From: usenet@nmsu.edu
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 03:14:57 GMT

I don't know if anyone has been following this thread over the last
couple of days, but since Iikka has indicated he hasn't much left to
say, I have a few comments of my own to make on this discussion.

1)  Getting Iikka to cite a source in support of his observations,
like a study in a journal, proved very difficult.  In the end he did
cite one source, which I will check out at the earliest opportunity.
However, he seemed pretty miffed that I refused to accept his
"observations" at face value.  My only concern was to learn, what, if
any, precautions he took against personal bias influencing his
observations.

2)  Iikka several times accused me of "flaming" him.  Yet I want all
to note that it was Iikka who first accused me of having an "emotional
attachment" to Christianity, in response to my concern over the
potential ad hominem nature of such statements.  I took this as an
attack on my character and reacted in a manner I thought appropriate.
Several statements he made in subsequent posts ("This is not a bedtime
story, and you are not (hopefully) a child," "try using your brain for
a change," etc.) were FAR more insulting than any statements I had
made.  

3)  If anything, I am even more concerned about the ad hominem nature
of this whole discussion.  Iikka's fixation on "emotional attachment"
is particularly revealing.  Apparently Iikka believes that he is
immune to having "emotional attachments" bias his observations, so
that he does not need to see rigorous statistics in support of his
impressions.  Iikka also seems to believe that anyone who disagrees
with him is so blinded by "emotional attachments" that their arguments
aren't worth a tinker's damn.  For example, Iikka stated that
intelligence is more important, in forming religious opinions, than
any other aspects of personality (though these other aspects can be
used to explain away any intelligent believers that don't fit into
Iikka's world-view).  I asked how he knew this--any studies in support
of this position?  Oh, no need!  It's as obvious as 1+1=2!  Except it
isn't that obvious to me, as I know many intelligent people, INCLUDING
scientists, who are religious.  Iikka explains this by saying that
they are just "formal" Christians, not actual ones.  Iikka, don't you
think it's a bit arrogant to presume you know more about their
religious beliefs than they do?  This just boils down to an ad hominem
attack on the deeply held religious beliefs of my friends, which would
be insulting if I didn't know that Iikka is so desperate to validate
himself via his alleged intellectual superiority over those who don't
agree with him, a superiority that does not quite manifest itself in
his less than lucid replies to questions and statements I have made.

Iikka thinks that being intelligent means that one is less prone to
error.  Iikka, ask any working scientist, and you will see that
scientists make errors all the time.  That's why we are so careful and
rigorous in the first place (at least, those that are any good.)

Iikka also thinks that anecdotal evidence is rigorous.  He completely
misses the point that anecdotal evidence can be colored by one's own
biases and preconceptions.  I do not think that Iikka did anything to
prevent such preconceptions from coloring his observations, since at
one point he claims not to have any--an absurd statement.

In sum, I think we can see that this supposed exemplar of rationality
is rude, arrogant, guilty of making hasty and absurd
over-generalizations,(based on anecdotal evidence, without even an
attempt made to account for the bias he claims not to have,)
condescending, unaware of basic precautions scientists make to ensure
purity of data, irrational, insulting and intolerant towards those who
have the temerity to question how he arrives at his conclusions.  He
resembles nothing so much as the noxious brand of Christian who
accuses non-Christians of pride and arrogance and willful blindness
when non-Christians ask for some substantiation of Christian claims.

I hereby declare that in my opinion, Iikka is an irrational,
doctrinaire atheist, who seeks validation via denigrating the
intellectual capacities of those who disagree with him.  All us
rational sorts ought to take heed of the many fallacies in reasoning
that Iikka has displayed over the past few days.

SD

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc