A Reliable Negative Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity

Remove all ads!

I consider this one of the reasons I dislike atheists. For some reason they feel the need to "expess dislike" or "making atheist displays (that obviously belittle religious beliefs)" and then they feel oppressed at the backlash.

Free speech doesn't mean it comes without a cost. If someone wants to express their right, but doing so interferes with someone else's right to Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness they should expect backlash.

The vast majority of people are silently religious. They don't wear their religion like a suit of armor, but they like the sense of identity it gives them. I fit this category. I don't go to Temple, and barely remember any of the Hebrew from my youth. However if someone asked me, I would say I was Jewish. I like the thought that there is a God and a Heaven above. If there isn't and the atheists are correct I will never know as I will be dead. Why someone feels the need to crap on someone's beliefs is beyond me. To me it violates the "Golden Rule" of do unto others as you would like them to do onto you. To summarize, I think Atheists are mean for no reason and everybody knows that "mean people suck".

 

I realize you were kind of tongue in cheek there TGS, but I've never minded the religious holidays (particularly the paid holiday part). I'm all for more. But I've had religious people get offended at me because I wanted to spend the holidays with my family when 'clearly,' since I didn't believe, I should be willing to work on those holidays and give the righteous that sacred time off. What a bunch of bunk.

 

I agree, I would think someone who would say that would be an ******* of the highest order. However, those people are by far in the minority. With the exception of the convert or die mentality worshippers most people just want to be left alone.

 

My biggest objection to atheism is it's "leaders". Sam Harris, who claims science can determine morality, goes on to defend torture and some other pretty messed up things. Richard Dawkins says that teaching kids a religion is equivalent to child abuse (I wonder how careful he is about not spreading his atheism to his children if he has any). And then we have atheists presumptuous enough to believe they can psychoanalyze religious believers as if they were on some inferior mental level. I follow a lot of liberal websites (big surprise) and it's become the new fashionable thing to make bigoted and outright condescending blanket statements about religion all the time. But when any religion figure gives a tenth of the disrespect to any group at all they're all over it like it's the end of the world. Annoying, to say the least.

 

I agree with Snook. But it's also in the reverse. Most non-believers just keep to themselves as well. They don't spew rhetoric. I don't believe in god. My wife is a Catholic, though not a hard-core Catholic so to say. I still married her. I don't mock her nor would I ever mock her. I will mock the Jovi that knocks repeatedly on my door, to his face. But only to piss him off enough to go away, not because I have a negative opinion about his basic beliefs. I just want to be left alone when it comes to this sort of thing. My in-laws asked me one day why I don't believe, they are Catholic as well. I told them I don't know if there is a god or not and I can't see how anyone else could possibly say for sure there is one. But with what I have seen, experienced and can ascertain from my life, I really don't think there is a God. Or if there is, I can't imagine him or her being all that just with so much evil & hate going on in the world, so God wouldn't be my type of being to worship. Someone else can have that pleasure.

 

I agree with live and let live. The more we discuss it, the more I'm likely to end up contradicting this statement, due to my strong views on the matter.

Just to clarify: When I was talking about a dominant theist surrounding, I'd only describe the Bible Belt of the USA as such. Many muslim countries are 100% Coran Belt, though I've almost never been in a muslim country myself. In such an environment, non-believers are singled out in ways that are most distressing. Imagine running the risk of being fired from your job over manufactured problems, bleak prospects of finding a new job, your child being bullied at school and prevented from participating in any activities. I've even heard of children getting expelled from public schools, forced to be home-schooled (which is probably a relief from all the bullying).

From my perspective, it looks very different. Theists have been promoting their beliefs for milennia, and once some non-believers try to do the same to promote atheism, it's suddenly an insult to religious beliefs, militant organized atheism, a new belief in itself, illegal slander of tax-exempt 'charitable' organizations, and so on and so forth. It sounds like theists are using every excuse in the book to get the pro-active atheists to shut up.

And of course religion feels oppressing. Aggressive expansionist religions always seek power, and they use every form of positive and negative persuasion to get people to worship/not leave. The USA was started by the founding fathers as a safe place for any religion to practice, because religion was wisely kept separate from government. But nowadays there are stories that the States were created to be a Christian nation, and every presidential candidate must pander to religious audiences by declaring his adherence to a school of Christianity. Mitt Romney managed to secure more mainstream acceptance for Mormonism, which is of massive political importance.

Can you imagine your president and other representatives always including a mention of God in their speeches and announcements, regardless of whether the topic was religious in nature? I can't. I lived in Holland for many years under Christian prime ministers, but they rarely did this, ever. It was reserved for their announcements of personal nature.
Perhaps it would help you to imagine this, by thinking that every time your representative makes an announcement, he replaces the religious passages with: "I don't praise God, because I don't believe in God."
That's a strange thing to say out of the blue. Creepy, huh? That's exactly how it feels for non-believers when a representative mentions his religion for no good reason, during an unrelated discussion about changes in the law or tax proposals. In conclusion, I feel that theists need to take some time to reflect upon their own actions, before accusing non-believers of being oppressing and militant.

If I were truly militant, I'd go to a funeral and speak with the grieving relatives:
"I know you're sad about the untimely loss of your father, little boy. He is gone now, but he will live on in your memories. The best thing you can do now, is always remember him, and live your life well, so your success becomes his legacy. That man in black robes over there will tell you that his soul still lives, and has gone to a place called heaven where you can meet him again. But you mustn't believe this story, or you won't be able to accept what happened and properly grieve over the loss of your father. If you believe him, you will live your life in the future based upon a monstrous myth. If and when you ever discover that it's likely a sugarcoated religious marketing tale, you will suffer a massive psychological breakdown. You need to be strong today, and ignore the man who is peddling his religion at your family's funeral."
I doubt my story will be as appealing for a young child who just lost his father, as the story of heaven. Unless I was a close relative, I might even be ejected from the ceremony for speaking such words in the presence of a clergyman. Leaving the man in robes to 'tend to the boy's spiritual well-being'.
That's what I call OFFENSIVE! Shamelessly praying upon people during times of emotional vulnerability.

Dawkins made an exaggerated statement to put his point across, but he has his reasons.



BTW, I can google links to youtube vids, but can't watch them myself in China

 

That reminds me, did anybody hear about this study/story in the last week?

Does "Science" make you moral?

Here's the conclusion from the abstract:

These studies demonstrated the morally normative effects of lay notions of science. Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms and exhibit more morally normative behavior. These studies are the first of their kind to systematically and empirically test the relationship between science and morality. The present findings speak to this question and elucidate the value-laden outcomes of the notion of science.

 

I find that kind of funny. That makes me think of some kind of "Dr. Evil". Where science corrupts him in a quest for world domination. Not the other way around. Science can give power to someone. Power corrputs. History has shown it over and over again.

 

That's pretty broad, coin. I'm a 'non-believer' and religious people mentioning religion, even in official roles, doesn't bother me at all. You've also rather ironically portrayed atheists in the exact way you've been striving to show they shouldn't be seen in that statement - as some kind of group, an organization, a CABAL! with predictable herd behavior dictated by their shamen.

If non-believers are really just scattered dust motes in the wind, you really can't speak for any of them but yourself.

Also, to devil's-advocate your funeral story, you've started with a lot of grotesque assumptions. Why is the kid not already a solid believer in god with a firm moral and emotional standing, why does he see the priest only as a pseudo-child molester instead of a friend and mentor, why would only believing that his dad is gone forever be the "proper" way to get over his death (according to whom? You? how do you know? etc.), why is a faith-based life a "monstrous myth," etc.

I know you were merely demonstrating how inappropriate you think it is to put forth a defacto agenda as such, but such passages kind of betray the likelihood that you're really grinding an axe here ... something I thought only the other side was supposed to be doing.

Remember, Dr. Evil was an MD specifically. He got his doctorate in order to use the Doctor title legitimately, but it was medical school.

 

Gaear,

I met any "Dr. Evil" in general, not that particular Dr. Evil. What is the name of Gru's sidekick in Despicable me? Isn't it Dr. Evil?

Plus, the practice of Medicine is a science, is it not?

 

Yeah, I was just being cute.

 

You're right. Since I've been watching american political announcements, I've also come to accept religious interludes in politics as commonplace. Luckily, many european nations don't engage *as much yet* in such inapproriate advertisements.

