|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Religious people are dumb" - Science
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
OK,so attention grabbing headlines aside, there is some research that suggests a correlation between intelligence and atheism. I don't have links to hand, but the upshot is that the more intelligent you are the less likely it is that you will have a religious faith. For example, research into the religious beliefs of those in the topic scientific academy's would seem to confirm this.
I took this research for granted and it never really bothered me because correlation doesn't equal causation. There are probably many correlations that could be drawn out. I think this is because people reach conclusions on things like metaphysics for all manner of reasons.
However, I have recently encountered an individual who insists that this actually means something. Truth, it seams, boils down to a numbers game. IF 90% of the "top" people in industry X and Y are atheists or agnostics then the corollary is that non-belief is the rational view to hold.
Is there a counter argument to this apart from correlation =/= causation? I ask because it seems to be the type of argument that is at least superficially appealing and difficult to argue against.
Indeed, is there anyone here who thinks this line of argument is valid?
(I should add that in a twist of delicious irony the person who I mention above displays no signs of notable intelligence.)
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Is there a counter argument to this apart from correlation =/= causation?
<snip>
(I should add that in a twist of delicious irony the person who I mention above displays no signs of notable intelligence.)
The most direct argument would be that the notion of "intelligence" is too mushy to support anything, ISTM. You might as well say that "good" people are atheists. The premise is a Rorschach test, not a testable hypothesis.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psmith
Shipmate
# 15311
|
Posted
Intelligent people are as given as others (or nearly so) to intellectual fashion, even to the extent of irrationality (witness economists on limitless growth). Such being the case, I would not be inclined to read to much into it. I tend to think (but cannot really justify) that belief in God is still seen by many as the default position, and its rejection as the positive choice, and that such rejection is more likely among people who have given it thought, who will tend to be more intelligent. If I'm right about this the difference will decline (and perhaps reverse) as atheism becomes the default.
Posts: 81 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
I don't know if this helps but reading the content below Studies comparing religious belief and I. Q. on the linked page may be relevant.
A quick glance shows some correlations but many factors which may explain them.
Personally - I'd like to claim this as evidence for my possession of a towering intellect but those who know me well would, quite rightly, never let me get away with it.
I suspect that economic independence/confidence in one's future physical wellbeing is a major enabler of atheism. It may explain why some economically more-developed countries report lower levels of religious observance than others with fewer state-provided support systems and/or poorer average educational attainment.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It might be worth pointing out believers such as Rowan Williams (and any others you can think of) who is certainly very intelligent.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niminypiminy
Shipmate
# 15489
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
IF 90% of the "top" people in industry X and Y are atheists or agnostics then the corollary is that non-belief is the rational view to hold.
rational view to hold for what purpose? Fitting in with the crowd? Climbing the greasy pole?
You could as easily say 'if 90% of top people in industry are cannibals then it is rational to view cannibalism as right'.
--------------------
Lives of the Saints: songs by The Unequal Struggle
http://www.theunequalstruggle.com/
Posts: 776 | From: Edge of the Fens | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Of course atheism is rational, religious belief is irrational in that it requires faith.
[ 11. September 2012, 14:08: Message edited by: Caissa ]
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
IF 90% of the "top" people in industry X and Y are atheists or agnostics then the corollary is that non-belief is the rational view to hold.
This particular argument seems to be fallaciously extending expertise in one particular area to universal expertise. Just because someone is a top person in X or Y doesn't mean there's any particular reason to take their opinion of Z any more seriously than any other random non-expert.
Which, of course, begs the question of what it means to be an expert in God?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Let's not go confusing rationality with scientific provability again, please.
I think Hughwillridmee has a point viz the economic stability of better educated people. I was thinking along those lines too with the added point that a person who has pride in his own intellect is less likely to set aside his own ideas in favour of other ideas requiring a degree of humility. Not intending to direct this at anyone in particular but I have noticed a certain intellectual arrogance among the numbers of neoatheists - witness the thankfully waning tendency to refer to themselves as "brights" ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Let's not go confusing rationality with scientific provability again, please.
Not scientific provability, but rationality literally means the application of reason. Any belief arrived at by other means (e.g. faith) is, definitionally, irrational.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Meh, tell me something I didn't know.
quote:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
How did human intelligence increase so much in the past few centuries?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Oh, it's quite easy to get that sort of person sermonizing about the progress of humankind to a golden future. Not only are we getting more advanced, we are becoming better people. It's the whole premise of Star Trek.
It's an entirely different understanding of humanity. It's got nothing to do with "Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Of course, what is rational and logical depends on your prejudice and assumptions. Clearly those operating from one set of assumptions will do things which are internally consistent and logical but are quite different to those done by someone else operating from a different set of assumptions.
It seems to me to be a mistake to assume there is just one 'rational' explanation given we're all operating from different starting points. Even in narrow strands of science, one thing can be both irrational and rational at the same time.
Take conservation biology: one might argue logically that large numbers of species will inevitably die off all the time because they're not best fit to their niche, at the same time others might logically argue that it is rational to protect endangered species.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Let's not go confusing rationality with scientific provability again, please.
Not scientific provability, but rationality literally means the application of reason. Any belief arrived at by other means (e.g. faith) is, definitionally, irrational.
Not wishing to derail this thread, but puh-lease! Faith is not the process by which I came to belief in Christianity; faith in God is the result of my applying reasoned thought to things that I and others have experienced and observed. At least you didn't say "blind faith", so I'll give you one point for having a go.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's important that it's a correlation, as this means that other variables can come into play.
For example, there is some evidence that in the US, having a college degree makes it more likely that you will be religious, not less.
And also that working class white people are now leaving religion more than their middle-class counterparts.
I think this shows the complexity of these inter-relationships, and also the danger of seeing correlation as causation.
Of course, in 19th century England there was a kind of parallel situation, that the uneducated worker abandoned religion more than the middle-class person.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'
Free will.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Any belief arrived at by other means (e.g. faith) is, definitionally, irrational.
Not really. Most extra-rational processes would not generally be termed "irrational." For example, our feelings are typically not derived by deduction from any recognizable premise, but they would not usually be called "irrational." There is a pejoritive aspect to "irrational" that has overtones of something like "mad." That is pretty much hard-wired into the term, and applying it to those things that simply do not follow from a deductive system is always argumentative. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'
I deny there is zero evidence. Inconclusive evidence, sure. "That evidence doesn't prove it" is not the same thing as "that evidence doesn't exist."
I hold many other beliefs based on inconclusive evidence; for example, that my wife loves me without reservation. I have the same evidence that a man has whose wife is having a very well-hidden affair. Therefore the evidence for this proposition is inconclusive. Yet I believe it. By faith. Yet it would be a bizarre twisting of the word to say my faith in my wife is irrational.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Maybe I'm not understanding your point, mousethief, but it seems an odd thing to base your belief of unconditional love of your spouse on whether or not someone else is having an affair.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Maybe I'm not understanding your point, mousethief, but it seems an odd thing to base your belief of unconditional love of your spouse on whether or not someone else is having an affair.
Clearly you're not understanding my point. Really really not understanding my point.
The point about the affair is that the man whose wife is having a well-hidden affair has the same evidence of her fidelity as I do regarding my wife's fidelity. It is a point about the nature of the evidence. Which I explicitly said. How the hell you got to what you got to, I have no idea, other than not reading carefully and for content.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
You're right Long Ranger, you completely missed his point.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Any belief arrived at by other means (e.g. faith) is, definitionally, irrational.
Not really. Most extra-rational processes would not generally be termed "irrational." For example, our feelings are typically not derived by deduction from any recognizable premise, but they would not usually be called "irrational." There is a pejoritive aspect to "irrational" that has overtones of something like "mad." That is pretty much hard-wired into the term, and applying it to those things that simply do not follow from a deductive system is always argumentative. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
Yes, you could also argue that all experiences are non-rational, since we do not arrive at them in a logical manner. They seem to be immediately presented to us. I suppose you could argue that the brain does go through a certain set of algorithms, in order to construct a certain experiential presentation, but this sounds odd to me.
I have noticed that the term 'non-rational' is used, to avoid the pejorative 'irrational', and I have even noticed 'transrational'.
[ 11. September 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
British Social Attitudes Survey 2011 looked at religious belief and related it to, among other thigns, educational qualifications- see table here. Graduates were the most likely to have a religious belief and to attend worship/ meetings. People without qualifications and graduates were the two groups most likely to say that they ha d a religion: people with intermediate qualifications- CSE to A level- were those most likely to have no religion.
Of course, qualifications don't necessarily equate to intelligence.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
How did human intelligence increase so much in the past few centuries?
I don't think it has - I think it is knowledge that has increased and been passed down to succeeding generations.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
Faith in Christianity, at least as far as I understand it, is not the "believing in the face of evidence to the contrary" that people like Richard Dawkins would have us believe. It is trust based on the evidence that is available. This evidence might be found in philosophical arguments, the historicity of people, places and things, science, personal experience or whatever else. To be sure people like Susan Doris, Crœsos and the like don't put any weight in such evidences and we are left with the tedious claim that there is no evidence.
Still, I was hoping to avoid such a debate in this thread unless it is somehow relevant to the topic at hand.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
How did human intelligence increase so much in the past few centuries?
I don't think it has - I think it is knowledge that has increased and been passed down to succeeding generations.
I don't think that it has, either. The observations are entirely contemporary, I assume, hence their applicability is limited.
If intelligence is reflected in curiosity, then it would be reasonable to suppose that in the middle ages the more intelligent people gravitated to roles that involved literacy and study. The church was the harbor for all such, as the preserver and disseminator of writings and the sponsor of universities and schools of various kinds. Chaucer's much-admired "Oxford cleric" epitomized the brilliant young man of humble origins in love with learning, who thanked God fervently for the generous people who had paid his tuition. He was still poor partly because he did not yet have a post in the church; but naturally he was in holy orders, and most men like him would make a living that way in due course.
If anything, I suspect that the centuries-long attraction of the most intelligent people into positions where they were not permitted to reproduce has been unfortunate for the gene pool of Christendom.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Of course a good bit of the recruitment pool for monasteries in the middle ages had less to do with intelligence and curiosity than with rights of inheritance. A lot more dull second brothers than intelligent first brothers in the monasteries.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
Purely anecdotal, but there's a significant pressure at certain levels of academia, particularly in the sciences, to conform to a notion that only sentimental fools believe in God, or at least to believe in the kind of personal, hands-on, exclusive God that Christianity posits.
Science students routinely mock not just obvious anti-intellectualism like that of the creationists, but believe in any God, and there's an implicit (or sometimes explicit) assumption that if you really believe in God, you're no better than a fanatic or a child that believes in Santa Claus.
There's also a tendency in the liberal arts that any cultural expression that's consensual is valuable and that Christianity is nothing but a means toward quashing expressions it doesn't like.
As a result, people who want to fit in either profess no belief in a God or they adopt a form of deism where they don't stick out as a target. But it seems to me that many atheist intelligentsia haven't really considered religious claims themselves, but rather they didn't have anything invested in religious belief and it's just more socially acceptable not to buy into it.
(By that same token, I think many, but by no means all, Christians are Christian because that's just what your family or peer group does.)
They seem to often present the same pre-packaged canards that the fundamentalists tend towards: either you believe that God literally created heaven and earth in six days a few thousand years ago and that Adam lived to be several hundred years old or you might as well not bother to believe any of it, including the claims of Christ.
