But imagine 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, the kind of person it would take to be an atheist
The only atheists back then were simply, dead atheists.
2009-02-02 12:26:10
I should say, dependent on the genetic distribution of capacity for religious belief AND ALSO on the distribution of the bellcurve of IQ.
Perhaps they are covariants.
lol
2009-02-02 12:23:06
Divguy, I just state facts.
Also, I am a practicing Sufi, not an anti-pluralist atheist.
Stick your fingers in your ears and shout lalala I don't really care.
The facts are that there is a negative correlation between religious belief and IQ. Why are so many scientists atheists? Why do college students become atheists?
My hypoth is higher IQ self-selects atheism.
It is not deterministic, because higher IQ homo sap. can choose, like Francis Collins or Ken Miller or Stu Hamerhoff.
Or perhaps it is, she says mischieviously, and dependent on the genetic distribution of capacity for religious belief.
;)
2009-01-28 19:32:01
Larison is a fine writer.
But dont delude yourself, please.
He has enough substrate to choose.
2009-01-28 18:53:12
"Of course you would say that without any evidence to back your claim." Really....
2009-01-28 18:46:09
Dawkins objection is to supertionalism in general.
Of course, this useless.
Homosapiens sapiens is hardwired for superstitionalism, and for religious behavior, and the hardwiring was laid down in the EEA (environment of evolutionary advantage). Dawkins himself coined the term Culturally Stable Strategy (CSS) for evo theory of games.
He is actually far more respectful than I in believing that the vast majotity of hss is capable of understanding his arguments.
I think he is wasting his time.
Might as well try to explain the American presidential electoral process to a talking dog.....with lipstick lol.
;)
2009-01-28 18:33:34
"I’d say intelligence really plays no factor at all in faith."
Then you would be WRONG.
There is a negative correlation between religious belief and IQ.
2009-01-28 18:28:34
"Some of the most brilliant people I know are religious."
Yes but they chose faith.
I am not saying thinkers can't be believers..... Dr. Ken Miller and Dr. Francis Collins spring to mind. But the vast chunk of the middle of the IQ bellcurve don't have a choice....they are forced to be believers... they just dont meet the IQ gradient to understand evolutionary biology or evo theory of culture....or quantum mechanics for that matter.
That is why Dawkins arguments fail.
2009-01-28 17:59:57
I’m left with three possibilities when I consider the atheism of disrespect. Either people like Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, Bill Maher, and assorted don’t know that the way they are confronting these issues is disrespectful, in which case they are tone deaf to a frankly absurd degree; or they think that, tactically, the way to get the kind of change they say they want is to ridicule people into believing as they do, in which case they have a dramatically underdeveloped understanding of human psychology and sociology; or they are more interested in producing ridicule than in producing change.
I was in the fifth grade when I realized that other children just disn't learn as quickly as I did. It came in the form of a revelation that ripped open the top of my head with the fierce canopener of epiphany. So actually Sir Richards position is deeply respectful....he believes anyone can understand his elegant arguments agsinst superstionalism. The sad truth is most homosapiens sapiens simply do not have the substrate to "get" Dawkins.
The strong truth is that you need a certain IQ gradient to be able to choose faith. A capacity for superstitious (translation--religious) belief is hardwired, and so for most there is no choice. Faith is the only option.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Or closet atheists.
;)
But imagine 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, the kind of person it would take to be an atheist
The only atheists back then were simply, dead atheists.
I should say, dependent on the genetic distribution of capacity for religious belief AND ALSO on the distribution of the bellcurve of IQ.
Perhaps they are covariants.
lol
Divguy, I just state facts.
Also, I am a practicing Sufi, not an anti-pluralist atheist.
Stick your fingers in your ears and shout lalala I don't really care.
The facts are that there is a negative correlation between religious belief and IQ. Why are so many scientists atheists? Why do college students become atheists?
My hypoth is higher IQ self-selects atheism.
It is not deterministic, because higher IQ homo sap. can choose, like Francis Collins or Ken Miller or Stu Hamerhoff.
Or perhaps it is, she says mischieviously, and dependent on the genetic distribution of capacity for religious belief.
;)
Larison is a fine writer.
But dont delude yourself, please.
He has enough substrate to choose.
"Of course you would say that without any evidence to back your claim."
Really....
Dawkins objection is to supertionalism in general.
Of course, this useless.
Homosapiens sapiens is hardwired for superstitionalism, and for religious behavior, and the hardwiring was laid down in the EEA (environment of evolutionary advantage). Dawkins himself coined the term Culturally Stable Strategy (CSS) for evo theory of games.
He is actually far more respectful than I in believing that the vast majotity of hss is capable of understanding his arguments.
I think he is wasting his time.
Might as well try to explain the American presidential electoral process to a talking dog.....with lipstick lol.
;)
"I’d say intelligence really plays no factor at all in faith."
Then you would be WRONG.
There is a negative correlation between religious belief and IQ.
"Some of the most brilliant people I know are religious."
Yes but they chose faith.
I am not saying thinkers can't be believers..... Dr. Ken Miller and Dr. Francis Collins spring to mind. But the vast chunk of the middle of the IQ bellcurve don't have a choice....they are forced to be believers... they just dont meet the IQ gradient to understand evolutionary biology or evo theory of culture....or quantum mechanics for that matter.
That is why Dawkins arguments fail.
I was in the fifth grade when I realized that other children just disn't learn as quickly as I did. It came in the form of a revelation that ripped open the top of my head with the fierce canopener of epiphany. So actually Sir Richards position is deeply respectful....he believes anyone can understand his elegant arguments agsinst superstionalism. The sad truth is most homosapiens sapiens simply do not have the substrate to "get" Dawkins.
The strong truth is that you need a certain IQ gradient to be able to choose faith. A capacity for superstitious (translation--religious) belief is hardwired, and so for most there is no choice. Faith is the only option.