Support NeoGAF

[Elandyll]

I always found this chart dumb. Who cares if you're not sure, but you believe in it anyway? It's an unecessary distinction. You either believe in a thing or you do not, or you're not sure.

Actually it's not a dumb chart and you can find all 4 types, which translate into important distinctions.

Gnostic types tend to be very forceful and wanting to push their views while agnostic types are more of the live and let live angle. Personally I am an agnostic atheist.

What is ridiculous is people equivocating theists and atheists saying "well, atheism is just the belief that god doesn't exist".

No.

Atheism is the absence of belief. Not the belief of an absence.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

A not insignificant number of younger atheists that define themselves by their atheism are actually like that. It's about as bad as people that self identify as "gamers".

Probably the biggest difference between early twenty-something me to late-twenty-something me .

Weird, how it goes in reverse with supposed intellectuals such as Dawkins, Harris etc.

 

[E-Cat]

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.

Nah, they had less evidence to work with. It DID make empirically more sense to be religious back then than today.

 

[Nivash]

I've seen similar studies before, but I don't think they prove a direct causation. There's nothing inherent in intelligence that makes you question religion. I think it's more of a reflection of how more intelligent people tend to to go on to higher education to a greater extent than less intelligent people, and how the culture of higher education is more likely to foster a tendency to challenge religion.

I'm atheist myself. It's not as if my "deconversion" or whatever you want to call it was some great mental challenge. I simply concluded that religion had stopped making sense for me and realised that there were other options.

 

[Gravy Boat]

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?!

Atheism can be, and often is, a position of 'I don't know'. Atheism is not the assertion that no god exists. I'm not sure why this continues to be misunderstood.

 

[McLovin]

Well it takes a certain level of willful ignorance to maintain faith amidst all the scientific discoveries that contradict religion.
Personally I'm more agnostic. From my view I think there's zero chance the Bible is accurate since the people who wrote it had no idea how big or how old the universe was. But that doesn't necessarily rule out a god.

 

[Timedog]

I've seen similar studies before, but I don't think they prove a direct causation. There's nothing inherent in intelligence that makes you question religion. I think it's more of a reflection of how more intelligent people tend to to go on to higher education to a greater extent than less intelligent people, and how the culture of higher education is more likely to foster a tendency to challenge religion.

I'm atheist myself. It's not as if my "deconversion" or whatever you want to call it was some great mental challenge. I simply concluded that religion had stopped making sense for me and realised that there were other options.

There's nothing in intelligence that makes you question outlandish claims?

Atheism can be, and often is, a position of 'I don't know'. Atheism is not the assertion that no god exists. I'm not sure why this continues to be misunderstood.

Depends on the type of atheist.

 

[spekkeh]

Meta analysis are held to much greater scruple than RCTs.
63 is a very low number when, as that PLOS article reports are in the hundreds.

I admit to having a bit of difficulty with parsing your English, but
1) the article doesn't really mention the amount of studies in the average meta-analysis. So you can't deduce from it that 63 is low.
2) just that the majority of meta-analyses are underpowered to indicate a large effect, but
2a) This atheism meta analysis does not indicate a large effect
2b) underpowered does not at all mean it's wrong
2bii) in fact the authors mention themselves that the studies might actually be fully adequate for more specific effects
2c) the authors of the meta-meta-analysis included reviews with at least five studies. I can tell you five studies is almost per definition underpowered
2d) almost, because pooled N tells you much more than the number of studies
2e) given that from a cursory glance a lot of the reviews are about small scale interventions for specific problems, it's guaranteed that these reviews have an overrepresentation of small scale home studies, that's much less apparent in the atheism study.
2f) as said giving this kind of criticism would require a more in depth of the original studies in the atheism meta analysis. I'm however much more inclined to trust the reviewers of one of the most esteemed journals in the field, than a casual dismissal from random forumite with a study from a different field that at best casts some doubts over strength but not much more.

 

[PdotMichael]

Atheism can be, and often is, a position of 'I don't know'. Atheism is not the assertion that no god exists. I'm not sure why this continues to be misunderstood.

Atheism is normally that a God isn't necessary for someone's world view so the question God yes or no is missing the point.

 

[Audioboxer]

Well, religion does cause many to completely ignore the scientific method. You're going to drop points in any study of intelligence if you do not believe in evolution and things around biology/the brain. Evolution probably has the biggest stack of evidence known to science yet so many will still say it's not true. Objectively, it's pretty outrageous, but that is part of the science vs religion battle that goes on. If something true really upsets the doctrine text it's going to cause mass unrest.

It's always a scale though, religions have so many followers and there's always waves of pro-science people who see the books as written in their times and indicative of the incredibly primitive understandings of those times. You cannot just lump everyone who says they follow religion x together.

However, sure, many fields of respected science and inquiry will be dominated by minds that most likely identify as agnostic/atheist. The scientific method and approach to inquiry just causes "hell" when it comes to anyone trying to accept the bulk of what each of the Abrahamic religions put forward.

I would need to read the paper than than just that site, but at least it has recognised this

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.

Emotions will understandably flare high when someone of faith reads a title like that.

 

[E-Cat]

There's nothing inherent in intelligence that makes you question religion.

Yes, there is -- statistics, for one. Out of all the possible religions out there, what kind of intellectual arrogance does it take to reason that the one you just so happened to be born in was crafted by the one, true God?

A supposedly loving God that would make salvation depend on believing in him on bad evidence is precisely the kind of belief that unintelligent people with poor critical thinking abilities would adopt.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Depends on the type of atheist.

Right, but I was being simplistic because the 'I'm not atheist, I'm agnostic' argument continues to come up. I'm really not even sure where the idea that Atheism = no god and agnosticism = not sure came from in the first place.

 

[Nivash]

There's nothing in intelligence that makes you question outlandish claims?

Maybe we have different definitions of intelligence, but if we're talking about IQ - which is what I assume that the study was measuring, considering that it's pretty much the only commonly used measurement of intelligence - the answer is no. IQ is just an indicator of how well you perform a specific task that, generally, is considered to correlate to how well you process information overall. Critical thinking is different, however. You need to be taught or otherwise learn it and you need to have a reason to use it.

Yes, there is -- statistics, for one. Out of all the possible religions out there, what kind of intellectual arrogance does it take to reason that the one you just so happened to be born in was crafted by the one, true God?

A supposedly loving God that would make salvation depend on believing in him on bad evidence is precisely the kind of belief that unintelligent people with poor critical thinking abilities would adopt.

Again, intelligence is not a guarantee for critical thinking. There are plenty of examples of extremely intelligent people - Nobel laureates even - that have the most ridiculous opinions and ideas outside of their expert fields. You have to actively decide to think critically, and whether or not you do that mostly comes down to personality and cultural influence in my opinion.

 

[azyless]

Actually it's not a dumb chart and you can find all 4 types, which translate into important distinctions.

Gnostic types tend to be very forceful and wanting to push their views while agnostic types are more of the live and let live angle. Personally I am an agnostic atheist.

What do you base this on ? The overwhelming majority of religious people is not agnostic and except for a few nutjobs they don't go around trying to convert everyone. Same thing for gnostic atheists unless you take whatever garbage comes from reddit as proof.

 

[E-Cat]

Again, intelligence is not a guarantee for critical thinking. There are plenty of examples of extremely intelligent people - Nobel laureates even - that have the most ridiculous opinions and ideas outside of their expert fields. You have to actively decide to think critically, and whether or not you do that mostly comes down to personality and cultural influence in my opinion.

Again, I must bring up statistics. That there are people with ridiculous opinions and ideas among the academic elites does not overthrow the fact that such thoughts are much less common, on average, in said demographic than the general populace, say. I would be willing to bet large sums of money on that.

 

[Gravy Boat]

What do you base this on ? The overwhelming majority of religious people is not agnostic and except for a few nutjobs they don't go around trying to convert everyone. Same thing for gnostic atheists unless you take whatever garbage comes from reddit as proof.

Do you not count missionaries, or even Priests/Reverends etc, as people who are trying to convert others? It's not just 'a few nut jobs' who try and convert people to their religion of choice.

 

[kruis]

Most atheists tend to be agnostic, too.

I bet almost all atheists are agnostics too. Just like most agnostics are in reality atheists. Perhaps there is an infinitely small possibility of there being a god despite the immense, overwhelming scientific evidence against it, a microscopic possibility that defies all logic and science. There could be. But why keep that option open when it's so impossibly farfetched?

I think most self-professed agnostics (especially in the US) don't want to call themselves atheists because the moniker always had a bad ring to it. Orthodox Christians called athesists people without morals. Today atheists are believed to be pushy and strident, obnoxious fedora wearers who use every occasion to lecture the rest of the world about how they're so clever and the rest of the world is so dumb. Far better for agnostics to remain a bit to the side and say "We don't know 100%" even though they agree with every argument against the existence of supernatural godlike beings and believe there's an 0.000000000000000000000000001 chance that God/Allah/Zeus/Wodan/whatever exists.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I admit to having a bit of difficulty with parsing your English, but
1) the article doesn't really mention the amount of studies in the average meta-analysis. So you can't deduce from it that 63 is low.
2) just that the majority of meta-analyses are underpowered to indicate a large effect, but
2a) This atheism meta analysis does not indicate a large effect
2b) underpowered does not at all mean it's wrong
2bii) in fact the authors mention themselves that the studies might actually be fully adequate for more specific effects
2c) the authors of the meta-meta-analysis included reviews with at least five studies. I can tell you five studies is almost per definition underpowered
2d) almost, because pooled N tells you much more than the number of studies
2e) given that from a cursory glance a lot of the reviews are about small scale interventions for specific problems, it's guaranteed that these reviews have an overrepresentation of small scale home studies, that's much less apparent in the atheism study.
2f) as said giving this kind of criticism would require a more in depth of the original studies in the atheism meta analysis. I'm however much more inclined to trust the reviewers of one of the most esteemed journals in the field, than a casual dismissal from random forumite with a study from a different field that at best casts some doubts over strength but not much more.

Do my "Research for me" is a genuine sign of being ultimately biased.
Those studies are bull. I went through a few of them.

How the fuck would you justify this?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...&volume=6&pages=187-192&publication_year=2011

Or
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...237&publication_year=1968&doi=10.2307/1384630

Come one. These AREN'T RCTS.

 

[Skinpop]

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

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

this should be obvious to anyone who understand even just the bare minimum of statistics, something the vast majority of posters in here seem to not do.

 

[azyless]

Do you not count missionaries, or even Priests/Reverends etc, as people who are trying to convert others? It's not just 'a few nut jobs' who try and convert people to their religion of choice.

I think they are a minority, even more so in western countries. The most I have ever had to deal with was someone insistently asking me why I didn't believe in God, never had anyone actively trying to convert me no.

I bet almost all atheists are agnostics too.

30% of french people are convinced atheists. (Source)

 

[Nivash]

Again, I must bring up statistics. That there are people with ridiculous opinions and ideas among the academic elites does not overthrow the fact that such thoughts are much less common, on average, in said demographic than the general populace, say. I would be willing to bet large sums of money on that.

I don't dispute the correlation, merely that I don't think it proves causation. Like I said, I think the real cause is that this demographic has been taught critical thinking and to challenge ideas through their higher education, and that this is a more important aspect than their raw intelligence. I bring up the academic nutjob as an example of how raw intelligence on its own clearly isn't a guarantee that one can think critically of their own ideas.

 

[Drazgul]

I say I am an atheist but deep down in my heart I truly believe.


Hail Satan.

 

[Gravy Boat]

I think they are a minority, even more so in western countries. The most I have ever had to deal with was someone insistently asking me why I didn't believe in God, never had anyone actively trying to convert me no.

They're a minority, but still extremely common. Not just 'a few nut jobs' as you claimed. Their role within the church is literally to engage people and bring in new members. They may not be aggressive about it, but they're actively attempting to increase their following on a weekly basis.

30% of french people are convinced atheists. (Source)

I don't speak French, does this mean they're convinced there is no god? Or they're convinced that, out of all the evidence that's been presented to them thus far, none of it proves a god exists?

Like I can be sure that I don't believe in any claims that have been made, but I still can't say I'm sure there is no god. There's a subtle but important difference.

 

[E-Cat]

I don't dispute the correlation, merely that I don't think it proves causation. Like I said, I think the real cause is that this demographic has been taught critical thinking and to challenge ideas through their higher education, and that this is a more important aspect than their raw intelligence. I bring up the academic nutjob as an example of how raw intelligence on its own clearly isn't a guarantee that one can think critically of their own ideas.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think the odd nutjob is enough to disprove causation on a larger scale. It could be merely the result of compartmentalization of some sort - applying your critical thinking faculties selectively in different areas of your life. This is the definition of the 'sophisticated crackpot'.

 

[Despera]

Atheists don't like pineapple on pizza in my experience so they're instantly smarter.

the pope must've invented that mix

 

[Elandyll]

What do you base this on ? The overwhelming majority of religious people is not agnostic and except for a few nutjobs they don't go around trying to convert everyone. Same thing for gnostic atheists unless you take whatever garbage comes from reddit as proof.

Not too many people are 100% on either scales, either way, so it depends where you fall.

There's plenty of (gnostic) theists who think their views should be imposed on others (part of the political process per example) and plenty of (gnostic) atheists who feel that they have to "educate the barbarians", in a very "in your face" way if needed.

I've had discussions with both types.

 

[azyless]

Not too many people are 100% on either scales, either way, so it depends where you fall.

There's plenty of (gnostic) theists who think their views should be imposed on others (part of the political process per example) and plenty of (gnostic) atheists who feel that they have to "educate the barbarians", in a very "in your face" way if needed.

I've had discussions with both types.

Saying there is plenty of them is a little different than saying "they tend to be". There are also plenty of people acting high and mighty about being agnostic and treating people taking a more convinced stand like idiots, doesn't mean it's a majority. As someone living in a country where religious people (as in, adhering to a religion) are a minority, this has not been my experience at all with either group.

 

[JimmyRustler]

And this is a surprise why exactly? Religion doesn't encourage you to ask questions. Yes, Atheism doesn't either, but does people are more likely to ask them and not accept "God did it" as answer.

 

[spekkeh]

Do my "Research for me" is a genuine sign of being ultimately biased.
Those studies are bull. I went through a few of them.

How the fuck would you justify this?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...&volume=6&pages=187-192&publication_year=2011

Or
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...237&publication_year=1968&doi=10.2307/1384630

Come one. These AREN'T RCTS.

I'm not asking you to do my research for me, the research is clearly there, peer-reviewed and published. You don't like it, the onus is on you. If I'm clearly biased, then I'm clearly biased in favor of the scientific method (standing on the shoulders of giants). I already said:

Let me guess, you're a religious person.

I think an actually educated person would look at the article, see that the initial meta-analysis was published in Personality and Social Psychology Review, and immediately refrain from saying anything that would go against the conclusions. Only if it really rubs her the wrong way, she would engage in a thorough research of the original experiments to see if the conclusions are valid.

Thanks for proving my point and see now we're getting somewhere. Yes you are right I would not have included these studies, though not because they aren't RCTs, you don't need RCTs for a meta analysis (in fact randomized and controlled kind of go out the window if you're comparing different groups of people), but because one is too old and the other seems too circumstantial (but might still give good data, I haven't read it).

 

[nkarafo]

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?!

God and religion are made up by man. Like unicorns, Santa, Superman, etc.

So i'm pretty sure god doesn't exist in the same way these other fictional characters don't exist.

If you are unsure about god then why aren't you unsure about other fictional characters as well? Maybe someone saw Spiderman in real life and decided to make a comic out of him so he existed all along. You can't prove he doesn't exist. Actually, you can't prove the non-existence of any random thing you can think of. Can you prove there isn't an invisible alien right now somewhere watching you?

So being agnostic doesn't say anything really.

 

[Polioliolio]

Religion is a memetic disease.

 

[DarknessTear]

God and religion are made up by man. Like unicorns, Santa, Superman, etc.

So i'm pretty sure god doesn't exist in the same way these other fictional characters don't exist.

If you are unsure about god then why aren't you unsure about other fictional characters as well? Maybe someone saw Spiderman in real life and decided to make a comic out of him so he existed all along. You can't prove he doesn't exist. Actually, you can't prove the non-existence of any random thing you can think of. Can you prove there isn't an invisible alien right now somewhere watching you?

So being agnostic doesn't say anything really.

You never know. We could be in a simulation run by some unknown force. I'd say that thing, whatever it is could be a god in some sense.

 

[Captain Smoker]

What a thread, cringy as hell.


I believe in God as well, I'm raised in a Catholic family, but I love Philosophy, Physics, Science and everything else and I'm probably more interested in the that stuff than most atheists.

But this is just a single example / anecdote, so it's obviously not an argument.


My problem with this study is the conclusion of "intelligence" / "being smarter" is linked to the premise that someone is religious or not.

I feel like this is some kind of dick comparison.


There is a shit-ton of people who believe in conspiracy theories or have other flawed believes without religion.

 

[Always-honest]

I'm going to guess most people are about equally stupid. Wherever i go.
Having said that, i still don't understand why people need a religion.

 

[BocoDragon]

I appreciate that this study explains that atheists are often overcoming/second-guessing "easy" religious sentiments.

So much religious dialogue about atheism continually takes that position that religious people have access to some deeper dimension of human experience that atheists are too deaf/blind/stubborn/intellectual to "feel".

"If atheists only put in the work to look and see", they assume.

Which has always rang false to me, because I have experimented with mysticism and religious philosophy. I've meditated. I've felt "all is one" experiences where I'm connected with the universe. I've read numerous religious texts and thought "think as if it's true" for awhile. I've done psychedelic drugs of a spiritual nature. I've been to churches, Buddhist temples, and Hindu temples, some of which offered a palpable sense of magical experience. (Secret best church atmosphere: Krishna consciousness. You get a buzz walking through that. But then again music concerts are amazing too).

I have absolutely tried on the religion hat, I've tasted the goods, and I can admit, there are some good feelings to be had there. Powerful feelings.

But at the end of the day, having experienced all this: I say Big Whoop.

Big deal that you can feel happy and connected sentiments from religious practices. Big deal that you can jump headfirst into a spiritual tradition and make it your identity.

I could have done that. But I didn't.

Because it doesn't mean a damn thing about what is true and what is actually proven to be real.

It would have been easier to accept it all. Saying "wait a second... proof please!" was harder, more rigorous, and probably more work than the believer who got off at an earlier station saying "I believe I believe! No more questioning! I give in!"

I'd say it left with me a vague sense of atheist pantheism (a contradiction in terms but they're the best words we have). Sure, I think the world is a kind of amazing interconnected thing (machine? Being? Whatever). But do I think it pointed to the truth of any religious tradition on the planet? Not a damn chance. They are all blind-leading-the-blind telephone games and, at most, what they do is point to the universal questions of existence that are inherent to, well, existing.

It took rigor to overcome the simplistic notion that everyone's fairy and rainbow stories are true. It's not necessarily easy to become an atheist... for some of us, it's the harder conclusion to arrive at after wading through everyone's shiny bullshit.

 

[Skinpop]

There is a shit-ton of people who believe in conspiracy theories or have other flawed believes without religion.

Sure but that would have to be a topic for another study and it wouldn't surprise me if we'd find discrepancies in intelligence there as well.

 

[nkarafo]

You never know. We could be in a simulation run by some unknown force. I'd say that thing, whatever it is could be a god in some sense.

Here's what i know though. There are so many different religions and gods among different cultures. There are also so many different ones among different periods of time. This alone should give you a hint that religions are made up.

But why create religions in the first place? Maybe there's some universal truth about them?

If you think about it, the only reason to invest in such an idea is our desire to exist forever. We are the only species on this planet who worries about our existence and knows we are all going to die at some point. Other species either don't know or don't have the ability to care.

So our mortality makes us uncomfortable. We don't like the idea that all this is for nothing. All the knowledge, our experiences, our personality, etc, will cease to exist. It feels meaningless and futile. Religion offers a story that allows us to exist in some form forever and even rewards us (or punish us) for our lives on earth. All religions have this in common. That's the universal truth. Humans want religions because they like them not because they are the truth. We want to believe because it's an interesting fairytale that adds meaning to our existence.

Plus, religions also became a useful tool for the smarter people in power. Having a powerful being at your disposal watching people all the time like a "big brother" is useful for a king who wants to have control over everyone, even when they are locked in their homes where said king can't control their thoughts and actions.

A nice fairytale to make us feel better for our mortality and a useful tool to control the masses. You really need another reason as of why religions need to exist?

 

[E-Cat]

Here's what i know though. There are so many different religions and gods among different cultures. There are also so many different ones among different periods of time. This alone should give you a hint that religions are made up.

But why create religions in the first place? Maybe there's some universal truth about them?

If you think about it, the only reason to invest in such an idea is our desire to exist forever. We are the only species on this planet who worries about our existence and knows we are all going to die at some point. Other species either don't know or don't have the ability to care.

So our mortality makes us uncomfortable. We don't like the idea that all this is for nothing. All the knowledge, our experiences, our personality, etc, will cease to exist. It feels meaningless and futile. Religion offers a story that allows us to exist in some form forever. All religions have this in common. That's the universal truth. Humans want religions because they like them not because they are the truth. We want to believe because it's an interesting fairytale that adds meaning in our existence.

Plus, religions also became a useful tool for the smarter people in power. Having a powerful being watching you all the time like a "big brother" is useful for a king who wants to have control over anyone, even when they are locked in their homes.

A nice fairytale to make us feel better for our mortality and a useful tool to control the masses. You really need another explanation as of why religions need to exist?

There is also a theory that the same genes that make a child obedient to its parents can make you more susceptible to hold a belief in a heavenly father figure. The so-called 'God gene' that remains more strongly expressed in some individuals than others as they age. And no doubt there's variation in people's genetic ability to have 'mystical' experiences, which can be easily interpreted as supernatural and affixed to their already existing belief framework.

 

[Captain Smoker]

Sure but that would have to be a topic for another study and it wouldn't surprise me if we'd find discrepancies in intelligence there as well.

I agree.


My biggest problem with this study is probably the fact that there is no "omni-intelligence".

People are smarter than other people in certain areas.


I'll take my aunt as an example: She's very religious, I can talk with her about science and philosophy and explain her how stars form, the difference between a neutron star and a black hole, etc.

She'll understand everything, but is she willing to take this as an explanation of how the Universe works? I don't know.


She probably doesn't care at all about neutron stars, because she has other priorities, etc.


Edit: On the other hand I somewhat agree to this study because I understand what they are trying to say.

The thing is, religious people have a harder time to be "open" / "critical" to certain topics which conflict their views.

Which is true for everybody, because everyone holds certain believes and it's pretty hard to question your own reality.

 

[Ran rp]

people getting mad over the euphoria pic. love it.

 

[Always-honest]

There is also a theory that the same genes that make a child obedient to its parents can make you more susceptible to hold a belief in a heavenly father figure. The so-called 'God gene' that remains more strongly expressed in some individuals than others as they age. In addition, there's no doubt variation in people's genetic ability to have 'mystical' experiences, which can be easily interpreted as supernatural.

I doubt it. I think parents (and other people) just teach kids religion as the one and only truth. Generation after generation.

 

[Ray Wonder]

Spoiler

I wanted to find the most cringy smug gif I could find, to show how I feel inside.

 

[E-Cat]

I doubt it. I think parents (and other people) just teach kids religion as the one and only truth. Generation after generation.

And the kids that are more obedient are more easily manipulated into internalizing their parents' teachings. Doesn't say so far-fetched to me.

 

[DevilDog]

Here's what i know though. There are so many different religions and gods among different cultures. There are also so many different ones among different periods of time. This alone should give you a hint that religions are made up.

But why create religions in the first place? Maybe there's some universal truth about them?

If you think about it, the only reason to invest in such an idea is our desire to exist forever. We are the only species on this planet who worries about our existence and knows we are all going to die at some point. Other species either don't know or don't have the ability to care.

So our mortality makes us uncomfortable. We don't like the idea that all this is for nothing. All the knowledge, our experiences, our personality, etc, will cease to exist. It feels meaningless and futile. Religion offers a story that allows us to exist in some form forever and even rewards us (or punish us) for our lives on earth. All religions have this in common. That's the universal truth. Humans want religions because they like them not because they are the truth. We want to believe because it's an interesting fairytale that adds meaning to our existence.

Plus, religions also became a useful tool for the smarter people in power. Having a powerful being at your disposal watching people all the time like a "big brother" is useful for a king who wants to have control over everyone, even when they are locked in their homes where said king can't control their thoughts and actions.

A nice fairytale to make us feel better for our mortality and a useful tool to control the masses. You really need another reason as of why religions need to exist?

Well put. I wonder how all of this is going to change when we unlock immortality.

 

[SgtCobra]

people getting mad over the euphoria pic. love it.

One would think people would just ignore pics like that by now lol
Religious members have been doing so when someone posts a pic ridiculing religion over here.

 

[E-Cat]

Well put. I wonder how all of this is going to change when we unlock immortality.

You can never unlock 'immortality' per se, for technical reasons.

Nevertheless, when aging will be conquered, the market value for religion on the grounds that it promises you eternal youth will be greatly diminished. People may think they're deeply devout or whatever, but I suspect most religious persons are just like agnostics in most respects and believe in God for the most superficial, existential angst reducing reasons.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Religion is an instinct????

Maybe not the religion itself (which is clearly a set of codified rules built by a culture over time), but the instinct to accept/believe the notion of agency and patterns where there are none is absolutely a human instinct.

It is/was our ability to understand the signs of actual agency and patterns that let us survive and flourish as well as we did. After all, detecting agency in the environment is how you avoid predators. Finding patterns in the seasons and weather and animal migrations helped us master the land.

But these functions aren't perfect and lead to constant false positives. And accepting those conclusions at face value, rather than examining those instincts and looking for where your/others perception has failed them, does strike me as "instinct" that can be overcome by intellectual rigor.

 

[Always-honest]

And the kids that are more obedient are more easily manipulated into internalizing their parents' teachings. Doesn't say so far-fetched to me.

All kids are easy to manipulate at an early life.
Some grow wiser and more curious when they grow older and know more about the world.

There is no gene for religion. But i guess intelligent kids will ask questions sooner than less intelligent kids.

 

[Timedog]

Maybe we have different definitions of intelligence, but if we're talking about IQ - which is what I assume that the study was measuring, considering that it's pretty much the only commonly used measurement of intelligence - the answer is no. IQ is just an indicator of how well you perform a specific task that, generally, is considered to correlate to how well you process information overall. Critical thinking is different, however. You need to be taught or otherwise learn it and you need to have a reason to use it.

Someone with a high IQ is going to be able to decipher that a claim is outlandish better than Forrest Gump can.

 

[E-Cat]

There is no gene for religion. But i guess intelligent kids will ask questions sooner than less intelligent kids.

And this is what I meant by "remains more strongly expressed in some individuals than others as they age". But there are indeed many possible explanations for why some kids are more easily able to shed the religious baggage, as it were.