From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:41:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.001427.4359@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>That is not hard. Observe most scientists and high-rank university staff.
>>Actually, nearly anybody who is a high-class scientist.
>>And don't most of your rational friends belive in evolution?
>
>Well, as long as we are assuming anecdotal evidence actually means
>something, I observe that of the members of the Astronomy Department
>that I happen to be a part of, I see people of many religious
>persuasions--from hard-core atheist (me!) to some who are quite
>religious.  I have a friend here who intends to go to a seminary after
>getting his Master's degree, and I would hesitate to call him less
>intelligent than myself.  

Being 'formally' a Christian doesn't mean being an actual Christian, if you
don't believe in the bible 100%.
Boy you sure know about useless information.

>
>And yes, most of my friends here do accept evolution.  Guess what,
>some are even religious.  Can we say "non sequitur" folks?

Most of your friends don't even know what their religion is about.
They're just 'formally' religious, and maybe have never even read the Bible.
This is quite common nowadays.

>
>>>
>>>I find it fascinating that the very same people who make such
>>>statements would be up in arms if someone made the same sort of
>>>arguments in favor of the notion that, say, Jews were more intelligent
>>>than Gentiles on average.  "See, I have a few Jewish friends, and they
>>>are all much more intelligent than most of the Gentiles I know. . ."
>>
>>And they would have a hard time reasoning that. In this case, I find it
>>nearly effortless.
>
>Well, like I said before, you may find it easy to reason so, but if
>the *premise* is faulty. . .

Yes, so is the premise in your opinion faulty, and how did you arrive to that
conclusion?

>>
>>My sample does not consist of 8 people. It was purely an example.
>>Yes, and answer my question also.
>
>My initial objection was to the people whose sample *did* consist of 8
>people.

And who was that?

>
>I assume by your question, you mean that other aspects of one's
>personality can have an effect upon one's religious beliefs, or lack
>of.  You say this, and still cling to the notion that intelligence
>necessarily correlates with lack of religious belief????  You make it
>sound as though intelligence is the main factor, but then turn around
>and say that other factors can also have a significant effect, to
>explain away the intelligent believers that cause me to question this
>premise of yours. . . 

You're saying that you can't have any kind of personality if you are
intelligent? You're saying that if intelligence affects belief, personality
can't? Do I see a lack of common sense here?
NOWHERE in my original stetment does it say that nothing else can affect belief
, that could be outrageous.

>>Yes, one should say so, and one did.
>>Splitting hairs is mega-fun, isn't it?
>
>I would scarcely characterize asking one to be as specific as
>possible, when defining something, as "hair-splitting."  I would call
>that striving for clarity.

True. But that is not what you did.

>
>>Don't base everything on what I said, try to find proof for yourself. This is
>>not a bedtime story, and you are not (hopefully) a child.
>
>You're making the assertions pal, it's up to you to provide something
>more convincing than stories about your friends.

This isn't a lecture, and I'm not a lecturer. My original statement was
a suggestion/observation/idea. Try using your own brains for a change.

>>So we can start believing in anything we want, because we will never have 100%
>>certainity of their non-existance.
>
>No we have no rational reason to conclude that they do exist,
>therefore we presume they don't.  That's not the same as saying you
>have a 100% ironclad disproof of such entities.  If you think you do,
>I'm sure there are many here who would like to see it. . .

As you can see, logic and reasoning DOES affect one's beliefs. Just read what
you wrote. You don't seem to be aware of it, but you are supporting my
statement more and more.

>>>There is no guarantee that being able to follow premises to their
>>>logical conclusions will protect you from using the wrong premises.  
>>
>>But the chance of failure drops by the rise of the level of intelligence.
>
>Tell that to Ptolemy.  Undoubtedly he would have ranked in the top
>tenth percent of his day, and yet his heliocentric theory was
>incorrect.

So you think that his astronomical skills wouldn't affect a bit? And the level
of technology at the time? You really do have weak reasoning.

>
>Chances of failure may *drop* with higher intelligence, but don't
>get *eliminated* by attaining some arbitrarily chosen level of
>intelligence.      

Nor did I say so.
You finally got the grasp of it.

>>You do not find it even remotely possible? You think that logical intelligence
>>has no definition? Your denial is a little far-fetched.
>
>If you're going to find a correlation, is it too much to ask to have
>you define what it is that you are correlating?
>
>I'm not denying a damn thing.  *You* claim to find such a correlation?
>Fine.  Tell us what *you* are correlating, and give us evidence in
>favor of your supposed correlation.

All done, previously.

>
>
>>>For your information, I happen to be an atheist.  In fact I happen to
>>>think that Christianity, in its conservative, fundamentalist form, has
>>>the potential for great psychological damage, and that in its liberal
>>>form, boils down to using the Bible to ratify whatever passes for the
>>>conventional wisdom of the day.  So do not speak to me of my
>>>"emotional attachment" to Christianity--my only emotional attachment
>>>is to decent intellectual standards, which I happen to think was
>>>severely lacking in this discussion.  Your "emotional attachment"
>>>argument savors of the very sort of ad hominem attack I was voicing
>>>concern over.
>>
>>Only emotions can make a person defend a point to the death, no matter what it
>>is. You yourself just said that your emotional attachment is to decent
>>intellectual standards instead of Christianity. This already contributes much
>>to my statement of correlation. I'll add this to my notes.
>
>Ah, so commitment to decent intellectual standards correlates with
>lack of intelligence?  So asking for something more convincing than

You really think so? That's *your* problem.

>"me and my 8 mates are smart atheists, therefore *all* atheists are
>smart" contributes much to your statement of correlation?  Eh, no

I never said so. Please, you have made up enough already.
What would you rather believe: the babblings of superstitious people who lived
2000 years ago, when 'technology' was nonexistent, or what you see, observe and
deduce? Does it need any statistics to prove that the second option is more
rational?

>wonder the social sciences have fallen into such disrepute.
>
>I wonder if you can tell me, with a straight face, that you have no
>emotional commitment to the concept that "atheists are in general more
>intelligent than theists."  The stench of ad hominem is getting
>overwhelming.

No, I do not have any emotional commitment. I go strongly with observations
and deductions. People like you who are bashing others who have come up with
some new idea or observation, and asking what others observe, aren't very
good examples of people who are open to new ideas and friendship.

>
>So only emotion causes one to defend a point to the death?  But what
>happens if one happens to be right?
>
>>Just because trying to prove that their is even a remote chance that something
>>is stupider/uglier etc. that something else would narrow mindedly seem like
>>primitive names-calling, it doesn't meen that you have to lock yourself
>>completely out. First, try to exemplify the statement yourself, then say what
>>you think, without locking out possibilities. Think of Communism and how hard
>>it was to remove it from the ex-USSR.
>
>Let me spell it out in simple terms for you.  I am an atheist.  I
>think I am right.  I would like to think that theistic belief is a
>result of lower intelligence.  *Because* of this emotional bias, I
>would like to see something more convincing than the "me and my 8
>mates" style of argument.  So far, the only attempt at something more
>rigorous is "look around you at all the scientists who are atheists."
>Well, I know many scientists who are religious.  Therefore I would
>like something more rigorous than that.  Perhaps you could stop being
>condescending for a moment, and cite a study or two in support of your
>position, so that us poor benighted emotional sorts can go confirm
>your position for ourselves.

Most of those scientists are only formally religious. They haven't bothered to
start thinking about the logic of their religion.

>
>Of course, if you can't provide a more rigorous argument in support of
>your position, then it goes without saying that you can take your
>attitude and shove it up your nose.

Do you need statistics to show that the more intelligent the person is, the
more he thinks that 1/0=infinite? 
Yes, I understand that no matter what I say, you will have to defend your pride
by denying anything I say, rationally or not. Pull out if you have nothing to
say.

And you're saying that my observations are my attitude? You really *are*
kicking and screaming. One knows that he has lost an argument if he starts
insulting the other person.

>
>SD

Will SD be back with more fun? I like the way you support my statement without
being aware of it.

Tell me, why are you an atheist?

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism