IQ and Religion
hypnosis.home.netcom.com
hypnosis.home.netcom.com
It seems obvious to me that long-time wealthy countries would have higher IQ scores (especially with the immigration boost - wealthiest countries can attract the smartest immigrants).
If this is all the case, the deeper question is why increasing wealth reduces religiosity.
(Edit: What's funny about this question is that you can answer it either way to fit theist or atheist narratives - e.g. "it's because people in wealthy countries become insulated to our true reliance-on-God nature" vs. "only poor people need to resort to fanciful beliefs to make themselves feel better".)
Because a big part of religion is coping with a painful, short, and often violent life.
All these attacks of religion from the point of view of science or intelligence fail to acknowledge the fact that it (religion) fulfils basic human psychological needs - such as the need for purpose and meaning, the need for structure and ritual, or the need for social cohesion - which science (rightly) does not give a shit about.
Science is not about those things, but those things are basic human needs (as abundantly demonstrated by the large populations of believers). So why oppose science to religion, when science is sure to lose on the sine-qua-non criteria of providing for those basic needs?
Instead, if one wants to "defeat" religion, something else should be opposed. Perhaps a better kind of religion, that fulfils these basic human psychological needs without all the superstition and the side-effects.
I completely agree. In fact, that's my point. But you can't fulfil those needs by ignoring them. They need to be addressed directly, not denied - which is what proponents of atheism as a replacement for religion seem to be attempting.
I don't even agree that science doesn't care about human psychological needs. In the same way some scientists care about curing diseases, others care about curing psychological problems.
They care, no doubt, but I have yet to see a convincing solution that fulfils those needs in a way that matches what religion (despite being, perhaps, false) achieves, or anywhere near. The closest thing, ironically, might be the whole singularity cult, which is largely derided by a large portion of the "science" camp.
Actually I think the church is basically just a company that caters to those needs, so what is necessary is starting another company.
That's exactly what I'm arguing :-)
Here's one of many starting points:
The link I provided is of particular interest in the area of moral theory. There is a good book called Evolutionary Dynamics that summarizes this group's work and contains, among other things, a rather beautiful equation predicting the optimal rate of forgiveness in cooperating populations.
Are you saying that purpose, social cohesion and rituals are not human needs? If so, I have 7 billion pieces of evidence against you - and that's just the live ones.
The point of my comment is that this need can be filled by something other than religion. But science ain't it.
There is no need.
I said that human beings requires those things, and that religion is effective at fulfilling those requirements. I explicitly made the point that something else could be fulfilling those needs better than religion can. However, I do not think that that thing is science - at least not in its current form.
Blind atheism is just as bad, if not worse, than organized theism.
The problems start when people think they know something and they really don't.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/placebo?s=t)
1. med control group See also placebo effect an inactive substance or other sham form of therapy administered to a patient usually to compare its effects with those of a real drug or treatment, but sometimes for the psychological benefit to the patient through his believing he is receiving treatment
Emphasis mine.
You seem to have an axe to grind on this subject, like some of the more hardcore atheists. The deep irony of that is that you believe with fervour and passion and faith that people who believe with fervour and passion and faith are stupid. Epic fail.
Develop a critical thinking habit, not a reflexive opposition habit. Your life will be better for it.
Fascinating how HN, of all places, is enraged by presenting some raw data.
If you question the data or methodology, just say so, improve on it. The article quotes its sources (which btw do seem to be somewhat controversial... unsurprisingly).
But if you just dislike the data, well, tough. Don't stone the author, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Na...
Seriously?
If that's not enough:
"This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade. The Pioneer Fund of America, champion of many dubious causes in the past, will obtain little credit from having assisted this one. The myriad corrections and estimates aside, this is a blast from another age, an old-fashioned attempt to give an imperial mindset biological validity."
If I understand correctly, the methedology consisted of graphing data taken from two seperate studies. While cross sectional studies are useful, ones like these really do nothing but inflame an already controversial and sensitive topic.
I think the real issue isn't religion, which seems to be by many 'the enemy' of science, but health and poverty. Countries with low 'iq levels', which I loathe to say, also seem to be countries that are poor, war torn or ex - colonies who have been economically and socially raped.
This is true junk science which I feel is only to the interest of people who are trying to push the growing notion that religion has no place in science, something I, as a Muslim, disagree with. My religion, naturally, is my source of bias.
This is only somewhat accidental, though. There is a long history of stealth or not-so-stealth repression of non-religious social and cultural phenomena in the US. Virtually any form of human cultural expression outside of religion tends to be classed as "deviant" or "counterculture" and at least discouraged. The mechanisms are occasionally overt, as with serious countercultures, but more often take subtile and complex forms involving combinations of social discouragement, media vilification, conformism, zoning regulations, anti-social urban development patterns, etc.
This isn't true across all of America. In the places where it isn't true (e.g. San Francisco, New York, etc.), the religiosity vs. X numbers look a lot more like other developed countries. In the "flyover country," fascist social conservatism represses all non-religious expression.