Does religion make people dumber?

Do you routinely give people such a hard time when they ask you what you mean by a word? No? Then why are you giving me such a hard time? Are you scared that your definition is going to get you into trouble? You're being dishonest, and it is clear as day! I'm not into discussing things with dishonest people. There really is no point in going much further with you, as I can see you are not sincere in your intentions. You would rather play games than have an honest discussion.

Your #2 and #3 are laughable!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Saying you don't know what a soul is like saying you don't know what the sky is. You'll have to forgive my incredulity. However, I explained several times that the soul is what you were describing as "spirit," so your continued insistence that you don't know what I'm talking about strikes me as disingenuous.

Trouble how? And in case you missed it, I went so far as to give you the dictionary definition of the word. I wasn't exactly trying to hide its meaning.

Ah, here it is. Bailing once your fatuous point has been defeated. Chalk up another one for the good guys, I guess.

My #2 and #3?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wonder where we would be in a real understanding of the universe if all the brilliant minds in the history of religion had concentrated on the pursuit of scientific understanding of the universe before claiming spiritual knowledge of Original Causality.

An example of a learned physicist with extraordinary knowledge of how the universe works and from this knowledge has fashioned a logically sound and scientifically supportable explanation of the perceived necessity and existence of a higher cosmic Plenum.
http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_3.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Religion does not make people dumber. The weak-minded are simply drawn to being spoon fed (requiring no work on their part). No surprise there.

 

It's not necessarily weak mindedness. I know atheists who go to Christian churches because they like it. The social experience and the positive messages help them stay emotionally healthy. I think that aspect of human need is genetically ingrained into a lot of us. Some of us don't have it and some of fulfill the need differently (both of which are beneficial to Atheists).

 

I did not say that only the weak-minded were drawn to religion. I gave some rationale for a larger proportion of lower IQs among the religious, but it would be a hasty generalization to characterize the entirety of any group by a subset.

 

I agree that it's not necessarily weak-mindedness, but I don't think that it has much to do with the social experience, either. I mean, I'm sure that's true for some, but I doubt that would be among the leading reasons people are religious. As to that, I can only assume most people come to faith in their childhood. Children are identified and raised as the religion of their parents, and they tend to keep that religion. Growing up, I knew quite a few people who were a given religion simply because that's what their parents believed. They believed in God for the same reason they believed in Santa Claus: because that's what they were always told.

For people who find religion later in life, I have to believe it's got to do with superstitious thinking. They have an experience they believe to be related to the supernatural, and they convert.

 

Fair enough.

 

Church is primarily about social interaction, and even biblically so. Why would it be hard to believe that, where other social settings tend to be somewhat temporary (school, work, etc.), church is simply a constant in their lives? Their friends and family tend to be concentrated there. You seem to be conflating the reasons for belief with the reasons for being religious (i.e. regularly attending church, etc.).

You obviously do not understand what you are talking about, as illustrated by your "I can only assume" and "I have to believe". Would the religious be equally warranted in surmising about the possible anti-social reasons for your lack of participation in a similar social group?

 

I'm not saying people don't go to church because of the social interaction. I'm saying I don't think many people become religious because they desire social interaction.

I'm just going by what I see. If there are studies that say people become religious primarily because they like church, so be it. I'm offering an opinion, nothing more.

Do try to find a clue, Syne.

 

And? Who said they do? Crunchy clearly indicated the benefits of the social interaction without any requisite belief.

Studies? Why would you expect there to be any studies of your non sequitur straw man?

 

He seemed to be equating church with faith, as he was citing the atheist-in-church example as a counterpoint to your (perceived) assertion that weak-minded people are drawn to religion because they like to be spoon-fed.

You don't think there are studies regarding why people are religious? And you don't find that question to be relevant to the topic?

 

Are you saying that the spiritual aspect of the human experience occurs in a metaphysical plenum called God? If so, then the question is if this metaphysical condition is a natural emergent result or a supernatural condition outside the universe altogether.

At least it narrows down the scope of this spiritual plenum. Is it a local phenomenon or a cosmic "greater" intelligence?

 

Study shows analytic thinking decreases religious belief:


http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/201...king-can-decrease-religious-belief-ubc-study/

 

No, I don't think so.

Intelligence isn't a just some wonderful superiority that atheists can idly boast about. Intelligence is something that that has to be demonstrated. It isn't something that people are, it's something that they have to actually do.

I think that as a group, atheists probably do have higher average IQs than the general population. That sounds wonderful for the atheists, right? Maybe, but...

It doesn't mean that any particular atheist is going to be smarter than any particular religious person. The distributions have way too much overlap to conclude that.

And there's the problem that the concept of "religion" takes in a lot of territory. I think that while atheists might have slightly higher IQs than the mostly religious general population as a whole, there are probably religious denominations and traditions that will have higher average IQs than atheists.

A lot of those kind of differences have to do with economic class and amount of education received. And there are certainly religious groupings that have higher average educational attainments than religious non-adherents. (Episcopalians, religious Jews and Buddhists, for example.) On the other hand, groups like the Baptists and Pentecostals tend to be poorer and have less education, thus pulling down the "religious" average as a whole. Roman Catholics as a whole score a little below the national average in educational attainment, but if you removed the large numbers of poorly educated recent Latin American immigrants from their ranks, you might find that Irish and Italian Catholics are better educated than religious non-adherents too.

In other words, if you broke down the results a bit, things might not favor the atheists quite as unambiguously at it might seem at first.

My own impression is that smart people are like cats. They don't take to herding as well as less-intelligent people. Smart people are more apt to have ideas that are uniquely their own. But that's no guarantee that their ideas are going to be true or correct. They're just going to be less conventional.

 

I agree with Yazata, it may appear like that on the surface, but is simply not true.

Use that smartness to learn this lesson.

jan.

 

My personal definition of the term God is a spirit that resides in those that believe.

That means that I believe that the concept of god is alive and well in believers, and that in turn can have positive or negative impacts in the real physical world. For instance, you may say that it is nonsense to believe in something that isn't real. Well, the universe doesn't always work the way we think it does. It turns out that, in fact, there are believers in this world that go around doing real positive things that make a difference in other peoples lives. Is that really nonsense to believe, feel good about yourself, and in turn make other people feel good about themselves? I don't know, but I suspect not.

But that is "God." There is a distinction between "God" and "supernatural." Supernatural is all the "non-physical" characteristics of the universe. Characteristics that can't be described by simply describing a physical object. Characteristics such as love, hate, fear, inspiration, compassion, art, music, language, etc. All those characteristics of the universe need to be taken into account. The universe is not simply physical objects. From the emergence of physical objects over time emerged spiritual entities which can't be described by physical traits alone.

 

And you complain when people don't know what you're talking about? You don't go to any bother to explain these personal definitions you hold, then you act all indignant when people offer standard definitions you don't agree with? Talk about dishonesty.

But wouldn't a simpler explanation for that behavior simply be the belief in something, rather than the actual existence of that thing?

But love and hate and inspiration and compassion all have a physical foundation. You could literally affect them by tweaking your physical brain. So these concepts aren't evidence of anything supernatural, even by your odd personal (and incorrect) definition of the term.

 

Do you pretend to speak for all of mankind on what "God" means?

 

The actual existence is irrelevant, God is a spiritual entity. The belief in god is a spiritual event, it is not a physical object.