I'm not 100% sure that intelligence, per se, is correlated with lack of religious belief. But I'm quite certain that education level is.
That doesn't mean that no educated people are religious, just that as a percentage, educated people tend to be less religious than uneducated people.
Dawkins on Mormonism
-
_barrelomonkeys
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Sethbag wrote:I'm not 100% sure that intelligence, per se, is correlated with lack of religious belief. But I'm quite certain that education level is.
That doesn't mean that no educated people are religious, just that as a percentage, educated people tend to be less religious than uneducated people.
That makes more sense..it appears to me that if some have an education they may be inquisitive and searching for answers. I could understand how frustration could set in for those of higher education when answers aren't necessarily forthcoming (within the realm of religion) and there must be a reliance on faith.
-
_marg
It seems the religious folks in this thread want to shoot the messenger Dawkins rather than consider the message, which is understandable.
His main point in that particular segment of his talk was that religious individuals on the whole tend to view "atheists" as immoral and believe as long as someone claims a religious belief they must have morals whereas someone with no religious belief must be devoid of morals.
The fact that religious beliefs vary widely is irrelevant in this negative prejudicial attitude common to many religious people, an attitude commonly expressed on this board as well.
With regards to Mormonism, Dawkins was addressing an audience who were probably atheist. It is likely the audience he addressed acknowledge all religions make claims which are transparently false. But one audience member brought up Mormonism, Dawkins didn't bring it up and Dawkins commented directly on it, that J. Smith was a transparent mountebank and the Book of Mormon obvious fiction. Like it or not, some claims are more obviously fake, more unrealistic, more absurd than other claims. Some charlatans are more obvious transparent frauds than others. And some people are better at evaluating claims than others. We don't live in a world in which all claims are equal in truth and all people are equal in moral character. But it is easier to objectively and fairly evaluate a claim and people's moral character when one can do so emotionally distant to them.
His main point in that particular segment of his talk was that religious individuals on the whole tend to view "atheists" as immoral and believe as long as someone claims a religious belief they must have morals whereas someone with no religious belief must be devoid of morals.
The fact that religious beliefs vary widely is irrelevant in this negative prejudicial attitude common to many religious people, an attitude commonly expressed on this board as well.
With regards to Mormonism, Dawkins was addressing an audience who were probably atheist. It is likely the audience he addressed acknowledge all religions make claims which are transparently false. But one audience member brought up Mormonism, Dawkins didn't bring it up and Dawkins commented directly on it, that J. Smith was a transparent mountebank and the Book of Mormon obvious fiction. Like it or not, some claims are more obviously fake, more unrealistic, more absurd than other claims. Some charlatans are more obvious transparent frauds than others. And some people are better at evaluating claims than others. We don't live in a world in which all claims are equal in truth and all people are equal in moral character. But it is easier to objectively and fairly evaluate a claim and people's moral character when one can do so emotionally distant to them.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins cites an article by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine, containing a meta-analysis of studies relating to the connection between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."
Hmmm. I'm not sure of that... I also read a book a long while back that claimed that there was a link between intelligence and race.
Has anyone questioned Bell's methodology or statistics?
Mary
Dawkins is a great intellect, and a great speaker, and I've come to agree with him in just about everything I hear him say.
Balderdash. Dawkins is a great intellect within one tiny niche of human understanding. Outside of this, he need be taken no more seriously than anyone else. Indeed, Dawkins has no more credibility pontificating on theological subjects or Mormonism specifically than Larry Flynt has discoursing or moral philosophy.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
His main point in that particular segment of his talk was that religious individuals on the whole tend to view "atheists" as immoral and believe as long as someone claims a religious belief they must have morals whereas someone with no religious belief must be devoid of morals.
I have no idea regarding Dawkin's morals or lack thereof. My primary point, at least, is that Dawkins doesn't have even a marginal understanding, if he really wants to approach criticism of religion in a philosophically serious way, of the relevant knowledge or areas of study necessary for him to do that kind of criticism. Nor, apparently, does he think he needs to have that kind of knowledge, nor does he, apparently, take those relevant subjects seriously. What is Dawkin's knowledge of comparative religion? of Myth and folklore? of the history of various religious movements? of textual criticism? of Anthropology?
Dawkin's Atheism is not primarily rational, though he would like us to think so. It is fundamentally psychological in nature: an animus and an attitude, not a rational formulation conceived due to any inevitable tendency of scientific data or knowledge. Dawkin's needs to believe that there is no God, and hence, to use modern parlance, he spins the implications of scientific knowledge to this end. But that's all he is doing.
I say this because Dawkin's criticisms of religion and God in his recent book to not appear as serious, reflective, nuanced arguments but smarmy dismissals and petulant, impatient intellectual snobbery typical of the atheist and secular humanist project.
T
he fact that religious beliefs vary widely is irrelevant in this negative prejudicial attitude common to many religious people, an attitude commonly expressed on this board as well.
Many kinds of beliefs vary widely, especially those concerning the human condition. This includes scientific beliefs, which are always changing and being amended as new knowledge is discovered. bare facts, such as that any action produces an equal and opposite reaction, are not arguable and are empirically demonstrateble, but then, those kinds of facts have no bearing upon what kind of man, husband, father, and human being I am.
With regards to Mormonism, Dawkins was addressing an audience who were probably atheist. It is likely the audience he addressed acknowledge all religions make claims which are transparently false. But one audience member brought up Mormonism, Dawkins didn't bring it up and Dawkins commented directly on it, that J. Smith was a transparent mountebank and the Book of Mormon obvious fiction. Like it or not, some claims are more obviously fake, more unrealistic, more absurd than other claims. Some charlatans are more obvious transparent frauds than others. And some people are better at evaluating claims than others. We don't live in a world in which all claims are equal in truth and all people are equal in moral character. But it is easier to objectively and fairly evaluate a claim and people's moral character when one can do so emotionally distant to them.
Well, this is just pure bluster. From another point of view, Dawkin's claims regarding Mormonism are transparently false as well, as well as being rather obviously bereft of any serious intellectual background such that Dawkins should really even expect anyone but atheist true believers to be taking him seriously in any case.
Oh, and by the way, Atheism, from my perspective, is patently and transparently false, and a number of its most famous proponents have used it as a cover and a rationalization from which to promote other agendas.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
Coggins7 wrote:Dawkins is a great intellect, and a great speaker, and I've come to agree with him in just about everything I hear him say.
Balderdash. Dawkins is a great intellect within one tiny niche of human understanding. Outside of this, he need be taken no more seriously than anyone else. .
Perhaps he and we should then not pontificate on cereology or the study of the social life of fairies. We aren't experts in that!
LOL!
I would venture to say that Dawkins has done orders of magnitude more clear thinking on the evidence for the supernatural and the rationality of belief than just about any of your favorite Christian theologists (who seem to just start with faith or the assumption that God exists as some axiom).
-
_guy sajer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1372
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am
Miss Taken wrote:In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins cites an article by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine, containing a meta-analysis of studies relating to the connection between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."
Hmmm. I'm not sure of that... I also read a book a long while back that claimed that there was a link between intelligence and race.
Has anyone questioned Bell's methodology or statistics?
Mary
The hypothesis of an inverse association between education and religiosity has, IMHO, much greater ex ante validity than one asserting an inverse relationship between race and intelligence. Very broadly, one who has been trained in rational, critical thought is probably more likely, all else equal, to view religious (e.g., magical) claims with greater skepticism than one who has not received such training. It's by no means 1-1 in either case, but very generally, this strikes me as a reasonable hypothesis.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
-
_marg
marg previously: His main point in that particular segment of his talk was that religious individuals on the whole tend to view "atheists" as immoral and believe as long as someone claims a religious belief they must have morals whereas someone with no religious belief must be devoid of morals.
Coggins: I have no idea regarding Dawkin's morals or lack thereof. My primary point, at least, is that Dawkins doesn't have even a marginal understanding, if he really wants to approach criticism of religion in a philosophically serious way, of the relevant knowledge or areas of study necessary for him to do that kind of criticism. Nor, apparently, does he think he needs to have that kind of knowledge, nor does he, apparently, take those relevant subjects seriously. What is Dawkin's knowledge of comparative religion? of Myth and folklore? of the history of various religious movements? of textual criticism? of Anthropology?
