A Reliable Negative Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity

It rained in Mississippi, and OBAMA WAS PLAYING GOLF!

 

Actually, the wireless electricity concept he used to build the tower remains unknown to us. I doubt there were any harmful fields of radiation involved, or Tesla would've anticipated it.
When he invented X-rays, he warned against their harmful effects, while the idiot Edison killed his assistant and almost blinded himself before realizing that X-rays wouldn't improve eyesight..

 

I didn't know Tesla was omniscient....

You also seem to have an odd definition of 'idiot'.

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

If you read the link, you'd get an impression of what kind of brilliance he had. And it was throughout his life too. Einstein's achievements kinda waned when he became a professor in the USA.

 

Thanks.

@BTA

I would call the article justthefacts wrote misleading. He did try to portray a multidecade decline in Arctic Sea Ice as within typical variability and within the realm of the reasonably likely to rebound within a year or two-which it is not.

Plus he selectively edited someone's conclusion to make it appear as if he said something he did not.

Both were misleading.

You have mentioned your desire to be precise-which is good. Having the details and facts flushed out is generally helpful and informing.

But if anyone reads through the comments below justthefacts's article they largely agree with or even cheer on his article-few question what he said (in spite of that it was misleading).

So, at least from this situation, I don't get the impression the Watts website is all that trustworthy, nor its readers the most accurate of critics or critical thinkers.

Now justthefacts may just be a bad apple but he (or she) has been a frequent contributor and is trusted and respected enough within the Watts community that other people let him (or her) edit their articles and he may even be putting together a reference part of the website.

Giving someone who has been misleading trust and respect really don't encourage me to put much faith in the Watt's website.

It doesn't matter to me if the Watts website was the 1st or 2nd place to report on Climategate. What matters to me more is if the reporting was as misleading as justthefacts's article.

(BTW there may be 3 issues with Climategate situation.: 1. Were scientists as open and transparent as they should have been? 2. Was the science & data they reported sound? 3. Did others try to portray problems with issue 1 as showing there were problems with issue 2 when there wasn't?)

The scientist (J. Curry) you mentioned talked about uncertainty and encouraged scientists to involve blogosphere people more with their panels and so on. Sounds great if it means the data gets throughly looked over and possibilities taken into account. But possibly not so great if the data is misrepresented by people like justthefacts.

If bloggerfolk were to sit on panels with scientists I think they, and their readers, could due with some self policing (assuming it would be effeictive) related to integrity as a step to making said panels possible.


EDIT: You mentioned the economic cost of moving to other types of energy but if the people who say humans are making or speeding Global Warming are correct then there is also an economic cost to staying with most currently used forms of energy.

@Coin

You're correct in that I do. And I think there are logical reasons to do so.

Is theism not just as much a catch-all phrase as atheism?

Atheism is not lack of a trait. There are devout atheists and I even pointed to one earlier who listed her beliefs and what she saw as their ramifications.

As many (not all but some) atheists have a both doctrine and level of dedication seen in fundamentalists isn't unthinkable to say atheists can have religiosity.

From a different perspective and using the understanding of religiousity that you seem to be many agnostics are not religious (lack religiousity) yet are very much not atheists.

So that definition of atheism is not accurate.

Oh, and lack of a trait has already been seen as a trait-for example "black holes" often lack light photons bouncing off or coming from them. So much so this particular defining trait (they have others) was incorporated into a common label for them.


There may be some irony here in that both you (Coin) and BTA are detailed yet have some biases in different ways.

 

@pplr: I didn't notice your last edit, so I hope this isn't too late.
On the one hand, I can see why it's easy to think of Communism as diametrically opposed to religion. Karl Marx described in his theories how religion is the opiate of the masses, and revolutionary Communism does indeed kick any religious power structures out of the country. Religious people faced a very hard time during and after a communist revolution. But that was then.

If you go to a Communist country nowadays, like China where I live, or Vietnam, Laos, etc. You will find that churches and other religious institutions are being allowed in again. But they must be wholly subservient to the government. In short, they pay taxes for their activities. You'll find mormons in China telling the Chinese what they should think of dark skinned people, and so on.
You'll find major churches welcomed back into communist countries, and the catholic church is present in almost all the communist countries today. According to Marxist theory, they are no longer upholding the rigid communist views anymore. But lets be straight here: It isn't about communism, it's about profit. The governments can gain international approval and make money by allowing legal worship in their country, so of course they do it.

This was a lengthy sidetrack to the point I want to make: Stalin and his Communist Russia was an iron-fisted dictatorship. He killed all manner of dissidents, including religious, in order to consolidate his power. This is not theist or atheist behaviour, because there are examples of such people in both groups. Many communist countries share a similar history of power consolidation, but once the centralized government was established and stable, religions were allowed back in, with restrictions (tax-exempt status revoked).

Theists can be categorized as a group based on the superstitious mode of thinking, and the organized belief structure. There is no similar binding characteristic for atheists. Not all of them are scientific. Some are superstitious too, but not organized.

 

This is for pplr,

No, atheism is not at all in any way, shape a subset of Communism, nor is Communism a subset of atheism. Baldly asserting otherwise does not change this and betrays massive ignorance on your part of what these terms mean.

Atheism comes in two varieties: Strong (or 'Positive') and Weak (or 'Negative'). Most atheists are 'Weak atheists' in that they simply lack a positive belief that God exists or that any supernatural or transcendent gods exist and they do not worship natural objects which do exist, as gods.

Strong atheists, like myself, differ only in that we conclude that some gods are logically impossible (for example a God who is both omniscient and free willed or, as per Epicurus' riddle a God who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.). To gods which are so ambiguously defined that we cannot make sense of the claim, we defer to weak atheism.

Atheists can be (and many certainly are) religious (see Buddhists) but atheism itself cannot be 'a religion', no matter what anecdotal evidence you try to present. There is nothing in atheism to form a religion around. It is simply a lack of belief in one specific claim, for whatever reason. To argue otherwise is akin to saying that not collecting comic books is itself a hobby and to accuse people who do not collect or read comics of being 'Just as devoted fans of Marvel/DC/Dark Horse/Image/etc. books as the comic collectors who show up at comic conventions to get their books signed by artists and writers.'.

Likewise accusing us of being fanatically devoted to atheism because a few of us bother to debunk falsehoods or debate people making these extraordinary claims for God's existence is absurd. If someone is making irrational claims about the existence of a being which is not at all inferred by evidence or reason and trying to recruit others (including us atheists) into such belief then we have a duty to examine the claims and evidence for such and point out the problems with such.

And we who bother to do so are a minority of atheists. Of the dozen or so atheists I personally know and regularly speak with, I am one of TWO people who bother debating religious proselytizers (and the other guy does not put much effort into it at all). But even if every single one of us were like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, it would not constitute being "religious" at all. Atheism is a reaction to a specific claim and the active recruitment efforts for such. It is not a claim or recruitment effort itself.

Agnosticism is also not what you seem to think it is. It is not some sort of middle ground between atheism and theism (there is no such thing as it is impossible to be neither theist nor atheist). Most agnostics are atheist and the remainder are theists. The term pertains to knowledge of God, as opposed to belief in God.

 

I liked your post Dr. Skepticus but not to sound too nitpicky, but isn't agnosticism the exact opposite of knowledge of god? The very word means "without knowledge" Or did I misunderstand what you wrote? You seem quite interested in this, and your phrase "The term pertains to knowledge of God" could easily mean the same as I just wrote. In fact, I think you just had a clever way of writing it. I just have to be sure

A long long time ago on this board I had a lot of religious debates with my beloved friends Chevalier, Headbanger and Matheias who were all religious. Back then I would say that , in your terms, I was a strong atheist. Now I'll settle with a "I don't really have a clue and God/gods appear(s) unconcerned about the world, so I'm kinda stuck" Not to highjack your discussion/topic but that is nowadays called pragmatic agnostic.

Nevermind, I belive I am quite confident in these terms after decades of pondering, but I am always eager to be corrected and learn something new. But I wager all of this is reduntant since we agree.

*goes back to Dagobah smoking his pipe rambling*

 

Exactly my thought. In fact my jedi powers tell me that Dr. Skepticus found "The term pertains to the lack of knowledge of God, as opposed to lack of belief in God. " too chunky to write, that he settled with the more elegant solution.

 

Reading through some of the posts, it's like comparing reading about science in journals/research papers with watching those old science videos, the ones where some random narrator would talk on and on about science and its impact on our lives.

 

I disagree. When atheists, and they certainly do this, define themselves by their anti-religious stance, form groups to counter religious ones they disagree with, create atheist churches, and in general spend a great deal of time and energy trying to convince others of the wrongness of their religion and the rightness of their beliefs, they tend to be seen as promoters of an ideology just like religious groups.

If it looks like a duck...

I'm not so sure I agree with that. Not only from my own experience but due to the fact that there are several atheist organizations around designed to promote the belief system and make themselves seem better than religious groups. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for "Reason" and Science is the perfect example of this.

 

promoting education is not a religion, religion has to be based on faith, when you add facts then faith becomes non existent.

 

I think you misunderstood or maybe I was not clear. 'Agnosticism' PERTAINS to knowledge of God (specifically direct knowledge of a transcendent God), in that with the prefix 'a' it means "Without knowledge of God" or in the case of 'Strong Agnosticism', the conviction that such knowledge is impossible for non-Gods to have.
'Gnosticism' is the opposite of course; the assertion of direct knowledge of God (in the same way one knows their neighbor or own mother).

Had quite a few debates with Chevalier and probably others myself (I once had the handle "RuneQuester" but lost the account details and could not recover them at the time so I created this one).

I am a strong atheist by my above definitions and a strong agnostic as well. Not to be nitpicky but your "pragmatic agnosticism" (as you define it here) seems kind of wonky. Are you of the same view when it comes to square-shaped circles or felines which move slower and slower the more they accelerate?

As far as the infinite number of potential god-claims I would defer to 'weak atheism' for most of them. If someone comes claiming (as had happened before believe it or not) that "God is the spiritual beyondness of true being" or some such then I simply have no idea what they are talking about and do not bother examining the word salad for veracity.

If someone says their God is the sun I do not deny it's existence of course; I simply do not worship the sun as a god myself.

---------- Added 0 hours, 12 minutes and 26 seconds later... ----------

So, by your reasoning here the word "religion" really has no meaning. It can just be applied to anything anyone is doing so long as you assert that they seem devoted to it, regardless of the facts of the matter? For example, if a religious group comes to a Comic-Con holding placards and shouting that comic book artists are all evil deviants and such, and a group of comic book advocates/fans/artists responds to their claims by denying the charges and supplying facts and evidence to the contrary, both groups are simply "religious fanatics"?

Gotta stop you right there. Atheism is not a "belief system" no matter how often you assert this. Calling it such makes no more sense than calling an automobile a "bowl of gelatin". Atheist organizations exist primarily to defend this one minority. Many individuals within the atheist population happen to be advocates of science, reason, skepticism, critical thinking etc. and will themselves go to that when addressing anti-science and irrational claims about reality. Such organizations will have more of these types simply because 'apatheists' (atheists who do not care enough to discuss the matter or get into any sort of conflict about such) will by definition not be inclined to join such.

Not sure what you mean by "make themselves seem better..." bit but I can confidently say that your perception here is wrong. It is sourced in your own bias and misinformation.

 

Not visiting for a few weeks and I guess I miss stuff. Anyway..

Actually historical documentation goes to support this-especially Communism as practiced in Russia. You're willingness to ignore historical evidence indicates "bias" and more.

I could claim you were had "massive ignorance" about Communism but I've long figured it was willful ignorance where you actively chose to ignore facts that disagree with you and your ideology-something not surprising in a fundamentalist.

Makes me think of a Georgia congressman denouncing the idea that the Earth is more than 9000 years old as a "lies from the pit of hell" (think that is word for word what he said, if not then pretty close.)

For you it is "massive ignorance".. dramatic comment/insult/denouncement and just as willing to avoid/ignore evidence.

Sure there is, the belief there is no God or gods. But some, perhaps including your own group seem to add the belief that you have higher reasoning than the rest of humanity. The atheist version of a born-again Christian feeling only he or she is truly "saved". Replace "saved" with "knows" or "reasons" and there you go-big belief combined with smaller belief to make members feel special.

Logic fail. Uninterested parties are not the equal in devotion as hobbyists or fans. Never said it and doubt I ever will.

You're a believer, maybe even a preacher, and you couldn't let the heretic go un-denounced (with "massive ignorance"). You're too devoted to your ideology.

I'm not sure you've debunked anyone here yet. You've debated and then insulted but I'm not sure I've seen you actually disprove something someone else said. Even back in your discussion with NOG-a fundamentalist himself and thus perhaps the easiest of us to disprove a belief of (because fundamentalists can often be inflexible or measured more in devotion than thought) and he debated you pretty well.

Coming from a one ignores historical evidence from a time as recent as the 20th Century? Sounds like failing to live up to one's own claimed standards, but the subgroup of atheism you seem to belong to does that as part of its ideology, so this isn't just you as a person.

Most Catholics are neither priests nor preachers, most atheists-even of the subgroup you belong to-cannot be fashioners of ideology. The dogma may get too complex with too many cooks in the kitchen.

Nonsense, the concept of a counterclaim actually being a claim in itself is hardly new. And this is assuming it is a reaction.


Oh, and during your debate with NOG I recall he pointed out that if God operated beyond or outside time as you or I experience it then God could be free willed and all knowing. An interesting counterpoint that I noticed you neglected to
mention when you said God cannot be "both omniscient and free willed".


@Coin,


Don't worry about the late reply and apologies for my own.

China and some other "communist" nations (like Vietnam) are becoming more capitalist.

Now it could help that the government is relatively stable (not likely to collapse within 4 years), but maybe it simply feels it can or should move beyond a certain dogma/ideology. Not that said dogma/ideology wasn't there in the first place.

People and organizations on a larger scale (including governments) can change their beliefs. That seems to be happening in China.

 

Back on page 3, post 71, I think I made a fairly thorough explanation of why 'atheists' cannot be considered a group in the sense that anything meaningful can be said about them as a whole. Although theists can be *almost* as diverse a group, they do share a rather important trait, one which allows observations to be made. They have made a choice on some level, at some point in their life, to be religious. There are similarities among religions, as there are among worshipers. Your analogy to black holes doesn't hold, because black hole gravity wells are definitely more than nothing.

 

I went back to post 71 and read it again. I also pointed out in post 72 that some of the things in it were wrong and Geaer noticed that atheism can be noted as a common trait measured via a means well within scientific method.

Also note that classifications based on beliefs (Catholicism, Agnosticism, or Atheism) don't depend on anscestry. Who your ancestors where probably has an impact on your beliefs but it doesn't change the fact that at the moment they are your beliefs (this is different from inheriting a chin like a grandparent's). As you noticed, properly, with religion a choice is made at some point. The same happens with atheism.

Speaking of choices, I didn't point this out in post 72 but some of the reasons you gave on why someone could be an atheist aren't logical. Plenty of religious people don't wear funny cloths so that doesn't make sense for them. More importantly, people or groups who are outcasts from a different religion are still religious, they may simply end up being part of a different denomination (some of which arguably started that way). Other peoples' choices don't define someone as a religious person or an atheist-it is the choices that person makes his or her self (part of why it is possible to move back and forth between the different groups).

PS Sorry for the wait, I see you posted your comment over a month ago.

 

I've had a lot of my more militant atheist friends parade this study around as proof that atheists are superior.

I tell them that having autism also makes you more likely to be atheist, just as higher intelligence does (http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2011/papers/0782/paper0782.pdf) but that doesn't mean all autistic people are atheist, or that all atheists are more intelligent than theists.

That shuts them up pretty quick.

 

Apologies that I don't respond specifically to the new posts, because I feel we won't ever see eye-to-eye on this, and perhaps my own anecdote is more interesting...

Living in China, I've come to see that there are different aspects of religiosity. Chinese don't have a state religion, but I've seen an abundance of superstition, magical thinking and unquestioning traditional behaviour. Surprisingly, even hospitals are involved in it, and it has lowered my regard for 'traditional' medicine and many other aspects of this culture.

On the flipside, people seem to lack decent behaviour. No politeness, common courtesy, empathy or respect for strangers. They only care about being accepted by those in their immediate community, and couldn't care less about others. They are blissfully unaware about the consequences of their behaviour, and it's hurting their own society. It makes me wonder whether "Mainland Chinese" should be included in the definition of what constitutes a religion.

It frightens me to think, as opposed as I am of religion, Christianity would be a great improvement to these people in their everyday behaviour and interaction. if I ask myself whether I'd prefer my kids to be Christians, or have a Chinese mindset, then I'd go with Christianity as the lesser of two 'evils' (I'm not saying it's evil - just an expression).

I can't blame Chinese, though. This society is basically a giant playground full of schoolyard bullies and cowards, stealing each other's lunch money. If you go back to the feeling of terror you had as a child, you'll understand why Chinese behave and react this way towards leaders who are utterly rude and uncivilized, show no guilt or moderation in their behaviour, and go around unfairly implementing the 'law' while they take people's bribes.

It makes me understand why the belief in a higher power, who will judge and punish the wicked even after death, held such appeal to people in the middle ages. China is still in the middle of feudalism, and a bit of faith would greatly improve social capital, trust, civilized behaviour, personal freedom, mobility, and so on.