God Makes you stupid

[ebonyknight]

Not my title.

A psychology researcher has controversially claimed that stupidity is causally linked to how likely people are to believe in God.
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/12/god_boffins/)
University of Ulster professor Richard Lynn will draw the conclusion in new research due to be published in the journal Intelligence, the Times Higher Education Supplement reports.

Lynn and his two co-authors argue that average IQ is an excellent predictor of what proportion of the population are true believers, across 137 countries. They also cite surveys of the US Academy of Sciences and UK Royal Academy showing single-digit rates of religious belief among academics.

That professional skeptics don't believe in a creator is perhaps not all that surprising. Lynn argues, however, that it is their intelligence that directly gives rise to the boffinated classes' non-God-bothering tendencies. He said: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population."

Lynn pointed out that most children do believe in God, but as their intelligence develops they tend to have doubts or reject religion. Similarly, as average IQ in Western societies increased through the 20th century, so did rates of atheism, he said.

The researchers' claims of a direct causal link have drawn criticism from others in intelligence research, who argue their conclusions are too simplistic. London Metropolitan University's Dr David Hardman said: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt intuitions."

Don't know how much more fratching appropriate this could be, but I wanted to see the reaction to this. I know what the reaction in the States would be.

[the_std]

I don't know if it's all about IQs, but I have to agree. It seems that a lot of people who exercise their brains actively, especially in academic pursuits, tend away from religion. It has often been said that religion is a crutch, and a lot of people who aren't very brainy (I don't wanna say dumb, but maybe ignorant is a good word) will turn to a god to make their life okay, to depend upon them to give meaning to their lives. Whereas "smarter" people have a harder time ignoring a lot of the dogma and inherent hypocrisy and logic gaps that are inherent in many religions.

I won't say that religion makes you ignorant, but it definitely seems that the ignorant are the most fervently religious.

[anriana]

Without being able to read the study itself, I can only critique the conclusions the researcher drew. It doesn't seem he adjusted for any outlying factors. "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population." There are many other things academics have, like a snooty attitude, more so than the general population; I don't think you can isolate IQ as the sole factor.


That said, I do think there is some correlation between IQ and religion, especially uncritical religion. I have several intelligent friends who have examined their belief systems critically and rejected some of the tenets, while still maintaining a belief in a higher good. I myself will soon be converting to a religion for the moral concepts, while discarding most of the mystical stuff like the creation story and view of the afterlife. A higher IQ leads you to question things more, and makes it harder to uncritically accept religious tenets. My religious journey started with questioning certain doctrines of my church and never receiving a solid, theological answer for them, and I've seen that theme repeated throughout my adventures in ex-Christianity. I think most of the stereotypical religious people in America are not critical of their faith at all, and I would associate that with a lower intelligence.

[Boozy]

The researchers' claims of a direct causal link have drawn criticism from others in intelligence research, who argue their conclusions are too simplistic.

Too simplistic by far.

What is the criteria for determining quantity and/or quality of religious fervor? Are they using standard IQ tests to measure intelligence despite recent questions as to their value? What sort of research have they actually done?

They also cite surveys of the US Academy of Sciences and UK Royal Academy showing single-digit rates of religious belief among academics.

Let's follow their train of thought:

We hold the following things to be true:
- We are scientists.
- We believe ourselves smart.
- We don't believe in God.

Ergo:
- Smart people don't believe in God.

Anyone familiar with logical fallacies understands the problem here.

I'll withhold final judgment until their research is actually published, but unless it consists of more than just this kind of stuff, I'm afraid it's pseudo-science.

[Rapscallion]

What should also be taken into account is that IQ measurements are very western-oriented. A high IQ is not going to help you to survive in the amazon, for example. IQ is not the be all and end all of intelligence.

Rapscallion

[Lyra]

Hear, hear!

My mother is a MENSA member.

She had been out of communication with them for some time, and her cousin, who is also a member, invited her to come to one of the meetings with his local group.

One of the other members of that chapter happend to be a mutual aquaintance, and introduced my mother to several other members this way:

"Hey everyone, this is Marjorie*. She still believe's in God." :::cue condecending laughter:::

Mom suddenly remembered just exactly why she'd been out of communication with MENSA for so long. Most of her experiences with them had gone pretty much that way.

I know they aren't all like that, but enough are that it gives the whole group a bad name.

IQ is supposed to be a measurement of your POTENTIAL ability to process new information, and learn new things. Seems to me, if you're basing how "cool" you are on that alone, you're not living up to your potential.

Plus, you're an ass.

*not her real name.

[Boozy]

Veering slightly off topic here: I know how your mom feels. MENSA members have got to be the biggest douchebags I've ever met.

As far as I can tell, my local chapter does nothing but sit around and talk about how smart they are. What's the point of being smart if you don't help others and your community? People who possess the tools to affect change and choose not to do so are utter failures as human beings, IMO.

(Apologies to anyone who is currently a member of MENSA. I know not everyone can be painted with the same brush. And I'm sure there are better chapters out there; I'm just not familiar with them.)

