikely to me that whatever ultimate unknowns might exist will turn out to be identical to a character taken from Hebrew, Islamic or whatever mythology. It's like my entering a room alongside a schizophrenic and not knowing what lies beyond one of the room's far walls. It's conceivable that the schizophrenic is right when he tells me that there really are CIA agents over there, swarming around a... machine... devoted to beaming crazy thoughts into the schizophrenic's head. I have no way of conclusively eliminating that possibility, since I don't know what's beyond the wall. But I'd feel very confident in disregarding that possibility in practice.

So I'm effectively an atheist in believing that it's highly unlikely that the ultimate mysteries of being are accurately described by Hebrew (or any other) mythology. This despite the fact that I have no way of actually knowing what the answers to the mysteries are.

So are you saying god is unlikely? I take from this you are saying the gods as described by theology (atavistic, entrenched theologies) are unlikely? and they are where they claim literal truths which can be contested successfully by empirical data. But to say, the kind of god I can envisage as possible, is unlikely, is a different matter. Science could say that, if all possible configurations of universe are out there somewhere in infinity then there has be, statistically, one that has been manipulated or even possibly designed by a creator. And if that is possible then are we (our universe) statistically more likely to be the product of spontaneous creation or considered creation? Forget whether this god is a god of all existence, one god need only create one universe, and if that is possible, within the infinite recesses of infinity, then it is possible for our existence? If a creative force can incept a universe isn't this force likely to do it again and again? So what is more likely, spontaneity or intentionality?

 

[lightgigantic]

Makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't really tell you anything about it.

It explains precisely the categorical difference between yourself and god ..... which, for most of us, is a fine beginning in understanding what it is about

 

[wynn]

It explains precisely the categorical difference between yourself and god ..... which, for most of us, is a fine beginning in understanding what it is about

And yet when it comes to matters on the topic of "God," we ordinary people have to unconditionally trust theists.
Ie. we ordinary people have to trust people who have done this kind of things to those they deemed didn't have a proper understanding of God:

I know that you will probably, again, just ignore this. As is so typical for theists.

 

[spidergoat]

It explains precisely the categorical difference between yourself and god ..... which, for most of us, is a fine beginning in understanding what it is about

It is also the categorical difference between the entire universe and parts of it.

 

[Balerion]

Gibberish

Agreed. Empty words the poster himself couldn't explain if pressed to.

Save the platitudes for the pulpit.

 

[lightgigantic]

And yet when it comes to matters on the topic of "God," we ordinary people have to unconditionally trust theists.
Ie. we ordinary people have to trust people who have done this kind of things to those they deemed didn't have a proper understanding of God:

I know that you will probably, again, just ignore this. As is so typical for theists.

I'm only ignoring it because "unconditional trust" is technically impossible (at least as far as conditioned life goes) .... what to speak of being hard pressed to open a scripture at random and find a passage that doesn't deal specifically with the qualities of who or what should be trusted and how to identify it ... and as far as my own spiritual career goes, I can't say that I have ran into people performing these sorts of acts in their cellars or whatever ... and judging by the approximate era of your reference material, neither has anyone else

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

It is also the categorical difference between the entire universe and parts of it.

precisely

Hence the definition explains the inherent futility of limited, metonymic methodologies like empiricism in approaching the subject.

 

[spidergoat]

precisely

Hence the definition explains the inherent futility of limited, metonymic methodologies like empiricism in approaching the subject.

Since the empirically confirmable physical universe also fits that description, how does it explain that empiricism is futile?

 

[lightgigantic]

Since the empirically confirmable physical universe also fits that description, how does it explain that empiricism is futile?

I wasn't aware that cosmogony was famous for being an empirically confirmable discipline ....