Religion
Related: About this forumIs religion an evolved domain or instinct?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/s-ira051717.phpThe Intelligence-Mismatch Association Model proposed by the two authors tries to explain why historical evidence and recent survey data in different countries and between various groupings supports the stance that intelligence seems to be negatively associated with being religious.
...
Dutton and van der Linden argue that religion should be regarded as a separate evolved domain or instinct, whereas intelligence allows people to rise above their instincts. Rising above instincts is advantageous because it helps people to solve problems.
...
"If religion is indeed an evolved domain -- an instinct -- then it will become heightened at times of stress, when people are inclined to act instinctively, and there is clear evidence for this," says Dutton. "It also means that intelligence allows us to able to pause and reason through the situation and the possible consequences of our actions."
rug
(82,333 posts)Wrapping the word "science" around it doesn't cut it.
Fix The Stupid
(948 posts)yeah...that's what I thought...
rug
(82,333 posts)Fix The Stupid
(948 posts)Yeah, that's what I thought.
rug
(82,333 posts)Tough shit if you don't like it.
I asked you what your views on a core catholic teaching was, specifically, exorcism...
And your retort is "about the same as I view your posts"
So...logically...
You think my posts are 'possessed by a demon'?
You think I need an 'exorcist'?
Why can't you just say it?
It is a deeply held religious belief - I can't mock you for thinking that way...
rug
(82,333 posts)Although exorcisms are less obnoxious.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Volstagg
(233 posts)I mean, you know that, right? A correlation doesn't mean that everyone in an entire population is that trait. Just means that there is a correlation between the two traits (or, in this instance, a negative correlation between two traits).
But, hey, I guess saying "oh, you are saying all believers are stupid" and then stomping off might make you feel better. So don't let me stop you.
rug
(82,333 posts)Since you have allegedly been here but four weeks, I'll assume you haven't seen the many posts that claim exactly that.
Here's a clue: trotsky's popcorn.
Volstagg
(233 posts)No, I haven't seen that since I've been here. I'll keep an eye out. This certainly isn't one of them, though.
I see you ignore the discussion about what statistics do and that, specifically, they don't do what you are saying they do.
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Volstagg
(233 posts)It's the abstract explaining the negative correlation with three possible explanations.
rug
(82,333 posts)You're slicing the baloney pretty thin.
Volstagg
(233 posts)not what someone here is saying. Seems like a headline writer went for something more sensational than the article. I'm as shocked as you are. Do you want to be held responsible for the headlines of the myriad articles you post about atheists? Should the person who posted the OP have changed the title? Because from what I've seen here, that is frowned on (admittedly, I've only really hung out in about 3 placed).
Secondly, the abstract of the study doesn't say that. It only discusses the negative correlation with possible explanations.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and he already has your number.
rug
(82,333 posts)Are you hiding behind cryptic statements again?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Like, really really?
rug
(82,333 posts)Volstagg
(233 posts)when the number is worn like a football jersey.
rug
(82,333 posts)Volstagg
(233 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)The predictability is palpable.
Volstagg
(233 posts)they are automatically labelled antitheist? Interesting.
I know a good number of incredible people that are antitheist, though, so it doesn't hurt as much as I think you hope it does.
rug
(82,333 posts)Those that do are indeed antitheists. If you go to the trouble to don a shirt, check the label.
Volstagg
(233 posts)Yes? If no, apply shirt test to yourself. I don't recall posting any antitheist memes.
rug
(82,333 posts)Although I do find that inference amusing..
Volstagg
(233 posts)Don't like something about religion = antitheist
Don't like something about atheism (though you post A LOT about it) = anti-atheist
I'm not making an inference. I'm just using your inference and applying it to you. You are free to change your inference at any time if you find it amusing.
rug
(82,333 posts)Atheism is far from antitheism, much as antitheists would like the cover.
Volstagg
(233 posts)Based on what I can see from your posting pattern on the first page (no desire to look further), one would think that applying your standards.
"Atheism is far from antitheism" is a non sequitar to that.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm not antiatheist. I'm anti-antitheists. I'm also anti-assholes. Particularly ignorant ones.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)No, not quite.
Perhaps.....illuminating?
No, not that either.
I know! How very convenient that an atheist decides that atheism is an indicator for intelligence. Whoever could have guessed the outcome?
Volstagg
(233 posts)and teaches the Anthropology of Religion. Are you seriously doubting his credentials?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that attempt to link intelligence with atheism. Intelligence levels vary among people.
I believe that Charles Murray also did some work attempting to correlate intelligence levels. Does he not also have a degree?
Volstagg
(233 posts)And those studies are only indicating a correlation--or in this case of this study a negative correlation.
But your indication that the study was flawed because they person is an atheist is 1. not true and 2. irrelevant. The correlation exists if the correlation exists. It doesn't indicate causality.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What are your specific disagreements with their methodology or analysis?
Volstagg
(233 posts)than it is even an understanding of the methodology or analysis. But I'm relatively new, so I could be wrong.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)You just don't like the results. Understood.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You might actually identify what about the article leads you believe the author is biased or otherwise dishonest, but that would take some, you know... effort.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Understood. Confirmation bias is a strong thing.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)If you suspect confirmation bias, the intellectually honest thing to do is demonstrate where in their method the authors gave into bias. I don't much care for the field of evolutionary psychology, for reasons I've enumerated here many times before, but I care for people making unsubstantiated character attacks even less. So, here's a link to the article. Put your money where your mouth is and tell us where they went wrong.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0101-0
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)more "Intelligent people are more likely to be atheists"... perhaps
Volstagg
(233 posts)It is just showing a negative correlation between intelligence and belief.