[_ Old Earth _] Does Atheism Make People Smarter?

[azlan88]

This isn't about mere disbelief. You just don't to meet the conditions for salvation, or you don't want God throwing a wet blanket over what you want to do. I'll tell you the truth, Christianity is not easy, but your life won't change for the worse because of it. In fact, upon coming to belief, you might not notice where the transition began. Much of your life will be the same as it was before, but you'll be heading down a new path that will broaden your horizons, even to eternity.

 

[Brokendoll]

This isn't about mere disbelief.

Actually, that is exactly what it is when it comes to atheists. That is what being an atheist means.

You just don't to meet the conditions for salvation, or you don't want God throwing a wet blanket over what you want to do.

Excuse me? Who are you to judge everyone who doesn't believe in the same thing as you do. Seems to me that you are questioning my morals and/or my actions. Is that the case? :bigfrown

 

[jasoncran]

one can disagree with the aethists on this board, and yet not judge them. Was there a question from brokendoll on the requirements salvation? i dont recall that.
we are to point the lost to the cross, and read and our tell them the word without saying this in a judgemental manner. One can do that. I do.

after some discussion i wont lock this but this warning will remain.

 

[azlan88]

I'm sorry that I offended people, but the Scriptures provide a window into the souls of unbelievers, giving various accounts as to why people prefer unbelief rather than faith unto salvation. The Bible doesn't say, "People have simple disagreements about the Gospel that merit understanding." Instead one such account made by Jesus in John 3:19 reads:

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

So I rightly assumed that one rejects the gospel not because they have unbelief, but because they loved darkness and their deeds were evil. The Holy Spirit has convicted me of this sin, also, but I have come to repentance by faith in Jesus Christ, and it is my will that nobody should have to collapse under the weight of their own sins. This is the message that I meant to share today, that everybody who I witness to may shed the weight of their burden and cling to the cross of Christ.

 

[Brokendoll]

So I rightly assumed that one rejects the gospel not because they have unbelief, but because they loved darkness and their deeds were evil.

Am I reading this right? You are not, in fact, questioning my morals and actions. You are condemning them out of hand without even knowing me? Based solely on the fact that I don't share your beliefs?

But hey, maybe my deeds are evil?

Let's see:

I am a teacher who truly cares for each and every one of my pupils and I regularily go beyond the call of duty to help them as best I can. I have a list of parents who are grateful for the work I do that reaches into the hundreds (I have the refferences to back this claim up).

I teach a love for the world in general and I teach my pupils about honesty, tolerance, the acceptance of differences, how to treat other people with respect, to be inquisitive and how they should make their own choices. I also strongly promote communication as the best means to handle conflicts.

In my vacations I work with a non-political non-religious organisation called Komak helping rebuild the educational system (schools) in war-torn Kurdistan (Northern Iraq). The work done by Komak gives litterarily thousands of children the chance to get an education.

I never intentionally lie.

I donate money on a monthly basis to Médecins Sans Frontières.


Right, I guess that should be enough to give you some idea.

Now, go ahead.
Tell me my deeds are evil.

 

[azlan88]

Your works don't make you good. For it is written in Isaiah 64:6,

6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

I don't condemn you. It is God who condemns, and "he who doesn't believe is condemned already." I'm telling you these things to warn you about the wrath to come.

 

[jasoncran]

in the christian faith deeds arent the means to heaven, only the work of the cross. One must accept the cross to get there.

The bible does say that our righteousness is as filthy rags to him.(the Lord).
Though i do think that you are good person, but the Lord is the judge and he judges all.I hope one day that you will come to know him.

Good deeds that are done by the true believers are evidence of such faith. One cant love God without doing the things that please,and one can perform good works and not love god. God is the standard. This is what i think azlan means.

Hope this helps.

 

[azlan88]

No, you are not a good person. Jesus said, "No one is good but God"(Luke 18:19). Worse, you are still in your sins because you have not been cleansed by the blood of Christ.

 

[Rick W]

Thread split as the discussion focus became off-topic. Pick up that discussion at:
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=44489

"Does Atheism Make People Smarter?" can continue from here.

 

[Brokendoll]

Alright, back on track then.
As I've said earlier in this tread, there is no evidence that being an atheist or being a believer in and of itself makes a person smarter or dumber.

I would, however, like to point out a quality that is very common among intellectual atheists which may work in their favor when it comes to intelligence. And that is scepticism.
And I don't necessarily mean scepticism towards religion, but also against many other claims made without the support of evidence, such as crystal-healing, astrology, homeopathy and psychics. Being sceptical makes one ask questions and questions leads to answers which exercises the brain.

Now, I'm not saying that religious people blatantly buy into the shenanigans of the so called alternative scene, but often I've found that when the religious reject these things they do it out of conviction, while atheists reject them because they know why these things cannot possibly work they way they are advertised.

I'm not saying this is the case everywhere and always, but it's just an impression I have. Feel free to rip it to shreds if you disagree. ;)

 

[Rick W]

"Being sceptical makes one ask questions and questions leads to answers which exercises the brain."

Christians have been skeptical of evolution for years. We've gotten a lot of brain exercise through asking questions.
;)
Or is it a matter of what someone is being skeptical about? :gah

BTW,
I'm not buying into the conclusion posted in the OP.

 

[Brokendoll]

Christians have been skeptical of evolution for years. We've gotten a lot of brain exercise through asking questions.
;)

Asking questions is never a bad thing. The important part is whether one listens to, and considers the answers.

Or is it a matter of what someone is being skeptical about? :gah

No, it's a matter of how one is being sceptical and on what grounds. Me, I want to see some evidence and logic behind the answers I get. And not to start a new discussion about science VS faith, but in this respect science and its evidence based methods brings real results that I can see and touch.

 

[Rick W]

Christians have been skeptical of evolution for years. We've gotten a lot of brain exercise through asking questions.
;)

Asking questions is never a bad thing. The important part is whether one listens to, and considers the answers.

[quote="Rick W":vphrbkwr]Or is it a matter of what someone is being skeptical about? :gah

No, it's a matter of how one is being sceptical and on what grounds.[/quote:vphrbkwr]

That's a very imaginative statement.
But I'm skeptical.


Any scientific evidence to back up your claim that "it's a matter of how one is being sceptical and on what grounds." that increases IQ?



I need some of that "science and its evidence based methods brings real results that I can see and touch" about now.

 

[Brokendoll]

[quote="Rick W":37a7seub]Christians have been skeptical of evolution for years. We've gotten a lot of brain exercise through asking questions.
;)

Asking questions is never a bad thing. The important part is whether one listens to, and considers the answers.

[quote="Rick W":37a7seub]Or is it a matter of what someone is being skeptical about? :gah

No, it's a matter of how one is being sceptical and on what grounds.[/quote:37a7seub]

That's a very imaginative statement.

But I'm skeptical.

Any scientific evidence to back up your claim that "it's a matter of how one is being sceptical and on what grounds." that increases IQ?

I need some of that "science and its evidence based methods brings real results that I can see and touch" about now. [/quote:37a7seub]

Ups, my bad. I was answering your questions in a general capacity and not specifically in relation to the topic of the tread.

But, hey, since I said it, let’s run with it and see where it leads. ^_^

We have already agreed that there is most likely several types of IQ, but for the time being what we have to work with are the kinds of IQ-tests that we all know. So let’s use that as the basis for this line of reasoning. There are many different tests used both for entertainment and research, but they all have a couple of things in common. They are all based on the ability to draw conclusions from the available information and on stringing logical conclusions. Also, they often rely on the recognition of patterns.

Logic can be defined as “the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study†and its application is generally considered a sign of intelligence. We are pattern-seeking animals, which means that by the use of the available information we logically try figure out what is happening, which is the start of logic after all. (But not the end of it. ;) )

Right, that’s the tests. So, how does this fall in with being sceptical?

A sceptic can be defined as “a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual†and in common language also “a person who doubts the truth of a religionâ€. And as I previously stated, asking questions is always a good thing. We should question the world around us, and we most definitely should question the things we take for granted to be true. But when we decide what to believe and not, what criteria are different between someone who is a sceptic and someone who is not? The typical sceptic will tend to look to the available evidence and the known facts about the world, and based on these he/she will draw a conclusion. If new evidence or facts are discovered, these will either be incorporated into the conclusion, and, if the evidence points that way, will change it.

Does this mean that a sceptic would do (on average) better on an IQ-test than someone who is not a sceptic?

Well, a lot of research has been done into this subject, all of it controversial for obvious reasons. Research dealing with the subject of intelligence in humans is always controversial. (For some reason, not so much when dealing with animals. Go figure.) But since this is the data available, let’s see what the most recent research says:

In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions.

The professor was quoted stating that: “I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical.â€

Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries. The authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all the higher IQ countries.â€

Right. What to draw from all this. Like the researchers I think it would be premature (not to mention offensive) to conclude that being religious makes people dumber. But the investigative mind of someone who is a sceptic (I’m generalizing. Not all who call themselves sceptics are inquisitive.) might aid them in researching various subjects and help them draw logical conclusions from the available facts, while at the same time protecting them from jumping to unmerited conclusions.

If this is the case, then they would probably do better on IQ-tests than someone without this capacity, and thus, being sceptical about non-evidence based knowledge might, at least to our current understanding, make a person appear to be more intelligent.

 

[Rick W]

I must say you did a little homework.

Well, a lot of research has been done into this subject, all of it controversial for obvious reasons. Research dealing with the subject of intelligence in humans is always controversial.

So what might be the controversial issues?

What would a correlation between wealth and religiosity show? I think people who have less money put more faith in God to provide not only for survival but also hope. That doesn't mean they are dumber but rather their wallets are thinner and education costs money.

There is correlation of wealth and religiosity per country. Seems poorer countries tend toward the religious more than the wealthier countries. But I'm not sure if that could be gauged accurately without also including health which is why I'd focus on the US where health wouldn't be so much of a factor.

So far my search for "wealth and religiosity" in the US has turned up nothing.

 

[Rick W]

Materialism seems to be factor in this.
Maybe try materialism vs religosity?

I don't care much for the political slant on this one though.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/mova ... y_and.html

 

[Brokendoll]

I must say you did a little homework.

Well, a lot of research has been done into this subject, all of it controversial for obvious reasons. Research dealing with the subject of intelligence in humans is always controversial.

So what might be the controversial issues?

Several things actually. One has already been discussed somewhat in this tread, namely that agreeing on an exact definition of what intelligence really is hasn't always been easy.

Wikipedia has this to say on the subject:

"Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. In some cases, intelligence may include traits such as creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom. However there is no agreement on which traits define the phenomenon of intelligence agreed upon by a majority across the various concerned disciplines."

Also:

"Intelligence comes from the Latin verb intelligere, which means "to understand". By this rationale, intelligence (as understanding) is arguably different from being "smart" (able to adapt to one's environment)."

The type of intelligence that IQ-tests generally deal with is one of pattern-seeking, logical sequences and problem-solving abilities, which are comparativily easy to test for. But the major resistance towards this kind of research and the resulting conclusions often stems from an ingrained feeling that we shouldn't "rate" people.

The same kind of resistance could be seen in the so called "Tabula Rasa" position that was common during the 70s in which one, contrary to the avaliable evidence, decided that people were genetically equal. This has since fallen out of favor, and the evidence that we are definately -not- genetically equal is obvious. Just ask anyone with Huntington's if they feel "equal" this week.

From that we can conclude that some people most definately -are- more intelligent than others, but a consensus on the definition is hard to reach. Our abilities and limitations are to a large degree determined by our genetics and I see no reason why our cognitive capabilities should be any different.

That is not to say that someone with superior intelligence is automatically a better or more valuable person. It is simply a characteristic among many. Doctor Josef Mengele was probably a highly intelligent person, but he was also, at least by most people's standards, evil.

 

[Rick W]

I must give you credit where credit is due. You're making me think!

Are atheists more likely to be materialistic or is one more likely to be atheistic upon acquiring more wealth?
I think the latter may be the case from my post above yours.

I'm going to be looking into it further.

 

[Brokendoll]

I must say you did a little homework.

Thanks.

What would a correlation between wealth and religiosity show? I think people who have less money put more faith in God to provide not only for survival but also hope. That doesn't mean they are dumber but rather their wallets are thinner and education costs money.

There is correlation of wealth and religiosity per country. Seems poorer countries tend toward the religious more than the wealthier countries. But I'm not sure if that could be gauged accurately without also including health which is why I'd focus on the US where health wouldn't be so much of a factor.

That is true. One could conceivably imagine that people who are poor and suffering during their life might be more tempted psychologically to believe in a world where, after death, things equal out, or even that they will then "be on top". But I have yet to see much research on this. A reasonable conclusion would, however, be that with wealth comes education, and the research shows that people of high education tend to be less religious.

 

[Rick W]

But I have yet to see much research on this. A reasonable conclusion would, however, be that with wealth comes education, and the research shows that people of high education tend to be less religious.

wealth = education = less religious

I'm seeing tantalizing glimpses this is true but as you point out nothing much has been done on this correlation.

I honestly believe materialism could very well be a factor.