Support NeoGAF

[Kurdel]

Hey, smart guy?

The first post you quoted from me, the part you failed to quote (and I assume read) because you were too jazzed to defend your shitposting? That was more contribution to this topic than you have made in all of your posts combined.

I was in good faith here, it always sucks when gaffer can't even discuss something without blowing a fuse.

 

[kswiston]

If you declare religiosity is an evolved instinct and define intelligence as overcoming instinct, then you've surely stacked the deck before you even got started. The aggregate data claims to establish a trend but I'm skeptical how probative any data set could possibly be. Nearly everyone is religious, encompassing almost the entirety of society besieging the atheist enclave. I've also found most cultural theists and casual atheists know very little about religion beyond popular culture and sensational examples. The majority of us probably don't spend much time thinking about metaphysics at all.

Fortunately, there is a probative data set we can look at for intellectual accomplishments by belief system. Nearly all nobel prize winners in the last century have been religious. And since atheists make up a very small percentage of the nonreligious, we can't even estimate what single digit percentage of winners are actually atheists. That number isn't likely to change, as the Pew research center actually expects the global share of atheists to further shrink in the coming decades.

Some of the stuff in your links is meaningless with regards to this topic, because a lot of people in western countries identify as Christian without being very religious, or even believing the most core tenants of Christianity.

In the 2011 census, about 60% of citizens in the UK identified as Christian. In a 2016 survey, only 22% of UK adults believed in the divinity of Jesus. Only 44% believed in the resurrection.

https://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2016/02/13/survey-reveals-uks-views-about-jesus-christians

So you basically have a lot of people who are really only Christians in the sense that they have a Christian culture.

Looking at Nobel Laureates specifically, people like Albert Einstein would be counted as religious even though he didn't really meet that definition in the sense that most people mean.

 

[The Adder]

I was in good faith here

Oh?

Did you read the OP?

Sure you were.

 

[GalacticToast]

Some people are smart, religious or not. Some people are stupid, religious or not.

If you need some article to say you are smart because you aren't religious in order make you feel better, more power to you.

 

[Shanlei91]

I think a lot of you are too up in arms over one pyschology study to be honest.

The paper is the atheist equivalent of seeing the face of Mary in a tree stump. Kinda cool, but not something that should be worshiped as gospel until further study.

 

[AuthenticM]

Without reading beyond the OP's quotes (when starting this post, turns out the article is the same afterwards), a type of module evolved to quickly infer relations about the world or decrease stress at uncertainty is certainly a qualifier for an 'instinct' that returns at times of intense stress as well.

It does fit with individual and social observations whereas other models can explain one part but not the other because they pretend it's somehow not a cognitive function that has to obey an evolutionary framework just like any other. There's nothing sensational or new about that proposition.

However, the inflammatory title of this thread doesn't help. What it means is that, like all instincts, it's a shortcut to a certain effect but that also means it's very limited in its flexibility. Human brains are basically either efficient (instincts, etc, 0.2 second response time) or flexible (conscious abilities, 0.5 second response time) and which route gets activated on certain triggers matters a lot. The suggestion here is that religious concepts and associated contexts work similar to an efficient circuit, that is: a quick response is made but it's almost always the same because there's no self-aware processing involved. Habits are all of that nature.

The "smarter" part, as much as I can infer, would relate to the less religion-connected contexts in an atheist brain versus a religious one, meaning that specific triggers, say the value of life or the meaning of love in relationships, do not get the smaller range of 'standard replies' that you get from religious minds, because atheists literally have to (and can) think on it a little. You can probably measure this in the face as well, as thinking would drive the eyebrows down for a moment and a directer instinct would have no such impact, leaving no change in expression (which you've probably noticed a few times already in life when people reply without thinking).
That doesn't mean they're actually (physically) smarter in any way or form, it just means that other circuit paths are triggered and they can use a greater flexibility versus the limited flexibility created by the greater efficiency of (deeply) religious minds / brains.