So I guess what I'm getting at is that rather than intelligence (however we measure it) directly causing people to reject religion or the existence of God, it could very well be caused by differences in culture and class among people at different levels of intelligence/education.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'
So...you are saying there is zero evidence for the existence of God?
I'll give some that some thought and then get back to you.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
A couple other issues come to mind.
1) An article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer by a long-time Harvard professor who has done research in adherence to ethical standards. It is entitled, "Harvard scandal reveals ethical rot." This scandal transpired on Aug. 30 with a revelation that half of the 250 undergraduates taking a certain course are under investigation for allegedly cheating on their final exam.
Other troubling observations: when a dean was fired for having lied about her qualifications in her application, students tended to object. "She's doing a good job; what's the problem?" "Everyone lies on his resumé". There was also a dearth of objection, in a discussion about Enron, to "traders who manipulated energy prices." "No student condemned them; responses varied from 'Caveat emptor' to 'It's state officials' job to monitor the situation."
These are presumably, among our best-and-brightest, ergo (according to the hypothesis mentioned in the O.P.) least likely to have religious faith. But young scientists who don't have ethics are liable to be worse than useless for the scientific endeavor. Not only will they fail to advance knowledge, but they will bring disrepute on the entire effort. They are hence mislabeled as scientists, no matter how intelligent and credentialed they may be. Should their intelligence be counted in the balance if, as far as science and society are concerned, it is going to waste?
There have also been scandals in the public schools regarding cheating on standardized tests, sometimes on a systematic scale encouraged by teachers and principals.
So I'd be interested in data regarding a correlation between academic cheating, and other forms of dishonesty among the intelligentsia, and religious faith. If religious people don't cheat as much, then they will be more reliably well qualified, and more productive, even if not quite as intelligent.
Second, the above circumstnaces may have something to do with the fact that the U.S. is no longer producing enough scientists, doctors, and engineers (Ph.D earners in general) for its own needs. Many are from Asia and elsewhere abroad-- educated here and then remaining. Some aren't even educated here. It would be interesting to know if those from abroad have the same incidence of religious faith (or lack-of) as the domestic crop. Furthermore, if a religious social environment conduces to their education and their rising to their potential, this should be considered even if these individuals themselves have below-average levels of belief and observance.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'
Free will.
Various others - Metaphysical truths (.e.g there are minds other than my own - the other supposed humans I encounter are not automatons programmed to respond to me rather than being rationallybfree agents in their own right; the external world is real - you might be a disembodied mind sitting in a vat somewhere - the past wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age). All reasonably held beliefs - but you can't prove any of them scientifically.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
OK,so attention grabbing headlines aside, there is some research that suggests a correlation between intelligence and atheism. I don't have links to hand, but the upshot is that the more intelligent you are the less likely it is that you will have a religious faith. For example, research into the religious beliefs of those in the topic scientific academy's would seem to confirm this.
And who decided that scientists are the most intelligent people?
Oh yes, that's right. Scientists.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
How did human intelligence increase so much in the past few centuries?
I don't think it has - I think it is knowledge that has increased and been passed down to succeeding generations.
Yes. This is one of the things that annoys me THE most, the idea that ancient people were somehow 'dumb'. They simply weren't.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I nod in agreement with Croesos and others of course, but I think it is quite likely that the atheist scientists might be asking, 'What one other thing is there that people have faith in for which there is zero evidence?'
Free will.
Various others - Metaphysical truths (.e.g there are minds other than my own - the other supposed humans I encounter are not automatons programmed to respond to me rather than being rationallybfree agents in their own right; the external world is real - you might be a disembodied mind sitting in a vat somewhere - the past wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age). All reasonably held beliefs - but you can't prove any of them scientifically.
Yes, there are also some really strange ones - for example, that the present moment exists. Is there any evidence for this?
Also logic. Isn't it correct that logic just has to be accepted ab initio, or deductively?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The odd thing about the intelligence/religion link, is that in American sociology, it is almost a truism now, that graduates are more likely to retain their religion than non-graduates.
