• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who is smarter?

Cynic

Well-Known Member
Faint said:
I just hope those people aren't proud of seeking worship over education (which doesn't seem like a very intelligent move in the first place).

I agree. Also, this seems to imply that as people learn more they tend to become more discerning of the irrationality of most religious belief. Take you for example, you used to be religious right? But if I remember correctly, you learned some things that made you question that faith--is that not true? So, would you then say that religious people for the most part simply haven't learned enough yet about this world to understand the nonsense they adhere to? This might be like a history student who cannot describe what the Vietnam War was all about because he hasn't got to that chapter yet. Thus, should they be considered more naive, rather than less intelligent?
I didn't fully become agnostic until I started studying the sciences. Then I became skeptical. They shouldn't be considered less intelligent, because information itself does not account for the totality of intelligence, they might have the same intellectual capabilities as you do. It might be that they're just less informed.

It's just like when I come across someone who thinks emotions and memories are part of the soul. Chances are, they know little about the brain.
 

Buttercup

Veteran Member
Faint said:
I just hope those people aren't proud of seeking worship over education (which doesn't seem like a very intelligent move in the first place).
I don't like to put anyone in a stereotypical box religious or otherwise. I will say for my family....we are religious and most of us are college grads. Some would equate a college education with intelligence. Some would not! :)

Yet, Einstein the genius would say :

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

But he also said:

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
 

Faint

Well-Known Member
Cynic said:
So you're saying that everyone who is religious have inferior brains compared to agnostics?
Noooooo... I'm not saying "everyone" at all, now am I? I said "a-v-e-r-a-g-e". But as for the second half, possibly their brains do not have the same capacity for intelligence as, say, my own. But how much of that has to do with the actual brain and how much of it has to do with outside factors such as upbringing, environment, early education, exposure to religion, etc. I couldn't say. It may be that they haven't been so fortunate to have my good luck in life to have learned what I've learned, or to have started thinking the way that I think. Maybe given better opportunities, many religious people would have/demonstrate more intelligence. But the studies I've read (so far) seem to imply otherwise.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
We all know this? Are you kidding? In standardized testing, yes whites tend to score, on average higher than blacks and hispanics, tho lower than asians, and hassidic jews score highest of all. How is any of what I just typed not true?

Methinks you have let political correctness derail your good sense. It is a more and more common deficiency. Let me lay a few other, true, but not P.C. statements on you. . . .

On average men are stronger than women. (look up any world record on any strength event to prove this)

On average track athletes of West African descent are faster than their caucasian counterparts. (the top 200 times in the 100 meter dash were all posted by black athletes of West African descent)

On average Eskimos are not as adept at basketball as Lithuanians.

All true statements, all verefiable, and none of them P.C. but this lack of P.C.'ness doesn't make the statements any less true. Nor does it make the statement I re-iterated from your post regarding standardized testing any less true. It is not polite to discuss such things, and sometimes people can get their feelings hurt by such statements, but that doesn't effect the truthfulness, or lack thereof of those statements.

B.
So you think whites really are "smarter" than blacks and hispanics and that asians are "smarter" than these groups, but apparently not "smarter" than hassidic jews?

I'm sorry, my friend, but there is tons of researching showing how standardized tests are biased.

The examples you give are all physical and can be easily tested. And, yes, I agree they are all true statements.

Are you suggesting the genetics of a race influences that race's intelligence?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Jayhawker Soule said:
In my opinion, nearly half the theists I've met are below average.
In my opinion, almost all theists that I've met are below average. I guess most people are average, and being average is not really that great.

However, I don't think that below average people are pre-desposed to theism, but they are not pre-desposed to change. I assume that those folks don't have the intellectual capacity for intellectual atheism, and if they were raised atheist, they would not have the rigor to attempt to express themselves in any other way than what they previously experienced.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Buttercup said:
I think it's quite possible for a large percentage of religious people to hold less knowledge in their minds than the non-religious because of some taboos regarding the sciences or they feel the quest for knowledge is not the most important factor in their lives....God is.

However, I don't think that intrinsically makes them less intelligent. The religious might just devote less time to education because they feel their 'calling' is elsewhere....such as worship.
Let's see - in my Baha`i circle of acquaintances I know four M.D.'s, three research science PhD's or doctoral candidates, two PhD's in philosophy and at least five PhD's or doctoral candidates in middle eastern studies - and let's not forget the DVM and DDS I know who are also Baha`i's.

Work at an art, science or trade is equal to worship in my faith. The pursuit of knowledge is denoted as a highly honorable, nearly mandatory practice.

As a Baha`i we are taught that true science and true religion have to agree. If one denies scientific fact then one is merely superstitious and if one denies spiritual fact they are crass materialists.

"We regard knowledge and wisdom as the foundation of the progress of mankind, and extol philosophers who are endowed with broad vision."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablet to August Forel, p. 7)

"Fourthly: Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. 29 One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 28)

Regards,
Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Faint said:
Noooooo... I'm not saying "everyone" at all, now am I? I said "a-v-e-r-a-g-e". But as for the second half, possibly their brains do not have the same capacity for intelligence as, say, my own. But how much of that has to do with the actual brain and how much of it has to do with outside factors such as upbringing, environment, early education, exposure to religion, etc. I couldn't say. It may be that they haven't been so fortunate to have my good luck in life to have learned what I've learned, or to have started thinking the way that I think. Maybe given better opportunities, many religious people would have/demonstrate more intelligence. But the studies I've read (so far) seem to imply otherwise.
When speaking of human intelligence and behavior there is no such thing as "a-v-e-r-a-g-e" to insis that there is, rather arrogant.

Regards,
Scott
 

Faint

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
Work at an art, science or trade is equal to worship in my faith. The pursuit of knowledge is denoted as a highly honorable, nearly mandatory practice.
That's good.
But I wonder if your faith loses or gains more members because of this? Reading over this thread, it's starting to look like the more educated someone becomes, the less they fall into religion. For example, some churches might have better odds at keeping their congregations intact if they criticize scientific knowledge to the point where it is frowned upon. What do you think?
 

Faint

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
When speaking of human intelligence and behavior there is no such thing as "a-v-e-r-a-g-e" to insis that there is, rather arrogant.
Um okay, so then, uh, what do you call those people who exhibit intelligence and behavior that falls in the middle range? Aboveaveragely challenged?
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Faint said:
That's good.
But I wonder if your faith loses or gains more members because of this? Reading over this thread, it's starting to look like the more educated someone becomes, the less they fall into religion. For example, some churches might have better odds at keeping their congregations intact if they criticize scientific knowledge to the point where it is frowned upon. What do you think?
In 1892, when Baha`u'llah passed away there were about 20,000 believers exclusively in the middle east and India. Today there are 7 million Baha`i's in the world in about 240 nations, principalities and territories. There is no living interpreter for the writings of our faith, yet this has not led to schism since 99% of those 7 million follow the leadership of the World Center in Haifa. So I do not think we have a problem of people falling away.

Being a Baha`i is voluntary - leaving the faith is equally voluntary.

Regards,
Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Faint said:
Um okay, so then, uh, what do you call those people who exhibit intelligence and behavior that falls in the middle range? Aboveaveragely challenged?
An infinitessimal minority . . . .

Regards,
Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
nutshell said:
Ummm...Scott. Have you ever heard of a bell curve?
He is talking about intelligence and social behavior together. How often do you think those two bell curves intersect? An infinitessimal minority. Bell curves are broad ranges. He has not defined what standard he is using for his standardized tests. He is using the word "average" as if he were discussing the "mean", which are two different things. I had rather more statistics in college than I ever wanted.

Regards,
Scott
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
He is talking about intelligence and social behavior together. How often do you think those two bell curves intersect? An infinitessimal minority. Bell curves are broad ranges. He has not defined what standard he is using for his standardized tests. He is using the word "average" as if he were discussing the "mean", which are two different things. I had rather more statistics in college than I ever wanted.

Regards,
Scott
Got it. I should have realized he was discussing the "mean," and not the "median."
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
The conclusion of an article on:-http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/pobrien/athe11.htm

This much is clear: Atheists deserve a lot more attention, representation, and respect than they been given. The government still has an incredible tendency to lean toward Christianity, from conducting prayers to labeling the currency with "In God We Trust."
No surprise there![/QUOTE] When the new atheist first realizes just how strongly the world ideologically leans against them, it can be discouraging and maddening. In turn, the atheist's reaction tends to be an angry one, or at least more aggressive.[QUOTE]A true reflection ?


There might very well be a better policy for doing what atheists want to have done than this intellectual aggression. That policy is one I try to outline and exemplify in this text, one I am sure has been used for centuries. I have every respect for formal argumentation, but there can nonetheless be a stilted and unappealing quality to it. Philosophical issues become too much the stuff of classroom curiosity and coffee shop conversation pieces. The most in-depth discussions have become inaccessible to the masses, for they have become readable and understandable only by those select scholars in the academic community who play by the same stylistic rules and understand the same special jargon.
But philosophy was not born in the classroom, and philosophical issues do not disappear when the school-bell rings or the coffee mugs empty. We carry philosophy in the pocket of our minds and hearts, 24 hours a day, influencing every action, decision, and opinion we make. I'm trying to take this discussion of God and Godlessness to the level where it moves us most; not in the classroom with eloquent rhetoric, but with a more subjective and human accounting for religion. This is why I moved toward a discussion of pragmatism and more emotional convictions.

When I first began to become a more morally responsible atheist, I was appalled by the lack of literature on the subject. When I finally did find books about atheism, I was even further shocked by the incredibly negative and clinical positions taken in nearly every text. I admit that I too have contributed to many disrespectful conversations against Christians; that fact seems to pervade the Godless movement in this country, but it will never advance the cause very far if it continues.

Because history is so stacked against the atheist, I do not expect to see a complete respect given to the Godless in my lifetime. Things can only change so fast, after all. But I feel that the next step towards a greater and more long-lasting change has to come from atheists internally. When the atheist brings the discussion of God to the human level where it was born and treats it with the respect, humility, and cooperative spirit that it deserves, then atheism will be in a position to make itself better known to the world. This move may not be as easily done as said, but it is at least an alternate route for the atheist movement.

I ask atheists earnestly: Represent your cause, whatever it may be, with honor and respect toward those who disagree with it. No one can rightfully condemn the honorable thinker, and behind all thinkers with or without a God, there is the solitary human individual. Let the new humanism extend itself patiently and cooperatively to those who would oppose the Godless, and I can almost guarantee that we'll be moving in the right direction.

I think the above is 'fair enough'..........do atheists agree ?
 

Aqualung

Tasty
There's a difference between being smart and being able to act in socially appropriate manners. The two are not linked.
 

Mike182

Flaming Queer
Faint said:
Here's something I found on google. It seems self-explanatory but you might note the dates on most of the studies are very old. Anyone have anything more current?:

Myth: Intelligent people tend to be more religious.

Fact: Intelligent people tend to be more secular.
when i read this, i thought it said intelligent people tend to be more smarter" - i thought it was a trick statement :149:
 

Cynic

Well-Known Member
Aqualung said:
There's a difference between being smart and being able to act in socially appropriate manners. The two are not linked.
So how do you explain the lack of activity in the forebrain commonly found in criminals in certian studies?
 
Top