If you measured stress as 'levels of getting tired' from specific questions, I will wager you right now that an atheist would get tired over time from them because their brains have to expend more energy than a religious brain does, which should also make them less tired since they're basically using half the energy if going only by response times.

Those efficient circuits however, include ancient and more basic ones like violent reactions and so efficiency can bite you in the ass when the wrong path is triggered. A flexible circuit would give you a chance to observe the response and amend it or veto it, like raising a fist and then realizing you probably shouldn't. Applying this on religiosity is just one example that's somewhat easier to demonstrate, that's all.

This is not my field or anything, but I know enough about it, I think, to say I'm not too far of the specifics here.

best reply

 

[boiled goose]

"Intelligence" is such a loaded term.

Averages mean little in populations with such high overlaps.

I don't think atheists are smarter, they are probably better at critical thinking (which i Think is something that takes practice)

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

But my anecdote counters your anecdote.

thats not how anecdotes work, and im not asking for yours
the pope had to backtrack on his words that gay people were not going to hell
this is obviously a more common problem intrinsic to holy text

 

[FlutterPuffs]

The paper is the atheist equivalent of seeing the face of Mary in a tree stump. Kinda cool, but not something that should be worshiped as gospel until further study.

Yeah that was what I was thinking.

 

[The Adder]

ok, well heres a thought experiment.
Two identical people go through life as good, caring people with one succinct difference. One of them reads religious text and decides its indeed holy and worth teaching your own child.
Would these people be more likely to judge someone who is homosexual than the person who had not?

Depends on the religious text, the years, and the society in which they were raised.

Here's another thought experiment:

Two identical people go through life as good, caring people with one succinct difference. One of them reads Ayn Rand and decides it the ethos it espouses is correct and worth teaching your own child.

Which of these would be more likely to to buy a poor man a meal, or donate to charity, or vote to pay higher taxes in order so subsidize those less fortunate?

 

[skullmuffins]

Some people are smart, religious or not. Some people are stupid, religious or not.

If you need some article to say you are smart because you aren't religious in order make you feel better, more power to you.

this is a real defensive take on a statistical analysis of a trend observed in multiple studies.

I'm just gonna paste this paragraph from the article here

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed that there's a significant negative association between how religious people are and their intelligence. Let's state clearly that this is a trend. This means that while on average, atheists are more intelligent than religious people, this is not an indictment of the ability of any single individual. Trust us, you can have incredibly bright religious people as well as not very clever atheists.

the paper in the topic is trying to explain why such association may exist.

 

[GalacticToast]

this is a real defensive take on a statistical analysis of a trend observed in multiple studies.

I'm just gonna paste this paragraph from the article here

Is it defensive if I'm not religious though? What would I be defending?

 

[Obscura]

Something something Albert Einstein.


Edit

I am not for or against anything.

Einstein wasn't religious.

 

[Renekton]

It really feels like religious people have much better EQ compared to us.

 

[The Adder]

thats not how anecdotes work, and im not asking for yours
the pope had to backtrack on his words that gay people were not going to hell
this is obviously a more common problem intrinsic to holy text

1. To a particular religious text, you mean. The Hellenists were religious and they certainly had no problem with homosexuality.

2. Honestly, I'd attribute hatred of homosexuality more to toxic masculinity than I ever would religion.

 

[Kurdel]

Oh?

Sure you were.

You still don't seem to see the irony of people rejecting this at face value, and I still wonder if you've read the OP.

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

Depends on the religious text, the years, and the society in which they were raised.

Here's another thought experiment:

Two identical people go through life as good, caring people with one succinct difference. One of them reads Ayn Rand and decides it the ethos it espouses is correct and worth teaching your own child.

Which of these would be more likely to to buy a poor man a meal, or donate to charity, or vote to pay higher taxes in order so subsidize those less fortunate?

did you compare Ayn Rand to The Bible? thats kind of something else entirely
I was trying not to offend anyone by being specific, but sure, any currently followed religious text that specifies one person being inferior to another.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Makes about as much sense as saying people who listen to one kind of music are smarter than another type of music listener.

The position being taken is so generalized as to be meaningless.

"This group of millions of people from all over the planet are smarter than this other group of millions of people from all over the planet"

Seems like it was an excuse to take a dig at religion or make some kind of statement. I guess if that makes someone feel superior to someone else, go nuts.

 

[Gnome Scat]

I don't know, because she never mentioned it ever and my mother is not christian, while my aunt is. My point is that there is seemingly a practiced mentality that overrides reason and respect which stems directly from adhering to religious text. Saying they're "just hateful" doesn't examine the underlying causes at all and isn't going to ever solve anything.



ok, well heres a thought experiment.
Two identical people go through life as good, caring people with one succinct difference. One of them reads religious text and decides its indeed holy and worth teaching your own child.
Would these people be more likely to judge someone who is homosexual than the person who had not?

Devoutness to religious text is not a shared practice for everyone who is religious. Yes, if someone treats the word of God through biblical text as true, then they will model their beliefs around it. However, religion and faith are things that can be open to interpretations, and religious people do not always follow it word for word. It takes a close-minded person to ascribe to something so blindly, and maybe that's where intelligence plays a part.

 

[JeTmAn81]

But which way does the causal relationship go?

 

[KaoteK]

As an atheist, I look at the likes of thunder foot, amazing atheist, Sargon and other famous internet atheists and I think "nah atheists aren't any different"

 

[GalacticToast]

Atheism is a flat +50 to Intelligence

 

[Beer Monkey]

Atheists make up a disproportionally small percentage of those in prison.

Are they more ethical, or too smart to get caught?

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

Devoutness to religious text is not a shared practice for everyone who is religious. Yes, if someone treats the word of God through biblical text as true, then they will model their beliefs around it. However, religion and faith are things that can be open to interpretations, and religious people do not always follow it word for word. It takes a close-minded person to ascribe to something so blindly, and maybe that's where intelligence plays a part.

Of course they don't follow it word for word. That's why there are many thousands of offshoots of Christianity. The fact of the matter is, they're still drawing from the same book which doesn't dance around certain questionable ethics which undeniably would bring out harmful ideals for otherwise good people.

As an atheist, I look at the likes of thunder foot, amazing atheist, Sargon and other famous internet atheists and I think "nah atheists aren't any different"

do you honestly think they represent the absence of belief in a deity?
why is there such an effort to poison this?

 

[Korey]

People capable of critical thinking are smarter than people who still believe fake stories they've been indoctrinated with since birth.

 

[The Adder]

did you compare Ayn Rand to The Bible? thats kind of something else entirely

Are you an atheist? If so, then there is effectively no difference in these texts, save for the broad reach of one as opposed to the other. Both preach ideologies and belief systems through various stories. Unless you actually believe the bible is factual, then there is no reason that my hypothetical does not work.

People capable of critical thinking are smarter than people who still believe fake stories they've been indoctrinated with since birth.

Alternatively, and far more accurately: People capable of critical thinking, and given the freedom and education to do so, are more likely to turn away from religious faith.

 

[depths20XX]

Makes about as much sense as saying people who listen to one kind of music are smarter than another type of music listener.

I dunno, I think the results for Juggalos would hold up.

 

[skullmuffins]

Makes about as much sense as saying people who listen to one kind of music are smarter than another type of music listener.

The position being taken is so generalized as to be meaningless.

"This group of millions of people from all over the planet are smarter than this other group of millions of people from all over the planet"

Seems like it was an excuse to take a dig at religion or make some kind of statement. I guess if that makes someone feel superior to someone else, go nuts.

No? I mean if there were dozens of studies that when analyzed showed a trend that people who listen to classical and jazz are "more intelligent" than people who listen to trance or dubstep, it would be valid to then wonder why that correlation exists. That's what's done here. Maybe their conclusions are wrong, maybe they're right, but it's not a meaningless position to take in the first place...

 

[GalacticToast]

People capable of critical thinking are smarter than people who still believe fake stories they've been indoctrinated with since birth.

How are we not supposed to bring up memes when stuff like this is getting posted?

 

[Kurdel]

People capable of critical thinking are smarter than people who still believe fake stories they've been indoctrinated with since birth.

Some people are also capable of both simultaneously, they just don't feel compelled to ajust their beliefs to resolve a cognitive dissonance.

Doesn't necessarily mean they are dumber than someone who strives for complete intellectual coherence/consistancy.

 

[Gnome Scat]

Of course they don't follow it word for word. That's why there are many thousands of offshoots of Christianity. The fact of the matter is, they're still drawing from the same book which doesn't dance around certain questionable ethics which undeniably would bring out harmful ideals for otherwise good people.

Couldn't it also be said that those "otherwise good people" are the ones making offshoots of the religion because they value some of its teachings but fundamentally disagree with others?

 

[The Adder]

Some people are also capable of both simultaneously, they just don't feel compelled to ajust their beliefs to resolve a cognitive dissonance.

Doesn't necessarily mean they are dumber than someone who strives for complete intellectual coherence/consistancy.

Or people have taken a good hard look at their faith, thoroughly analyzed it, and have come out the other side with it intact.

The sheer arrogance to assume that anyone who remains faithful has simply not given their faith any deep thought is why these atheist memes exist.

 

[sca2511]

What about agnostic? Are you more dumb if you think "we just don't know" or smarter because you're more flexible to the possibility that we just... don't know?!

There are agnostic atheists

 

[Dongs Macabre]

There are agnostic atheists

Most atheists tend to be agnostic, too.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

ok, well heres a thought experiment.
Two identical people go through life as good, caring people with one succinct difference. One of them reads religious text and decides its indeed holy and worth teaching your own child.
Would these people be more likely to judge someone who is homosexual than the person who had not?

Depends on what their culture dictates.

If they were in China and Singapore for example, there's a chance that he would still be judged for his sexuality.

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

Couldn't it also be said that those "otherwise good people" are the ones making offshoots of the religion because they value some of its teachings but fundamentally disagree with others?

sure, it could. That doesn't change the fact that they're ignoring some truly fucked up shit from the same text they preach as the unquestionable word of god.
People are quick to introduce other harmful mentalities like "but what about toxic masculinity"

yeah, thats a problem too, but thats a different subject and seems to just be an attempt to downplay the real issues at hand.

Depends on what their culture dictates.

If they were in China and Singapore for example, there's a chance that he would still be judged for his sexuality.

as I said, thats no better but it doesnt make the other ok by comparison.

 

[Astral Dog]

Just what needed,something to inflate the ego balloon of atheists

 

[Kurdel]

Or people have taken a good hard look at their faith, thoroughly analyzed it, and have come out the other side with it intact.

The sheer arrogance to assume that anyone who remains faithful has simply not given their faith any deep thought is why these atheist memes exist.

You either accept your cognitive dissonances (like I said, they are perfectly normal) or you live in denial.

 

[Mariolee]

As a Christian, this study's arguments make sense.

 

[The Adder]

You either accept your cognitive dissonances (like I said, they are perfectly normal) or you live in denial.

Bet that post's got you feeling pretty euphoric.

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

Just what needed,something to inflate the ego balloon of atheists

not believing in gods is something to criticize and group everyone together for?
explain

Bet that post's got you feeling pretty euphoric.

yeah I kind of figured you would go there eventually.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

sure, it could. That doesn't change the fact that they're ignoring some truly fucked up shit from the same text they preach as the unquestionable word of god.
People are quick to introduce other harmful mentalities like "but what about toxic masculinity"

yeah, thats a problem too, but thats a different subject and seems to just be an attempt to downplay the real issues at hand.



as I said, thats no better but it doesnt make the other ok by comparison.

It doesn't, but honestly I find what the culture dictates is more damning than any religion.

Would be nice to blame it all on the Torah, Bible or Quran but there's billions of people who believe in religion right now, still it's not like violence against what you believe is everywhere.

You have muslims currently burning and killing people in Southern Phillipines.

Buddhists killing muslims in Rohingya.

China supressing any religion (christianity and islam in particular)

Also honor killings in India.

Yet a lot in most places are generally peaceful and accepting. For me that's the real issue in hand.

 

[Gnome Scat]

sure, it could. That doesn't change the fact that they're ignoring some truly fucked up shit from the same text they preach as the unquestionable word of god.
People are quick to introduce other harmful mentalities like "but what about toxic masculinity"

yeah, thats a problem too, but thats a different subject and seems to just be an attempt to downplay the real issues at hand.



as I said, thats no better but it doesnt make the other ok by comparison.

Maybe those people recognize the Bible as the interpretation of the word of God, and that the times could have influenced what was taught. To some people, religion is not a matter of fact and is not viewed in the same way as scientific text. The two ideas can coexist, and in some cases even help each other, but religion is more tied to faith than fact and is more of a reflection of a person's beliefs that is tied to a spirituality. A person's family and their religious ties can affect what sort of spirituality they prescribe to, but not necessarily how they interpret it. The difference is connected to how impressionable one is. Faith is a tricky thing and is something that I have never truly practiced in my life, so maybe someone who does can better explain what I'm trying to get at here.

 

[GameAddict411]

Not surprising since most atheists choose to be agnostic or not to believe because of critical thinking. A skill that's only possessed by people who use their brains, it's an important skill that surprisingly not a lot of people have or acquired at young age.

 

[Kurdel]

Bet that post's got you feeling pretty euphoric.

What the hell are you even talking about?

I am saying being of faith absolutely are capable of critical thinking, they aren't mutually exclusive like Korey seemed to imply.

You need to cool your jets and take more time to read what I post before responding.

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

It doesn't, but honestly I find what the culture dictates is more damning than any religion.

Would be nice to blame it all on the Torah, Bible or Quran but there's billions of people who believe in religion right now, still it's not like violence against what you believe is everywhere.

You have muslims currently burning and killing people in Southern Phillipines.

Buddhists killing muslims in Rohingya.

China supressing any religion (christianity and islam in particular)

Also honor killings in India.

Yet a lot in most places are generally peaceful and accepting. For me that's the real issue in hand.

ok, but that doesnt address what im saying and doesnt relate to the original subject really

obviously there are a thousand ways for people to be cruel

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Oh I was just referring to primitive religions, and my post was kind of tangential to the topic as presented in the OP.

What the OP describes, the use of religion as a kind of "mental shortcut" applies to a lot of things beyond religion, basically anything to do with an intense investment of identity shows the same effects, such as political party or sports team partisanship, brand evangelists, etc.

That's interesting. Hegel said quite a bit about this in his epistemology. The idea is essentially that our knowledge is determined by our desires or interests, and that this actually works as knowledge if we can set aside our desires enough to recognize whether they've actually been satisfied or not, or rather to determine what in fact our satisfaction is. Basically, we're expected to mediate our first impression by seeing how that impression really is for us, and this mediation should mean that through time we'll come to develop more and more satisfying forms of knowledge. But then this just describes the pursuit of knowledge, and we all know people who for whatever reason are unwilling to meet this challenge, and you would expect to see more of it in people holding to forms of social orthodoxy, which religion often is.

 

[The Adder]

People are quick to introduce other harmful mentalities like "but what about toxic masculinity"

That's literally the cause though, at least as far as the bible goes.

Homosexuality comes up exactly 5 times Biblically.

Once in Exodus spoken in the word of god.

Four times throughout Romans and Corinthians spoken by Paul.

Paul is literally nobody. He came along 200 years after Jesus. He has no authority and he's in the bible due to the fact that he's responsible in large part for spreading the word. God, Jesus, and Peter, upon whom the church was built, are the ones with Biblical authority God does not call homosexuality a sin. God doesn't even call out homosexuality in general. It is specifically two men sleeping with one another in the context of being a small nomadic tribe in the middle of the desert encountering many other tribes with many foreign diseases. Men who go off to war often commit heinous acts, but itif you're only sticking your dick in your wife when you get home, then whatever you catch stays with you, instead of spreading to Bob next door and his wife.

This, FYI, is the same reason pork is bad and you don't wear certain fabrics together. Because it will get you and the rest of the tribe killed.

Paul was the one who started calling it a sin, condemning people to hell for it, and extending it to women. And he did that based on the context of THE PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY IN WHICH HE LIVED.

yeah I kind of figured you would go there eventually.

Perhaps read the context of my conversation with this particular person instead of automatically siding with the person you think you agree with more, yes?

 

[FlutterPuffs]

ok, but that doesnt address what im saying and doesnt relate to the original subject really

obviously there are a thousand ways for people to be cruel

It does really.

There are plenty of people who go through life as good, caring people until they are confronted by something that doesn't fit with their ideals, whether it's a religious, ethical, or sexuality issue.

I am sure 50 years ago there were happy or peaceful families that came undone when a child of theirs decided to marry a black person in the US for example.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

No? I mean if there were dozens of studies that when analyzed showed a trend that people who listen to classical and jazz are "more intelligent" than people who listen to trance or dubstep, it would be valid to then wonder why that correlation exists. That's what's done here. Maybe their conclusions are wrong, maybe they're right, but it's not a meaningless position to take in the first place...

Quick note on those: those studies appear to be small sample driven and must therefore be considered 'moot' as far as their claims go.

Video on that by the 'Today I Found Out' people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAJ2XKqKSRw

or the same thing in text:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/10/listening-to-mozart-wont-make-you-smarter/


Which is a total bitch because I FEEL smarter when listening to Bach, Mozart, and others, man. I'm totally being treated most unfair by this science. Tremendously unfair. /s


Also, on the topic of "but person X is totally religious", while others have already mentioned that being registered as one doesn't mean a person is (remember, being non-religious is still punishable by death or being made into a pariah in much of the world today), you should also be aware that no religious person is religious all the time, nor is a scientific person (unless you're 100% secular, which I don't believe is doable, but I would like to be) scientific all the time.

The name worth knowing in this context is the granddaddy of anthropology Bronislaw Malinowski as specifically a selection of his work printed as "Magic, Science, And Religion". His observations and subsequent theory is that tribesmen do not require magic or religion when fishing in a clear stream of water, since they can observe and know all processes involved, but turn to magic and even religion when they have to fish on open seas, because they can't see the fish or know what's going to happen or why and how.
Basically, a famous science person who was also religious, like Isaac Newton, put on their science hat when doing science and math, and put on their religion hat when doing religion, but never both at the same time. It's kind of what Stephen J. Gould meant when he wrote about his 'non-overlapping magistrata' but by then scientific knowledge had advanced to a point where the religious hat and its axioms directly conflict with and deny thing we already knew not to be the case. By now, no such combination is viable as a way to do science with the mindset that it needs, but it is still viable in engineering due to the much more limited focus of whatever field it's done in. Seriously, if you're looking for Intelligent Design people, go talk to engineers. Sorry if that's a bummer for you, but that's what that is.

Additionally, for anyone who has gotten a sudden interest in religious and non-religious cosmologies and what defines and separates them, there is a college lecture series from the University of California by Courtenay Raia that might interest you.
Direct to the playlist for all 20 lectures (yeah, that's 20 hours of lecture for you):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Zx-qcNZf4&list=PLFFD1C791A86FB485

I admit I live for this shit, so that amount of time doesn't bother me, but hey I tried.