Welcome to PatsFans.com

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God: Study

Discussion in 'Religion and Lighthearted Discussion' started by weswelker#83, Jun 12, 2008.

  1. weswelker#83

    weswelker#83 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,540
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

  2. godef

    godef In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    OK, so you borrowed the headline from the article you linked to to title your post, but in fact it's not very accurate per the research cited. The gist of what I read is not that belief in God makes you stupid, but rather it's stupidity that makes you believe in God. Not that this makes much difference. :eek:
     
  3. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    I think he was joking. But I'd put it like this: Having a lower IQ makes it easier to believe in god.
     
  4. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I don't believe in "god" but I know a lot of really smart people who do and a lot of really stupid people who don't. So I'm not sure what you were trying to say, Wildo...beyond just taking a cheap shot at people who believe, I mean.
     
  5. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    That really has nothing to do with what I said. A lower IQ person is more likely to believe in god. That's a statistical correlation, not a causation. The smartest man in the world could believe in god and that statement would still be true. But, if you have a lower IQ, you are more likely to believe in god than someone with a higher IQ. That is all it means, there's nothing else to read into it. And it's not a "cheap shot," it's the logical conclusion of the results of the study, sorry if you don't like it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2008
  6. Lifer

    Lifer Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    a logical conclusion if you choose to believe the study. thanks for sharing.
     
  7. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Didn't read the study, just answering your post which I thought could stand on it's own.

    You never said "according to the study" you just stated flatly that unintelligent people (like Carl Sagan, right?) find it easier to believe in god.
     
  8. godef

    godef In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, that nails it.
     
  9. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    haha ok, sorry, responding to the study by making that statement doesn't intrinsically mean "according to the study." Common, that was well understood.
     
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,545
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    The flippant disregard of complex causality, or even the arrow of causality, in the OP's summing-up was pretty obviously a joke. Dissecting it further probably serves no function.

    It's worth noting that we all say "God" and mean different things.

    At a certain level of intelligence, at a certain point of history, it becomes impossible to believe certain things.

    For example: If I believe strongly that the sky is green, to continue to believe this and simultaneously incorporate the knowledge that, for example, the University of North Carolina team color is Carolina Blue, I have three choices:

    1) I can rename the UNC color, for my purposes, Carolina Green, therefore rendering moot the faculty of language (but not mute, thereby allowing for the phenomenon of vocal conservativism); In forumulation (1) I insist that everybody is wrong to call the color Carolina Blue because really everybody but me has misnamed "green" and "blue"
    2) I can simply believe different things at different times. If there is no Carolina jersey around, I can believe green is blue and vice versa. If there is one around, I can say they have miscolored this particular jersey.
    3) Having discovered this objective reference for "blue", and realizing I have been wrong, I can incorporate this new information and move forward, admitting that what I use to call "green" is in fact "blue."

    Early in our history, we could believe, for example, that God physically dwelled somewhere in the area of the clouds. In fact, a russian cosmonaut radiod back that he could put the whole question of God to rest, having gone higher than all the clouds and not having made contact with said Supreme Being. By that time, of course, none of us really literally believed that God physically lived in the clouds.

    So, among religious people, these ideas changed. Things that were literally true became allegorical.

    The problem is that religions change slowly and conservatively. They are also subject to periods of so-called fundamentalist backlash. Such movements try to "return" to a literal meaning from a different time, and a different context - or more accurately, a reconstruction of what that return would constitute.

    This leaves our modern era awash in ideas of "God." Many of them are at odds with data about our natural world gleaned from empirical research. Some ideas of God are not so encumbered.

    The intellectually honest man, who has seen the Carolina Blue jersey, and who knows that the sky is approximately that color, can not call the sky green. If he belongs to the "Greenist" church, which insists green is blue and vice versa, and that the idea of God is inextricably bound up with the greenness of blue and the blueness of green, he will henceforth likely say he does not believe in God.

    The intellectually astute man is more likely to seek out experience and ideas which call various conceptions of God into question, and is more likely to value the conclusions of reason, than the intellectually impoverished man. In the above example, he is more likely to go out in search of the UNC jersey in question and hence create the dilemma in the first place.

    He also feels bound to meet the challenge of new data, whereas the non-thinker is more likely to say "doesn't matter, XXX still din't happen," and construct his argument based on disbelief in mounting evidence to the contrary of a church's dictates.

    One can not help notice that not ALL intelligent people are atheists; there is a reason for this. Not ALL concepts of God are incompatible with reason. Similarly not all concepts of God demand mental gymnastics to make facts fit a preestablished pattern.

    But those on which established religions rely are quite likely to.

    To many people, this is the only definition of religion or God available.

    Just my .02,

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2008
  11. Lifer

    Lifer Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    I just sum it up like this. To the person who says God doesnt exist:
    Prove it.
     
  12. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    You can't prove a negative like that. Why don't you prove or at least show tangible evidence for the existence of god? And irreducible complexity is not a solid argument.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2008
  13. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Prove Santa doesn't exist.

    When you claim something is the way it is, the onus is on you to provide evidence for your hypothesis.
     
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,545
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    The persistent error in the usual tit-for-tat over religion is the notion that the question must be settled -- which all parties readily admit will never happen (certainly not by the efforts of homo sapiens alone.)

    It is only possible to prove the existence of God to the believer, and as Wildo has identified, the burden of proof in such exercise is on the one who posits the thesis (in this case, of God's existence.)

    But as Lifer has also identified, although it amounts to a challenge to prove a negative (a notoriously difficult if not impossible task,) nobody has conclusively proven God's nonexistence. In fact, in the Allmighty's particular case, one can only disprove an attribute, after which the attribute can be reinterpreted. So we would have to not only prove a negative, we would have to do it while aiming at a moving target.

    This is not to argue one side or the other; it is simply to state that the "argument" we're talking about isn't in the realm of argument. It is in the realm of personal reflection.

    There is a difference between saying "it can not be proven," and saying "you should not believe it."

    An intelligent and intellectually honest man can easily say to himself, "I have neither proof nor disproof; I am therefore free to believe or disbelieve without being a bonehead."

    That is not the same thing as saying that his internal reasons to believe are valid once they enter the realm of shared discourse.

    This is why I find aggressive proselytizing to be akin to salesmanship, whereas I have the greatest respect for those who search for their own "salvation" or understanding of the spiritual.
     
  15. Lifer

    Lifer Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    while we have disagreements over the last part, I appreciate what you have said in this post.
    Threads like these, debating if its basically stupid to believe in God or stupid not to, are not very constrictive to thoughtful and meaningful discussion on these matters.
     
  16. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    I don't think anyone is stupid simply because they believe in god. I think they are mistaken.
     
  17. Lifer

    Lifer Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    you said this in an earlier post

    "Having a lower IQ makes it easier to believe in god."

    I respect a comment like, "I think they are mistaken"
    the IQ comment, on the other hand, makes it sure sound you are question the intelligence of believers.

    But i am willing to take you on your word that you are not saying that.
     
  18. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Saying "having a lower IQ makes it easier to elieve in god" is not the same as saying if you believe in god, you're stupid. I was referring to the statistical correlation that the study draws. If I say being from Boston makes you more likely to be a Patriots fan that doesn't mean that all Patriot fans are from boston does it? Of course I think having a lower IQ would make it easier to be mistaken. Doesn't mean everyone who is mistaken has a lower IQ.
     
  19. Lakesidepatsfan

    Lakesidepatsfan On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    einstein was jewish
    einstein was mega clever
     
  20. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    He was Jewish by heritage, did he believe in god?

     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>