Are theists dumb by default?

[firedragon]

What characteristics would define "dumb?"

I think most criticism is directed to posters' assertions, rather than the poster himself.
I think what mostly draws our criticism are some of the incorrect facts and logical errors underlying many of the assertions made by some of the more fundamentalist posters, and when they ignore corrections and continue to make cite the same non-facts, and make the same errors, post after post, thread after thread, it gets frustrating.

I'd have to have a more global knowledge of a poster than I get from a talkboard to judge his or her general intelligence. I can comment on specific assertions, though.

As for uneducated, I think some of the posters do hold strong opinions on subjects they clearly don't understand, (I'm thinking specifically about evolutionary biology). They may be very well educated on other fronts, but their posts indicate that they're not educated in basic biology and, often, even in basic science.

Delusional? Sorry, but some posters seem to be absolutely impervious to contrary facts, no matter how well supported.
A delusion is a fixed belief impervious to contrary evidence. I would say some posters do conform to this definition, in certain, specific areas.

If you read the OP, I think you would get a gist fo what is presented as dumb.

Nevertheless, maybe you dont address theists as a whole in your practice. Maybe you dont call them all stupid and delusional. But the OP is about that topic. Also, I didnt request for just random opinions like you have made above about you thinking that posters are this or that. I asked for research. After all, you claim things about theists and atheists are supposed to be scientific so as I said in the OP, please provide some research.

 

[PureX]

I don't think atheists understand theism at all. Not really. And I don't think they want to, either. While I do think most theists understand atheism because it's not at all difficult, or complicated. So if we are equating intelligence with understanding, I would say the theists have the upper hand.

Here is an analogy: ... to the mathematician, 1 + 1 must = 2, always. That's the rule. But to the philosopher, 1 + 1 can = 2, or 3, or even 0. The mathematician doesn't understand this, and because he is so certain he's right about 1 + 1 = 2 (it works every time he uses it to solve a mathematical equation), he's not willing to entertain any nonsense about it equaling something else. But the philosopher is open to more than one possible answer depending on one's chosen philosophical perspective. Because philosophy provides for many choices and options in solving a given dilemma that mathematics does not.

Atheists are philosophical materialists. They think physicality defines existence, and that's that. It's the 'rule'. And they will not seriously entertain any proposition to the contrary. Whereas theism is all about the metaphysical possibilities. Developing them, reveling in them, debating them, and trusting in them with their very lives. So to the atheist, theists appear to be quite illogical, irrational, and unpredictable. While, to the theist, atheists appear to be quite naive, and determined to remain stuck in that naivete.

 

[Valjean]

If you read the OP, I think you would get a gist fo what is presented as dumb.

Nevertheless, maybe you dont address theists as a whole in your practice. Maybe you dont call them all stupid and delusional. But the OP is about that topic. Also, I didnt request for just random opinions like you have made above about you thinking that posters are this or that. I asked for research. After all, you claim things about theists and atheists are supposed to be scientific so as I said in the OP, please provide some research.

With respect, I'm not clear what you're asking for. Can you give examples of some scientific claims in want of research?

I usually explain the science involved in any criticism, or link to sources, but I've noticed a lot of the theist-atheist contention involves logic and questions of burden, which don't involve science or research.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I answered "no," because that is the correct answer.

However, I do feel I need to point out that there are many times when some theists will reject or ignore information which is extremely well-attested or even proven, if it contradicts that which they feel contradicts their belief. This is not necessarily dumb, but it does no great service to the honesty of their beliefs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Alright. Lets take this a little out of the socket.

Which "belief" and what "isn't true" and how is it not true and whats the evidence?

Let me take a stab at that one, please. And that stab will be "life after death."

Humans are an amazing animal -- we have discovered, and must live all of our lives, knowing (as most animals do not) that we will one day die. This is, to put it mildly, a terrifying notion on the face of it. And every religion and every philosophy ever undertaken by humans has tried to grapple with it somehow.

And yet, I ask you to do one little thought experiment -- no wait, make it two.

1. What were you thinking or aware of in all the millenia before you were born and became you?
2. What were you thinking or aware of during your last surgery under a general anaesthetic?

The answer to both questions is the same: you neither thought nor were aware of anything -- even the passage of time. In one case, you had no brain at all, and in the other, you possessed a brain but a very small part of it was simply "shut down" for a while. Same result in both cases.

When you die, not just a small part of your brain will be shut down -- the entire thing will be destroyed quite quickly -- faster than most of the rest of your body, in fact. And I put it to you that you will have the same non-awareness as in those two cases above. This is what all the evidence that we have points to.

And yet, the religious conclusion is, "I'll be aware and happy and with God," or "that other so-and-so will be suffering torment with the Devil because of all the things they did to me!"

 

[firedragon]

With respect, I'm not clear what you're asking for. Can you give examples of some scientific claims in want of research?

Not "scientific claims". I didnt say anything of the sort.

If you want an example of a research yes of course. no problem.

Lets say I claim to you that 33% of people in my country belong to an economic category called SEC C, then I should be able to present a research done. Hypothesis not necessary because this is a outcome of random sampling. Lets say 2200 samples in order to minimise the error margin. Quantitative research methodology employed since its a mass generalisation. if an analysis has to be done in retrospect, then one would have to go back in time when there were censuses and maybe employ a generalisation based on what ever data that is available.

Maybe something like that.

 

[firedragon]

Let me take a stab at that one, please. And that stab will be "life after death."

Humans are an amazing animal -- we have discovered, and must live all of our lives, knowing (as most animals do not) that we will one day die. This is, to put it mildly, a terrifying notion on the face of it. And every religion and every philosophy ever undertaken by humans has tried to grapple with it somehow.

And yet, I ask you to do one little thought experiment -- no wait, make it two.

1. What were you thinking or aware of in all the millenia before you were born and became you?
2. What were you thinking or aware of during your last surgery under a general anaesthetic?

The answer to both questions is the same: you neither thought nor were aware of anything -- even the passage of time. In one case, you had no brain at all, and in the other, you possessed a brain but a very small part of it was simply "shut down" for a while. Same result in both cases.

When you die, not just a small part of your brain will be shut down -- the entire thing will be destroyed quite quickly -- faster than most of the rest of your body, in fact. And I put it to you that you will have the same non-awareness as in those two cases above. This is what all the evidence that we have points to.

And yet, the religious conclusion is, "I'll be aware and happy and with God," or "that other so-and-so will be suffering torment with the Devil because of all the things they did to me!"

This is the problem and your research?

 

[firedragon]

I answered "no," because that is the correct answer.

However, I do feel I need to point out that there are many times when some theists will reject or ignore information which is extremely well-attested or even proven, if it contradicts that which they feel contradicts their belief. This is not necessarily dumb, but it does no great service to the honesty of their beliefs.

Of course some theists will reject well proven facts. So do atheists.

But which fact are you speaking about? And who are these theists who reject your "facts" that are proven? Was it always the case historically? Is it a universal thing?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Here is an analogy: to the mathematician, 1 + 1 must = 2, always. That's the rule. But to the philosopher, 1 + 1 can = 2, or 3, or even 0.

I would say the philosopher should pick up a book on math. He has some learning to do.

In response to the OP - Are theists dumb? My answer is, they are naive. Not necessarily dumb. There is the fear factor too, that keeps theists as theists.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is the problem and your research?

I removed the brains of 150 people, and not one of them has yet complained.

Exactly how would you recommend researching being dead and the quality of life thereafter?

 

[halbhh]

To say theists are dumb is veiling the cause and the effect. It's more likely that dumb people are theists.

You'd think so, and I thought so. But i ended up meeting a lot of people in varied places, on the street or grocery workers, or people sitting in parks, or waiting at a bus stop, or just hanging out at a coffee shop or such over years, and when I sussed out their situation/attitudes and was surprised they often emphatically rejected religion or didn't believe in God, contrary to my expectation --

I'm been constantly curious about people's ideas about life my entirely life, always asking people questions everywhere I go, for decades.

So, I'd ask all sorts, including the clearly and visibly simple minded individuals on the street (most were, not all), various questions, often including:
"So, you know you can get food at the church pantry?"
or
"Where do you hang out -- like do you go to church, or some club, or music thing?"
and among the simple minded, the answer would often to my surprise be emphatically (even in a slurred voice) something akin to:

"No! I don't believe in that crap!" -- etc. kind of answer.

It went against the theory that people believe in God because they can't understand much, so I had to trash the theory.

Observation trumps theory. I believe in theories when observations support the theory. When the observations show the theory wrong, it goes in the trash.

 

[PureX]

I would say the philosopher should pick up a book on math. He has some learning to do.

But the philosopher has already surpassed the limitations of mathematics. It's only the mathematicians that can't see this, and doesn't want to.

 

[Heyo]

Ah. So what you are saying is that all the dumb people are theists and there are no dumb atheists in this world? Or are you saying that most of the dumb people are theists in this world?

In that case, could you please provide the research as I had already said in the OP to prove that, which ever one of the above is your position?

I am saying that on average people of less intelligence are more likely to be theists. That is similar to saying that men are on average taller than women. There are, of course, women who are taller than some men and men who are smaller than the average woman.
And I am saying that being religious is not the cause for a low IQ. A low IQ is the cause for religiosity. I.e. becoming an atheist doesn't raise one's IQ.

There have been multiple studies on this fact. The below meta analysis looked at 63 of them and not all found a significant correlation. The effect averaged over all studies is significant but low. The average difference between a theist and an atheist is about 5 IQ points.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

My proposed explanation is self selection. Low IQ people find solace in the low reason environment of a belief system while high IQ people prefer the more reason based approach of atheism or Agnosticism.

 

[Heyo]

You'd think so, and I thought so. But i ended up meeting a lot of people in varied places, on the street or grocery workers, or people sitting in parks, or waiting at a bus stop, or just hanging out at a coffee shop or such over years, and when I sussed out their situation/attitudes and was surprised they often emphatically rejected religion or didn't believe in God, contrary to my expectation --

I'm been constantly curious about people's ideas about life my entirely life, always asking people questions everywhere I go, for decades.

So, I'd ask all sorts, including the clearly and visibly simple minded individuals on the street (most were, not all), various questions, often including:
"So, you know you can get food at the church pantry?"
or
"Where do you hang out -- like do you go to church, or some club, or music thing?"
and among the simple minded, the answer would often to my surprise be emphatically (even in a slurred voice) something akin to:

"No! I don't believe in that crap!" -- etc. kind of answer.

It went against the theory that people believe in God because they can't understand much, so I had to trash the theory.

Observation trumps theory. I believe in theories when observations support the theory. When the observations show the theory wrong, it goes in the trash.

When my anecdotal observations conflict with a study, I question first my observations and then the sample taken by the scientists and I look for other studies. Usually the studies win over my selective memory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look up any Noah's ark thread in the archives. There are dozens of them.

It's self explanatory.

A belief in the Noah's Ark myth will make a person look dumber than they actually are. I do not assume that believers in that myth are dumb, I merely recognize that they have handicapped themselves rather extremely.

 

[firedragon]

I removed the brains of 150 people, and not one of them has yet complained.

Exactly how would you recommend researching being dead and the quality of life thereafter?

Good question. There is no way to research that and you know that.

 

[firedragon]

I am saying that on average people of less intelligence are more likely to be theists. That is similar to saying that men are on average taller than women. There are, of course, women who are taller than some men and men who are smaller than the average woman.
And I am saying that being religious is not the cause for a low IQ. A low IQ is the cause for religiosity. I.e. becoming an atheist doesn't raise one's IQ.

There have been multiple studies on this fact. The below meta analysis looked at 63 of them and not all found a significant correlation. The effect averaged over all studies is significant but low. The average difference between a theist and an atheist is about 5 IQ points.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

My proposed explanation is self selection. Low IQ people find solace in the low reason environment of a belief system while high IQ people prefer the more reason based approach of atheism or Agnosticism.

First, you yourself opposed correlation data to causal data didnt you? So now how could you accept correspondence and not causality in this sample size of 63?

 

[Heyo]

First, you yourself opposed correlation data to causal data didnt you? So now how could you accept correspondence and not causality in this sample size of 63?

First, the studies chosen for a meta analyses are called a "selection" not a "sample", so your use of the term "sample size" is misleading at best.
Neither the meta analyses, nor the underlying studies suggest any causation. The data is strictly correlational. The discussed possible causations are hypothetical. I just added my hypothesis.

 

[Colt]

Generally speaking, what else would motivate an Atheist to join a "Religious Forum" on the internet if not to mock and discredit theists, be it ever so subliminally carried out???

 

[Heyo]

Generally speaking, what else would motivate an Atheist to join a "Religious Forum" on the internet if not to mock and discredit theists, be it ever so subliminally carried out???

The expectation of rational debates?
But, yes, mocking theists is always a second option, when the first isn't available.