Something I Think We Already Knew

In the world we live in, it does take a lot of thought to be atheistic, but I think that's changing. As society gets more secular the amount of religious pressure may reduce. In consequence atheism may become habitual rather than conscious. It wouldn't surprise me if the average IQ of atheists dropped over time.

There's an argument too that in times of peace and prosperity liberality is more common than in times of threat. Perhaps liberalism gets dumber the fatter it gets and smarter the more oppressed it gets. Perhaps a reverse argument applies to theism and conservatism. Intelligent Design for instance, is quite craftily constructed. Perhaps even more scarily, a web-search recently threw up the web-site for an organisation called Storm Front -- an international neo-nazi White Pride association which superficially at least, looked like every other professionally-run forum -- i.e. not a bunch of ratbags.

As for monogamy and smarts, I think it's always been easy to be unfaithful to one's partner, but passive seductions now are far bigger and more frequent than ever before. Sex, sex brokerage and sexual fantasy are huge industries, and rapidly adapt to make whatevre use of communications technology they're permitted. I saw an advertisement from PlentyOfFish.com before I posted this article, for instance. So maybe monogamous guys are getting smarter over time.

In case anyone cares, here's the study in question, which is checking a evolutionary-psyhcological hypothesis with secondary data (which has all the problems associated with such studies, as definition mismatch between the data collection and interpretation, etc.).

So, Ruv, you seem to talk about individual smarts and experiential novelty (cf. the section entitled "Savanna-IQ interaction hypothesis"). The paper basically argues that monogamy for males (but not females) is an evolutionary novelty, and thus men need "general intelligence" to cope with it (which is also an evolutionary novelty: see "Evolution of General Intelligence"), while women don't. Monogamy is experientally familiar, that is it's the cultural default, but smarter people are better at it. Monogamy is an elitist boys club.

Since the study in question does not conduct any experiments itself, we're all free to interpret the numbers in our own way. But to do so, we should go to the source and look at the theories that went into data collection. If we're to evaluate this study, we should really do so, too.

I haven't even finished reading this study yet. I'm tired, not a psychologist, not familiar with evolutionary psychology at all, skeptical of the basic concept of "universals", and finally I'm skeptical of IQ test results and their applicability (as, for example, real-life situation provide different motivations to do well than IQ tests). So reading it properly is rather hard for me. Especially when I'm tired, as I'm now.

Ruv Draba said:

In the world we live in, it does take a lot of thought to be atheistic,
.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that you should think this is true.I was born into a Irish ,Catholic community living in England.Went to Catholic schools and Church every Sunday.By the time I was a teenager I believed religion a repressive nonsense.I don't think my attitude was uncommon.Religion and politics have always been hand in hand.In England, the royal family, members Parliament and the members of the house of lords , like to portray themselves as god fearing.The reality is, the Churches are empty , the Christian Church is in a terminal decline and the publics opinion of politics is at an all time low.I don't think I Q tests prove much and is possibly as bogus as religion.

I think with any test, you need to look at: who conducted the test, who were the studies conducted on, who funded the study...the list goes on and on.

For example, several years ago, when it was concluded we needed eight glasses of water a day, it turned out one of those "conclusive studies" was conducted by Arrowhead water.

That being said, since I'm an atheist and a liberal, if someone wants to deem me smarter, great. I'll take the compliment.

The water fallcy came mainly from a misinterpreation of phsyiological data (need for water, not substracting water in food). Often there really isn't a study under there at all.

Well, I'm a liberal, atheist, sexually-exclusive male. I'm also pretty damned smart. So I could have saved these guys a lot of time and money if they'd just evaluated me.

That said, I don't put much stock in these types of studies. Social scientists aren't really scientists at all, and they often have flawed cause-and-effect logic in their studies. And IQ tests have been shown for decades to contain cultural biases.

I remember a much bally-hooed study done at a hospital some years ago. The study evaluated remote prayer and its effects on the ill in hospitals. The study concluded that, yes, prayer DID make a difference and help the sick get better. Hallelujiah! The public and the media ate the story up (or should I say, swallowed it whole). Proof at last that God is real and loves you!

What was barely mentioned was that the hospital in question was a religious-based one. Furthermore, the study sample was fairly small. Furthermore, the sample tilted only slightly in favor of the desired result.

Furthermore...a similar study was conducted at another hospital a year or so later. With a larger sample. Guess what? That study found no correlation between remote prayer and wellness at all. And that study was largely ignored by the press, and completely ignored by the religious.

Back to the top...I wouldn't mind doing something about that "sexual exclusivity" thing...would that ruin the results?

stephenf said:

By the time I was a teenager I believed religion a repressive nonsense.

Click to expand...

Sure. I was atheistic by the time I was eight or so, but... in some ways, rejecting religion is the easy part. There still remains making sense of the world, setting one's moral values, working out what meaning (if any) we'll ascribe to our lives, working out how one will engage with the religious, their rites and beliefs, what one thinks about magic and the supernatural, how atheism will affect one's relationships and life aspirations (if at all).

A lot of those decisions are already pre-packaged for many religious people. We can choose to ignore those questions and just live by habit and impulse, but very few atheists I know actually do. Nearly every atheist I know is so by reason of conscience, and they tend to live by conscience too. An examined, individual conscience takes work and thought. There are influences, but no short-cuts.

The reality is, the Churches are empty

Click to expand...

In Australia, theism is in decline too, but theistic demographics are shifting as well. Theists are a majority and I don't believe they'll decline to nothing. What I think is happening (and will continue) is that people are becoming secularly theistic -- they believe in deities, but don't much get into institutional religion. And a growing number of people like the charismatic religions -- apparently for their vibe and fellowship. I expect non-theism to plateau as those who have been religious by habit or custom feel less obliged, while those who feel a strong emotional need for religion retain their beliefs.

Ruv Draba said:

... in some ways, rejecting religion is the easy part. There still remains making sense of the world,

Click to expand...

I don't doubt there are lots of people who think in the way you do. But I believe they are a minority , most people only think of the world in material terms and do not think in that way at all. Christianity will go the same way as other earlier beliefs and superstitions .People will simply not think about it.The growth in materialism is a unstoppable,global phenomenon and will change humanity in a way that is at the moment unpredictable. Let just hope the I Q thing is correct.

Non-theism is where I am, I think. I don't reject theism as a need for others, neither do I reject atheism as a need for others.

I am just a seeker, looking for my own path. I am now entering my sixty-fourth year of seeking. Wish me well on my travels. So far, it has been an interesting journey, not without thorns in my paws.

I have the Lion as my avatar on my writing sites because there is one single phrase that came out of the Bible which struck me deeply:

"Out of the strong, came forth sweetness."

Hmm, I'm a liberal sexually-exclusive male atheist with a high IQ.

That study didn't move me one way or another. It kind of made me want to take another IQ test though - I like doing them.

Whether my IQ has made me different, or being different has raised my IQ, I still think knowing such facts doesn't help you decide anything. It doesn't make my life any easier.

I think atheism is a hollow victory - it's like understanding Newton's law of gravity only to realise there's Einstein to consider. Or understanding Einstein only to realise there's quantum gravity to understand, which we don't yet. We've achieved something, but we can't rest easy.

Seaclusion said:

I found this article to be very complete on the subject and the conclusions of the study originators to be well reasoned.

Click to expand...

I had a link to a thread on the Dawkins website that debunked this "study". I don't know what I did with it but you can probably find the thread over there anyway.

I read somewhere that the London School of Economics and Political Science is heavily left wing and if that's true, the conductors of the study may possibly have been biased.

Even if I were a liberal, left wing, sexually exclusive atheist, I'd be reluctant to take any study of this nature seriously.