Faith or lack thereof = intellectual superiority?

[Zaia]

It seems to me that people who have faith of some kind look down on those who don't because, although faith itself isn't an intellectually-based thing, they feel like they've figured something out that those without religion have not. You know, that dialogue that most of us have had, the slightly smug, "Have you found Jesus yet? Oh, you haven't? Aww, poor you. I have, and I couldn't possibly be happier. I will pray for you to find your way back to the Lord." They appear to consider themselves more intelligent because they've been let into some kind of secret that agnostics, athiests and sometimes even people of other religions just don't understand.

It also seems to me that people without faith base their views on science and logic, which makes them feel smarter than the religious because they're using their brains instead of blindly, unquestioningly believing what they are told. They appear to consider themselves more intelligent than the faithful folks because instead of going along with some things they read in an old book, they've weighed the evidence and found religious theories wanting, and are self-sufficient enough to make things happen in their own lives without praying for help to someone or something.

Not saying that everyone's like that, just some. It's interesting to me, the differences and similarities between the two.

[Drooling Iguana]

Everyone thinks they're smarter than everyone else, which is really annoying for those of us who actually are.

[Darth Wong]

Of course both sides feel they are superior to the other. The problem for the faithful is that historically, science has accomplished vastly more for humanity than religion ever will. When it comes to helping mankind, all of the religious hymns, poems, devotionals, artworks, chapels, sermons, and treatises in history pale before something like electricity or running water.

[DPDarkPrimus]

When one can actually back up their claims with overwhelming evidence, and the opposition still refuses to conced, you know you are smarter.

[wolveraptor]

Not necessarily. You could be smart and refuse to utilize it. Some people have posted accounts of dudes who scored perfect on the SAT, but subscribed to ID. They just have...shall we say, a dumb spot when it comes to that (analogous to the blind spot).

[Zaia]

I guess it comes across as interesting to me because faith has to do with things like being open to suggestion and believing in that which you can't see, neither of which have anything to do with actual intelligence.

Or maybe I'm just mistaking general superiority for intellectual superiority.

[General Zod]

I guess it comes across as interesting to me because faith has to do with things like being open to suggestion and believing in that which you can't see, neither of which have anything to do with actual intelligence.

Or maybe I'm just mistaking general superiority for intellectual superiority.

one thing that i've found about people of faith when it comes to asking others to be open minded. any time you criticize their beliefs, they accuse you of not being open minded to possibilities that their line of thought might be correct. yet they don't seem to see the hypocracy inherent in that stance as they're not open minded to any form of criticism themselves. really baffling.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Not necessarily. You could be smart and refuse to utilize it. Some people have posted accounts of dudes who scored perfect on the SAT, but subscribed to ID. They just have...shall we say, a dumb spot when it comes to that (analogous to the blind spot).

Having higher test scores doesn't make you intellectually superior. Having a higher IQ than someone is irrelevent if they don't use those IQ points. Subscribing to Intelligent Design, despite what you have learned in formal education, means you are compromising your intellectual potential.

[spikenigma]

------------------------------------------------------------------
Spikenigma:

Dear All,

was just forwarded this by a friend. These studies were done over a huge range of time (38 years),with different participants AND CONDUCTED by CHRISTIAN'S THEMSELVES. VERY interesting reading (and easy to read)...

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

Now (I'll make myself clear from the outset - I don't personally give much credence to any study on intelligence - as in my view, it is indefinable). People have in the past used studies to explain why black people are inately more stupid than white people

eg. "let's go to a school in and test 50 black kids and white kids, completely disregarding all social factors that blacks as a whole have (ie. high percentage of parents are less educated and poorer than whites, demographic, institutionalised racism blah blah blah)" - "oh look, blacks are stupid and whites are smart, aren't we great! "

this was however disproven by many black children who are brought up in white middle class homes doing as well in school as their white counterparts...

Christians - however have no social/economic/educational factors to consider as they are the majority in society (and the world):

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I've quoted the conclusion.

Conclusion
The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.

This is the result even when the researchers are Christian conservatives themselves. One such researcher is George Gallup. Here are the results of a Fall 1995 Gallup poll:

make of it what you will...

[Gil Hamilton]

I guess it comes across as interesting to me because faith has to do with things like being open to suggestion and believing in that which you can't see, neither of which have anything to do with actual intelligence.

Or maybe I'm just mistaking general superiority for intellectual superiority.

Not to contradict you, Z, but faith is really exact opposite of being open to suggestions. The whole point of faith is to believe something is true no matter what, even without evidence. That's not flexible. That's kind of why science is alot better, because the whole point of the scientific method is that any theory can be proven wrong and if actual observed evidence contradicts a theory, then the theory loses and has to be modified to fit the evidence or discarded. That's why faith and the scientific method are precise opposites, because it boils down to when idea and observation don't agree; in the faith system the idea wins and in the scientific system the observation wins. I can't see how faith is more open to suggestion than science, in my opinion.

[Surlethe]

Faith is, in essence, based on logical fallacies. These short-circuit reasoning chains, and thus, in areas affected by faith, inhibit logical thought. So it doesn't matter how quickly you learn, or how quickly you are able to think: if you are unable to follow a thought to its logical conclusion, you will be inferior mentally to one who does not have faith.

However, the tradeoff here is with emotional security. If you belong to a "community of faith", then you have a built-in support group, whereas one who has no such mental baggage has no such automatic recourse.

Disclaimer: this is not to say atheists are emotionally or socially inferior, but rather have no tight-knit community they automatically belong to because of their beliefs (in my knowledge, at least. I may very well be wrong about this).

[Drunk Monkey]

Of course both sides feel they are superior to the other. The problem for the faithful is that historically, science has accomplished vastly more for humanity than religion ever will. When it comes to helping mankind, all of the religious hymns, poems, devotionals, artworks, chapels, sermons, and treatises in history pale before something like electricity or running water.

There are plenty of religous smart people out there but unfortinintly there mind's are so dam warped that they use there brains to try and find a non existant scientific plot to destroy the world

[Zero]

There are many with faith that are actually quite intelligent, as far as processing information and trying to utilize it goes, but they were indoctrinated before they ever had such an ability as reason, so anything that goes against a narrow faith that they follow is consciously disregaurded. Subconsciously, they have many doubts, but they never come forth because it would cause much instability and unhappiness.

One thing... a claim that believing everything your told is just as smart as questioning everything is BS. Nobody should believe everything they're told. Questioning what has been considered common knowledge has often led to advancements. Blind acceptance has not.

[RedImperator]

Faith is a blind spot on the intellect. An intelligent, faithful man will understand on an intellectual level that there's no reason to believe in God, but he'll disregard it for emotional reasons--and if he's honest, admit that he's doing so. I've met utterly brilliant people who happened to be faithful. Athiesm does not automatically equal superior intelligence, as anyone who's met a stupid athiest could tell you.

[Darth Wong]

This is like pointing out that there are some people out there who are good at math but still stupid overall (the "idiot savant" phenomenon is a good example of this). It doesn't change the fact that in general, someone who is good at math has a valid reason to feel superior to someone who isn't. Similarly, someone who is capable of listening to the universe rather than sticking his fingers in his ears and ignoring it has a valid reason to feel superior.

As for atheism, that is a subtle subject change from people who are logical and observational. Not every atheist is that way for the right reasons.

[wolveraptor]

I'd like to point out that though Heywood Jablome is better at *insert penis here* than Ray Pemyass, it doesn't mean he IS superior.

[Zaia]

I guess it comes across as interesting to me because faith has to do with things like being open to suggestion and believing in that which you can't see, neither of which have anything to do with actual intelligence.

Or maybe I'm just mistaking general superiority for intellectual superiority.

Not to contradict you, Z, but faith is really exact opposite of being open to suggestions.

I should have clarified. I meant that a person of faith is more open to ideas that a less religious person would find hard to grasp, like that a woman could become pregnant without any sperm, that a man could part a sea with his will and his hands, that a man can touch people and cure blindness--that kind of stuff.

[wolveraptor]

They're only open to it during the formative years, when what Mom-sister says goes. Once they've been indoctrinated, that's it. It isn't common to see deconversions. What I'm trying to say is, they aren't open to ideas once they've got a particular idea burned into their brain.

[Morilore]

Of course both sides feel they are superior to the other. The problem for the faithful is that historically, science has accomplished vastly more for humanity than religion ever will. When it comes to helping mankind, all of the religious hymns, poems, devotionals, artworks, chapels, sermons, and treatises in history pale before something like electricity or running water.

Mirror, mirror on the wall....

Of course both sides feel they are superior to the other. The problem for the faithless is that historically, religion has accomplished vastly more for God's glory than science ever will. When it comes to saving souls, all the electricity, running water, improved farming methods, medicine, sound architecture, hygiene, and waste disposal in history pale before something like a prayer or sermon.

Of course, this is where one points out that the existence of human life and the general desire for better living conditions is universal whereas belief in God and the afterlife is not. Still, the similarities can run deep.

[wolveraptor]

Well you can't argue something like priorities. All you can say is that the other guy is a bastard for putting an unproven God's Glory over the lives of other humans, but then again, to him it IS proven. How can you tell someone, "No Jesus didn't visit you in your dreams. That was just a dream, nothing more."?

[Guardsman Bass]

Of course both sides feel they are superior to the other. The problem for the faithful is that historically, science has accomplished vastly more for humanity than religion ever will. When it comes to helping mankind, all of the religious hymns, poems, devotionals, artworks, chapels, sermons, and treatises in history pale before something like electricity or running water.

Mirror, mirror on the wall....

Of course both sides feel they are superior to the other. The problem for the faithless is that historically, religion has accomplished vastly more for God's glory than science ever will. When it comes to saving souls, all the electricity, running water, improved farming methods, medicine, sound architecture, hygiene, and waste disposal in history pale before something like a prayer or sermon.

Of course, this is where one points out that the existence of human life and the general desire for better living conditions is universal whereas belief in God and the afterlife is not. Still, the similarities can run deep.

And your point is . . . .

Anyways, lack of belief or belief does not, in of itself, denote some form of intelligence; there are quite a few creationist doctors (including several at my former church that I know of) and other professionals, and even among scientists; it's the infamous "blind spot". Furthermore, I know several atheists(one of them just converted to Mormonism, because he was surrounded by Mormon friends and didn't have any rational reasons for his atheist position) who do not really have any justification for their belief.

[Darth Wong]

Of course both sides feel they are superior to the other. The problem for the faithful is that historically, science has accomplished vastly more for humanity than religion ever will. When it comes to helping mankind, all of the religious hymns, poems, devotionals, artworks, chapels, sermons, and treatises in history pale before something like electricity or running water.

Mirror, mirror on the wall....

Of course both sides feel they are superior to the other. The problem for the faithless is that historically, religion has accomplished vastly more for God's glory than science ever will. When it comes to saving souls, all the electricity, running water, improved farming methods, medicine, sound architecture, hygiene, and waste disposal in history pale before something like a prayer or sermon.

Of course, this is where one points out that the existence of human life and the general desire for better living conditions is universal whereas belief in God and the afterlife is not. Still, the similarities can run deep.

That's the dumbest fucking thing I've heard all day. I can live indefinitely without prayers or sermons; let's see how you well or how long you live without electricity, running water, improved farming methods, medicine, sound architecture, hygiene, and waste disposal, moron. Even the most religious person in our society happily takes advantage of all that technology and science have given us, yet an atheist needs nothing, absolutely nothing from religion. You can substitute words like a mindless parrot, but the logic does not substitute at all. And yes, I know you're trying to play devil's advocate, but you're doing so in an incredibly stupid way. Even the most rabid fundies I've ever met would not seriously consider giving up all of science and technology.

[Patrick Degan]

Question: does Mirror-Universe Mike sport a goatee?

[SirNitram]

Question: does Mirror-Universe Mike sport a goatee?

Yes. And Mirror-Universe Martin is clean shaven and never, ever says a bad word.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Question: does Mirror-Universe Mike sport a goatee?

Yes. And he refuses to do anal.