Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

[BC_chick]

Intelligence is the ability to analyze a problem and reach a conclusion through informed thought.

In other words, intelligence is the end product, not the cause of atheism...

[Drea]

I don't know about you, but my parents came clean about Santa when I was about 6... the unfortunate part is that many people still have that same idea regarding a god. For example: we tell our children, "If you are good, Santa will bring you presents... if you are bad you get none."

Religious leaders tell people "If you are good god will let you into heaven...if you are bad, you go to a burning pit of misery."

How are these things different?

They are not different. That is the point.

Belief in god is no different than belief in a fat fella bringing toys.

There is no Santa, you know this. So why do you insist that there is a santa/god who will either punish or reward you depending on your actions?

Shouldn't people grow up intellectually and drop the santa/god concept once they reach adulthood?

Of course, I have already stated that religion keeps people like children and this is simply more proof of that.

I love it when someone proves my point for me.

[Drea]

In other words, intelligence is the end product, not the cause of atheism...

LOL

I suppose. (not sure what you are getting at here... )

Intelligent people can't help themselves... they ask questions and demand answers.

"Faith" just doesn't cut it for the analytical mind.

[BC_chick]

LOL

I suppose. (not sure what you are getting at here... )

Intelligent people can't help themselves... they ask questions and demand answers.

"Faith" just doesn't cut it for the analytical mind.

I was just making an observation... chicken and egg argument. Kinda like, is it intelligence that makes someone an atheist, or are you raised atheist and it starts to trickle into your way of thinking regarding everything else and so you become more rational.

I think the author of the study was saying that it's the latter.

[BC_chick]

The problem is not religion - it is fanaticism that does not respect the right of other people to have different views. Fanaticism in the name of one's tribe or nation is just as likely to lead to bloodshed as fantacism in the name of one's religion.

In a way religious people are more at peace with things.... @#$ happens, it's God's will. Metaphysics don't make sense, it's okay, God wants to be the only one who knows everything. People are needy, God wants you to help them.

So, in a way, you're right, it's fanaticism, not religion that's the problem... because religion in itself can be a very good thing.

Having said that, the biggest problem with religion, IMO, is that it is purely based on faith. So there is nothing to reason. There is nothing to debate.

Therein lies the problem. When you have no point of reference other than your own system of beliefs and faith - you have a perfect breeding ground for fanaticism.

[Riverwind]

Having said that, the biggest problem with religion, IMO, is that it is purely based on faith. So there is nothing to reason. There is nothing to debate.

Science is a matter of faith too. The debate of AGW is a good example. There is no real evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise yet you have legions of 'scientific' people insisting that it is a fact that cannot be questioned. Those that do question it are villified in terms that would make a religious zealot blush.

When pressed the more thoughtful AGW advocates will acknowledge the lack of anything resembling a proof but will insist that CO2 provides the best explaination for the observations given our current knowledge which means we should accept it as a fact. What they are really saying is we have to have faith in science and believe without proof.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Riverwind

[Drea]

In a way religious people are more at peace with things.... @#$ happens, it's God's will. Metaphysics don't make sense, it's okay, God wants to be the only one who knows everything. People are needy, God wants you to help them.

So, in a way, you're right, it's fanaticism, not religion that's the problem... because religion in itself can be a very good thing.

Having said that, the biggest problem with religion, IMO, is that it is purely based on faith. So there is nothing to reason. There is nothing to debate.

Therein lies the problem. When you have no point of reference other than your own system of beliefs and faith - you have a perfect breeding ground for fanaticism.

I agree that *some* religious people find peace in their beliefs. And in the past I've even envied them for that. But as I grow older and wiser (lol) I find myself more peaceful, more accepting of life as it is without expectation of something at the end.

I know some very intelligent people who are religious. They simply refuse to discuss their religion, but are analytical in all other matters. There must be a fear inside of them that keeps them from questioning it... of course, the fear of hell is pretty powerful stuff for some.

[Riverwind]

There must be a fear inside of them that keeps them from questioning it...

No. It is simple evidence of emotional maturity and a recognition that it is pointless to discuss such things without someone who is not interested in listening.

[Drea]

Science is a matter of faith too. The debate of AGW is a good example. There is no real evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise yet you have legions of 'scientific' people insisting that it is a fact that cannot be questioned. Those that do question it are villified in terms that would make a religious zealot blush.

When pressed the more thoughtful AGW advocates will acknowledge the lack of anything resembling a proof but will insist that it is provides the best explaination for the observations given our current knowledge which means we should accept it as a fact. What they are really saying is we have to have faith in science and believe without proof.

But science tries. That is really all we can ask for.

Would the religious be open to analyzing, for example, the theory that we were created by aliens*? If not, why not? If the religion is true and we were created by a god, then they have nothing to fear from examination of their beleifs.

*The alien theory is no less (and no more) plausible than an invsibile entity that can read one's thoughts.

In fact, given the billions upon billions of stars in the universe; I'd say it's quite probable (probable is a scientific term btw) that there are life forms more advanced than us. It has yet to be proven but the probability is there.

[BC_chick]

Science is a matter of faith too. The debate of AGW is a good example. There is no real evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise yet you have legions of 'scientific' people insisting that it is a fact that cannot be questioned. Those that do question it are villified in terms that would make a religious zealot blush.

When pressed the more thoughtful AGW advocates will acknowledge the lack of anything resembling a proof but will insist that it is provides the best explaination for the observations given our current knowledge which means we should accept it as a fact. What they are really saying is we have to have faith in science and believe without proof.

Absolutely correct on this.

However, as you recall, I was responding to your post in which you stated that fanaticism, not religion, is the problem. I went on to say that when you have nothing to back up your argument other than your own belief, then you have a perfect breeding ground for fanaticism. In other words, the link between religion and fanaticism is greater than we would like to believe - simply because it's based on faith alone.

As you say, science may also lead to fanaticism since it is based on a certain level of faith as well. Nevertheless, there is SOME level of measurement. In face of new evidence, we may be inclined to change our minds.

Proving a negative on the other hand.... well, you see the difference, no?

Edited June 13, 2008 by BC_chick

[Drea]

No. It is simple evidence of emotional maturity and a recognition that it is pointless to discuss such things without someone who is not interested in listening.

Exactly.

And WHY are they not interested in listening? Because they might find out something that puts their alleged "afterlife" in jeopardy. (fear)

Religious folks don't want their beliefs tested and analyzed, they just want their dogma accepted on "faith".

And pulease.... do you think that every person who doesn't subscribe to some religious dogma is a chickenlittletheskyisfallingglobalwarmingcultist...? Jeebus already.

The earth is warming -- that has been proven by scientific method (a temperature gauge!)

Doesn't mean people bow down to worship icebergs does it. Frig.

If it weren't for scientific, analytical minds you would not be reading this. That is real and proveable. We KNOW that your so-called god would never have given people the internet... heck he even allegedly scrambled everyone's language... your god doesn't want us to all get along does he? LOL

[Riverwind]

And WHY are they not interested in listening? Because they might find out something that puts their alleged "afterlife" in jeopardy. (fear)

You are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of a person's faith. Some religious people do subscribe to that cartoonish version of faith but many others do not. What you are missing is every human has a need to understand the 'meaning' of the universe. Some people look to spirituality to provide that meaning - others look to science. For many people spirituality is also something that evolves over time as new knowledge is gained so you cannot use that to argue the difference between spirituality and science.

[Brain Candy]

I think smarter people are weary of dogma in all forms. Smarter religious people probably see a much more all encompassing god then a "do this or go to hell" one.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE American Woman :

Professor Lynn also says men are more intelligent than women. Did you "know" that all along too?

Actually no. I'm just reading a cool book about the differences between men and women's brains and why men have trouble finding the butter in the fridge and why women can't parallel park.

It's written with humour and not condescending towards either gender.

If you don't believe Professor Lynn's thoughts/views/studies/whatever regarding the intelligence of men vs women, why do you find his thoughts/etc. regarding religion credible?

Edited June 14, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I think smarter people are weary of dogma in all forms. Smarter religious people probably see a much more all encompassing god then a "do this or go to hell" one.

You are so right, and that very thing has been pointed out over and over again, but it's amazing how some people who don't have faith/belief in God still insist on telling those who do what they believe-- and judging them accordingly.

[Drea]

If you don't believe Professor Lynn's thoughts/views/studies/whatever regarding the intelligence of men vs women, why do you find his thoughts/etc. regarding religion credible?

It's not that I don't believe it (how can I disbelieve something I haven't read?) it's just that it had not been brought to my attention. And I really don't believe men or women have "better" brains than one another... the book I'm reading doesn't look at one being "better" than another, just different. Did you know that women have better peripheral vision than men? But that men have better distance focus?

You just keep trying though, don't you American Woman LOL

Give it up already. I am not going to take your troll-bait.

Those who entertain the notion of an "all encompassing god" rather than the Christian "do this or go to hell" one are not subscribers to religious dogma. They entertain their own "version", as do I. Real Christians (and *most all other religions) don't want people to think of an "all encompassing spritual feeling" but a very real, touchable god that judges people on their thoughts and actions.

"Spirituality" is not religion... the dogma of "this is against god's will" or "god willed it" type of statements go well beyond a "spiritual feeling".

Edited June 15, 2008 by Drea

[Guest American Woman]

"Troll bait?" ( a thousand times over) Gee. And you say religious people you know won't discuss their beliefs with you? Wow. Hard to believe. (repeat of a thousand times over)

Grow up. Or grow a brain. Or preferably, both.

[peter_puck]

God is so passe when you can worship Gaia instead. Environmentalism is a near perfect re-mapping of medevil Christianity without God bits (Nature is perfect and must be lest untouched, humans are sinners and must be punished, etc.). Carbon credits are indulgences and scientists are the priests. Apostates are villified and cast out - probably would be jailed if David Suzuki could get his way.

You got a one track mind.

[WIP]

Hmm, you 'cared' enough to post. My post was a snide attack? Get real, here's a snide attack for you by Drea.

Here's a little taste:

Waa waa waa waa! Is this the "oh yeah, well she says worse things than I do argument?" I could care less about the post you linked since it was from another thread (which I wasn't involved in) and that quote wasn't even addressed to you in the first place! But your comment was made in this thread and you expressed your displeasure with the thread topic and I offered you an opportunity to elaborate on why you took offense, but instead you slinked back into the shadows again:

QUOTE(sharkman @ Jun 12 2008, 11:38 PM) *

I've noticed that among some people, even though they proudly proclaim that they don't believe in God they sure talk about him a lot(that would be Drea).

QUOTE(WIP @ Jun 13 2008, 11:38 AM) *And what's wrong with talking about it? Are some beliefs to precious to be criticized or even commented on?

.QUOTE(sharkman @ Jun 13 2008, 03:29 PM) *

Can you not understand such a simple statement? There is nothing wrong with talking about God or not talking about God. I will not respond further to your trolling.

And once again, if you really felt there was nothing wrong with it, what was the point of your first observation then?

Funny, you don't seem to object to knuckle dragging posts like this, but are all over me. That makes you a hypocrite. Mind your own business hypocrite.

Look bud, I don't agree with Drea on everything and we had our differences on the abortion debate, but I guess we were in close enough agreement to keep it civil. As far as rude behaviour goes, I confess I have more tolerance for someone who's abrasive, as long as they are expressing ideas they believe in and answer questions, than I am with someone who seems polite but cannot or will not debate honestly, by shifting positions, making statements and then denying them, and refusing to respond to questions.

[WIP]

Science is a matter of faith too.

No it isn't! Faith means believing in something that you do not have evidence for. Religions are faith-based belief systems, since they begin with claims of already possessing knowledge about the world, our purpose in that world and our ultimate fate. Science uses the opposite approach to learn about our world, since it has to start from scratch and gradually accumulate evidence through experiment and observation. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it is testable and reliably consistent. But new data, or new evidence can disprove a theory, or in some cases create the need for a more accurate theory.

The debate of AGW is a good example. There is no real evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise yet you have legions of 'scientific' people insisting that it is a fact that cannot be questioned. Those that do question it are villified in terms that would make a religious zealot blush.

Legions of scientific people? Don't these so called global warming skeptics claim to be using the scientific method to advance their claims also? The global warming debate is not a pure scientific issue like evolution/creationism, since most climatologsts are in agreement that the Earth's ecosystem is extremely complex and far from completely understood. But the 30 or so, major scientific bodies who claim that there is enough evidence to connect human activity with rising CO2 levels and climate change, do so in large part because the stakes are so high! If you want to call that acting on faith, go ahead! But since the issue involves the fate of life on Earth, it is not going to be treated in the same way as testing a new drug before putting it on the market. If there has to be a rush to judgement, it is more sensible to err on the side of caution, than to follow Exxon/Mobil's advice of waiting till it's too late to do anything about it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

When pressed the more thoughtful AGW advocates will acknowledge the lack of anything resembling a proof but will insist that CO2 provides the best explaination for the observations given our current knowledge which means we should accept it as a fact. What they are really saying is we have to have faith in science and believe without proof.

No one can dispute the fact that CO2 levels are rising; do the global warming skeptics deny that there is any limit to how high carbon dioxide levels can rise before they have an impact on climate? Will anything happen at 500 ppm? Or 1000? When CO2 levels hit 10% of the Earth's atmosphere, will G.W. skeptics still claim it will have no impact on the climate?

[WIP]

If you don't believe Professor Lynn's thoughts/views/studies/whatever regarding the intelligence of men vs women, why do you find his thoughts/etc. regarding religion credible?

One can choose to believe or disbelieve in Professor Lynn's thoughts on intelligence and race and sex -- that little blurb in the news story didn't explain what they were, only that they were "controversial" -- but his polling data that show a decline in religiosity and the supernatural, are in line with other studies that show declining belief in God with higher education: http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/03/who-...ieve-in-god.htm and when you get to the upper echelons of the scientific world, the members of the National Academy of Sciences, the atheists and agnostics are the majority: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html But, by accepting one study by Professor Lynn, does not mean you have to accept all of his claims.