Is Dawkins correct that religious individuals as a whole tend to view atheists as a whole as immoral, whereas anyone with a God belief by the mere fact of having a belief is equated with having morals? And that it doesn’t matter that a religious individual’s god beliefs may be at odds with another individual’s , they still equate “atheism” with immorality and religious god belief with morality? That was Dawkins point, and that’s the point I brought up of his which seems to be ignored by the religious in this thread. You’ve not addressed this point, all you keep focussing on is attacking Dawkins and you don't quote anything he says and address that, you just attack him. This is my first line in my post you are addressing which you omitted. I wrote: "It seems the religious folks in this thread want to shoot the messenger Dawkins rather than consider the message, which is understandable." And that is exactly what you are doing.
Coggins: Dawkin's Atheism is not primarily rational, though he would like us to think so. It is fundamentally psychological in nature: an animus and an attitude, not a rational formulation conceived due to any inevitable tendency of scientific data or knowledge. Dawkin's needs to believe that there is no God, and hence, to use modern parlance, he spins the implications of scientific knowledge to this end. But that's all he is doing.
First of all, find a quote of Dawkins’ which illustrates that Dawkins needs to believe there is no God. I think that’s a load of crap to assume any atheist not just Dawkins needs to believe any such thing. No atheist is against God, should one exist. It's the lack of evidence, which warrants lack of belief. Secondly you are attacking Dawkins’ atheism, instead of addressing the segment of that “Youtube video” . You are off on a tangent. I’m not interested in your ad hominem against Dawkins unless you are going to back it up with quotes and it’s relevant to the discussion.
Coggins: I say this because Dawkin's criticisms of religion and God in his recent book to not appear as serious, reflective, nuanced arguments but smarmy dismissals and petulant, impatient intellectual snobbery typical of the atheist and secular humanist project.
My husband bought his recent book. I personally haven’t read it, and it’s currently lost in the house somewhere. Please quote specifics to back up your criticisms. The fact of the matter Coggins is that there are many people in this world who either through lack of education, lack of intelligence, lack of good critical thinking, indoctrination from a young age believe in really weird unwarranted crazy stuff. All beliefs are not equal in reliability of being true. All people are not equal in their ability to evaluate claims. It’s wrong to think that whatever someone believes is necessarily okay. It’s horrifying to appreciate how gullible and easily manipulated and controlled people can be. In the wrong hands, that can be destructive.
previously:
Thee fact that religious beliefs vary widely is irrelevant in this negative prejudicial attitude common to many religious people, an attitude commonly expressed on this board as well.
Coggins: Many kinds of beliefs vary widely, especially those concerning the human condition. This includes scientific beliefs, which are always changing and being amended as new knowledge is discovered. bare facts, such as that any action produces an equal and opposite reaction, are not arguable and are empirically demonstrateble, but then, those kinds of facts have no bearing upon what kind of man, husband, father, and human being I am.
Regarding science, and I address this because I know that often religious people feel that attacking science somehow supports their religious beliefs, but it’s an evolving process over time developing models which explain natural phenomenom. The models evolve because of new insights and new tools. It’s not that old models are wrong, they were useful in explaining phenomena at the time, but better models which better fit the data or the circumstances evolved which improved upon previous models. And scientific models will continue to evolve. That's the beauty of science. Each model developed and accepted is a better fit of the data to explain phenomena. If they aren't better fits, there is no point in maintaining them.
But for religious claims there is no similar evaluation process to reach best fit explanations of God for example. There is no way of evaluating that one person's God belief is more reliably true than another persons.
But I don’t see in this discussion the relevance of science. The point Dawkins was making is that religious people on the whole don’t evaluate the sort of God belief one has, they view having any God belief even if it contradicts their own as better than none at all. And so they are negatively judgmental and prejudiced against atheists. The point in that video brought up was that while a typical American Christian might think a Mormon’s beliefs are wrong, they would still view a Mormon as morally superior to an atheist and hence more worthy of voting for as President than an atheist. Religious people on the whole it seems are trained through their religious indoctrination to view faith in a God, as equivalent to good moral values and lack of any religious faith as having poor moral values.
Previously: With regards to Mormonism, Dawkins was addressing an audience who were probably atheist. It is likely the audience he addressed acknowledge all religions make claims which are transparently false. But one audience member brought up Mormonism, Dawkins didn't bring it up and Dawkins commented directly on it, that J. Smith was a transparent mountebank and the Book of Mormon obvious fiction. Like it or not, some claims are more obviously fake, more unrealistic, more absurd than other claims. Some charlatans are more obvious transparent frauds than others. And some people are better at evaluating claims than others. We don't live in a world in which all claims are equal in truth and all people are equal in moral character. But it is easier to objectively and fairly evaluate a claim and people's moral character when one can do so emotionally distant to them.
Coggins: Well, this is just pure bluster. From another point of view, Dawkin's claims regarding Mormonism are transparently false as well, as well as being rather obviously bereft of any serious intellectual background such that Dawkins should really even expect anyone but atheist true believers to be taking him seriously in any case.
I don’t expect you Coggins to appreciate just how ridiculous Mormon beliefs appear to someone looking at it with a fresh perspective. The first time I heard of it I was flabbergasted to think intelligent people in the same culture I live in actually believe the stuff. I don’t expect you to appreciate this. by the way, if it matters I also think many Christian religious beliefs are equivalently weird.
Coggins;
Coggins, atheism is NOT a belief system. Atheism is a word which denotes lack of god belief. In essence it's reactionary to theism. Without theism , the word atheism would not be necessary as a concept.
Coggins: I have no idea regarding Dawkin's morals or lack thereof. My primary point, at least, is that Dawkins doesn't have even a marginal understanding, if he really wants to approach criticism of religion in a philosophically serious way, of the relevant knowledge or areas of study necessary for him to do that kind of criticism. Nor, apparently, does he think he needs to have that kind of knowledge, nor does he, apparently, take those relevant subjects seriously. What is Dawkin's knowledge of comparative religion? of Myth and folklore? of the history of various religious movements? of textual criticism? of Anthropology?
Is Dawkins correct that religious individuals as a whole tend to view atheists as a whole as immoral, whereas anyone with a God belief by the mere fact of having a belief is equated with having morals? And that it doesn’t matter that a religious individual’s god beliefs may be at odds with another individual’s , they still equate “atheism” with immorality and religious god belief with morality? That was Dawkins point, and that’s the point I brought up of his which seems to be ignored by the religious in this thread. You’ve not addressed this point, all you keep focussing on is attacking Dawkins and you don't quote anything he says and address that, you just attack him. This is my first line in my post you are addressing which you omitted. I wrote: "It seems the religious folks in this thread want to shoot the messenger Dawkins rather than consider the message, which is understandable." And that is exactly what you are doing.
Coggins: Dawkin's Atheism is not primarily rational, though he would like us to think so. It is fundamentally psychological in nature: an animus and an attitude, not a rational formulation conceived due to any inevitable tendency of scientific data or knowledge. Dawkin's needs to believe that there is no God, and hence, to use modern parlance, he spins the implications of scientific knowledge to this end. But that's all he is doing.
First of all, find a quote of Dawkins’ which illustrates that Dawkins needs to believe there is no God. I think that’s a load of crap to assume any atheist not just Dawkins needs to believe any such thing. No atheist is against God, should one exist. It's the lack of evidence, which warrants lack of belief. Secondly you are attacking Dawkins’ atheism, instead of addressing the segment of that “Youtube video” . You are off on a tangent. I’m not interested in your ad hominem against Dawkins unless you are going to back it up with quotes and it’s relevant to the discussion.
Coggins: I say this because Dawkin's criticisms of religion and God in his recent book to not appear as serious, reflective, nuanced arguments but smarmy dismissals and petulant, impatient intellectual snobbery typical of the atheist and secular humanist project.
My husband bought his recent book. I personally haven’t read it, and it’s currently lost in the house somewhere. Please quote specifics to back up your criticisms. The fact of the matter Coggins is that there are many people in this world who either through lack of education, lack of intelligence, lack of good critical thinking, indoctrination from a young age believe in really weird unwarranted crazy stuff. All beliefs are not equal in reliability of being true. All people are not equal in their ability to evaluate claims. It’s wrong to think that whatever someone believes is necessarily okay. It’s horrifying to appreciate how gullible and easily manipulated and controlled people can be. In the wrong hands, that can be destructive.
previously:
Thee fact that religious beliefs vary widely is irrelevant in this negative prejudicial attitude common to many religious people, an attitude commonly expressed on this board as well.
Coggins: Many kinds of beliefs vary widely, especially those concerning the human condition. This includes scientific beliefs, which are always changing and being amended as new knowledge is discovered. bare facts, such as that any action produces an equal and opposite reaction, are not arguable and are empirically demonstrateble, but then, those kinds of facts have no bearing upon what kind of man, husband, father, and human being I am.
Regarding science, and I address this because I know that often religious people feel that attacking science somehow supports their religious beliefs, but it’s an evolving process over time developing models which explain natural phenomenom. The models evolve because of new insights and new tools. It’s not that old models are wrong, they were useful in explaining phenomena at the time, but better models which better fit the data or the circumstances evolved which improved upon previous models. And scientific models will continue to evolve. That's the beauty of science. Each model developed and accepted is a better fit of the data to explain phenomena. If they aren't better fits, there is no point in maintaining them.
But for religious claims there is no similar evaluation process to reach best fit explanations of God for example. There is no way of evaluating that one person's God belief is more reliably true than another persons.
But I don’t see in this discussion the relevance of science. The point Dawkins was making is that religious people on the whole don’t evaluate the sort of God belief one has, they view having any God belief even if it contradicts their own as better than none at all. And so they are negatively judgmental and prejudiced against atheists. The point in that video brought up was that while a typical American Christian might think a Mormon’s beliefs are wrong, they would still view a Mormon as morally superior to an atheist and hence more worthy of voting for as President than an atheist. Religious people on the whole it seems are trained through their religious indoctrination to view faith in a God, as equivalent to good moral values and lack of any religious faith as having poor moral values.
Previously: With regards to Mormonism, Dawkins was addressing an audience who were probably atheist. It is likely the audience he addressed acknowledge all religions make claims which are transparently false. But one audience member brought up Mormonism, Dawkins didn't bring it up and Dawkins commented directly on it, that J. Smith was a transparent mountebank and the Book of Mormon obvious fiction. Like it or not, some claims are more obviously fake, more unrealistic, more absurd than other claims. Some charlatans are more obvious transparent frauds than others. And some people are better at evaluating claims than others. We don't live in a world in which all claims are equal in truth and all people are equal in moral character. But it is easier to objectively and fairly evaluate a claim and people's moral character when one can do so emotionally distant to them.
Coggins: Well, this is just pure bluster. From another point of view, Dawkin's claims regarding Mormonism are transparently false as well, as well as being rather obviously bereft of any serious intellectual background such that Dawkins should really even expect anyone but atheist true believers to be taking him seriously in any case.
I don’t expect you Coggins to appreciate just how ridiculous Mormon beliefs appear to someone looking at it with a fresh perspective. The first time I heard of it I was flabbergasted to think intelligent people in the same culture I live in actually believe the stuff. I don’t expect you to appreciate this. by the way, if it matters I also think many Christian religious beliefs are equivalently weird.
Coggins;
Oh, and by the way, Atheism, from my perspective, is patently and transparently false, and a number of its most famous proponents have used it as a cover and a rationalization from which to promote other agendas.
Coggins, atheism is NOT a belief system. Atheism is a word which denotes lack of god belief. In essence it's reactionary to theism. Without theism , the word atheism would not be necessary as a concept.
Perhaps he and we should then not pontificate on cereology or the study of the social life of fairies. We aren't experts in that!
LOL!
How much practice did it take to be able to articulate an utter irrelevancy of this kind within the context of a serious discussion? Do they hand out degrees in this kind of thing somewhere?
In any case, if you want to study the social life of fairies, you can move to the Bay area and engage the primary sources. Beyond this, do you have anything substantive to add?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson