Support NeoGAF

[Kurdel]

I'm a theist.

EDIT: To elaborate, this post I have quoted of yours is you, once more, doing the literal exact same thing you're accusing others of.

"This study says theists are dumb and run on instinct. I'm not going to give it any critical thought, just take it at face value, assume all theists are dumb and are just being defensive."

So you didn't read the OP and you have to make up statementd to paint me in a negative picture.

Great contribution to the thread, pal.

 

[Cap'n Cook]

Shocking that people who believe they'll be saved when they die by a magic sky-man would more often than not be fuck-stupid.

If it gives them comfort in death then who gives a shit. I used to be an atheist but now I refer to myself as a non-believer. From my experience atheist really seem to care about religion and love to argue against it. Personally I don't care about religion, I only care when people use it as an excuse to be a shitty person.

 

[The Adder]

Without reading beyond the OP's quotes...

This is a quality post and I appreciate the level of thought and care that went into crafting it.

So you didn't read the OP and you have to make up statementd to paint me in a negative picture.

Great contribution to the thread, pal.

Yeah. You're clearly not worth the time and I think everyone can see that.

Do some self-reflection.

 

[HStallion]

Posting memes related to a subject isn't the same as talking about a subject, but I understand why it's more fun.

hey you could contribute to one of the conversations going on in the thread or continue to be butt hurt about memes. This is the last I'll say on this.

OT: I think the whole religious instinct thing is a bit of an oversimplification of things considering religion is basically the way of life and the base for a lot of families and societies around the world. When its all they've known and all their parents and their parents and so on knew, then most everyone smart or stupid and everywhere in between ends up religious. This day and age there are at least options but a lot of people don't even have access to those depending on their situation.

 

[Haly]

Memeing is an instinct.

I'm sorry atheists but it's true.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

hey you could contribute to one of the conversations going on in the thread or continue to be butt hurt about memes. This is the last I'll say on this.

This is pretty funny considering you're doing the very thing you're complaining about me doing. Tell a mod if you're so upset about it.

Spoiler

I admit this is a shit post

 

[Air]

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.

Thanks for this. Super informative. This is kind of what my gut instinct about the thread was driving me, but I would never have been able to describe it as you did. Cheers

 

[Sheroking]

I don't think religion is an instinct. It seems more likely that all religion starts as a kind of heterodoxy (probably from non-neurotypical people having some kind of religious experience and then talking about it), which at a later stage becomes some kind of social orthodoxy. I mean it seems intuitive that essentially all religion must issue from some kind of mystical experience, and mystical experience is pretty rare among individuals.

I don't think any religion necessarily begins at "mystical experiences", as we have no reason to believe that any of the major world religions were founded by actual believers. Much of the oldest text we have reinforces the idea that leaders of their day simply dictated their world view through the guise of a god or creator. The myths and lore aspect of religion often comes after the fact.

I don't think it's correct that religion is instinctual, but I do think it's an unfortunate conclusion people arrive at when they are ignorant and live in fear of death. There's no way for them to arrive at any real conclusion without the benefit of thousands of years of scientific advancement, so they make the small logical jump. I create fire out of wood, someone must have created the wood.

 

[D i Z]

*looks in crock pot*

Yup. Full of shit.

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

You really think this is the sort of forum that feels compelled to defend religion?

It adds levity to a self-fellating topic

so you see this as some kind of "and eye for an eye" scenario?
even if the article is biased, its not a topic that's exempt from reasonable examination, and what you're doing is just trying to shut that down for some reason

I myself have some (relatively) smart family members who take their beliefs to the point where they tell my sister shes going to hell. I cant imagine most atheist/agnostic families would ever do anything so horrible if one of their relatives decided they liked going to church so yeah, its definitely worth examining from my perspective.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

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

 

[HStallion]

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

I think we should start an inquisition over it.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

I'm an atheist, and I just don't think this is true. Many of history's noteworthy intellects were religious. Isaac Newton was way smarter than me. Charles Darwin was studying to be a pastor when he came up with the theory of evolution. A Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang Theory.

But they might be even smarter if they were atheist!

 

[FlutterPuffs]

I think we should start an inquisition over it.

Which side?

Let us be like mature adults and settle this with a series of 1 vs 1 battles in COD: Black Ops 2.

 

[The Adder]

I myself have some (relatively) smart family members who take their beliefs to the point where they tell my sister shes going to hell. I cant imagine most atheist/agnostic families would ever do anything so horrible if one of their relatives decided they liked going to church so yeah, its definitely worth examining from my perspective.

I mean, there's no Atheistic equivalent to hell to be had. However, you don't believe any of your atheistic relatives would mock one of their relatives for becoming, say, hyper Christian?? And that comes with the added buffer of your family being raised in a culture where theism is expected.

Not to mention callous cruelty isn't a measure of intelligence, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

Not really, I'm agnostic-atheist myself but am not a fan of some of the negative rhetoric against religious people "meta-studies" like this can bring out. Some of the most intelligent people I know are religious. Didn't think the image would be that controversial, just thought it was funny and kind of relevant.

I just think there's something about posting memes making fun of fedora atheists while talking about the elitism that this meta-study will bring that doesn't sit right with me. Like, if you're gonna make fun of a group of people because they do the same thing to religious people, fine, whatever, but you should at least recognize the irony there.

Memeing is an instinct.

I'm sorry atheists but it's true.

dawkins invented memes tho

 

[Sheroking]

You really think this is the sort of forum that feels compelled to defend religion?

Yes?

This is one of the most divisive topics on NeoGAF. There are lots of leftists on this board and it's one of the most divisive topics among leftists as well.

 

[AlexFlame116]

I'm a religious guy but this is actually really interesting. I don't have much experience with atheists but I've met some really nice ones in my life. I'll have to read into this more.

Does that door look off to anyone? It looks like it's leaning.

 

[HStallion]

dawkins invented memes tho

Nietzsche laughs in his general direction.

Spoiler

he didn't either

Does that door look off to anyone? It looks like it's leaning.

His smugness is actually warping time and space around him.

 

[Haly]

Not to mention callous cruelty isn't a measure of intelligence, as far as I'm aware.

It is, but across species. Dolphins, for example, are exceptionally intelligent and also cruel.

 

[The Adder]

Does that door look off to anyone? It looks like it's leaning.

Camera's tilted so that he's upright, causing the door to look tilted. That's some terrible shot composition.

 

[Sinfamy]

The discrimination against Atheists in the US and worldwide is pretty remarkable.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

I just think there's something about posting memes making fun of fedora atheists while talking about the elitism that this meta-study will bring that doesn't sit right with me. Like, if you're gonna make fun of a group of people because they do the same thing to religious people, that's fine, but you should at least recognize the irony there.



dawkins invented memes tho

Nah. It was the Romans.

http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti from Pompeii.htm

 

[Bolivar687]

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.

 

[Intheflorsh]

Memes are eternal

 

[AlexFlame116]

His smugness is actually warping time and space around him.

Haha!

Camera's tilted so that he's upright, causing the door to look tilted. That's some terrible shot composition.

Oh that makes sense. I thought it looked weird for some reason!

But now I see what you mean.

 

[Kurdel]

. You're clearly not worth the time and I think everyone can see that.

Do some self-reflection.

I mean, you could have answered my questions, instead you rather make a strawman and then recommend I self reflect, how is that engaging in discussion or debating the contents of the OP?

 

[Eusis]

I'm religious and I don't find this offensive. It could be true if it's an average because there are a lot of religious people who take their religion too literally and can't think for themselves.

Inversely some probably treat atheism as if it were a faith and so we get fedora memes.

EDIT: Primarily this sounds mainly like if you're willing to question and test you're smarter, and people who come to that conclusion that way are more likely to be intelligent, and it probably applies to those willing to test their faith pragmatically. If you're one of the few that touts being atheist as if it were fashionable that could well be succumbing to that instinct.

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

I mean, there's no Atheistic equivalent to hell to be had. However, you don't believe any of your atheistic relatives would mock one of their relatives for becoming, say, hyper Christian?? And that comes with the added buffer of your family being raised in a culture where theism is expected.

Not to mention callous cruelty isn't a measure of intelligence, as far as I'm aware.

if they joined Westboro and started pushing their ideals, maybe
but thats quite an extreme fringe.

When the word of god can so easily be turned into such hurtful sentiment, I just have to assume its some kind of practiced dissonance for a lot of people. Her daughter was just as hateful because she was taught these things from a young age.

 

[shandy706]

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.

Get this attempt to actually discuss things put of here.

I'd be interested in reading data about this. Neat stuff.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I think we're primed by biology to attribute significance to arbitrary events, and this eventually manifests itself as religion.

I could see that being the case for certain kinds of folk religion, but if that explanation is meant to account for the more serious kinds of religion, then it seems a lot less satisfying. There's a pretty massive gap between observing supposedly meaningful coincidences in the world, and then setting your gaze outside of the world through some kind of soteriology or something. Mystical experiences, which are already more otherworldly than they are worldly, would do a lot better to explain where that strange conviction in personal salvation must come from.

William James claimed that we have a sort of mixed or unitary cognitive capacity, and that this explains things like sensory hallucinations, 'feeling a presence', as well as how we can assert the meaningful existence of ideals like justice. The fact that can observe people willing to live and die for totally "unseen" things like justice seems to give us some indication of where the religious impulse seems to come from. And there's something lost if we reduce it to a purely biological explanation, whether the firm belief in something like justice is healthy or not is borne out in the consequences of that belief. Having our object be unseen or metaphysical in no way means we can't 'test' it, some conceptions of justice are going to be more satisfying than others and our understanding of justice will unfold (and hopefully correct itself) through time, so too with religion.

 

[Gnome Scat]

so you see this as some kind of "and eye for an eye" scenario?
even if the article is biased, its not a topic that's exempt from reasonable examination, and what you're doing is just trying to shut that down for some reason

I myself have some (relatively) smart family members who take their beliefs to the point where they tell my sister shes going to hell. I cant imagine most atheist/agnostic families would ever do anything so horrible if one of their relatives decided they liked going to church so yeah, its definitely worth examining from my perspective.

While not exactly equal, I think the same effect can be had in non-religious families through general verbal abuse. While using religion as a means to attack someone can have different connotations in terms of how its received, I think both sides are capable of mistreatment and it may boil down to one's character in the end. Of course, religion can take those bad characteristics and funnel them in a more organized, directed form, like with religious extremism, but I don't feel that indicates religion as a correlating factor in measuring intelligence.

I just think there's something about posting memes making fun of fedora atheists while talking about the elitism that this meta-study will bring that doesn't sit right with me. Like, if you're gonna make fun of a group of people because they do the same thing to religious people, fine, whatever, but you should at least recognize the irony there.

I didn't really put much thought into it, but after looking into it a little more using a meme/stereotype to try and exemplify a point I was trying to make debases a bit. I can see how it's not sitting well and I regret posting, I'll take it down because it's not really helping the conversation here.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I'm an atheist, and I just don't think this is true. Many of history's noteworthy intellects were religious. Isaac Newton was way smarter than me. Charles Darwin was studying to be a pastor when he came up with the theory of evolution. A Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang Theory.

Yeah, and what about back in ancient Greece! Maybe we should believe in Zeus.

One thing all GAF can agree on is that religion was invented by humans, and so were their gods.

 

[The Adder]

I mean, you could have answered my questions, instead you rather make a strawman and then recommend I self reflect, how is that engaging in discussion or debating the contents of the OP?

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.

if they joined Westboro and started pushing their ideals, maybe
but thats quite an extreme fringe.

When the word of god can so easily be turned into such hurtful sentiment, I just have to assume its some kind of practiced dissonance for a lot of people. Her daughter was just as hateful because she was taught these things from a young age.

Alternatively, and I know it's hard to hear, but your family members are just hateful people because they were also raised by hateful people.

My grandmother is a nearly 80 year old southern baptist and she loves the hell out of my uncle, his husband (before they divorced), and their adopted children.

 

[DragonGirl]

As an atheist, as much as this boosts my ego, I tend to hold my nose around "Evolutionary Psychology" in general and will wait for sources I trust to comment (and more than likely tear this thing apart as bad science).

 

[Haly]

I could see that being the case for certain kinds of folk religion, but if that explanation is meant to account for the more serious kinds of religion, then it seems a lot less satisfying.

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.

 

[Dyle]

I don't buy the instinct argument due to my own personal experience. I was raised without religion and have never felt anything pulling me towards believing or taking part in religion so far. Even just the idea of applying the archaic concept of instinct to human belief systems/social groups seems simply obsolete.

 

[AlexFlame116]

Let's shut down this line of discussion early for once. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions to take.

Huh. So I'm a Gnostic Theist? Never heard of it! But cool then.

I'll be honest, the first experience I had with the word Agnostic was with South Park when I was much younger.

But now I know what it means!

 

[Intheflorsh]

It's important to note that this study is about a statistical trend, so saying "yeah but this guy from history was a genius and he's religious" isn't a good refutation.

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

While not exactly equal, I think the same effect can be had in non-religious families through general verbal abuse. While using religion as a means to attack someone can have different connotations in terms of how its received, I think both sides are capable of mistreatment and it may boil down to one's character in the end. Of course, religion can take those bad characteristics and funnel them in a more organized, directed form, like with religious extremism, but I don't feel that indicates religion as a correlating factor in measuring intelligence.

I never implied anything contrary. If anything I specified that my extended family were educated yet also passively hateful via The Bible. Would they have filled that void with something else or would they have otherwise never had a reason to do something that got my sister crying.

Alternatively, and I know it's hard to hear, but your family members are just hateful people because they were also raised by hateful people.

My grandmother is a nearly 80 year old southern baptist and she loves the hell out of my uncle, his husband (before they divorced), and their adopted children.

I doubt that. There was no animosity at all until it was mentioned that my sister liked girls. Outside of that you're calling my grandma hateful when she was one of the sweetest old Scottish ladies out there

 

[Ogodei]

I don't think religion is an instinct. It seems more likely that all religion starts as a kind of heterodoxy (probably from non-neurotypical people having some kind of religious experience and then talking about it), which at a later stage becomes some kind of social orthodoxy. I mean it seems intuitive that essentially all religion must issue from some kind of mystical experience, and mystical experience is pretty rare among individuals.

It's instinctive so far as it is a felt behavior. There have certainly been attempts to rationalize faith, but what faith comes down to is a feeling, the surety of belief and of connection with a higher power, it's like the Myers-Briggs Thinking-Feeling spectrum.

 

[Draper]

so you see this as some kind of "and eye for an eye" scenario?
even if the article is biased, its not a topic that's exempt from reasonable examination, and what you're doing is just trying to shut that down for some reason

I myself have some (relatively) smart family members who take their beliefs to the point where they tell my sister shes going to hell. I cant imagine most atheist/agnostic families would ever do anything so horrible if one of their relatives decided they liked going to church so yeah, its definitely worth examining from my perspective.

Par for the course with religion. Many of it teach penance- doesn't mean they're dumb. There's room for humor on these topics. You guys are being way too confrontational on this matter.

Eye for an eye? C'mon man. That's a curiously combative way to look at memes for Christ's sake (praise!)

 

[Turin]

I don't buy the instinct argument due to my own personal experience. I was raised without religion and have never felt anything pulling me towards believing or taking part in religion so far. Even just the idea of applying the archaic concept of instinct to human belief systems/social groups seems simply obsolete.

Inversely, I was raised with religion and there was always a nagging feeling that something was wrong about it.

 

[The Adder]

I doubt that. There was no animosity at all until it was mentioned that my sister liked girls.

That was the object of their hatefulness, sure. But that doesn't mean they aren't just hateful people. Hateful people don't just go around hating everything. You don't know the character of someone until you see the way in which they treat people and things they disagree with.

Outside of that you're calling my grandma hateful when she was one of the sweetest old Scottish ladies out there

Well was your grandmother religious? Because, if so, it kind of harms the basis of your argument, does it not?

 

[Rushersauce]

Really looking forward to the elitism this article is gonna bring.

Already here. Just look at some of the responses. Neogaf sometimes is really a hypocrite site when it comes to certain things.

 

[Gnome Scat]

I never implied anything contrary. If anything I specified that my extended family were educated yet also passively hateful via The Bible. Would they have filled that void with something else or would they have otherwise never had a reason to do something that got my sister crying.

I think it becomes a bit subjective at that point. I can't say for sure what kind of people your family members are and if them attacking your sister like that rests in the religion they practice or their character, but religion and any organization thats parts involve groupthink can become dangerous when people become too involved. My family is not deeply religious so I can't relate to well from personal experience, but I believe that since religion is something that is practiced and taught, rather than something that is instinctual or inherent to one's personality, their character determines how religion mixes with them, and that can be either for the good or bad.

 

[The Adder]

I think it becomes a bit subjective at that point. I can't say for sure what kind of people your family members are and if them attacking your sister like that rests in the religion they practice or their character, but religion and any organization thats parts involve groupthink can become dangerous when people become too involved. My family is not deeply religious so I can't relate to well from personal experience, but I believe that since religion is something that is practiced and taught, rather than something that is instinctual or inherent to one's personality, their character determines how religion mixes with them, and that can be either for the good or bad.

Very much this. And if someone wants to argue that a greater density of people susceptible to group think are religious than atheistic, I'd absolutely agree.

 

[Draper]

Already here. Just look at some of the responses. Neogaf sometimes is really a hypocrite site when it comes to certain things.

Please. You just can't comprehend my superior level of linguistics. At this moment, I am euphoric.

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

Well was your grandmother religious? Because, if so, it kind of harms the basis of your argument, does it not?

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.

I think it becomes a bit subjective at that point. I can't say for sure what kind of people your family members are and if them attacking your sister like that rests in the religion they practice or their character, but religion and any organization thats parts involve groupthink can become dangerous when people become too involved. My family is not deeply religious so I can't relate to well from personal experience, but I believe that since religion is something that is practiced and taught, rather than something that is instinctual or inherent to one's personality, their character determines how religion mixes with them, and that can be either for the good or bad.

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?

 

[The Adder]

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.

But my anecdote counters your anecdote.