[WIP]

You are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of a person's faith. Some religious people do subscribe to that cartoonish version of faith but many others do not. What you are missing is every human has a need to understand the 'meaning' of the universe.

No! And this is why religion is so seductive. A need for meaning and purpose in life, does not mean that we have to know the meaning of the universe - where it came from, why we are here etc. etc. There is a minority of people who don't believe that any useful answers can be found among those claiming to have it all figured out and are content to wait until real answers are found.....or maybe they will never be found! There is no reason to assume that we will unlock all of the mysteries of cosmology and physics, so meaning may be best left at the local level.

Some people look to spirituality to provide that meaning - others look to science. For many people spirituality is also something that evolves over time as new knowledge is gained so you cannot use that to argue the difference between spirituality and science.

Spirituality is such a big, nebulous term, you can drive a truck through it! Even Richard Dawkins claims to be spiritual; but he probably has a different meaning for spirituality than you do.

[Guest American Woman]

One can choose to believe or disbelieve in Professor Lynn's thoughts on intelligence and race and sex -- that little blurb in the news story didn't explain what they were, only that they were "controversial" -- but his polling data that show a decline in religiosity and the supernatural, are in line with other studies that show declining belief in God with higher education: http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/03/who-...ieve-in-god.htm and when you get to the upper echelons of the scientific world, the members of the National Academy of Sciences, the atheists and agnostics are the majority: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html But, by accepting one study by Professor Lynn, does not mean you have to accept all of his claims.

I'm not saying one has to accept all of Professor Lynn's claims, but when ones picks and chooses which controversial claims to personally accept/believe, that source hardly becomes a credible source. In other words, why should we accept/believe what he says about religion any more than Drea accepts/believes what he says about intelligence in regards to sex? What would make what he says about religion more credible than what he says about intelligence? The answer is, nothing. So that pretty much discredits him as a source even by Drea's standards, and the claim made in the title of her thread that "intelligent people [are] less likely to believe in God" is only as credible as the source.

[Drea]

"Troll bait?" ( a thousand times over) Gee. And you say religious people you know won't discuss their beliefs with you? Wow. Hard to believe. (repeat of a thousand times over)

Grow up. Or grow a brain. Or preferably, both.

You are trying to bait me into insulting you.

I won't do it.

I will, however, discuss the topic with you.

In your opinion is accepting "what one is told" a function of a analytical, scientific, intelligent mind?

Open-ended sprituality (believing in a "cosmic source" or "karma" or the "collective conscience") is not religion. Religion gives one a set of rigid rules to follow. The religious believe that not following "the rules" results in dire consequences.

For some reason I have yet to discover, the religious believe that everyone must follow their specific religion's set of rules. They also detest criticism, analysis or debate about their belief system. IF their belief system was real as they think it is, then they would not fear its analysis.

[Guest American Woman]

You are trying to bait me into insulting you.

I won't do it.

You couldn't be more wrong. I wasn't trying to "bait" you in any way for any reason. I was simply stating the truth.

I will, however, discuss the topic with you.

In your opinion is accepting "what one is told" a function of a analytical, scientific, intelligent mind?

I've told you time and time again that most religious people don't simply "accept what they are told." There's no point in trying to "discuss" anything with someone who refuses to listen.

Open-ended sprituality (believing in a "cosmic source" or "karma" or the "collective conscience") is not religion. Religion gives one a set of rigid rules to follow. The religious believe that not following "the rules" results in dire consequences.

Wrong. That may be your interpretation of what "religion" is, but it's not the interpretation that countless people who consider themselves "religious" believe. You cannot seem to open your mind to that fact.

For some reason I have yet to discover, the religious believe that everyone must follow their specific religion's set of rules. They also detest criticism, analysis or debate about their belief system. IF their belief system was real as they think it is, then they would not fear its analysis.

You make post after post knocking religion and the religious as you make a ludicrous statement like this. A statement that would easily apply to you. I don't see any religious people on this forum starting threads saying everyone must believe as they believe. I don't see any religious people calling non-believers less intelligent. I don't see any religious people saying what non-believers believe.

Religious people don't "detest debate" when it's truly debate, nor do they "fear" true analysis. These are traits that you continually put on the religious in spite of what any person of faith says to the contrary.

No one is more close-minded about religion than you are. No one posts more about it than you do. No one is more demeaning about differing religious beliefs than you are.

Why you should care if people believe in God or not is difficult to understand. I couldn't care less that you don't believe in Him, but for reasons I've yet to discover, you sure seem to be upset that a great many people do believe.