In fact, this came up bizarrely in the Presidential campaign, when some Republicans seemed to suggest that going to university was a kind of Democrat conspiracy, since it tends to make people atheist or secularist.
But in fact, the opposite seems to be true.
However, this is a correlation, not a causation.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
British Social Attitudes Survey 2011 looked at religious belief and related it to, among other thigns, educational qualifications- see table here. Graduates were the most likely to have a religious belief and to attend worship/ meetings. People without qualifications and graduates were the two groups most likely to say that they ha d a religion: people with intermediate qualifications- CSE to A level- were those most likely to have no religion.
Of course, qualifications don't necessarily equate to intelligence.
I can't find the stuff about graduates there. Can you show me where it is?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
How did human intelligence increase so much in the past few centuries?
I don't think it has - I think it is knowledge that has increased and been passed down to succeeding generations.
Yes. This is one of the things that annoys me THE most, the idea that ancient people were somehow 'dumb'. They simply weren't.
Quite. One of the fallacies of the scientism agenda is that it requires everyone born before about 1700 to have been either stupid or wicked.
The thing is - and this may be why surveys come up with conflicting results - "intelligence" is a social construct. It's up to a society to decide whom it's going to count as "intelligent". It so happens that in our contemporary Western society, intelligence is constructed in a very narrow and exclusive way. It's defined as having the ability to score highly in I.Q. tests.
The thing is, you can score highly in an I.Q. test and yet not be able to make an omelette, play the lute or write a novel (or even read one). Similarly you can score low in an I.Q. test and excel at any or all of those.
I think there's a real danger to society in this narrowing of what's accepted as intelligence. The risk is that those who don't make it through the narrow gate (see what I did there?) are gradually excluded from positions of influence, public forums, and ultimately from society itself.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I don't think that is fair. Science says that the sum of human knowledge has increased over time. Hence someone believing today what was known 200 years ago is illogical, because knowledge has moved on. But that isn't the same as saying someone believing something 200 years ago was illogical or stupid - because they lived 200 years ago without today's knowledge.
Years ago there were not the scientific skills and techniques, so it is hardly surprising that the focus was on knowledge outwith of the methods we use today, but I don't think anyone could argue the ancient philosophers and thinkers were stupid.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some atheists argue that the Bible was written by bronze-age goat roasters, with the implication, I would think, that they were primitive idiots. Rather unlikely, really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Years ago there were not the scientific skills and techniques, so it is hardly surprising that the focus was on knowledge outwith of the methods we use today, but I don't think anyone could argue the ancient philosophers and thinkers were stupid.
All the same (and having done some research on this for the Book), Aristotle suggested that light emerged from the eyes to illuminate objects he could see, amongst half a dozen equally strange ideas.
Because of philosophy's refusal to test hypotheses with real-world experiments, some really stupid concepts kept in currency long after they ought to have done, simply because educated men revered the ancient philosophers and thinkers and didn't question their answers.
A considerable amount has come out in the last decade or so about Arabic and Persian science in the 5-15th centuries. These guys were running rings around Aristotle, Plato, Ptolemy et al because they'd already discovered the scientific method and put it into practice.
Quite what you'd put this difference in approach down to is speculation: the Islamic/Zoroastrian scholars were no less religious than their Christian counterparts, but they were a lot less worried that they'd get into trouble for simply poking things with a stick.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
British Social Attitudes Survey 2011 looked at religious belief and related it to, among other thigns, educational qualifications- see table here. Graduates were the most likely to have a religious belief and to attend worship/ meetings. People without qualifications and graduates were the two groups most likely to say that they ha d a religion: people with intermediate qualifications- CSE to A level- were those most likely to have no religion.
Of course, qualifications don't necessarily equate to intelligence.
I can't find the stuff about graduates there. Can you show me where it is?
Found it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Quite what you'd put this difference in approach down to is speculation: the Islamic/Zoroastrian scholars were no less religious than their Christian counterparts, but they were a lot less worried that they'd get into trouble for simply poking things with a stick.
I think there are two major factors.
The first is that the Islamic scholars were building upon a foundation provided largely by Oriental Orthodox Christian scholars. When the Caliphs commissioned people to gather together what was known in the Hellenistic world the people they commissioned were naturally Christian. But the Muslims had the areas that had been the Hellenistic heartlands, where the intellectually interesting stuff had happened. (Nothing much interesting happened in natural philosophy in Latin in the ancient world. I think maybe Galen wrote in Latin.)
The second is that the Arab empire was just a lot more unified than the Christian West, until the Popes stamped their authority on the Church. There's been quite a lot of work done on what the late scholastics did in natural philosophy, building on what the Muslims had done, and the late medieval natural philosophers really didn't have anything to be ashamed of compared to the natural philosophers of any other era or region. (And certainly they got much further than the pagan Romans did.) But prior to the Gregorian reforms and the resurgence of the Holy Roman Empire, there wasn't a lot of scope for intellectuals in one part of the West to correspond easily with intellectuals in other parts of the West. (There is of course the usual question as to whether the intellectual-cultural chicken or the political-economic egg comes first here.)
Byzantine natural philosophy has I think been less studied, but they threw up a couple of interesting figures as well.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(Nothing much interesting happened in natural philosophy in Latin in the ancient world. I think maybe Galen wrote in Latin.)
As an aside, the way Galen's work was treated is the exemplum of the way early scholars were sanctified by Europeans and challenged by Asians/Africans.
Galen was simply wrong about almost everything, yet his ideas prevailed in the west for almost 1500 years despite, not because of, the evidence.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some atheists argue that the Bible was written by bronze-age goat roasters, with the implication, I would think, that they were primitive idiots. Rather unlikely, really.
I always thought it was more to do with the fact that they didn't have our wealth of knowledge about how the universe works, with the implication that if they had had that knowledge they wouldn't have written such a load of old tosh.
Or to put it another way: sticking to a "bronze-age goat roaster"'s understanding of how the universe works is like a modern army trying to fight a battle with bits of flint lashed to sticks. It may have been the best possible way to do it back then, but it's not any more.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some atheists argue that the Bible was written by bronze-age goat roasters, with the implication, I would think, that they were primitive idiots. Rather unlikely, really.
I always thought it was more to do with the fact that they didn't have our wealth of knowledge about how the universe works, with the implication that if they had had that knowledge they wouldn't have written such a load of old tosh.
Or to put it another way: sticking to a "bronze-age goat roaster"'s understanding of how the universe works is like a modern army trying to fight a battle with bits of flint lashed to sticks. It may have been the best possible way to do it back then, but it's not any more.
Well, that's a reasonable argument against creationism, but not Christianity itself, I would think. I don't see theism as failed science.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's a reasonable argument against creationism, but not Christianity itself, I would think. I don't see theism as failed science.
Seems to me to be a reasonable argument against Christianity, which is seen by many as being a perfect sort of knowledge/science. It seems to have only been fairly recently that there was a division between 'science' as we understand it and other kinds of knowledge.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's a reasonable argument against creationism, but not Christianity itself, I would think. I don't see theism as failed science.
Seems to me to be a reasonable argument against Christianity, which is seen by many as being a perfect sort of knowledge/science. It seems to have only been fairly recently that there was a division between 'science' as we understand it and other kinds of knowledge.
I think your 'by many' needs a bit of unpacking!
Who do you think states that Christianity is a perfect science? I think creationism is failed science (and failed theism also, but that's another can of worms), but who else?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@quetzalcoatl - quite possibly you're thinking of science as the form of natural philosophy we associate today with inductive reasoning based on experimentation in the real world.
In the past, the term was much wider and encompassed all learning.
It is possible to read Christianity as a science developed out of wishful thinking and hope, which has been disproved by more recent science (including philosophy and reasoning in a large variety of fields).
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
