NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24312

Text File | 1992-12-26 | 5.2 KB | 111 lines

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!lynx!nmsu.edu!charon!sdoe
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: New Mexico State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 20:39:34 GMT
Lines: 98

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Doe) writes:

>>I'm not very impressed by all this anecdotal evidence flying around.
>>8 or so people aren't very good statistics.  Many of the most
>
>If you find an increasing number of atheists the higher you go in logical
>intelligence, I think that is much more proof than you can show.

I would just like to see a larger sample (i. e., better statistics)
before making such a hasty generalization.  In other words, I would
like to see a study in support of the statement "there are an
increasing number of atheists the higher up you go in logical
intelligence."

I find it fascinating that the very same people who make such
statements would be up in arms if someone made the same sort of
arguments in favor of the notion that, say, Jews were more intelligent
than Gentiles on average.  "See, I have a few Jewish friends, and they
are all much more intelligent than most of the Gentiles I know. . ."

>>influential people in Christian history (Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc.)
>>were *very* intelligent.  In fact, I would think that the intelligent
>
>Proof?
>How about aspects of personality such as courage, sacrifice and valour?

Gee, don't you think that other aspects of personality might skew the
impressions you get based on a sample of 8 or so people?

>>believer, internalizing the psychological ploys that biblical belief
>>boils down to, will suffer *more* than the rank and file believer, and
>>will be more firmly enmeshed in the biblical scheme.
>>
>>I have yet to see a satisfactory definition of intelligence, one that
>>doesn't boil down to how well one does on some arbitrary intelligence
>>test.
>
>Nobody was talking about the whole definition of intelligence, just the
>logical and abstract thinking part, which is easy to measure.

Then one should say, "There is an apparent correlation between
logical, abstract thinking skills, which we can measure via IQ tests,
and lack of religious belief."  And THEN it would be nice to see
something more than anecdotal evidence in support of such a statement.

>>
>>It isn't illogical to presuppose a supernatural realm, unperceived by
>>our senses, any more than it is illogical to suppose that the Many
>>Worlds Hypothesis is a reasonable interpretation of quantum mechanics;
>>it's just that such speculations are far-fetched.  They have the
>>virtue (from the believer's perpsective) of being non-disprovable.
>
>Illogical? In absence of evidence it seems more like fantasizing.
>Of course one believes what one has most rational (this is where logical
>intelligence comes in) proof of. In an environment where Christianity
>has a stranglehold, other proof is basically unavailable. Thus, he/she
>will most likely become a Christian (correlation applies).

Well, that was kind of my point--we have no particular reason to
believe such things, because we have no information on them, other
than that they apparently are part of someone's fantasy.  However, we
don't have 100% certainty that they don't exist, because they are
transparent to our modes of inquiry.  In other words, they can't be
confirmed or disconformed for certain.  Using them as premises isn't
illogical, it's just that we have no particular reason to, unless it
is to participate in the mind-games of some Christian exegetes. . .

>>
>>I become very uneasy when I see people say "Oh the religious are
>>dumber (or smarter) than others on average."  It can too easily
>>degenerate into an ad hominem attack, in which one dismisses beliefs
>>one disagrees with because one believes one's opponent lacks
>>intelligence.  Being intelligent is no guarantee that one is right.
>
>Then what is? And what is intelligence then?
>When you talk of these kinds of things, try to be indifferent. You seem so
>emotionally attached (see message you replied to) to Christianity.

There is no guarantee that being able to follow premises to their
logical conclusions will protect you from using the wrong premises.

I think it is up to those seeking to establish a correlation between
intelligence and lack of religiousness to provide satisfactory
definitions of said concepts.

For your information, I happen to be an atheist.  In fact I happen to
think that Christianity, in its conservative, fundamentalist form, has
the potential for great psychological damage, and that in its liberal
form, boils down to using the Bible to ratify whatever passes for the
conventional wisdom of the day.  So do not speak to me of my
"emotional attachment" to Christianity--my only emotional attachment
is to decent intellectual standards, which I happen to think was
severely lacking in this discussion.  Your "emotional attachment"
argument savors of the very sort of ad hominem attack I was voicing
concern over.

SD