From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 16:35:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.222810.20420@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.172158.11967@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>Although I think that you are right in general, I wanted to add that all (6)
>>the exceptionally smart people  I know (IQ>125), including myself, are Christians 
>>except one who is an atheist. 
>>
>>Religion is often connected to feelings. Feelings are unintelligent and if you
>>yourself are not very intelligent, your feelings will make sense and seem 
>>coherent. How often haven't you heard Christians say "Listen to your heart"? Such
>>a statement shows that they allow their feelings to rule their world. This is
>>harder for someone whose rationale exceeds her feelings. She will be more able to 
>>cut through and behave rationally despite of her feelings. She will also be able
>>to see that her feelings are *not* coherent and therefore is less likely to
>>become religious.
>
>I'm not very impressed by all this anecdotal evidence flying around.
>8 or so people aren't very good statistics.  Many of the most

If you find an increasing number of atheists the higher you go in logical
intelligence, I think that is much more proof than you can show.

>influential people in Christian history (Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc.)
>were *very* intelligent.  In fact, I would think that the intelligent

Proof?
How about aspects of personality such as courage, sacrifice and valour?

>believer, internalizing the psychological ploys that biblical belief
>boils down to, will suffer *more* than the rank and file believer, and
>will be more firmly enmeshed in the biblical scheme.
>
>I have yet to see a satisfactory definition of intelligence, one that
>doesn't boil down to how well one does on some arbitrary intelligence
>test.  

Nobody was talking about the whole definition of intelligence, just the
logical and abstract thinking part, which is easy to measure.

>
>It isn't illogical to presuppose a supernatural realm, unperceived by
>our senses, any more than it is illogical to suppose that the Many
>Worlds Hypothesis is a reasonable interpretation of quantum mechanics;
>it's just that such speculations are far-fetched.  They have the
>virtue (from the believer's perpsective) of being non-disprovable.

Illogical? In absence of evidence it seems more like fantasizing.
Of course one believes what one has most rational (this is where logical
intelligence comes in) proof of. In an environment where Christianity
has a stranglehold, other proof is basically unavailable. Thus, he/she
will most likely become a Christian (correlation applies).

>
>I become very uneasy when I see people say "Oh the religious are
>dumber (or smarter) than others on average."  It can too easily 
>degenerate into an ad hominem attack, in which one dismisses beliefs
>one disagrees with because one believes one's opponent lacks
>intelligence.  Being intelligent is no guarantee that one is right.

Then what is? And what is intelligence then?
When you talk of these kinds of things, try to be indifferent. You seem so
emotionally attached (see message you replied to) to Christianity.

>
>SD


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/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