"People who have faith . . . are not as smart as others"

[Skwim]

Logically, about anything. The fact that someone is less intelligent than me does not mean that they are wrong about anything, just as the fact that someone is more intelligent than me does not mean that they are right about anything.

But the article doesn't suggest any such thing.


.

 

[Sunstone]

But the article doesn't suggest any such thing.


.

So what? Are you saying closely related issues cannot be raised in this thread?

 

[Serenity Now]

Your comment strikes me as just as ridiculous as your patronizing tone.

You mean as ridiculous as slamming Christians just for the sake of it? Recognize similar behaviors?

 

[Serenity Now]

And, as I pointed out, I didn't magically become more intelligent when I stopped being Christian. Regardless the outcome, I'd still have the same IQ if I'd still be a Christian or not, but the only real what if that exists is if I would still be a Christian had I not been raised in such a literalist and Conservative faith that is only proven wrong when exposed to the outside world.

^^^ This is a shot gun blast against Christians.

 

[Sunstone]

You mean as ridiculous as slamming Christians just for the sake of it? Recognize similar behaviors?

Who's slamming Christians just for the sake of it?

 

[Skwim]

So what? Are you saying closely related issues cannot be raised in this thread?

Of course not, I guess everyone has the right to take a discussion off track if they wish. Thing is, your comment was really out of left field. I just don't see any close connection between the findings of the article's researchers, and your presumption that people could "conclude from that information that people of faith are wrong." Do you really see that happening?


.

 

[Sunstone]

Of course not, I guess everyone has the right to take a discussion off track if they wish. Thing is, your comment was really out of left field. I just don't see any close connection between the findings of the article's researchers, and your presumption that people could "conclude from that information that people of faith are wrong." Do you really see that happening?


.

Of course I see that happening. I'm surprised you don't. And my intention on bringing the issue up was not to drive the thread off topic, but to more fully develop the topic.

 

[Skwim]

Of course I see that happening. I'm surprised you don't.

I guess I overestimate the intelligence of the ordinary reader in thinking it's at least average.


.


.

 

[atanu]

I believe the title is "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," and I remember reading a little of it some time ago. But actually, nothing is unclear.
.

Yes. It is Maintenance. My mistake. If nothing is unclear then it is good. My comment was in response to the last paragraph in the original post, starting with "I find this very surprising.....".

 

[atanu]

Maybe they'd have achieved even more had they been less religious.

Ha. That is a scientific observation.

 

[Sapiens]

People of faith possess scientific intelligence as well as spiritual intelligence, the ability to perceive the realities of the eternal world and the meaning of life. People with no faith lack this type of of intelligence. But there is hope. With a little training and practice, they too can master both. After all, "the glory of God is intelligence, or in other words light and truth."

Seriously, the way some atheists here congratulate each other on their intellectual superiority is nauseating.

Smarter? A poorly defined term: smart. But it interesting to note that the greater the level of scientific accomplishment the more likely non-belief sets in. Let's not forget that 95% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are non-believers.

 

[Valjean]

That's just laughably absurd saying Einstein may have been smarter had he not been a theist. And, as I pointed out, Stephen Hawking did not become smarter as he became an atheist.

You imply that Einstein achieved the absolute maximum intelligence the brain is physically capable of; that nothing could have made him any smarter. That's absurd. History: Einstein's relativity theories were remarkable in their time, but physics later left him behind. He was famously flummoxed by quantum mechanics -- just couldn't get his head around it -- "God doesn't play dice..." and all.

These "results" are taken out of context from a single study. A single study does not constitute absolute proof.
Either way I don't think it warrants religion-bashing and the declaration that all us theists are less intelligent than you.

Exactly. I found it an interesting study. I'm astonished at how posters have run off in all directions with this study; re-interpreting it, drawing unwarranted conclusions or taking it as a personal attack. How insecure and thin-skinned can you be? I thought we'd advanced somewhat from Galileo's time.

^^^ This is a shot gun blast against Christians.

How so? Why are Christians so threatened by science? Why do they take every discovery as a personal threat? Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Hawking -- everything inconsistent with their impression of reality seems to threaten their ego-identities.

Of course not, I guess everyone has the right to take a discussion off track if they wish. Thing is, your comment was really out of left field. I just don't see any close connection between the findings of the article's researchers, and your presumption that people could "conclude from that information that people of faith are wrong." Do you really see that happening?

. To your corners, gentlemen!
The fact is, though, people do seem to be freaking out about this article. Sure, their conclusions are hysterical and unsupported. All we can do is try to calm their existential crises and gently lead them back to reason.

Ha. That is a scientific observation.

Yeah, It was so glaringly obvious an observation I was hesitant to type it, but it's proved prescient -- the next couple posts immediately took issue with it, and we were off to the races.

 

[wizanda]

"But, from what we understand about the brain, the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and emotional insight."

If you've had first hand experience of the supernatural, it is no longer a belief or faith without evidence... If you have faith in your abilities, it is based on evidence.... If you've got faith in a scientific theory, does that make you also illogical?

There are just so many holes in what this person is saying....Some people are naturally illogical, it has nothing to do with faith, which merely means to trust, it isn't always without evidence.

Why make a scientific theory, and then use the definition of faith from the Bible.

 

[Sunstone]

I guess I overestimate the intelligence of the ordinary reader in thinking it's at least average..

You've been on this forum for six years, and you still think you can post a thread on a study suggesting that religious people are less intelligent than non-religious people and some people on both sides of the aisle will NOT take that to mean that religious people's notions are wrong? How exactly have you spent your six years?

 

[Serenity Now]

How so? Why are Christians so threatened by science? Why do they take every discovery as a personal threat? Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Hawking -- everything inconsistent with their impression of reality seems to threaten their ego-identities.

I'm not sure how these comments came up about my post but I will respond anyway.

First Mistake - Lumping all Christians into one group for this particular comment doesn't really work. For example Bible literalist and Catholics are very different in their beliefs regarding science.

Second Mistake - It grossly discounts Catholic contribution to the sciences: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en...ience-the-myth-of-catholic-irrationality.html

Third Mistake - The arguments in this thread completely discount that the Catholic Church founded the Western Civilization education system including the University Model that is used today.

Education and the university system

Perhaps the greatest single contribution to education to emerge from Catholic civilisation was the development of the university system. Early Catholic universities include Bologna (1088); Paris (c 1150); Oxford (1167, pictured); Salerno (1173); Vicenza (1204); Cambridge (1209); Salamanca (1218-1219); Padua (1222); Naples (1224) and Vercelli (1228). By the middle of the 15th-century (more than 70 years before the Reformation), there were over 50 universities in Europe.

Many of these universities, such as Oxford, still show signs of their Catholic foundation, such as quadrangles modelled on monastic cloisters, gothic architecture and numerous chapels. Starting from the sixth-century Catholic Europe also developed what were later called grammar schools and, in the 15th century, produced the movable type printing press system, with incalculable benefits for education. Today, it has been estimated that Church schools educate more than 50 million students worldwide.

Source:* http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/05/06/what-the-church-has-given-the-world/

*Mod edit.

 

[First Baseman]

Serenity Now is straight up owning Shadow Wolf. more please.

Serenity Now is quite a bit more intelligent than the average Catholic, no doubt.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

^^^ This is a shot gun blast against Christians.

I think you are just too eager to feel persecuted. Like it or not, a strictly conservative and literal interpretation of the Bible is easily proven false. It's not attacking Christians, but stating things like a global flood never happened and the different languages we speak did not come from one single place and time in history. I even pointed out that my own IQ didn't magically go up when I left Christianity, and was even clear and specific in the type of religious upbringing I had. I even stated that had my upbringing not been so strictly literal and Conservative it's possible that I may still be Christian as these conflicts of facts vs. faith would not have happened, which would have not lead to the crisis of faith that I had, in which it is possible that without that crisis of faith I wouldn't have been forced into having to abandon my faith due to the impossibility of reconciling erroneous beliefs with hard facts.
Good god! I've even referenced a few Christians as a counter to the claim of "people who have faith are not as smart as others" and you're still saying I'm taking these "shot gun blasts" against Christians. Get over yourself.

Serenity Now is straight up owning Shadow Wolf. more please.

"Owning?" It's not like your denomination is exactly accurate under scrutiny. Or do you too have this persecution complex?

You imply that Einstein achieved the absolute maximum intelligence the brain is physically capable of; that nothing could have made him any smarter. That's absurd. History: Einstein's relativity theories were remarkable in their time, but physics later left him behind. He was famously flummoxed by quantum mechanics -- just couldn't get his head around it -- "God doesn't play dice..." and all.

I am saying he wouldn't have gotten any smarter if he was an atheist, and it's silly to think he could have been.

 

[The Mormonator]

Serenity Now is quite a bit more intelligent than the average Catholic, no doubt.

Yes, yes he is. Shadow Wolf bit off more than she could swallow in that debate.

 

[Skwim]

Sure, their conclusions are hysterical and unsupported. All we can do is try to calm their existential crises and gently lead them back to reason.

Unsupported you say. Then I assume you've read their work and can show us why it's unsupported. Please share. Thank you.


.

 

[Acim]

Why are Christians so threatened by science?

I wonder if science could study this? Apply the scientific method? The observation exists. The hypothesis being: (All) Christians are threatened by science. Why? The prediction being that if any Christian is exposed to (any) scientific understandings, they will experience reactions of threat / self preservation. The testing of which could include measuring areas of the brain to see if/how much levels of brain activity change among a suitable group (of Christians) and whether it aligns with what is the prediction. Perhaps other tests could be done. The analysis, done of course from the unbiased scientific perspective and without any pre-conceived notions about what science is up to via such testing and hypothesizing. And then the sharing of findings so that all fellow scientists can finally understand what the Christian person is experiencing in relation to scientific assertions and findings.

We could call this study: The Inquisition