NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24367

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 3.6 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.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: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 08:18:37 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Onar Aam) writes:
>>>Although I think that you are right in general, I wanted to add that all (6)
>>>the exceptionally smart people  I know (IQ>125), including myself, are Christians
>>>except one who is an atheist.
>>>
>>>Religion is often connected to feelings. Feelings are unintelligent and if you
>>>yourself are not very intelligent, your feelings will make sense and seem
>>>coherent. How often haven't you heard Christians say "Listen to your heart"? Such
>>>a statement shows that they allow their feelings to rule their world. This is
>>>harder for someone whose rationale exceeds her feelings. She will be more able to
>>>cut through and behave rationally despite of her feelings. She will also be able
>>>to see that her feelings are *not* coherent and therefore is less likely to
>>>become religious.
>>
>>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 wasn't trying to *prove* anything here, merely questioned the
validity of using anecdotal evidence.  Last I heard, this wasn't a
great technique to use. . .

>>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?

Wel, I don't have IQ scores for them, which according to your previous
posts measures "real" intelligence, so I guess i can't prove to you
that they were intelligent.

>>
>>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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here's the original flame that caused me to flame you,
Iikka--assumption of attachment to Christianity, condescension and ad
hominem attack all rolled up in one statement.

Well, I think I've proved something here--that you, Iikka, despite
your high IQ, are not the towering intellect you think you are, and
that you have a HUGE emotional attachment to the notion of atheistic
superiority, and that you must denigrate the intelligence of those who
disagree with you, or dare to question the SLOPPY methodology and
reasoning you have exhibited.  I thank you for showing that
doctrinaire atheists can be every bit as rabid and irrational as their
Christian counterparts.

SD