Such unexpected indignation from you JDawg...let me explain then. Without a hint of uncertainty, you claimed that the origin of religion was to explain what was unknown. That is an unwarranted reduction of religion, which has many aspects you neglected to consider in your original writing off of religion as explanatory in essence (hence, more complex).While religion has been used to explain what was unknown, it is also used to create order in society and it is also used as comfort and divine justice in a dangerous and uncertain world. The explanatory aspect would be a by-product of another use. I am not arguing from ignorance, but of understood unknowing, in other words, i understand that it cannot be known how it originated empirically or otherwise, whereas you claimed to know the case and that was that...
How is it an unwarranted reduction? I should be obvious to the observer by reading the religious texts that the
need for religion arose from an ignorance of the world around us. This is why some religions worship the sun, why others offer sacrifices to their gods for a beneficial rain, and why some, to this very day, blame famines and floods and earthquakes on the behaviors of man.
Clearly, the idea of a divine force rose from man not understanding what caused the world around it to function. Imagine not knowing the mechanics of an earthquake. Now imagine that you are who you are--a rational, reasoning being that is capable of asking questions. When you put the two together, you have the need for a divine force.
Yes, religion also serves as a mean of governance. But it in no way is required for societal order, nor is it even remotely effective as such. If it were, there would be no need for a prison system. And yet...
You accuse me of devaluing religion, yet all you've done is give it greater value than even the most liberal religious scholar would.
Theocratic-->Theocracy, rule by the religious, in order to offset natural inability to control the subjects of a land effectively, its possible leaders appealed to an abstract notion of authority of whom they had exclusive contact with and who gave them the divine mandate to corporeally punish those who disobeyed and would punish them horribly in the next life...
That's just not true. There is no natural inability to control the subjects of a land. As a matter of fact, I would contend that theocracies are inherently less effective at controlling the people of a nation. They often resort to violence as a deterrent and a means of crowd control far more often than secular or non-theocratic society does.
So I am told the origin of religion is obvious...obviously not, I am contesting your consideration of the different aspects of religion...Furthermore, you first talk about extraordinary phenomenon like global flooding and multiple suns (stuff that is absolutely not mundane) and then say that religion turns what is mundane into a testament to the mystical power of God. Having naturally impossible accounts of natural events in the Bible undermines the assertion that religion was explanatory in nature because only that which can actually happen naturally can be potentially explained, instead religion states what could not possibly happen and attributes it to god.
See, this is again what I mean. You read these accounts as if they actually happened, instead of reading them as accounts by people who didn't know any better. There was no such global flood. There weren't really multiple or dancing suns. But, to the local observer who does not know anything more than the immediate area around him, a flood that leaves them all up to their necks in water for as far as the eye can see sure might
seem like a global flood, wouldn't it?
And this is why all studies point to a correlation between intelligence and religiosity. You read these texts as a person of faith, and therefore not willing (or able, perhaps?) to read them objectively. You won't read them critically. Even if it's intentional, you shut down you reasoning mind in favor of your comforting faith, and that makes you a less-intelligent person.
When I asked the question, I did not already have a predicted answer so I'm pleased you did tell me about the study. However, IQ does not equal intelligence. The citation is weakened by that distinction alone. I say this in no condescending way, but have you ever taken a real IQ test? It singles out a specific mental faculty. Intelligence is holistic. Hey Binet, what do you think? "The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured." You dont say...
Like I said, it isn't perfect, and it does not pretend to pinpoint
exact numbers, or even the
exact correlation, but the evidence is strong enough that it is very certain that there is a connection between intelligence and religiosity. Plus, this is backed up by numerous polls and surveys.
I have a reason as to why I spoke with you as well, I was specifically interested in theists responses to examples of seeming contractions of what is collectively inerrant truths. You, if you were right, might deter them from speaking up at all. This talk about chiming and stepping in: this is a public forum, on top of that, this is a thread I started, everyone is supposed to chime in. You are more than welcome to your private conversations, however don't hold it against us we have something to say about your posts made on a site specifically facilitating intelligent dialogue.
Well, I am right, and if the realization of their own ignorance gives them pause before they spout off some uninformed, dogmatic drivel that they themselves don't even comprehend, then great! That's a good thing, Sin! You should be aiming for quality of argument, not quantity. You should be aiming to enlighten, not to turn a blind eye to ignorance.
Oh yeah?! Im quite fond of you practically quoting my advice, but not so much of the insinuation of my turning a blind eye to ignorance. I specifically said in an earlier post "demonstrate how what they believe is perniciously irrational and misleading." Ignorance is a disease that should be cured wherever diagnosed...Again, how you misinterpret my intentions is beyond amazing. I must tell you, you are mistaken about any theist coming to this epiphany that they are intellectually inferior and subsequently developing some unexpected equanimity, what you would do is breed resentment and argument that sidetracks what I was hoping to accomplish in this thread. Even if that were the case, that a theist would hold his tongue at the sight of the studies, it does nothing to correct their belief, they will hold it in silence. Let them speak and if you feel their arguments weak, demonstrate why please. If you cannot 'enlighten' them, then the same silence would be appreciated from you.