OK, try to think of a religion as a simple product, just for a moment. Unlike regular commercial product placement, they are not bound by the same rules of advertisement. Any politician, businessman, athlete, singer or actor would be frowned upon for promoting a brand like Coca Cola verbally during an interview or announcement. The placement has to be subtle, like on their clothing, for example. But if they push their religion in that same interview, they are lauded by worshipers for mentioning God, and non-worshipers are obligated to tolerate it (you said it yourself - we specks of dust aren't allowed to talk).
Coke happens to be quite refreshing, and it has improved it product a great deal from the starting days when it was a watered-down cough syrup full of poppy juice. Religions seem to improve their product much slower, and I doubt that it will ever become anything worthwhile.

I'm simply a careful consumer unhappy about these snake oil salesmen trying to ram their substandard defective merchandise down my throat everywhere I go. I can't zap away during commercial break, either. It's there at birth ceremonies, weddings, funerals, political messages, on the street, at the workplace, on TV, during holidays, everywhere! And if I merely want peace and quiet (live and let live, and don't bother me with your life choices), then I'm automatically militant, organized, and directly attacking religion. I'm actually attacking the advertisements, not the product.

I say let the churches stay, but let the marketing stop. The churches, mosques and such could learn from the synagogues about being happy with the flock that they have, and keeping to themselves.
Then again, the synagogues do have a fairly wealthy consumer base, and it does all seem to be about power and money after all.
If it's truly about spirituality, religions need merely to explain their sound philosophy to curious passers by, and they will grow in numbers with the truly faithful through genuine word-of-mouth. But instead, they sell their 'opiate of the masses' on every street corner, psychologically harm, brainwash and indoctrinate, and the philosophies are so self-contradictory and full of holes, that the only true defense for religions are:
- It relies on things that are imperceivable. Invisible sky daddy to the rescue!
- It is not allowed to scrutinize holy texts with any kind of logical reasoning. You must believe because that's the test.
- People who still criticize religion are enemies intent on destroying faith.

I don't want to destroy religions. I say, let's talk about things on an honest level. No tax-exempt status, no moral acceptance to convert others actively, no threats of eternal damnation for making the wrong choice, no untestable promises of meeting dead friends and relatives after you're dead. Would you borrow money to a person who promises to pay you back after you die? Just put the facts on the table, and let people decide for themselves.
We all know that under these circumstances, religions will become a rather longwinded historic footnote after at most 2 generations.

PS: I did not claim to speak on behalf of other atheists, not that I agree that Dawkins is wrong for claiming to do so. And I didn't mention child-molesting priests, though I can understand why you made that leap, since we were talking about religion as a form of child abuse.

But knowledge brings sound reasoning, an escape from irrational fear. Once you are no longer troubled by your survival instincts, you're less likely to feel the need to hurt others to get ahead yourself. Knowledge brings *personal* power (not political, religious, military or otherwise), and that should lead to more civilized options of ensuring your safety and prosperity. Unless you are targeted by one of those groups that want another kind of power: political, religious, military or otherwise. I'd rather be a lion in a moral society than a cowardly hyena, depending on strength of numbers to feel safe.
Dr. Evil and similar tropes are simply stories with little basis in reality. They were created to give a face to the irrational fear that people feel when new things change the existing balance of everyday existence (think machine labour, computers, internet, Y2K, cellphones, etc.). In this case, the threat of science was feared by many God-fearing christians. Scientific minds are often less cruel than most, because of a greater capacity to consider ramifications for others.

 

If we're going to talk about science and morality let's not ignore the fact that millions of animals suffer and die every year in testing labs.

 

If we're going to talk about religion and morality let's not ignore the fact that millions of animals suffer and die every year in rituals.

Lab tests are guided by codes of ethics which are adapted to suit changing sentiments about animal welfare. In most western countries, it's hard to even justify and get approval for tests on mice, so many have to make do with zebra fish or non-vertebrates, if anything.
Religious ceremonies are rituals that lose their meaning if changed, and the animal death and suffering is a necessary part. Removing it lessens the potency of the experience for worshipers, so they are always fighting for their right to not change and adapt.

 

I don't think there are very many people in the major religions who do this or find it acceptable. Compared to animal testing which is legal and practiced over most of the first world I have a hard time believing the numbers will compare, and the cultural attitudes between the two certainly don't.

Codes of ethics, huh? Well i'm sure that will make the monkeys driven to insanity feel better then. Come on now Coin, don't justify it. We both know torturing animals, killing them, and driving them to insanity is wrong no matter the pretense, secular or otherwise.

 

Let's put aside the assumption you made that there are no guidelines implemented to minimize the suffering done to animals during many of these tests, which is hard to believe for me. To be fair, my experiences are based on my observation during study in Holland:

Looking up numbers, USA and EU kill around 70.000 primates annually. I could subtract from that to remove commercial pharmaceutical and other medical companies, which are testing risks of their products on humans more than that they are advancing science in any way. But that would be nitpicking, and would require a lot of backstory on how pharmaceutical companies are more interested in marketing yet another lucrative blood pressure medicine to corner the market instead of curing the myriad of rare diseases out there.
Most of these tests are of a medical nature, and the results benefit us all, religious or not. I don't feel a need to justify this practice any more than you feel a need to refuse medical treatment on principle of animal welfare. It's merely a talking point you are using to (counter)attack science.

The majority of science can be and is conducted without any needless animal suffering. Medical science is like Mr. Necessary Evil, the black sheep in the scientific family, because the needs of the sick and dying are seen by the public to outweigh the ethical ramifications of laboratory testing. A single (well-connected) mother crying for the life of her dying infant is enough to silence the concerns of all the animal welfare organizations out there.

Suffice to say that I'm of the opinion that scientists in general take great care to minimize death and suffering upon lab animals, but that is only my opinion based on my limited encounters with such ethical issues, during my study and internships.

I tried looking up numbers for ritual slaughter of animals, but couldn't find such detailed info about it. It seems better records are kept of lab-killed animals than of ritual slaughters. I choose to see this accurate record-keeping as a sign of transparency and concern, but you are free to think otherwise.

Ever heard of monkey-brains? Creepy characters from South China all the way to Indonesia practice this eating habit. A small monkey's head is tied under a hole in the table, and its skull is cut open. Eager gastronomes then scoop out the living brain, in the superstitious belief that it will make them smarter or whatever. It's banned in many places, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

I once knew someone who had worked in a kosher or halal slaughterhouse. He was slaughtering cows as normal, until one day he saw that the mother of a young calf he was bleeding slowly to death was looking at her offspring and crying real tears. 'Luckily' she was next in line, so the cow only had to suffer physically a little more. I wonder what was worse for the cow: Seeing her calf being tortured to death, or bleeding to death herself. Anyway, the guy quit his job, and vowed to not eat beef for a year. He spoke to me just before the year was over.

 

True damedog ... most of those test are actually done for financial reasons (companies testing potential products -- at the requirement of the government) not for scientific reasons. Once again, politicians seem to be at the core of the problems here.

But politicians are elected by us and represent our views, they can't possibly be the problem ... it must be those EVIL scientists. How can we possibly believe science is good when it tests animals and kills them ... after all it's not like competing science brances are going to war over a disagreement in the interpretation of a theory -- that would be completely okay. Millions of chemists killing millions of biologists or physicist due to an interpretation of evolution or climate change. That would be okay right? After all religion has been the cause of many wars and millions of deaths over just slight differences....



Perhaps we should just stop all animal testing as well ... we can use people to test products (make-up, lotion, medicines, etc.). Of course, we would have to eliminate those pesky litigation laws first but ... yeah ... it would be much better to actually test experimental medication on ourselves. There are a lot of people without jobs ... the new testing programs would put more money into their pockets! Want some food stamps? Just put this lotion on! Need a welfare check? Step this way! Here's a pill, just let us record this....

 

you want to compare this to how most religions treat women?

 

AOK! I think I'll pick a fight with quantum physicists: Those arrogant 'Bosons' diminish real observations with all their abstract mumbo-jumbo. I'll gluon those quarks till their leptons come out of their noses!
Or maybe they'll see me coming. I could always attack astronomers: they're too busy gawking into their telescopes to hear me approach from behind.

 

hmmm... I am thinking Nazis here. Or radical bio-chemical scientists. Or back in the old days when the Dr. Frankensteins of the world were working on corpses...