I agree Thomas, I have known quite a few atheists but only one knew anything of the bible, but he was a vicar's son. I found the usual attitude was a simple "show me". I do not believe in leprechauns but feel no need to be knowledgeable about Irish folklore.
So, Are Atheists Actually Smarter Than Believers??
- Thread starter c0de
- Start date
On reflection ... short answer ... no.
You don't have to be an intellectual to be a believer. You don't have to be an intellectual to be a saint.
Intelligence (however that is measured) is not an indicator of religious sensibility.
Ask self-declaring atheists for a logical, reasonable disbelief in the idea of God, and you'd be hard-pressed to find those who pass the test.
(And that some enjoy the benefits of a 'better' or 'higher education' is no guarantor of intelligence.)
+++
The atheist philosopher John Gray is scathing about the poverty of intellectual contribution to the atheist debate (he particularly ridicules the shallow thinking of the 'New Atheists' so beloved of the popular media for a while). To be a good atheist takes effort.
On the other hand, some of the bests minds of the past century have been 'believers', so what does that tell us?
and I'd like to see an atheist debate the issue with the likes of Denys Turner.
You don't have to be an intellectual to be a believer. You don't have to be an intellectual to be a saint.
Intelligence (however that is measured) is not an indicator of religious sensibility.
Ask self-declaring atheists for a logical, reasonable disbelief in the idea of God, and you'd be hard-pressed to find those who pass the test.
(And that some enjoy the benefits of a 'better' or 'higher education' is no guarantor of intelligence.)
+++
The atheist philosopher John Gray is scathing about the poverty of intellectual contribution to the atheist debate (he particularly ridicules the shallow thinking of the 'New Atheists' so beloved of the popular media for a while). To be a good atheist takes effort.
On the other hand, some of the bests minds of the past century have been 'believers', so what does that tell us?
and I'd like to see an atheist debate the issue with the likes of Denys Turner.
According to Denys Turner, the first challenge lies in acknowledging the question 'Does God exist?' to be a valid one. Once the question is established, various things follow, each one making it harder to maintain 'atheism' as a credible or interesting position.
If one simply refuses to acknowledge the validity of the question, or answer 'no', then that is not a sufficient answer in itself. It may satisfy the atheist, but it would not satisfy a thinking atheist.
+++
Thinking about it, the way of the world in the west is, generally, to find fault with the believers' argument in support of their belief, whilst applying no such interrogative rigour in accepting the atheists' argument for their disbelief – because the latter is the generally-accepted position of peop,le who ask the question in the first place.
+++
But – the key point – some of 'the most intelligent' people in the world are believers, and some aren't. Some of the 'least intelligent' people are believers, and some aren't ... therefore I see no correlation between however one measures 'intelligence' and 'spirituality' – they are two separate and distinct capacities.
If one simply refuses to acknowledge the validity of the question, or answer 'no', then that is not a sufficient answer in itself. It may satisfy the atheist, but it would not satisfy a thinking atheist.
+++
Thinking about it, the way of the world in the west is, generally, to find fault with the believers' argument in support of their belief, whilst applying no such interrogative rigour in accepting the atheists' argument for their disbelief – because the latter is the generally-accepted position of peop,le who ask the question in the first place.
+++
But – the key point – some of 'the most intelligent' people in the world are believers, and some aren't. Some of the 'least intelligent' people are believers, and some aren't ... therefore I see no correlation between however one measures 'intelligence' and 'spirituality' – they are two separate and distinct capacities.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
Maybe they don't have issue with it... but they also aren't usually told the programmer runs the universe and this game is TRUTH.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
It would be interesting.
So far this thread has been very interesting, but I think that Thomas put the whole thing to bed with "therefore I see no correlation between however one measures 'intelligence' and 'spirituality' – they are two separate and distinct capacities."
So, with intellect removed, what are we left with? I have never found God in any book or in the words of a preacher. Sometimes I think that I have when alone with my thoughts or when walking in woodlands. I am quite sure of the existence of another realm, perhaps god too, but this does not seem to originate in my five senses. I am not sure what to call this, intuitive, gut reaction, 6th sense?
So for me the discussion starts not with a debate based on the same old arguments, but is the existence of this "6th sense" a valid idea.
For me, there is no doubt.
So, with intellect removed, what are we left with? I have never found God in any book or in the words of a preacher. Sometimes I think that I have when alone with my thoughts or when walking in woodlands. I am quite sure of the existence of another realm, perhaps god too, but this does not seem to originate in my five senses. I am not sure what to call this, intuitive, gut reaction, 6th sense?
So for me the discussion starts not with a debate based on the same old arguments, but is the existence of this "6th sense" a valid idea.
For me, there is no doubt.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
My take on this is that the question is backwards or distorted.
I think a question like this is based on an initial observation that highly intelligent people appear to disengage with religion at higher rates than do individuals in at all other intelligence levels.
Maybe the question, asked that way, could be solidly verified or falsified (probably verified, probably easily) so that then...
Then the next question is to clarify what it is about religion that highly intelligent people back away at higher rates than others? That might be a question for interviewing a lot of high IQ people and get their stated reasons and reviewing written records of people from the past sharing their reasons. (There's no shortage of information like that) I'm going to hypothesize there was something about religious teachings that didn't make sense to them, authority put them off, their questions weren't answered, etc.
Then also interview nonbelievers at different IQ levels and see if their reasons for declining religion were similar, or different, in comparison to the high IQ interviewees.
If high IQ interviewees and interviewees of all other intelligence levels offer similar reasons for parting ways with religion, maybe that affects the follow up questions.
Then the bigger question could be asked a little differently: What is it about either intelligence or religion, or both, that they can at times clash? If not always then often enough to notice a greater number of atheists amongst the high IQ population?
IF high IQ interviewees have different reasons for leaving religion than interviewees at other levels of intelligence... then the questions may be more what is it about intelligence that creates this phenomenon
If high IQ interviewees and interviewees at all other IQ levels say goodbye to religion for similar reasons, the question is probably what is it about religion that creates the phenomenon? I will hypothesize more or less the same, there is something about religious teaching which creates a problem for people at all levels.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
Yeah I wonder why something like that hasn't been arranged with the "new atheist" crowd?
I don't know much about Denys Turner before now, but he seems like a strong candidate.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
It sounds sounds like a Zen koan to say it takes effort to be an atheist.
A lot of people whether they are believers or nonbelievers don't aim for being good at belief or unbelief or want the effort.
The average workaday person is either convinced or unconvinced, or maybe partially convinced, about the claims and belief structures presented by believers in various religious traditions.
Every believer is an nonbeliever really. If someone is a committed Hindu they are nonbelievers of Christianity or Islam or Taoism etc
Muslims are nonbelievers in Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism, etc.
Christians tend to be nonbelievers in Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, Bahai, Buddhism, etc.
Does it take effort to disbelieve religions you don't follow? Why?
AFAIK atheists just don't believe stuff. That doesn't take them especial effort. They don't strive to not believe it.
If they did do they really count as an an nonbeliever?
No. No such observation has been made by myself. In fact, within the confines of my own personal life, it is about 50/50. So, to quote Thomas "I see no correlation between however one measures 'intelligence' and 'spirituality' – they are two separate and distinct capacities." That is why I ask "what are we left with".
talib-al-kalim
Well-Known Member
There are two things, education and intelligence.
Education is about
- social conventions (manners)
- information, knowledge of facts and arguments
- skills of all kind
- to find peace with one's own emotions
transferred from the pool of human knowledge to the individual.
Intelligence is the connection between the information.
Creativity to find new ways to solve problems in a way that hasn't been taught.
Reading the Bible and the Quran is one thing. If you just read it to know what is written in there, you will not get far and put it aside, because that's not what the scriptures are written for. If you read it and judge according to your education, it's not worth while.
Interconnecting the scriptures and draw from them whatever concerns you is an effort. You need good reading skills, and a wake will to dive into it, to get along with commons and differences. You don't need a super "IQ" (howsoever this may be quantified), but it's a work that requires the use of your intelligence.
And sometimes, it makes more sense to stop studying and apply the essential things in your life, because that's the most important.
Someone is smarter... or rather, someone is right.
If we are to have some sort of battle of truth, religionists vs atheists...on the matter of a Supreme being... of course if the atheists are right....then all the religionists that believe in a creator being would be wrong....right? And if atheists be wrong....if they are....over half the religionsists would also be wrong eh?
Who would be smarter? Can you be wrong I. This and be smarter?
If we are to have some sort of battle of truth, religionists vs atheists...on the matter of a Supreme being... of course if the atheists are right....then all the religionists that believe in a creator being would be wrong....right? And if atheists be wrong....if they are....over half the religionsists would also be wrong eh?
Who would be smarter? Can you be wrong I. This and be smarter?
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
But I think many people do make that observation or something like it.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
Others might observe it. After all they've been researching some variation of this question since the 1920s (see my earlier attached articles)
If I had to make an hypothesis I might speculate that people with higher intelligence are more able to articulate their objections to the religion or religious ideas around them. People of all intelligence levels may have doubts but people of higher intelligence are more able to articulate their doubts and resist pressure from authorities or peers.
@TheLightWithin probably some confusion. You wrote "I think a question like this is based on an initial observation..." in a response to my post, which contained a question. I thought that you was referring to my question. Re-reading the whole thing, I now see otherwise.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
True I was referring to the OP question/title of the thread.
I didn't recognize at the moment that the way I structured the reply ended up being ambiguous...
Perhaps ...
What I mean is, if one is going to declare their atheism as reasonable and rational, then they should be able to reasonably and rationally argue it, based on sound principles, and not on a priori erroneous assertions about the nature of God, or what theists believe.
Take Ehrman, as discussed elsewhere. I admire his NT scholarship. I can follow his arguments. I just don't accept his conclusions as convincing. There's too much assumption, and sometimes he makes too much of too little. So if that was his argument for atheism, then I find his arguments too weak and subjective.
Even Ehrman himself acknowledges that his scholarship is not sufficient reason to not believe in God, but many assume it is the reason why he is an atheist, 'and therefore it's good enough for me', kind of thing.
+++
We see a debate here, arguing atheism on the grounds of the lack of empirical evidence. This ignores the fact that by definition God transcends the empirical, and yet the empiricist insists that the God they refute must be an object available for empirical evaluation – it's a clear logical fallacy, but they're wedded to it – to argue against God requires an a priori acceptance of their definition, because it's one they know they can refute. They can't accept any other because they can't refute it.
+++
John Gray, the notable English philosopher, an atheist, wrote a book called "Seven Types of Atheism" in which he describes the atheist ideologies of the West as so much “spilt theology” – and that includes a scathing critique of the (so-called) Enlightenment, 'the archetype of this quest' to fashion a science of man. Unfortunately, these efforts issued in the racist pseudo-science (he cites Voltaire and Hume), while all attempts to inaugurate the rule of reason have resulted in bloody fanaticisms (Jacobinism and Bolshevism), that have equaled the worst atrocities attributable to believers, and such 'sciences' as eugenics which even after WWII was practiced (albeit discreetly) in such civilised countries as yours and mine ...
Gray reckons Carl Becker's "The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers" (1932) is still “the best book on the Enlightenment”. In Becker's view, the philosophers “demolished the Heavenly City of St. Augustine only to rebuild it with more up-to-date materials.” Gray’s verdict is even harsher: “Racism and anti-Semitism are not incidental defects in Enlightenment thinking. They flow from some of the Enlightenment’s central beliefs.”
Gray argues a belief that humanity will eventually arrive at lasting peace and happiness merely recapitulates Christianity’s salvation history in humanist terms.
He reckons that very few, 'mostly marginal figures', have achieved the necessary detachment to arrive at a genuine break with religious thinking. Most atheists in his view 'search for a surrogate Deity to fill the hole left by the God that has departed,' a belief in science being foremost among the list of surrogates.
+++
But that is not an argument for or against belief, more a comment on human nature.
The honest answer would be "I've never really given it any thought". Better that, than come up with some cock-eyed notion of what that religion says, and then say I don't believe that.
Christopher Hitchens is a radical, if not rabid, anti-Islamicist. He presents Islam in the most ridiculous terms, akin to saying all Germans are evil, just look at Hitler ... but loads of people buy his stuff ... because it takes no effort at all, and because the gets more jollies from hating their neighbour than loving their neighbour which is bloody hard work.
That's OK. I'm fine with people who choose not to. I'm not fine with people who think they're more enlightened simply because they don't believe.
+++
As far as beliefs go, Chesterton said "Everybody has a creed. Some know what it is, others don't."
A Freeman
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 8
Free-will.
A Freeman
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 8
The most important passage in ALL of Scripture is the following from the Gospel account as recorded by John:
John 3:3-7
3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born from above, he cannot SEE The Kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (human) and then is born (later) from above as his spirit-"Being" (his REAL self which is NOT human), he can NOT enter into The Kingdom of God (Who is a Spirit-"Being").
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is human; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (a spirit-"Being") - (a human+Being).
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
It should be self-evident that if one is spiritually asleep they cannot see the Kingdom of God much less enter it.
It is very possible to be considered by others to be "worldly wise", i.e. intellectual, and to be clueless as to what and who we really are, and the actual purpose of life here on Earth (i.e. be spiritually asleep). What is commonly referred to as "intelligence" cannot be equated to wisdom. The former is a measure based upon a worldly standard while the latter is a gift from our Creator (Acts 5:29-33).
John 3:3-7
3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born from above, he cannot SEE The Kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (human) and then is born (later) from above as his spirit-"Being" (his REAL self which is NOT human), he can NOT enter into The Kingdom of God (Who is a Spirit-"Being").
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is human; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (a spirit-"Being") - (a human+Being).
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
It should be self-evident that if one is spiritually asleep they cannot see the Kingdom of God much less enter it.
It is very possible to be considered by others to be "worldly wise", i.e. intellectual, and to be clueless as to what and who we really are, and the actual purpose of life here on Earth (i.e. be spiritually asleep). What is commonly referred to as "intelligence" cannot be equated to wisdom. The former is a measure based upon a worldly standard while the latter is a gift from our Creator (Acts 5:29-33).
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
I'm not sure how, as racism and antisemitism are much much older than the Enlightenment AFAIK. It's not like the Enlightenment cooked them up out of whole cloth. The Enlightenment would have inherited those ideas from earlier times, yes?