Are theists dumb by default?

[halbhh]

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.

Of course.
I was curious about a typical assertion someone made (just talking point style anti-religious posting) that more education reduces religion, etc., and found that it's been surveyed by Pew
In America, Does More Education Equal Less Religion?
Interestingly it fit our own church perfectly here, where the most educated folks (we have several with doctorates) are the more consistent and enduring attenders, and whenever someone does stop attending it's been in every case either they moved from the city or else have a low education level. College graduates seem to...never stop, and the most perfect attenders include all those with masters or PhD.

 

[WalterTrull]

Hey, anyone who disagrees with me has to be dumb, Right?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Exactly. And I therefore contend that everything that has ever been said about an "afterlife" is pure fantasy -- since it cannot be researched, it had to be imagined.

 

[firedragon]

Exactly. And I therefore contend that everything that has ever been said about an "afterlife" is pure fantasy -- since it cannot be researched, it had to be imagined.

But how do prove its fantasy with scientific evidence? Do you have any?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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???

Curiosity -- a desire to learn. Trust me, those are much, much stronger motivations than any desire to mock and discredit.

You might have noticed I call myself a "humanist." It might occur to you, if you thought about it, that at least suggest an interest in humanity.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But how do prove its fantasy with scientific evidence? Do you have any?

I cannot believe, at this point, you even ask that question. If there is NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT SOMETHING IS TRUE, then the assumption that it is true is pure fantasy. There are only two ways to get anything into your brain -- you received evidence through your senses, or you made it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But how do prove its fantasy with scientific evidence? Do you have any?

No one has to prove it is fantasy. As @Evangelicalhumanist knows, one does not believe until after sufficient evidence has been given. A person would believe all sorts of crazy self contradicting things if one reversed the burden of proof as you just did.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim that something exists. Not the other way around.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Observation of what, though? Theory of what?
I don't understand how talking to people about food sources or leisure activities has anything to do with religion or philosophy,
Did you have some hypothesis in mind you were investigating?

What does not believing 'crap' about the church distributing food have to do with objective truth or the nature of reality? I should think why your interlocutor believes as he does, or how he came to that conclusion would be a more cogent question.
Clarify?

 

[Valjean]

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.

There are also those people who home school because they don't want their children exposed to worldly ideas, and those who disparage universities as institutions full of heretical ideas and moral hazard.

Isn't there, in statistical fact, a negative correlation between education and religiosity?

 

[blü 2]

If you are part of RF and explore this forum a bit, you would notice that since of recent times the frequency of Atheists alluding to theists as dumb. A lot of circumventing language will probably be used to call them plain dumb. Some claim they are mentally handicapped, and some "uneducated", while some others even go into calling theists by statements such as delusional and intellectually stunted, which are all statements used to plainly call theists "dumb" and maybe even just plain "stupid".

Of course there will be some atheists who would say "not all atheists do this" which is true.

I would like to understand if there are any proper research done in modern times, and in retrospect that atheists who claim to be "scientific" would have to contribute to this discussion. The world has people from all walks of life and progress or even science has and will swing this way and that way in advancement. Todays big shot may not be tomorrows. For example, the UK was the empire where the sun never sets, and now the United States which is a fairly new country maybe a few hundred times more sophisticated in military and economic spreading of their wings. Some time ago, it was the Ottoman Empire. Long ago it was the Romans. Well, this could go on, and you get the gist.

Thus, are there any good researches done that could contribute to this discussion, this way or that way?

(I will just for the sake of it put up a poll here though I believe they contain a lot of baggage, hawthorn effects, and voters cloud).

Thanks in advance.

There appears to be a direct correlation between higher education and atheism, as >here<.

 

[Valjean]

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?

What is a "well proven fact?"
Outside of mathematics, facts are, at best, well evidenced. There is no such thing as a proven scientific fact.
This is why we get the impression that theists don't understand science, and why theists get pi**ed off at us for pointing this out.

I think it's pretty well established that most of the biblical miracles would be considered highly suspect today, with no known mechanisms to account for them and no reliable witnesses. Most would be greeted with skepticism and demands for corroborating evidence if a newspaper were to report one today.

Some claims have considerable contrary "research;" Noah's worldwide flood, for example.

Some claims are logically flawed, such as false dilemmas. Some, though logical, derive from faulty premises, such as misrepresenting atheism. Neither of these involves research.

 

[Heyo]

There are also those people who home school because they don't want their children exposed to worldly ideas, and those who disparage universities as institutions full of heretical ideas and moral hazard.

Isn't there, in statistical fact, a negative correlation between education and religiosity?

There is, but it isn't linear, at least not in the US. I can't recall if this non linearity also occurs internationally but the pattern does and homeschooling is not everywhere an option. Also epistemophobia is rare in other industrialized countries.

But higher education is also causally linked to IQ so that the relation between education and religiosity has to be seen as an epiphenomenon.

 

[darkskies]

I think it's just hyperbole. Sometimes in discussion people get frustrated and say things that they don't mean literally.
Also, in my experience, the atheists usually refer to the ideas or reasoning used by the theist as dumb or stupid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are part of RF and explore this forum a bit, you would notice that since of recent times the frequency of Atheists alluding to theists as dumb. A lot of circumventing language will probably be used to call them plain dumb. Some claim they are mentally handicapped, and some "uneducated", while some others even go into calling theists by statements such as delusional and intellectually stunted, which are all statements used to plainly call theists "dumb" and maybe even just plain "stupid".

Of course there will be some atheists who would say "not all atheists do this" which is true.

I would like to understand if there are any proper research done in modern times, and in retrospect that atheists who claim to be "scientific" would have to contribute to this discussion. The world has people from all walks of life and progress or even science has and will swing this way and that way in advancement. Todays big shot may not be tomorrows. For example, the UK was the empire where the sun never sets, and now the United States which is a fairly new country maybe a few hundred times more sophisticated in military and economic spreading of their wings. Some time ago, it was the Ottoman Empire. Long ago it was the Romans. Well, this could go on, and you get the gist.

Thus, are there any good researches done that could contribute to this discussion, this way or that way?

(I will just for the sake of it put up a poll here though I believe they contain a lot of baggage, hawthorn effects, and voters cloud).

Thanks in advance.

Irrational or deluded. Not dumb.

Edit: ... with regard to their theism. In my experience, a person's belief in a god or gods tends to have very little bearing on what they think or do most of the time.

 

[Valjean]

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???

What would motivate anyone to take an interest in anything not directly related to their day-to-day lives?
Some people are curious. Some people find ideas interesting. Some people enjoy discussing them and seeing others' outlook on things.
Me, I find the nature of reality interesting. Many people do. All sorts of people, not just the religious.

Truth and reality are the purview of philosophy, religion and physics. Science and mathematics is the methodology serious researchers use to investigate these questions, and these require precision, in both terminology and reasoning. Scientists and philosophers are skilled in critical analysis, and tend to be meticulous.

Religionists, on the other hand, seem to discourage investigation. Their beliefs are faith based, not reasoned. Sometimes they find intellectual meticulousness baffling, annoying, arrogant, or even threatening. They seem more motivated by the social utility and psychic comfort afforded by religion than in it's objective truth, or in investigating it.

I wonder what would motivate a religious person to join a forum where religion was investigated or critically analyzed.

 

[firedragon]

I cannot believe, at this point, you even ask that question. If there is NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT SOMETHING IS TRUE, then the assumption that it is true is pure fantasy. There are only two ways to get anything into your brain -- you received evidence through your senses, or you made it up.

So you believe it is all false and fantasy because you have not been shown evidence to a particular phenomena. You have no evidence to prove this wrong either. Right? Thus, aren't you very blindly believing all this is false without evidence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you believe it is all false and fantasy because you have not been shown evidence to a particular phenomena. You have no evidence to prove this wrong either. Right? Thus, aren't you very blindly believing all this is false without evidence?

... to the exact same extent that you blindly believe that, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is false.

Edit: though I'd strongly disagree with your claim that there's no evidence for the non-existence of gods.

 

[firedragon]

Outside of mathematics, facts are, at best, well evidenced. There is no such thing as a proven scientific fact.

Strawman. I said "fact", not scientific fact. And you should ask from your atheistic member above who spoke of "well proven fact".

 

[firedragon]

Irrational or deluded. Not dumb.

I already asked in the OP. Can you provide research like I asked?

Otherwise you are just having blind faith which is irrational and deluded one may accuse you of.

 

[firedragon]

... to the exact same extent that you blindly believe that, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is false.

Edit: though I'd strongly disagree with your claim that there's no evidence for the non-existence of gods.

1. Who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What are the evidences given by them?
2. What evidence do you have for the non-existence of Gods?

Substantiate your claims if you could.