 |
|
 |

 |
vexen | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Conclusion reads:
The historical battles between religious institutions and science, such as those in physics, astronomy and biology, indicate there is something wrong with the religious approach to the study of reality. The underlying problem extends to individual intelligence and education, and is not just limited to the actions of religious bodies. Hardly any of the several-hundred Nobel Prize winning scientists have been Christians. Only 3.3% of the Members of the Royal Society in the UK and 7% the National Academy of Sciences in the USA, believe in a personal God. The more senior and learnéd the scientist, the less likely they are to believe in God. This effect is not limited to scientists. The children of highly religious parents suffer diminished IQs - averaging 7 to 10 points lower compared to their non-religious counterparts in similar socio-economic groups. As you would expect from these results, multiple studies have also shown that IQ is opposed to the strength of religious belief. 39 studies since 1927 (out of 43) have found that the more educated a person is, and the higher one's intelligence, the less likely someone is to hold religious beliefs. Tags: anti-religion, astronomy, belief, biology, education, god, intelligence, iq, national academy of sciences, nobel prize, physics, religion, royal society, science, scientists, statistics, stupidity, theism Current Location: Germany Listening To: "Pushing Me Away" by Linkin Park
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
From: vexen |
Date: January 5th, 2007 09:13 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|  |
 |

 |
 |
|

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
From: vexen |
Date: March 15th, 2007 06:09 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: Religion and intelligence
|
That a gene is selected for doesn't make the underlying point of the gene correspond to any kind of reality; for example, the Peacock's ridiculous tail, and female breast size, both have genes that are selected for (just like proposed genes for religious behaviour), but this doesn't say anything about the truth of religious ideas, and about religious behaviour (that it has at times in history, led to increased rates of survival for children). And as you imply yourself, religion can easily be a by-product of other normal behaviours. It can itself be an abnormal. For a much fuller discussion of the psychological causes of religous beliefs and behaviour, see: "The Causes of Religion: Psychological and physiological causes of religious belief and behaviour" by Vexen Crabtree (2007). Finally, on your point about the scope of religion, please note that scientists can understand many phenomenon without immersing themselves in it. Weathermen can understand the weather and report about its causes and effects, without actually sitting in the rain or shouting into a microphone in a hurricane. We can study the internal metabolism of the stars, without actually being there, and the most important comparison is this famous one: It is perhaps better if you study drunken behaviour without actually being drunk yourself, and such is the truth of the scientific study of religion.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|

|  |
 |


 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: May 17th, 2007 06:05 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Differing Points of View
|
Biased view points have always been a hinderance in society. I, a professing Christian, am greatly disturbed by this site. I know and correspond with numerous intelligent people, scientists and others, who are devout followers of the Christian faith. Their I.Q. is nothing below average. I myself love science, and yet, I remain a Christian. I know the contradictions, I've read them and debated them. Science is based on observation. No theory is ever proven true, a scientist can only fail to reject it. You do not believe in God, I do. I respect your choice to not believe in God. Just remember, your theories aren't the only one out there.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|  |
 |


|
 |