Are theists dumb by default?

[Yazata]

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.

Yes, it's a common atheist assertion that atheists are smarter than theists. Though I think that it's more common for them to try to avoid the ad hominem charge by insisting that theistic belief is foolish or stupid, so that they can say that they are attacking the belief and not the man. Obviously leaving the implication hanging there: those who embrace foolish and stupid beliefs are foolish and stupid, or at the very least biased by their emotions to a degree that one would never see in a smart, clear-headed atheist.

I find that kind of intellectual arrogance exceedingly annoying. So I enjoy poking this sort of atheist with my philosophical stick. I like to expose their own underlying assumptions and challenge them to justify those assumptions. For example atheists typically believe that some things are good or right in some moral/ethical sense, while other things are bad or wrong. And what justifies those judgments is often just a feeling, an intuition, not so different in its way than what theists appeal to to justify their own beliefs. There's no scientific instrument that measures moral goodness. And many of atheists are so attached to their own feelings and intuitions in these matters that they come across as neo-puritanical moralists in other aspects of life, condemning all sorts of things as bad, wrong or evil. Just get an atheist going on politics.

And atheists often seem to idealize science which they believe supports and justifies their own atheist faith. Few of those scientistic atheists seem to have much knowledge or appreciation for the philosophy of science and for the many open questions about the logical/epistemological/ontological foundations science raised there.

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.

I have doubts about general intelligence tests and am more inclined to think of intelligence as a whole collection of cognitive abilities that might not always correlate well with one another. Mathematical skills, verbal skills of various sorts, perceptual abilities, imagination, categorizing and making distinctions, decision making in conditions of uncertainty and many more. Some people are good at some of them, others at others. Deciding which individual is 'smarter' would depend on how we weight these abilities.

And I don't know of any credible research that compares theists and atheists with regards to these variables. I have seen some comparisons that use average amount of education as a proxy (introducing a host of new issues) that do show atheists with slightly more education on average than religious adherents as a group. But... if you break religious adherents down by tradition, members of some religious traditions have more education on average than atheists. Amount of education seems to me to correlate much better with social class than with theism/atheism. Some religious groupings like the Pentecostals come disproportionately from poorer social groups which is probably why they show less education on average.

And any atheist/theist differences will probably be dwarfed by racial differences, which I expect that the atheists will want to dismiss.

(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)

I voted 'no'.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, it's a common atheist assertion that atheists are smarter than theists. Though I think that it's more common for them to try to avoid the ad hominem charge by insisting that theistic belief is foolish or stupid, so that they can say that they are attacking the belief and not the man. Obviously leaving the implication hanging there: those who embrace foolish and stupid beliefs are foolish and stupid, or at the very least biased by their emotions to a degree that one would never see in a smart, clear-headed atheist.

I find that kind of intellectual arrogance exceedingly annoying. So I enjoy poking this sort of atheist with my philosophical stick. I like to expose their own underlying assumptions and challenge them to justify those assumptions. For example atheists typically believe that some things are good or right in some moral/ethical sense, while other things are bad or wrong. And what justifies those judgments is often just a feeling, an intuition, not so different in its way than what theists appeal to to justify their own beliefs. There's no scientific instrument that measures moral goodness. And many of atheists are so attached to their own feelings and intuitions in these matters that they come across as neo-puritanical moralists in other aspects of life, condemning all sorts of things as bad, wrong or evil. Just get an atheist going on politics.

And atheists often seem to idealize science which they believe supports and justifies their own atheist faith. Few of those scientistic atheists seem to have much knowledge or appreciation for the philosophy of science and for the many open questions about the logical/epistemological/ontological foundations science raised there.



I have doubts about general intelligence tests and am more inclined to think of intelligence as a whole collection of cognitive abilities that might not always correlate well with one another. Mathematical skills, verbal reasoning skills and many more. Some people are good at some of them, others at others. Deciding which individual is 'smarter' would depend on how we weight them.

