NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24315

Text File | 1992-12-26 | 7.4 KB | 164 lines

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!fuug!prime!mits!iikkap
From: [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 22:33:48 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet poster)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi
Lines: 150

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Doe) writes:
>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."

That is not hard. Observe most scientists and high-rank university staff.
Actually, nearly anybody who is a high-class scientist.
And don't most of your rational friends belive in evolution?

>
>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. . ."

And they would have a hard time reasoning that. In this case, I find it
nearly effortless.

>
>>>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?

My sample does not consist of 8 people. It was purely an example.
Yes, and answer my question also.

>
>>>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.

Yes, one should say so, and one did.
Splitting hairs is mega-fun, isn't it?

Don't base everything on what I said, try to find proof for yourself. This is
not a bedtime story, and you are not (hopefully) a child.

>
>>>
>>>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. . .

So we can start believing in anything we want, because we will never have 100%
certainity of their non-existance.

>
>>>
>>>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.

But the chance of failure drops by the rise of the level of intelligence.

>
>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.

You do not find it even remotely possible? You think that logical intelligence
has no definition? Your denial is a little far-fetched.

>
>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.

Only emotions can make a person defend a point to the death, no matter what it
is. You yourself just said that your emotional attachment is to decent
intellectual standards instead of Christianity. This already contributes much
to my statement of correlation. I'll add this to my notes.

Just because trying to prove that their is even a remote chance that something
is stupider/uglier etc. that something else would narrow mindedly seem like
primitive names-calling, it doesn't meen that you have to lock yourself
completely out. First, try to exemplify the statement yourself, then say what
you think, without locking out possibilities. Think of Communism and how hard
it was to remove it from the ex-USSR.

>
>SD


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / [e-mail], in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'