Back on topic: I have a feeling that these scientists are like those fervent atheists we've all come across. It's not enough that they don't believe in God; they need to feel intellectually superior about it. And they want you to know it.

I'll bet they're a real hoot at cocktail parties. :rolleyes:

[Slytovhand]

What I noticed about the bit pasted was the criss-cross back and forth between 'religion' and 'belief in God', as though the 2 are identical.

It's quite possible to have a belief or faith in some sort of creator type being, without choosing to subscribe to any particular religion.

If your IQ increases, you may be more likely to start asking questions that your religion isn't going to be able to answer effectively ("Hey Mr Priest - what are those dinosaur bones doing from 200 Million years ago, when the Earth is only 6000 years old??"). If that happens, and you can't come to a comfortable compatibility (myth vs science), then you may well reject the religion. But that doesn't mean that the whole idea of a god will just up and vanish in a puff of logical smoke. I suspect, therefore, that those high IQ people haven't quite drawn that distinction...


As for the Mensa crowd... all you need to ask is "Prove it!" After all, if they're so damn smart, they should be able to (and then remind them... lack of evidence isn't proof against). But I'm a narky bastard :D


Slyt

[Zyanya]

As for the Mensa crowd... all you need to ask is "Prove it!" After all, if they're so damn smart, they should be able to (and then remind them... lack of evidence isn't proof against). But I'm a narky bastard :D

They'd probably point out that logically speaking, the onus is on the person proving the positive, not the person proving the negative. Thus it is for you to prove the existence of god, not for them to prove the non-existence. Basic scientific method. And lack of evidence isn't proof FOR either.


Sorry, pet peeve, I hate that little circular logic fallacy.

[Slytovhand]

No, I wasn't being circular, I was being a pedantic little shit in the face of someone 'smarter' than me, because I choose to believe something for which they can't disprove, nor offer up decent arguments against either.

So, if they were going to ridicule someone for their 'faith', as they are supposedly atheistis, then they'd have to come up with convincing 'evidence' for their lack of faith. Not just some good reasons, nor good arguments - but convincing evidence. IF not, then they don't have much 'reason' to go belittling someone for believing something which still fits the bigger picture.

So, normally, yes, one should be 'proving' the positive. But in this case, they're trying to insult someone. Thus my comment on 'Prove it!'. If those believers (of whatever faith) were trying to go head for head with those Mensa people, then yes, the onus changes. Lyra's ""Hey everyone, this is Marjorie*. She still believe's in God." :::cue condecending laughter:::" wasn't an example of that, but a veiled insult.




Slyt

[Seshat]

I believe (ha!) that religion fulfills several basic needs of humanity, and that those needs do vary according to a combination of how intelligent one is, and how much intellectual work you want/choose to do in specific fields.

(NOTE: this is NOT 'how intellectually lazy' you are. A person whose intellectual time is spent on a different pursuit may not have brain-time to spend on something he or she considers less important.)

So. Needs that religion fulfills:

- Spiritual wholeness.
This is a really difficult one to describe, but many (maybe most) people who reach fairly high levels in Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) end up needing a kind of quasi-emotional, quasi-intellectual 'togetherness' of personality. Names for this include 'soul' and 'spirituality' and 'self-actualization'.
Religion is really good at filling this need. Some people can fill it with intellectual pursuits, some with abstract philosophies, but religions or spiritualities seem to be effective for more people than philosophies or intellectual pursuits are.

- Mental health.
Religious ministers/rabbis/pastors/shaman/wise-women were the original psychologists and psychiatrists, and for those mental health conditions which are not anatomical or physiological faults, religious practices can be extremely helpful. Religious practices are also excellent for normal 'abnormal' mental conditions, such as grieving.
For example, the Jewish tradition of Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_%28Judaism%29) is a very effective form of grief management. Another example is the use of the Catholic rosary or the mandalas of several Indian and Asian faiths in meditation; and the practice of meditation at all.

- Community.
Religion gives you a place to 'belong' and people to 'belong' with. This is extremely powerful - belonging to a group is a major human need.

- Rules/Ethics/Morals.
Children need firm rules - I don't think anyone here will disagree with that. Children grow best when they know what they are and aren't allowed to do. Don't cross the street without an adult. Don't pull on the cat's tail. Don't chop your brother's fingers off with the kitchen knife.
Teenagers need to rebel against rules, and have that rebellion curbed for some rules while others relax. But they still need some sort of guideline. They can cross the street now, but pulling the cat's tail of chopping their brother's fingers off are still forbidden. :)

Adults - well, some adults still need rules. Others are happier looking for the reasons behind rules, and making up their own rules or guidelines. Most are somewhere between the two. Religion gives rules to those adults who want or need some external authority to say 'this is what you do'.

Tevye, the main character in Fiddler on the Roof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiddler_on_the_Roof), exemplifies someone who is moving from 'obeying his religion in all things' to a more questioning form of life. If you look at him in the start of Fiddler, he's emotionally secure and happy - although occasionally resentful of his relative poverty - living the life that his religion dictates.

Defining your own rules is a lot of intellectual work! And just to make it even harder, the results are usually very similar to the rules of at least one of the major world religions anyway. So it can seem to be pointless work (though it can have 'self-actualisation' or 'spiritual' rewards).

However, many religions have a place for both types of people. In some religions, 'bible study' or its equivalent is a time and place for questioning the rules. Or particular people, or people in a particular stage of life, are designated as people to question the religion's rules.

Still, one way or the other, Religion provides a framework within which people can live their lives; and a thing to point to, to say 'See? I'm a good person.' Many people greatly value that.


If academics have a lower percentage of religious members than other sections of society, this may be because academia not just values, but requires, the kind of intellectual work that fills some of the same needs as religion does. And as for community: academia is itself a community.

[Gabrielle Proctor]

There are many other things academics have, like a snooty attitude, more so than the general population; I don't think you can isolate IQ as the sole factor.


Snooty? I could say that about the academic community, however, I can also say it about the religious community. If you ride around with a bumper sticker that says, "April 1st is national Atheist day" you're just as snooty.

I think that telling everyone that you "know" that they're going to hell because they aren't saved is snooty. No one knows what happens when you die. You can have faith in whatever you think it may be, but saying that you know for a fact(as so many of them do) is far snootier than any non-believer.

Not saying that you do any of this, but the "snooty" comment is not appreciated.

[tropicsgoddess]

I won't say that religion makes you ignorant, but it definitely seems that the ignorant are the most fervently religious.

That is too true. My thing is that the Bible/Quran etc. tends to be taken way out of context. Those scriptures were made to enrich and enlighten your life in a good way, like being modest, honoring and cherishing your spouse and family and goodwill towards fellow man.

[The Shadow]

I won't say that religion makes you ignorant, but it definitely seems that the ignorant are the most fervently religious.

Reminds me of a saying I heard about conservatives...

"Not all conservatives are stupid, but stupid people tend to be conservative."

[CancelMyService]

The topic might be a bit blunt, but there does seem to be a cause and effect where the more religious someone is, the more they turn their brains off and leave everything up to God/Allah/whatever instead of living their own lives.

All the things one can enjoy in life and in the world, yet the ones who claim to be closest to their chosen higher power tend to cut themselves off from most things because their holy books tell them so.

[anriana]

Snooty? I could say that about the academic community, however, I can also say it about the religious community.

Not saying that you do any of this, but the "snooty" comment is not appreciated.

So you agree that the academic community is snooty and then take offense to my saying so? Odd.

[Boozy]

No one is calling anyone here "snooty", so there's no reason for anyone to be taking anything personally. The topic of this thread is treacherous enough; let's not focus on one offhand comment that was just made as an example.

Also - a reminder that should anyone find something offensive here, you can use the report button, just like you would at CS. :)

[IDrinkaRum]

I'm not "snooty". I also don't think I'm stupid. My I. Q. is roughly 140 (if memory serves me correctly). I am also religious. No, I don't go to church every Sunday, but I love being a Catholic. I've read the Bible. I love to read about the Saints. I believe in God. But I'm not OMG!! You're not Catholic/Christian and hate you for it. I know there are other beliefs out there. If they were the "wrong" religions, don't you think, they would have been abandoned by now and everyone would be following the "one true path" - whatever that is?

[MystyGlyttyr]

In this case, I want to think ignorance is bliss.

See, smart people like me, that is, people who think too freaking much for their own good, might start probing too deeply into the "What existed before God" "Where did God come from" "How did this happen" "How did that happen" stuff, and eventually they get too frustrated with not being able to make a logical sense from it and start thinking it might be easier to just not believe in God. So then they move their topic of thought elsewhere and supposedly that makes them "smarter". Or something.

(Except some of us, instead, then start thinking "Well, without a God, then what created everything? Where did that first singularity come from?" URGH. Brain be damned either way.)

Sometimes I am actually jealous of people who ARE able to just accept their faith without questioning it too strenuously, who just know that God is up there and that's good enough for them. Not the asshole my-way-or-no-way folks, but just the ones who have faith just for faith's sake. Man, I wish I could be like that.

[Flyndaran]

I was born an atheist. The very concept of faith is alien to me.
Religion seems like a cultural defense mechanism to avoid dealing with mortality.
I hope humanity will eventually evolve to accept reality. But until then, my kind will be a very small minority.

[Flyndaran]

I doubt intelligence has anything to do with superstition.
People will use as complex rationalizations and mental gymnastics as they can to explain that which they arrived at from non-thinking reasons.
The smarter the superstitious person the more involved the explanation.

[Slytovhand]

I was born an atheist. The very concept of faith is alien to me.
Religion seems like a cultural defense mechanism to avoid dealing with mortality.
I hope humanity will eventually evolve to accept reality. But until then, my kind will be a very small minority.

That sounds very much like what any believer of many of the world's faiths would say, if they were so arrogant to believe theirs is the only true faith.

Many very very intelligent people (by the world's standard) choose to believe in a 'higher' being - going by what ever name they choose to use (if any).

And, there's good reason to.

This isn't to say that the vast majority of people out there believe in things without giving much, or any, thought to it all.

There are questions science can't answer. Similarly, there are questions that the various individual religions have certain difficulties with (though, each of those religions have different questions, due to the nature of the religion).

So, religion and intelligence (or wisdom) isn't a 1=1 affair (even if clerics need a high Wis to cast their spells!)

I doubt intelligence has anything to do with superstition.
People will use as complex rationalizations and mental gymnastics as they can to explain that which they arrived at from non-thinking reasons.
The smarter the superstitious person the more involved the explanation.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here.. cos on one hand it sounds like you're trying to say that scientists (the complex rationalisations adn mental gymnasitcs) are merely finding 'reason' to not accept other beliefs... while they can't answer all of their own questions, they still presume to know better than those who don't go in search of those answers, having already found one.

I'd say that intelligence is directly linked with the level of superstition, but superstition isn't the same thing as belief. It can be easy (and overly simplistic) to just presume that because someone believes something that is different and doesn't fit in with everyone else's reality, then they're 'superstitious' or even just making stuff up! (perfect example is animism... they experience 'alternate realities' which the rest of humanity rarely does... does that mean they're merely highly imaginative???)

[Flyndaran]

That sounds very much like what any believer of many of the world's faiths would say, if they were so arrogant to believe theirs is the only true faith.
Is it really arrogance to assume that that which I sense is real and that for which there is no evidence whatsoever and violates the rules of that which I sense is wrong?
Is it arrogance to state that you do not have an invisible intangible unicorn in your house? No, it is arrogance to say that I am wrong when you have no proof or reason beyond a simple, "because I say so."

Many very very intelligent people (by the world's standard) choose to believe in a 'higher' being - going by what ever name they choose to use (if any).

That's a call to authority falacy. There are many intelligent mentally ill people and racists. So what?

And, there's good reason to.

What reasons are there to willfully believe in things with no proof and that violate all verifiable rules of reality? Before I criticise what you think, I really should be sure of what that is. ;)

This isn't to say that the vast majority of people out there believe in things without giving much, or any, thought to it all.

I don't care how much effort went into believing religion, racism, or anything else. Sheer effort doesn't negate facts despite what many fundies prefer to believe.


There are questions science can't answer. Similarly, there are questions that the various individual religions have certain difficulties with (though, each of those religions have different questions, due to the nature of the religion).

What questions are these that science can't answer and religion can?


So, religion and intelligence (or wisdom) isn't a 1=1 affair (even if clerics need a high Wis to cast their spells!)
I for one never said they were incompatible. A mathematical, musical, artistic, physical, etc. talent has nothing to do with superstions.


I'm not sure where you're coming from here.. cos on one hand it sounds like you're trying to say that scientists (the complex rationalisations adn mental gymnasitcs) are merely finding 'reason' to not accept other beliefs... while they can't answer all of their own questions, they still presume to know better than those who don't go in search of those answers, having already found one.
You seem to be using scientists as a comparable term to cleric. They aren't at all alike. A scientist is listened to when backed up by verifiable data and ignored in all other ways, in a scientific field that is. Clerics get listened to about any and all subjects no matter how little or even non-existant their experience or education is and verification is completely out of the picture.


I'd say that intelligence is directly linked with the level of superstition, but superstition isn't the same thing as belief. It can be easy (and overly simplistic) to just presume that because someone believes something that is different and doesn't fit in with everyone else's reality, then they're 'superstitious' or even just making stuff up! (perfect example is animism... they experience 'alternate realities' which the rest of humanity rarely does... does that mean they're merely highly imaginative???)

Believing something that directly contradicts known laws of reality is superstition. Just because religious people don't like the term means nothing.
If you were to see an apparition, then the most logical thing to think would be trick of the light, illusions, stress, or possibly hallucination. If you've exhausted those reasons, to your satisfaction, then the rational you may believe in apparitions, but only as to what you saw. Any other interpretation would be guessing.
But as I have never seen anything that violates reality as is commonly accepted, I have no reason to simply take your word for it. I would actually be gullible to believe you at face value. From anyone else's perspective the logical interpretation would be that you made a mistake with mental illness be a distant second.

Too often the difference between superstion and religion is all a matter of how many believe the same thing. One guy in alberta believes in an all knowing gremlin that lives in his basement? Superstitous/Nut. One million believing in capricious magically powerful humanoids living on Mount Olympus? Religion. Oh, wait there aren't many of them left, so we can downgrade that to mythology.

[AFPheonix]

What questions are these that science can't answer and religion can?




Philosophical matters are outside of the realm of the measurable and tangible. Ethics also fall into that group.

Frankly, I don't care what someone does or does not believe. As long as their beliefs to not impinge on anyone else, they can believe they have a pet pink elephant in their living room that shits out marshmallows for all I care.

[Boozy]

What questions are these that science can't answer and religion can?

Science, by it's very nature, cannot tackle questions that do not led themselves to the scientific method. The scientific method involves making hypotheses and testing these hypotheses. It requires observational data inducted from experiments, or proofs deducted from mathematical theory.

As such, there are myriads of questions that science cannot tackle, such as the existence of God. You could make the hypothesis that there is no God, but you can't prove it. You could also make the hypothesis that there is a God...but again, you can't prove it. So science doesn't bother.

When it comes to such questions, it is not uncommon for people to turn to spirituality. Material atheists do not, but that doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. There are scientists in every religion. They adhere to strict scientific principles in all things they can, and make leaps of faith in the areas they cannot.

[Scamper]

I was born an atheist. The very concept of faith is alien to me.

Faith is a belief in something without proof.
An axiom is something that is believed without proof.

According to the Transitive Property of Equality (if a=b and b=c, then a=c), faith and axiom are equal because they are both believed without proof.

I personally have seen certain things that cause me to believe that there is a god. I have yet to see anyone explain Tongues in any other way, perhaps you would care to take a stab at it? The blanket statement that seeing something that contradicts what one believes is merely a hallucination-by any name, is pure arrogance, the equivalent of stating that one knows everything.

As far as stating that intelligent people don't have religion/believe in god, Science itself has been called a religion, and the way some people react to anti-evolution statements does nothing to dispel the idea.

[Flyndaran]

Those that call science a religion are wrong. Just because they base their entire existance around what some ancient book written in allegory, metaphor, and verifiably false statements says, they feel that everyone must do something similiar with some other faith based system.
They are wrong.
I don't have faith. I don't need faith. I don't want faith.
Faith is a belief DESPITE the proof. People die and rot. That is the fact and proof we see every day. Faith is believing that someone thousands of years ago popped back up again because a book says so.

If someone admits to seeing fairies, then I have the right to ask if they've taken their medication lately. I don't have any obligation to accept them at their word. I have no right to force them or anyone to give up their superstitions. But I'll be damned (heh) if even for a moment I lend any validity to them.

Evolution has been so proven beyond any doubt as to render critics as sad pathetic flat earthers grasping at straws that they can't even understand.
Have you read any of their uneducated meanderings? It's frightening that people that dumb could form sentences let alone make a living at it.

[Flyndaran]

Science, by it's very nature, cannot tackle questions that do not led themselves to the scientific method. The scientific method involves making hypotheses and testing these hypotheses. It requires observational data inducted from experiments, or proofs deducted from mathematical theory.

As such, there are myriads of questions that science cannot tackle, such as the existence of God. You could make the hypothesis that there is no God, but you can't prove it. You could also make the hypothesis that there is a God...but again, you can't prove it. So science doesn't bother.

When it comes to such questions, it is not uncommon for people to turn to spirituality. Material atheists do not, but that doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. There are scientists in every religion. They adhere to strict scientific principles in all things they can, and make leaps of faith in the areas they cannot.

I can't prove the non-existance of butt unicorns, so must I accept them as valid beliefs? Of course not. Only accepted religions get the exemption from reason.

Mentioning scientists is a call to authority falacy. I don't care what a chemist says about metallurgy, so why should I care what they say about religion or philosophy?

Of course people turn to all sorts of defense mechanisms to avoid coming to grips with reality. Religion is the opiate of the masses in a more literal way than most think. You and I will eventually end and cease to exist. That sucks more than any other fact we will every understand. Pretending that it doesn't apply to you, me, humans, etc. despite the evidence and just because you REALLY REALLY want to live forever doesn't change the facts.


Also as to the god hypothosis, the appropriate scientific method would be that it doesn't exist and conduct experiments to prove that it does. Lots of people have tried and come up with not one example, so the theory stands. There is no god.
Don't like it?.. then come up with your own experiments, and tell me when you find some verifiable evidence. Until then, the rational view is that gods don't exist.

[Scamper]

Faith is a belief DESPITE the proof.

I have given the dictionary definition of faith. I have given the dictionary definition of axiom. I have PROVEN that faith and axiom are identical. You continue to believe - "DESPITE the proof" that faith is intrinsically false. Your belief is self-contradictory and - by the methods of science, proven wrong.
Our main problem was mentioned by Tang in:
http://tang.comicgenesis.com/d/20021027.html
I am a type 2, You are a type 3.
Believing that someone died and came back to life 2000 years ago is faith, believing that somebody recently got healed is not. I have seen the video. Would you believe it? No, you would come up with some sort of explanation that doesn't disturb your world view, whether video editing, or lying, or something else. Truthfully, however, one could say that about any proof for anything.

[Sylvia727]

If someone wants to believe that there is no God, they can go ahead. And if someone wants to believe that there is a god, gods, spirits, afterlife, or any other religion, they can go ahead too. For atheism to quarrel with the other religions is just as stupid as Christianity quarreling with Wicca, or Islam quarreling with Hinduism.

Granted, there are assholes on every side. But I am continually impressed by the people who claim that religion is a mass delusion and then proceed to start religious flamewars. Is it really that important? Why does it matter if you believe in the magical sky fairy and I don't? Is your mere belief so painful to me that I must stamp it out?

[Flyndaran]

If someone wants to believe that there is no God, they can go ahead. And if someone wants to believe that there is a god, gods, spirits, afterlife, or any other religion, they can go ahead too. For atheism to quarrel with the other religions is just as stupid as Christianity quarreling with Wicca, or Islam quarreling with Hinduism.

Granted, there are assholes on every side. But I am continually impressed by the people who claim that religion is a mass delusion and then proceed to start religious flamewars. Is it really that important? Why does it matter if you believe in the magical sky fairy and I don't? Is your mere belief so painful to me that I must stamp it out?

Do you really think that by boldfacing belief that it means something?
I don't believe there is no god any more or less than I believe there are no fairies, or butt unicorns. The idea is just too silly on the face of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence of a god or fairies, despite all the inumerable people that have tried to find it, so the debate is meaningless.

I know that I may come off somewhat hostile. The idea that the vast majority of the human race believes in things simply because they were told it at an early age, or simply because they refuse to admit that they and the universe itself is finite, scares the bejeesus out of me. It scares me not just because we born atheists are so fleetingly rare, but also because so many horrors have been and will continue to be perpetrated in the name of evidenceless causes.

Is it really that important that millions of people have died, been tortured to death, and predjudiced against all because of these beliefs? How on earth can you not see how human death and suffering is important?

You inbetweeners confuse me more than the believers.

[Sylvia727]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Some people find the claim that existance is a coincidence more extraordinary than the claim that a supernatural being is arranging matters. And that's their prerogative. Personally, I find the fact that almost every culture across time and the globe has evolved religion with similiar base values to be evidence of something in the human psyche.

It scares me <snip> because so many horrors have been and will continue to be perpetrated in the name of evidenceless causes.

Is it really that important that millions of people have died, been tortured to death, and predjudiced against all because of these beliefs? How on earth can you not see how human death and suffering is important?

Yes, it's religion that did that. Not human greed, fear, and lust for power. Religion, by its magical mystical nature, causes otherwise sane people to do horrible things. Or maybe religion, like any other institution, can be coopted by the corrupt for their own ends.

Maybe religion is a comforting fiction. But by itself, it is a harmless one, and even a beneficial one. Because it is so moving, however, people often use it to gain power - successfully. That's a shame, but it's a fact of human existance. If it wasn't religion, it would be some other scam to gain power. There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You inbetweeners confuse me more than the believers.

Thank you. :)

[Arcade Man D]

All this discussion of religion is reminding me, of all things, about my high school lunch table. It was myself and 3 friends, and we were all over the place on our beliefs, both religious and political.

We had myself, a liberal American Baptist, then my friends were a liberal atheist, a conservative Catholic, and a moderate Satanist.

And we'd discuss religion and politics calmly.


The problem with religious extremists, and why there seem to be more of them than other extremists is 1, public enemy number 1 uses religion to justify terrorism, so religious extremism is really in the news right now.

Second, religion speaks to a basic psychological need for the vast majority of humanity, the need to belong. And that makes it easy for a greedy person to manipulate religion to serve his or her needs.

However, with that said, religion is generally, when not abused, a positive force, providing a moral and ethical guide (not saying you have to be religious to have these, I know plenty of moral atheists), providing not just a "don't do these", but exemplars of good living.

[Flyndaran]

...
However, with that said, religion is generally, when not abused, a positive force, providing a moral and ethical guide (not saying you have to be religious to have these, I know plenty of moral atheists), providing not just a "don't do these", but exemplars of good living.

Yes, religion provides an ethical guide. The problem being that for the vast majority of religions and times that guide has been wrong and yet used as a justification for atrocity.
Every holy book I've ever read justifies slavery, rape, and violence in general. Trying to jury-rig a compassionate system of beliefs out of them by ignoring what societies don't like has nothing to do with religion and more to do with human cultural development.
I see religion as a net zero gain for individuals and a severe net loss for humanity in general totally aside from its creepy delusional nature... to me that is.

[Flyndaran]

...
Yes, it's religion that did that. Not human greed, fear, and lust for power. Religion, by its magical mystical nature, causes otherwise sane people to do horrible things. Or maybe religion, like any other institution, can be coopted by the corrupt for their own ends.
...
Thank you. :)
Wait, so religion is not responsible for anything evil done in its name, but it is for everything good?

[Sylvia727]

Wait, so religion is not responsible for anything evil done in its name, but it is for everything good?

A religion is responsible for the morals and lessons it teaches. In most religions, these morals are mostly positive. Christianity and Judaism have the ten commandments, of which two or three are about religion ("I am the Lord thy God") and the rest are about basic moral values ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor").

So Jane Smith is responsible for her own actions, be they good or evil. Her religion is merely a factor in her moral development.

[AdminAssistant]

My take on the whole...God...thing.

I was raised Southern Baptist (the churches I went to were all pretty moderate, though). Now, I identify as a Christian but I feel that most organized churches do more harm than good. So, I have my little belief set, I do talk to God occasionally (In a very, "Hey, what's up?" kind of way), and I think He listens. Well, it makes me feel better anyway.

I do think the amount of ceremony people put on religion is a little...amusing. It's like the whole dunk/sprinkle baptism debate. Do you really think the amount of water involved is the key to heaven? Really? I don't think these people are giving God enough credit. "Oooh, sorry, but only the top of your head got wet, not your whole body. Sorry!"

All that said, I have absolutely zero issue with whatever anyone chooses to believe or not believe. If somebody wants to set up the Church of the Golden Arches and make sacrifices to Ronald McDonald - go for it.

To tie all of this to the OP, I am an academic. I have studied a number of books and passages of the Bible in a very...academic manner. I have thought a great deal about my beliefs and why they make sense to me. I recognize the Bible as a book inspired by God, but edited (heavily) by man - and therefore, take it with many grains of salt. Nothing about my religion or beliefs is blind.

Hmm..this could win the award for long rambling post! :lol:

[ElMarko]

I was going to put in my two cents but others have said what I could say better than I ever could. Just go to youtube and seach "pat condell" and "Neil degrasse tyson"

[ElMarko]

I was going to put in my two cents but others have said what I could say better than I ever could. Just go to youtube and seach "pat condell" and "Neil degrasse tyson"

Actually the good Tyson video is here. (http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/watch.php?Video=Session%202)

[AFPheonix]

To tie all of this to the OP, I am an academic. I have studied a number of books and passages of the Bible in a very...academic manner. I have thought a great deal about my beliefs and why they make sense to me. I recognize the Bible as a book inspired by God, but edited (heavily) by man - and therefore, take it with many grains of salt. Nothing about my religion or beliefs is blind.



I think every Christian should study the historical contexts behind the Bible. And not just the crap that Focus on the Family puts out. It puts a good perspective on one's faith and how much it can be manipulated by men if you let it.
But then, I went Agnostic in part due to that, so perhaps people don't want their faith challenged that much.
Actually now that I think about it, that really is the issue with a lot of Christians anymore. They don't want to hear or see or come in contact with anything outside of their belief system. I know mom tried to do that a bit with me and it backfired once I got into the real world. I see it with others that I know still stuck in that quagmire. They just have no hunger to learn about things that might make them the least bit uncomfortable.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Religion seems like a cultural defense mechanism to avoid dealing with mortality.

I would agree with you on a point, but for the large part I would have to disagree. You are correct that religion is often used as a defense mechanism to avoid the morality of certain actions. The witch hunts in Salem are a good example where Religion was used to cover the fact that many of the accusations were financially motivated. Case in point was Giles Corey who was accused because the local representative of the crown wanted his property (related to me on one several of the Salem Tours of the Witch Trials). The Crusades which some speculate were motivated not by a desire to "Free the lands of our lord savior" but by the chance to snap up some of the phat lewt that was in the hands of the Rulers of the Middle East.

But any example that anyone could come up with is nothing more than how Religion is misused. Someone here said that religion is a tool and a tool can be used for good or for ill depending on the intent of the wielder. I can take a hammer and build a house...or I can take that same hammer and crush a skull. A priest can use his power to help a troubled child, or to intimidate that child to allow said priest to sodomize him.

Religion as it is meant to be is to be a guideline for morality. It is there to instill values on us. Take a look at Mother Theresa who did many great works for the public good in an impoverished area. Take a look at the Native Americans who use their religion to instill the values of living in close harmony with nature. In my religion (Wicca), the tenants of our faith are there to remind us of morality. It teaches us that we are free to do as we will, but we must face the results of our actions for good or for ill.

I hope humanity will eventually evolve to accept reality.

I understand that as an atheist, the concept of religion is hard to understand, but lack of evidence for something isn't evidence against something. Several thousand years ago (and in some areas not that long ago) there was no evidence that the Sun was the center of the Solar System. There was no way of proving it with the technology of the time. As we grew and learned as a species, we did find the evidence.

I am part of a growing movement that believes that the Divine (God or whatever form it actually takes) is the why and Science is the how.

"Let there be light!" Well an exploding super-massive quantum singularity would have released a hell of a lot of high-energy quanta, photons not being the least of them.

The one question that religion has yet to answer is "why is there something and not nothing?" The traditional answer is "God". Which leads to "Why is there a God and instead of no God?" All that question ever got me, was kicked out of Sunday School.

Funny thing is that Science can't answer that question either. Start asking and you get "the Big Bang" as an answer. Ask where that came from and one answer I read was "A space-time foam in which each bubble is a universe in of itself." Which begs the question of where did this foam come from and so on and so forth.

Why is there something and not nothing.

So why do we have to face reality when we have no idea what reality might be? Until God himself pops down and hands out business cards with his address on it, or science can state for 100% certainty that there is no God (and remember that lack of proof isn't proof in of itself) people are going to be living and holding onto a working hypothesis. Either believing in something higher than themselves or believing that mortality is as high as it gets.

Nothing wrong with either view as long as the people in question are happy in their lives and live by the laws of the land.

M

[CancelMyService]

I understand that as an atheist, the concept of religion is hard to understand




I know that you most likely didn't mean it this way, but that comes off as incredibly condesending when religious folks make comments like that. As if most athiests didn't start off as religous and and some point decide they no longer agreed with whatever indoctrination they were raised with.

Also this:



lack of evidence for something isn't evidence against something.



It's not evidence *for* something either. That's the same logic Donald Rumsfeld tried to apply to WMDs with "known knowns" and "unknown knowns". One of the big reasons religon has survived so long is that it's impossible to prove an invisible cloud man doesn't exist. Proving a negative can be difficult that way. If you set the burden of proof to an impossible level it's easier to maintain a belief system.


I don't want to sound like I'm just religion bashing, I happen to be of the opinion that the more you objectively look at religion, the more it seemed to exist to serve two purposes:

1. Explaining things people didn't have any way of scientifically testing at the time (Why's the sky blue? Cause God said so!).

2. Population control. What better way to keep a handle on the masses than to say either God commands them to do something? See also how Kings and Queens in history have claimed the divine right of royalty. Who's going to question you if you tell them you were picked by the Lord?


Finally, this:


believing that mortality is as high as it gets.


Why would this be so bad?

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I know that you most likely didn't mean it this way, but that comes off as incredibly condesending when religious folks make comments like that.

I was actually responding to this comment made by another forum member.

I was born an atheist. The very concept of faith is alien to me.

I was not trying to be condescending and if I came off that way then I am sorry.

As if most athiests didn't start off as religous and and some point decide they no longer agreed with whatever indoctrination they were raised with.

But is is often their inability to wrap their minds around the stuff they are being taught about Religion that makes them turn away.

In a very real way it's the reason I went Pagan. I couldn't wrap my head around the concept of a God that teaches love, tolerance, understanding (love thy neighbor) and then says that "if you don't slap 3 billion mosquitoes in the Amazon, I'm going to condemn this undiscovered tribe that lives in peace and harmony with their neighbors and with nature to the darpests corners of Hell".

It's not evidence *for* something either. That's the same logic Donald Rumsfeld tried to apply to WMDs with "known knowns" and "unknown knowns". One of the big reasons religon has survived so long is that it's impossible to prove an invisible cloud man doesn't exist. Proving a negative can be difficult that way. If you set the burden of proof to an impossible level it's easier to maintain a belief system.

I believe in intelligent life on other planets. Like a belief in God, that one is hard to prove or to disprove since we have yet to find evidence of life anywhere much less intelligence.

I know about the things on Mars, but we're not sure if it's geological or bacterial fossils.

So there is no evidence for my belief which doesn't invalidate my belief since a lack of evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Likewise the lack of evidence that states that there is no life out there...doesn't mean that they exist either. I accept that and I still hold on to my belief that there is based on a few assumptions that are grounded in science and interpreted by me.

Which is a hell of a lot like religion, but because this belief of mine doesn't involve God, my arguments and reasonings get more attention and thought.

I don't want to sound like I'm just religion bashing, I happen to be of the opinion that the more you objectively look at religion, the more it seemed to exist to serve two purposes:

1. Explaining things people didn't have any way of scientifically testing at the time (Why's the sky blue? Cause God said so!).

Which doesn't happen as much in today's society. "Why is the sky blue?" has a scientific answer that can be put into a book and given to a child in a form that they can understand.

2. Population control. What better way to keep a handle on the masses than to say either God commands them to do something? See also how Kings and Queens in history have claimed the divine right of royalty. Who's going to question you if you tell them you were picked by the Lord?

The Pope says that anyone who reads Harry Potter is going against God's Will and is going straight to Hell. Which is funny since most Catholics with Children (and many who don't) have the entire series on their shelves. So that is once again not as much of an issue today.

And yes there are some sects out there that do control their people like that, but there are just as many that don't. Certainly the large majority of the Pagan faiths do not even try to bend the wills of their followers. In mine, I am given a set of moral guidelines (which happened to be developed by me before I discovered them) and allowed to follow them or not per my choosing. I am warned that all my actions have consequences for good or for ill so to be careful to make sure those consequences are worth the actions.


Why would this be so bad?

Now I'm going to be a bit cynical here. Why would mortality being the highest we can aspire to be so bad? Humanity constantly lets me down. They evacuate New Orleans because Gustav was looking to be a cat-4 on landfall. Every model said it would strengthen. Fortune smiled on them and it weakened instead. People in NO are pissing and moaning that they were forced to evacuate for a thunderstorm. Going from past examples this means that the next one that hits, too many people are going to dig in their heels and stick it out. They'll stand there while they get a Cat 4 in the face and then bitch "Why didn't you make us evacuate?"

Even going a little more general, this forum exists as a place to vent when we get frustrated by the idiocy of humanity. Customers Suck exists because we're frustrated by the assholes and douchebags that feel that by making money for college as a waitress/cashier we're somehow lesser beings than they are since they were born with a silver spoon jammed up their asses and have had everything handed to them on a silver platter.

I stopped watching the news because it is so depressing seeing humanity at it's "best".

Believing in something greater may be a bit daft of me, but if I only believed in humanity I think I'd have tossed my ass in front of a bus a long timg ago.

[AFPheonix]

Your mortality does not have to equal all of humanity and their failings.

My life includes much more than just other humans, and I'm content with that. If I should die and cease to exist, well, that's no skin off my nose.