And I don't know of any credible research that compares theists and atheists with regards to these variables. I have seen some comparisons that use average amount of education as a proxy (introducing a host of new issues) that do show atheists with slightly more education on average than religious adherents as a group. But... if you break religious adherents down by tradition, members of some religious traditions have more education on average than atheists. Amount of education seems to me to correlate much better with social class than with theism/atheism. Some religious groupings like the Pentecostals come disproportionately from poorer social groups which is probably why they show less education on average.

And any atheist/theist differences will probably be dwarfed by racial differences, which I expect that the atheists will want to dismiss.



I voted 'no'.

What a response. Now some people must learn to make a response like this, atheists and theists alike.

I agree with you. There is no real research as I requested in the OP. There are some research that give correspondence data in the sample. But that does not mean its causal. Also, a research has to go back in time and consider things in retrospect as well. There is no research of such magnitude available. Thus, any atheists who things what the OP is questioning, is thinking from his personal assumption with a tribalistic attitude where his tribe are superior. This attitude is there in all kinds of people, religious or not. Just that, atheists should be scientific as they claim to be, not unscientific and make arbitrary claims with no substantiation.

Thanks for your response. You have given certain areas to think of.

 

[MonkeyFire]

If God were real, and omniscient that would make atheist the stupid ones.

 

[Valjean]

I meant new to me

A 2014 origin seems new to me.

 

[Valjean]

Absolutely. Haha. Mate. Just because you use an arabic word for school, dont think that means you made some great insult.

Take it easy.

I didn't use it to insult or to be clever. It's a well known term I used to draw a parallel to the many radical Muslim fundamentalist training schools that have been generating true believers in the mountains of Afghanistan. "Taliban," for example, is Pashto for "student."

 

[Valjean]

If God were real, and omniscient that would make atheist the stupid ones.

Not if God left no evidence of his existence. In that case non-belief would be reasonable until evidence emerged.

 

[Valjean]

When I told this to an atheist here he couldn’t understand. He never gets it. He thinks the YEC

The problem is one has to have a bit of humility to hear someone out and understand them before responding with a derogatory statement. I tried to make it clear that the young earther movement with all of these strawman arguments this particular atheistic gentleman is using is not global, nor is it eternal.

If someone finds the humility to just open their eyes and stop doing the anecdotal fallacy, they would understand something. This type of attitude is very much similar to a small religious sect in some corner with such inbuilt dogmatic indoctrination they are unwilling to even listen to a statement that shows there is a world outside you dont know about. It is surprising to see atheists who claim to be so superior in research and knowledge having so little of both.

Peace.

Humility doesn't equal credibility. Reason is reason whether done by the humble or the proud.
Derogatory statement? Who's derogating? Pointing out errors isn't derogatory. Explaining logic isn't dreogatory.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't use it to insult or to be clever. It's a well known term I used to draw a parallel to the many radical Muslim fundamentalist training schools that have been generating true believers in the mountains of Afghanistan. "Taliban," for example, is Pashto for "student."

Thats because your school of knowledge on these matters are so limited. As an atheist who demeans theists as mentally incapable and delusional you should be a bit more sophisticated.

Any school is a madrasa. Even if its teaching medicine. Also, Taliban meaning student does not mean you should use the word Taliban to refer to students in your school.

So Valjean. Please be kind enough to be a bit more sophisticated.

 

[firedragon]

Humility doesn't equal credibility. Reason is reason whether done by the humble or the proud.
Derogatory statement? Who's derogating? Pointing out errors isn't derogatory. Explaining logic isn't dreogatory.

So you put on a cap you thought that fits you?

 

[Valjean]

I think everyone is pretty individual, and largely people disbelieve or believe for a range of reasons on either side.

For me, I ended up believing after about 15 years of testing things Jesus said about how to live life, and not being able to find things that failed, but instead each thing worked extremely well.

So, for me, it was test, observation, change conditions, re-test, observation, change conditions again, re-test, observation...wait a while, think of new ways to test, change conditions again, re-test, observation, and so on. This happened partly because I kept being surprised that his instructions worked so well, and wondered at different ways it might be some other factor.
Since first one instruction he gave worked so well, I would try out another, and it all took many years, about 15 years.
Eventually I had to admit He was doing better than just being a fairly wise person.
So, that was what convinced me. But everyone is different.

For an atheist, I'd merely suggest to try things He said for you own gain, just like you'd pick up a $100 bill blowing in the wind -- you'd do it for your own gain.

This treats Christianity as a psychotherapeutic or social system, not as objective history or truth. For you it was a functional life-choice, within a Christian society.

This does not support the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, or the existence of God or Heaven, or the ontological veracity of the Christian interpretation of the Nature of Reality.

Did you test the Muslim theology, the Buddhist, the Jain? I'll bet they work just as well for Muslims, Buddhists or Jains as Christianity works for you.

 

[Valjean]

Thats because your school of knowledge on these matters are so limited. As an atheist who demeans theists as mentally incapable and delusional you should be a bit more sophisticated.

Any school is a madrasa. Even if its teaching medicine. Also, Taliban meaning student does not mean you should use the word Taliban to refer to students in your school.

So Valjean. Please be kind enough to be a bit more sophisticated.

My school? I have no school. I'm just trying to apply reason and logic to the issues under discussion.

 

[firedragon]

My school? I have no school. I'm just trying to apply reason and logic to the issues under discussion.

Okay, change "your school" with "any school".

 

[Valjean]

Yes, it's a common atheist assertion that atheists are smarter than theists. Though I think that it's more common for them to try to avoid the ad hominem charge by insisting that theistic belief is foolish or stupid, so that they can say that they are attacking the belief and not the man. Obviously leaving the implication hanging there: those who embrace foolish and stupid beliefs are foolish and stupid, or at the very least biased by their emotions to a degree that one would never see in a smart, clear-headed atheist.

"Smarter" is not global. An educated physicist or biologist is far more likely to be atheist than an educated engineer, for example. And the few atheists aware of the surveys that have been done on this subject are only pointing out the findings in reaction to theist's challenges, not out of arrogance.
Atheist's distrust faith. This naturally can be expected to led to more critical and fact-based thinking than faith based approaches to reality.

I find that kind of intellectual arrogance exceedingly annoying. So I enjoy poking this sort of atheist with my philosophical stick. I like to expose their own underlying assumptions and challenge them to justify those assumptions.

What assumptions are these? Logic? Reason?

For example atheists typically believe that some things are good or right in some moral/ethical sense, while other things are bad or wrong. And what justifies those judgments is often just a feeling, an intuition, not so different in its way than what theists appeal to to justify their own beliefs.

Where are you getting this??? What does atheism have to do with morality?

Feelings? Intuition? This is a new one. I thought atheists were supposed to be hard headed, unemotional realists.
Our "judgements" are mathematical, logical, algebraic -- and they have nothing to do with feelings, emotions or morality.

There's no scientific instrument that measures moral goodness. And many of atheists are so attached to their own feelings and intuitions in these matters that they come across as neo-puritanical moralists in other aspects of life, condemning all sorts of things as bad, wrong or evil. Just get an atheist going on politics.

Again, you're trying to paint atheism as some sort of alternative religion. It's not.

And atheists often seem to idealize science which they believe supports and justifies their own atheist faith. Few of those scientistic atheists seem to have much knowledge or appreciation for the philosophy of science and for the many open questions about the logical/epistemological/ontological foundations science raised there.

We "idealize" reason. The fact that science also uses fact-based reasoning and critical analysis is purely incidental.
Atheist faith?! What do we have faith in? Atheism is a rejection of faith. In what way is atheism a faith.
Again, you're trying to draw parallels with religion.

 

[Valjean]

What a response. Now some people must learn to make a response like this, atheists and theists alike.

I agree with you. There is no real research as I requested in the OP. There are some research that give correspondence data in the sample. But that does not mean its causal. Also, a research has to go back in time and consider things in retrospect as well. There is no research of such magnitude available. Thus, any atheists who things what the OP is questioning, is thinking from his personal assumption with a tribalistic attitude where his tribe are superior. This attitude is there in all kinds of people, religious or not. Just that, atheists should be scientific as they claim to be, not unscientific and make arbitrary claims with no substantiation.

Thanks for your response. You have given certain areas to think of.

You keep going on about research. What do you want researched? Do you have any research-based support for religion?

Do you think there is no research contradicting the Flood story?

 

[Valjean]

If God were real, and omniscient that would make atheist the stupid ones.

Why?

 

[firedragon]

You keep going on about research. What do you want researched? Do you have any research-based support for religion?

Do you think there is no research contradicting the Flood story?

Nah. Thats not what was being discussed. Thats the problem when a person suddenly tries to get involved in someone else's exchange and make assumptions about other peoples conversations without clarifying "what were you talking about"!

 

[BilliardsBall]

But atheists score higher than the religious in surveys of general religious knowledge, and we tend to have strong, internalized moral codes.
Prisoners comprise a higher proportion of believers than the general public, indicating that belief doesn't seem to correlate with moral behavior.

I contend that we're generally better informed and more moral than the religious.

A strong internal code is not a strong biblical or religious code. Honor the Sabbath? Worship only God?

 

[gnostic]

If God were real, and omniscient that would make atheist the stupid ones.

From God’s reply in job 38 to 41, they don’t show god to be intelligent.

What he said in those chapters, if god is real, he sounds like a primitive superstitious “human being”...and very arrogant, petty...he is not a god worthy of worship.

Should god sounds like a petty, arrogant and superstitious human?

Job’s portrayal of God, don’t sound any better than Zeus or Ares or Ba’al or Loki.

 

[Valjean]

A strong internal code is not a strong biblical or religious code. Honor the Sabbath? Worship only God?

????

 

[halbhh]

I was believer of the Bible and Jesus since I was 14 or 15, but when I turned 34 (although I have never joined any church), I became increasingly agnostic not because of science, like Evolution, but because I started to see that many of Christian interpretations and Church interpretations of the OT Messianic signs and prophecies to be false - a propaganda meant to promote Jesus as the messiah and the church as new religion.

Particularly Matthew 1’s interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 sign. That’s what had started me down the agnostic path.

Isaiah 7 should be read from the first to the last, particularly 7:14-17, which gave me understanding that Isaiah’s sign of “young woman” had nothing to do with Mary, “Immanuel” has nothing to do with Jesus and the sign has nothing to do with “Virgin birth”. The gospel claim was not only wrong, it was false.

That where I saw faults with the New Testament for the first time.

Matthew 1:22-23 interpretation of Isaiah’s sign is simply false.

The more cross-reference the NT interpretations of OT Messianic signs, the less convince I was with church teachings with gospels and about Jesus being the messiah.

Evolution had nothing to do with me rejecting the gospel teachings and church teachings of Messianic signs.

Hello. Could I tell you something I've seen about people interpreting prophecies? Over and over I've heard very incompetent interpretations, from individual pastors, both in person over the years, and also on the radio at times (and have even visited some churches that I went to only once, where I heard wildly wrong ideas even, that made little sense at all).

Not many that speak out seem to have the gift to do it well!

One way to get a more likely interpretation is to read one of the major and widely respected commentaries.

At least then you have someone that isn't usually a total wingnut.

(Also, for myself, I additionally when our study group read through Isaiah a few years back, would often check a history from wikipedia or other website histories of those individual nations involved.)

So, here's one such widely respected commentary on verse 7:16 --

The land that thou abhorrest.--The words imply the "horror" of fear as well as of dislike. The prediction was fulfilled in the siege of Samaria by Salmaneser, and its capture by Sargon (1Kings 16:9; 1Kings 17:6), a fulfilment all the more remarkable in that it was preceded by what seemed an almost decisive victory over Judah (2Chronicles 28:5-15), of which the prophet makes no mention.
-- Ellicott's commentary:
Isaiah 7:16 Commentaries: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

You can of course get commentary for any verse, and Ellicott I've found is often one of the better, more competent ones.