Religious people find it harder to understand the world – study

[trotsky]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/26/religious-people-find-it-harder-to-understand-the-world--study/

...Researchers from the University of Helsinki surveyed 258 people about their beliefs, and whether they thought "there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God."

Respondents were also asked to complete tasks including matching rotated images together, and solving mechanical and physics-based problems.

...

Researchers claim their results show that supernatural beliefs correlated with “low systemizing, poor intuitive physics skills, poor mechanical ability, poor mental rotation, low school grades in mathematics and physics, poor common knowledge about physical and biological phenomena, intuitive and analytical thinking styles, and in particular, with assigning mentality to non-mental phenomena.”

Study authors Marjaana Lindeman and Annika Svedholm-Häkkinen suggest that, when people don’t understand the physical world, they tend to apply human characteristics to the wider universe, “resulting in belief in demons, gods, and other supernatural phenomena”.

[rug]

1. Rather than link to a sensationalist right-wing rag, you coukld link to the study.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3248/full

Even though the full article is behind a paywall, the headline of the article and the abstract shows the Torygraph has the findings backward.

Does Poor Understanding of Physical World Predict Religious and Paranormal Beliefs?

Why would you do that, trotsky?

[guillaumeb]

15. Number One: have an agenda

Number Two: carefully look for and post what supports that agenda.

Number Three: claim a victory.

Just my hypothesis, formed by observation over time. Not yet a theory, and certainly not a law.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. The Telegraph is, of course, a generally pro-religion paper, being right wing

so using the Telegraph's report of this will, if anything, make religion look better than other reports.

Here's one from the day before - a British competitor to the Telegraph, but centrist, not right wing - with quotes from the authors:

Religious people understand the world less, study suggests

Religious people are more likely to have a poorer understanding of the world and are more likely to believe objects like rocks and paper have human qualities, scientists say.

Researchers at the University of Helsinki compared believers in God or the paranormal to people with autism after finding they tend to struggle to understand the realities of the world around us.
...
Marjaana Lindeman and Annika Svedholm-Häkkinen, who completed the study, said: “The more the participants believed in religious or other paranormal phenomena, the lower their intuitive physics skills, mechanical and mental rotation abilities, school grades in mathematics and physics, and knowledge about physical and biological phenomena were… and the more they regarded inanimate targets as mental phenomena”.
...
This confusion between mental and physical qualities “has (also) been recognised mainly among ancient people and small children”, they added.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-understand-world-less-study-shows-a7378896.html

Is that report more to your liking?

[guillaumeb]

42. And these conclusions, or tentative conclusions,

how are they weighted to account for different educational and socioeconomic levels?

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. The report is behind a firewall

so we have to go on what the media who have shelled out for access, or been sent a more comprehensive press release than the abstract, say. Which doesn't include weighting.

Do you still think using the Telegraph indicated an agenda of some sort? When I looked for alternative sources on Google News, the only one it offered me at first was Breitbart. So maybe using the Telegraph was the best attempt at getting some kind of reasonable reporting. It took more searching to find the earlier Independent article. Do you prefer its characterisations, like the comparison to how children think?

[guillaumeb]

50. I think that looking only at a selected portion of a report can lead to conclusions

that may not be supported by the actual full report.

So at this point any people looking at this article have no idea how long the article is, what references are included, the methodologies used, the number of people involved, and many other factors that might shed more light on what conclusion to reach.

As to media outlets and agendas, that is a tricky question. Breitbart and James O'Keefe, for example, are not sources that I would rely on.

Thoughts?

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. That's why the extra quotes from the authors are quite useful

Since they gave them to summarise it for the general public:

"The more the participants believed in religious or other paranormal phenomena, the lower their intuitive physics skills, mechanical and mental rotation abilities, school grades in mathematics and physics, and knowledge about physical and biological phenomena were… and the more they regarded inanimate targets as mental phenomena."
...
This confusion between mental and physical qualities “has (also) been recognised mainly among ancient people and small children”, they added.

[guillaumeb]

55. But this comment does not tell us if the two groups compared were of

similar educational and socioeconomic backgrounds.

While I was in school, I worked for the Information Systems department. The department head was a very smart mathematician who could not compose a readable declarative sentence. I wrote his IS releases and he helped me with my programming skills. (Or he helped lessen my programming deficit syndrome.)

So skill levels can be variable.

[procon]

2. Early man concocted superstitious tales to explain the natural phenomenon in their world.

Then, it was thunder and lightening was caused by battling sky gods who need to be appeased. Today, its gays that provoke some mystical god of the sea to whip up hurricanes. Ignorance has not improved too much in several millennia. So the question is: is religion causing it, or do ignorant people tend to gravitate to religion?

[rug]

3. This post goes a long way in undermining the premise and the purpose of the OP.

[saltpoint]

4. rug, the number of studies is legion which

suggest parallel constructions between religious attitudes and practices and the levels of effectiveness some religious people have with navigating through their lives.

Here's just one among very, very many, in this case from the International Journal of Social Psychiatry.

http://isp.sagepub.com/content/61/4/404.refs

- - -

Religious themes are commonly encountered in delusions and hallucinations associated with major mental disorders, and the form and content of presentation are significant in relation to both diagnosis and management.

- - - -

Note that the aims include, to quote exactly, "in relation to both diagnosis and management." There are some thousands of journals who publish such studies and in whose pages findings are debated.

Note also that many of the studies undertaken omit considerations of poverty and class privilege, which may also be determinants of behavior, treatment, and outcomes.

[rug]

5. That report is needed in another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218238589

It has little to do with this one, which is not about "delusions and hallucinations associated with major mental disorders" at all. That one asserts believers are mentally ill.

This OP (though not the study itself) simply asserts that persons with belief, due to belief, fumble and stumble their way through the world because . . . . religion.

[saltpoint]

6. The connection is overwhelmingly present

in case studies in patients with a high rate of religious content. The studies' aims are of course not the same, but the discussion around them informs both.

Which is a good result of any study, no matter the topic.

As to the specific assertion, the findings of (again) many studies would suggest significant concentricity. The debate about why this is so and its derivation in the human experience, remains wide open and highly charged. It's the 'It' topic in a lot of universities where the research arms in sociology and psychiatry are strong. It informs clinical practice on a daily basis.

We could easily spend a full year exploring materials already published and not have a prayer to keep up with the several more currently being undertaken. It's not a casual association, but a clinically dynamic one. And it's as important as it is prevalent. Trotsky is right to engage the topic.

[rug]

8. The only thing present is correlation not causation.

trotsky's attempted to establish causation many, many times, without success. This is simply the latest flamebait on the subject. This is not the board to promote flamebait.

[saltpoint]

11. I do not take serious intellect as

flame bait, rug, and trostsky represents serious intellect.

It's a big library. We can all roam around as we please.

[rug]

12. We clearly have different opinions as to what constitutes "serious intellect".

[saltpoint]

29. Cheap shot, rug. Address the points and

stop hectoring the messenger.

[cleanhippie]

34. But that's what he does!

[rug]

44. And this is what you do!

[rug]

43. That's your phrase. Pardon me if I think it's woefully inapt.

If the message is bullshit, I will gladly point it out.

[stone space]

21. LOL!

...and trostsky represents serious intellect.

[saltpoint]

28. Maybe stick to the points raised without

denigrating another poster.

Serious intellect is what I said and serious intellect is what I meant.

[stone space]

61. The point was raised by you.

Maybe stick to the points raised

I merely laughed at the point that you raised.

Is laughter not allowed?

[saltpoint]

64. Odd to say, laughter was not allowed in all

venues under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, as it was felt to blaspheme the Savior. As no reference occurred to Christ's laughter, mortals in their homes and villages were discouraged from laughing. The Church conceded that laughter was unique to humans, but insisted that it was unique as a sin.

At some point along the way, perhaps a given College of Cardinals said, 'Oh, what the hell, I guess they can laugh if they want.'

[stone space]

70. What does this have to do with laughter not being allowed at DU?

Odd to say, laughter was not allowed in all

venues under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, as it was felt to blaspheme the Savior. As no reference occurred to Christ's laughter, mortals in their homes and villages were discouraged from laughing. The Church conceded that laughter was unique to humans, but insisted that it was unique as a sin.

I'm atheist. I'm not bound by the rules of your church.

[saltpoint]

71. If you try really hard to connect the dots,

I'm wondering if maybe you could do it.

I don't care if you're an atheist or not. I'm not with the church in any capacity or level of belief. Thanks.

[stone space]

75. You're new here. I've been here long enough to actually know where some of the dots are.

If you try really hard to connect the dots,

I'm wondering if maybe you could do it.

Here...have a dot.

Is there a correlation between intelligence and religiosity?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218166305

And welcome to the Religion Forum!

[Brettongarcia]

9. Thanks Saltpoint! More is welcome!

We hit this topic hard about two or three years ago. But your update and improvement is very welcome

[saltpoint]

10. Hey Brettongarcia. I'm just one more flunkie

standing on the tall shoulders of those who've come before.

I thought trotsky's point was well-engaged and instinctually sound and that much more can be learned by seeing where he's pointing than by resisting his investigation.

Good to see you here on these screens, and by god I just love that Kennedy avatar. Kennedy's addresses to various audiences are so beautifully written and delivered that they are strong medicine for having to endure Trump's linguistic butchery for so long.

[rug]

13. The topic comes up more like every two or three months, with the same result - failure.

The notion that people with belief are more stupid, crazy, mentally impaired, fill-in-your-own-blank, is ludicrous on its face. Yet you still try to assert it. Why is that?

[Fix The Stupid]

19. Do you support the RCC's stance on exorcism?

Answer this simple question and then we will see if "people with belief are more stupid, crazy, mentally impaired, fill-in-your-own-blank,"...etc.

Thanks

[rug]

46. State what you think is the RCC's stance on exorcism.

Don't forget to state why it has any relevance to this thread.

Meanwhile, do you agree with this statement: "People with belief are more stupid, crazy, mentally impaired, fill-in-your-own-blank, than those without belief."

Then we will see exactly why you're here.

[Brettongarcia]

23. These are scientific findings

Published in prestigious journals. Many articles now note the correlation between religiosity and here, confusion. And just a short step from that, mental disorder. Many further hint, beyond correlation, at a causal connection.

It is extremely important to periodically hear about the latest updates to these scientific findings. It seems that psychiatry is at last, developing a cure for this mental disorder. A cure which is now being developed in clinical settings.

Many of us who have become concerned about the numerous victims of this syndrome, hope for a cure. And we are grateful for these updates in this exciting and increasingly fruitful field of investigation.

[rug]

47. If you're going to appeal to authority, the least you can do is cite five of them.

[saltpoint]

26. The folks conducting these studies are science-types.

Let's not throw in with the anti-science fundies here.

Science folks have given us a whole lot of good stuff over a long period.

[Brettongarcia]

38. Scientifically, it is interesting.

TO wonder whether 1) lack of knowledge of physical things, makes one believe in supernatural miracles. Or the other way around: 2) belief in the supernatural makes it less likely you will understand physical science.

I suspect than in the victims described in this study, these two tbings sometimes work together in a vicious circle, or feedback loop.

The less you know about physics, mechanics, the more supernatural things look. And then? Often, the more supernatural things seem, the harder it will be to ever learn common physical sense.

I suspect what makes victims confused, is a bit of both of these effects, in some kind of howling feedback loop.

[saltpoint]

40. Very good points. There is a history of

cultures having to re-think things based on scientific exploration. We may be on the cusp of another wave of revelations with the coming of technologies that can better tell us how the brain works. The computer may be the crude forerunner of this revolution.

We can now track hurricanes by satellite and we know what makes thunder sound. But I hope we never lose the notion of the indigenous peoples' thunderbird,' because it is a metaphor of great power. It is not true. But it is lyrical. Poets will never forgive us if we take this away from them.

Joan Didion says she could write about the weather all day if she wanted. But she is a lot better at it than she lets on. "Weather's easy," she says. Ha! I would love to have talent like heres where I could say 'weather's easy' to write about. Not in this lifetime.

Would love to see science proceed unfettered by limitations or fears. And would love to see the Republican Party stop running down men and women of the research centers and laboratories all over the world.

[rug]

48. It won't be the first, or last time, anyone has pounced on part of one legitimate study

to prop up a long-standing bias.

That's not science. And The Telegraph is the next to last source anyone should use to attempt a scientific point.

[saltpoint]

51. rug, you slammed that paper going in, but

when the discussion turned to thousands of publications, including science and research journals, you continued to ignore the points.

Most of us read across a broad spectrum and we likely all have our favorite sources for news. Trotsky's points are borne out in so many other publications that it subverts the argument to pretend points trotsky raised are invalid because you object to a conservative publication.

Research has demonstrated that there is concentricity among people struggling to navigate their way through the world and the level of religious delusion they harbor and express.

[rug]

53. No, I haven't.

Are you claiming to have thousands (although I'll take just three) of peer-reviewed articles concluding that religious believers find it harder to understand the world than nonbelievers because of belief ipso facto? That was, after all, the spurious point attempted in the OP.

(BTW, I'll slam the Torygraph with glee any time I can.)

[saltpoint]

54. I can see you're upset. Unfortunately,

you will have to jump through your own hoops on this one.

As indicated above, more than once, the studies are legion. Do your own homework. The studies predate this discussion. Some of them predate the current era. If you can't find them, any librarian in the world can assist you.

[rug]

56. You must have either extraordinary eyesight or quivering antennae.

Either way, I regret to tell you that you're wrong.

Don't worry. If I ever invoke "thousands" of scientific journals and papers to support my opinion, I will certainly give a link or two, or a hundred, or a thousand.

But as it is, I didn't. You did.

[saltpoint]

57. I cited one. You can read it if you wish.

You can also dig up all the others. You may be disinclined to, of course, because they support trotsky's point and not yours.

You could have a look at some case studies in psychiatry as well, as long as we're all in town. They very strongly support the concentricity point, a point you pointedly ignored.

[rug]

58. I will read it. Thank you.

I represented patients in state psychiatric institutions for five years. Not one psychiatrist, psychologist, assistant attorney general, or judge ever suggested they were committed due to religious belief.

The patients who were successful in regaining their freedom were responsive to medicine.

Science!

[saltpoint]

59. You might adhere to the points raised, rug.

In those five years you would certainly have encountered patients on the schizophrenia spectrum who indeed harbored religious delusions. You would have observed case studies describing patients as being "religiously pre-occupied," noted by the attending clinicians and treatment team members who do not -- as a matter of course -- diagnose on grounds of those traits, but nevertheless faithfully note that this is a demonstrable challenge to diagnosis and treatment. The concentricity is not a matter of personal opinion, but one of clinical evidence.

Not all patients in any documented series of case studies are responsive to medicine. Many are, but some are treatment-refractory, and this across all varieties of interventions.

[rug]

60. Here, read this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990520

Don't forget the five articles in the right column. Each is worth paying your way through the paywall.

Religious preoccupation is a symptom not a cause.

These are not difficult concepts.

[saltpoint]

62. You are mistaken to assume anyone

thinks they are causes. Do people who exhibit "religious pre-occupation" experience more difficulty navigating through the world than people who do not exhibit these traits?

That's the issue. You've ignored it from the very start of this thread. You're still ignoring it.

A symptom is a signal. It alerts a treatment team to the possibility of psychological imbalance. It is one of the imperative discussiona prior to diagnosis. You know this.

But you are downplaying this clinical truth because if it is true, then the points in trotsky's post have merit.

They do have merit and, as Williams reminds us all, there is dignity in the question itself.

[rug]

63. So, arguendo, what do you say is the cause of religious people being demonstrably more stupid?

You've already excluded religious belief. So, what is it?

[saltpoint]

65. More stupid? Did you just order that in

with the macaroni salad?

I didn't order either one.

[rug]

66. Ah, so you agree they're not. Now read the title of the OP.

[saltpoint]

67. I don't think we're agreeing on anything

at all here, rug.

I've already read the OP. You seem to like to bark orders at people.

[rug]

68. To coin a phrase, "I can see you're upset."

If we do not agree, then you do claim religious people are more stupid than nonreligious people.

But you will not say what the cause is if the cause is not religious belief.

[rug]

72. Ah, but I don't.

Those that claim religious people are, as seen in the OP, claim that.

It's just odd that they would, you know, demonstrate religious bigotry so brazenly.

[Brettongarcia]

81. Religion killed people who opposed it, for centuries

It still is killing opponents in rather large numbers, outside the US. In the meantime, even in the west, opponents of religion meet severe social pressure and anger, often. They may even occasionally meet angry armed, "second ammendment" fans.

Given the extremely high level of emotionality, anger, and violence from religious adherents, many potential critics of religion have been effectively bullied into remaining mostly silent about their thoughts. Even in academe, statements that directly contradict legions of angry believers, are often carefully avoided.

[rug]

82. States killed people who opposed it, for centuries.

Still are.

[Brettongarcia]

83. Both. But that still makes religion one of two major factors

By the way? Before religions simply execute those who oppose them, for heresy and blasphemy, they typically censor them. They make sure their statements are destroyed. So others cannot see them.

In history, there are hundreds of examples of religious censorship, including book burnings.

[rug]

84. If you're talking about censorship, read why the First Amendment was necessary.

Hint: it was not a bulwark against religious action. It's a protection against state action.

[Brettongarcia]

85. Both. Religion and state united in theocracies.

Including the kingdom of Judah, all the way through to the divine right of kings. To modern Muslim states.

Because these two together, made a particularly deadly combination (starting many wars and pogroms), they were separated, partitioned, in our American democracy. By what Jefferson called "an iron wall of separation between church and state."

In the 1600's especially, kings of european states were often committed to one religion or another. They often first censored and then killed religious dissenters.

That's why our Founders said what they did.

[stone space]

74. Are you referring to this OP?

Thanks Saltpoint! More is welcome!

We hit this topic hard about two or three years ago. But your update and improvement is very welcome

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218166305

Incidentally, I did reply to a post of yours there, regarding something that you wrote about smart countries vs stupid countries.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218166305#post99

[guillaumeb]

14. But if this study deals with:

Background: Religious themes are commonly encountered in delusions and hallucinations associated with major mental disorders, and the form and content of presentation are significant in relation to both diagnosis and management.

what may be shown is that some people with major mental disorders have delusions with religious themes. What it is not intended to show or prove is that:

belief in a religion causes mental disorders, or

that only religious people suffer from mental disorders.

[saltpoint]

27. A rare study might draw such a clinical conclusion

from collected data, but the aims of these studies are none of what you've listed.

Sort through a couple dozen of them and you will see in the abstracts alone the directions and aims of the teams of investigators and clinicians.

Again, the concentricity is the point, and that can be a focus of discussion when the prevalence of religious delusions occurs again and again, over extended periods, in multiple cultures or countries.

[guillaumeb]

32. And is the definition of religious delusions also specified by the authors?

Definition of terms is critical in reaching conclusions.

[saltpoint]

33. It is, but that is what any study can do. Again,

the aims are established. The team is assembled. In an intellectually free environment, their investigation is sanctioned.

In the best case, their findings are influential. At the very least, they can provoke intelligent discussion.

A reliable reference -- from intent and method -- is formed when intelligent people are doing important things, including asking difficult questions. I personally feel this is exactly what science and sociology might undertake to shed a little light on some of our global difficulties.

[trotsky]

7. This guy put it pretty well:

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
― Richard Dawkins

[guillaumeb]

16. Dawkins engages in classic straw man argumentation. And he does it well,

no doubt due to long practice.

And his silly statement is easily rebutted by the existence of many scientists who are also people of faith.

[guillaumeb]

18. Easily rebutted by the existence of many scientists who are people of faith.

Not a straw man, but a statement of fact that you are unable to refute. Dawkins uses a lot of straw when he talks about faith. He should probably stick to science in his public speaking and confine his hatred of faith to private conversation. It does not reflect well on him.

[trotsky]

20. Religion can teach people to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

Yet individual believers can still choose to learn and understand.

Perhaps you should learn what "rebut" means before you go lecturing Richard Dawkins.

[guillaumeb]

22. Now I agree with you. Why?

Because you inserted the word "can" as a modifier.

You might email that to Dawkins as a suggestion for him.

[trotsky]

24. No, Dawkins's quote still stands. Good try, though.

What I pointed out is that religion is able to, or will proceed, with teaching people that not understanding is OK - but individual believers will still be able to choose whether or not to accept that.

[guillaumeb]

30. Backtracking from what you said? Why?

What you said was far more reasonable than Dawkin's broad brush nonsense.

Any luck finding Christian scientists?

[Cartoonist]

35. Ken Hamm

God's scientist

[guillaumeb]

39. Georges LeMaitre

Everyone like pie.

[Brettongarcia]

25. Many studies show faith declines in physics departments,

And in the national academy of science, etc.. Another study finds about 3 extra IQ points among atheists.

These are interesting and potentially important studies.

If there are religious scientists, I suggest they have learned to partition, limit, or compartmentalize their beliefs. To keep them from interfering with their work. Since clearly Genesis conflicts with say, Physics, History, and Biology.

[guillaumeb]

31. "3 extra IQ points"? Really? Well that certainly shows something..............to you.

The average IQ is 100. So what real difference would 3 points make?

And you say "if there are religious scientists" as if the concept is not very probable when in fact there are many Christian scientists.

[Brettongarcia]

37. So how do scientists deal with conflict between science and religion?

Genesis says that with the help of God, a snake can talk; Biology says that never seems to happen.

So what do scientists do, to handle that? How do they keep religion from making them think and say that snakes talk. And from teaching that in biology classes?

What they do to keep from becoming confused, as some everyday people might, consists in many things. But basically they secretly or openly say that after all, they just don't really believe in parts of the Bible.

That's how they manage.

[guillaumeb]

41. I believe, and I have also read, that faith deals with the spiritual.

Science deals with the physical. I believe that the Bible provides rules for behavior, along with narratives about certain societies from the Bronze Age on.

And as to talking snakes and burning bushes and such, are you insisting that all believers must be literalists? If so that does make your task easier, but what of the non-literalists?

Google Georges Lemaitre and read how he reconciled faith and science. He states it better than I can.

[Brettongarcia]

77. Spirituality is how moderns gave up the Bible, 3/4

I don't blame them; taken literally it was indefensible, and absolutely in conflict with science and reality.

But? This modern move wasn't entirely honest. No doubt the Bible's miracles were originally written to be taken literally. But when the things in it were found to be largely false, sly folks like Origen and Marcion taught us to "twist" it all, as Peter complained, into spiritual metaphors.

Then science and religion indeed, separated, partitioned. Religion was given dominance over "spiritual" things. And science and government over physical.

As an iron wall of separation was established between say, church and state.

We should be grateful religion was shut out of much of life for most of us. Because it was clearly wrong on so many things. But the problem was, not everyone got the memo. Or who still couldn't get it to work right.

The victims we see in this study, were people who tried to hold on to the Bible's mischaracterizations of physical life. And didn't do much better with suddenly seeing spirits where physical things actually are.

[guillaumeb]

88. Are you familiar with the terms parable, and metaphor, and archetype?

Or are you insisting on a literalist interpretation to make your position easier to argue?

[Brettongarcia]

92. I wrote my PhD dissertation on some of these subjects

Essentially, Judaism and Christianity are called "historical religions." This means that they originally believed that what they wrote was literally, historically true.

The reevaluation of that assertion, the attempt to metaphoricalize or spiritualize all that, was a late development. Strongly resisted by the Church, in its opposition to say, spiritual Gnosticism and Marcionism.

As I noted earlier, spiritualization, or de-literalization, probably never really picked up steam, until developing science found literalism in its way. At that point, during the Protestant Reformation and thereafter, refusing to take the Bible literally, really caught on.

Even then, literalism has remained a very major element throughout Christianity, to this very day. And its obviously false promises continue to mislead and confuse many believers. And to do significant damage, in fact.

[guillaumeb]

95. Then being familiar with these terms, as I assumed you were, and not arguing the point that

literalism IS a major element in Christianity, can we agree that a percentage of Christians do recognize the concept of the Bible as a guideline for spiritual growth rather than a textbook?

As to historical religions, yes, the Bible was used as a history/science/behavioral guideline. And considering that we are talking about Bronze Age people, it is not too surprising that many concepts that we take as a given were completely foreign to them.

But beginning in the Middle Ages, scientists were exploring the natural world at the same time that they believed in the moral lessons of the Bible. Copernicus, Keppler, Galileo, and others were using the scientific method to explore their world. And yes, there were conservative elements in the Catholic Church that opposed this, but there were also elements in the Church that supported these efforts.

[Brettongarcia]

80. Rebutted by religious censorship?

What happened to Trotsky's statement? Looks like someone had religious objections to it. And simply had it deleted.

That's how religions historically dealt with objections. Not by discussion, as much as censoring, blacking out, information they didn't like. Soon it progressed to burning books that contradicted them. Then burning their authors.

Hey? Where is Mr. Blur these days? I hope he is well.

[guillaumeb]

89. Are you asking me why another poster self-deleted a statement?

Perhaps the Spanish Inquisition is still active.

[guillaumeb]

96. Thank you for clarifying.

I thought that the remarks were self-deleted.

Personally, while I do not agree with much of what Trotsky says, I welcome the presentation. It is unlikely that either of us will convert the other, but the dialogue should continue.

Also speaking personally, I have never exercised the alert feature in any of the fora that I frequent. I would much rather read the comments.

Thanks again for the clarification.

[Act_of_Reparation]

86. Not necessarily rebutted.

This is a case of statistics of small numbers. Academics make up an infinitesimally small portion of the overall population. They are outliers, and cannot be used to paint an accurate picture of the population at large.

Yes, there are brilliant scientists who are also religious. But there are literally billions of religious people who are not brilliant scientists.

For the record, I don't think the relationship between religiosity and scientific understanding is causal. Most people are religious. Most people have a poor understanding of science. It follows that most religious people would have a poor understanding of science.

[guillaumeb]

90. I would agree with your argument.

But what is revealed, in my view, is the agenda of those who would try to make causality out of such a study. If a poster, or posters, concentrate exclusively on presenting faith and believers in a negative way, one might consider motivation and agenda.

[Act_of_Reparation]

91. I don't know that they're saying the relationship is causal.

Granted, I haven't gone through and read every single response in this thread, but the general sentiment I've seen thus far is not that religion makes people scientifically illiterate, but that religion does little to inspire scientific curiosity in a relatively significant portion of its followers.

I might take issue with that conclusion as well. Very few atheists were raised in atheist households. Many arrived at atheism after years of intellectual struggle. In that regard, atheism is kind of self-selecting against the complacent; few people not willing or curious enough to put in that kind of effort will take up the mantle of atheism. Will children raised in atheist households display the same complacency of their religious counterparts? Hard to tell.

[guillaumeb]

94. An excellent answer. eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. Remember this is in Finland

where atheism is pretty common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe

In 2007-8, 69% answered 'no' to "Does religion occupy an important place in your life?". In 2010, only 33% said they believe in a God, though another 42% believe in "some sort of spirit of life force".

[The Wielding Truth]

76. I think that is an insightful point of view. Trust in God does let us coast.

[stone space]

45. Check out the last paragraph. LOL!

Psychology professor Richard Lynn told the Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

[struggle4progress]

73. Religious people are worse at math, researchers claim

October 25, 2016
4:50 PM PDT
by Chris Matyszczyk

... Who even asks such questions? ...

I'm not sure anyone understands the world very much at all. Humans are primitive beings with ideas far beyond their actual realities.

I struggle, indeed, with the notion that religious belief might be any sort of predictor of, say, math skills ...

Please see if you can tell the difference between the level of nonsense spouted by a supposedly religious politician and one who claims no faith ...

https://www.cnet.com/news/religious-people-are-worse-at-physics-claims-study/

[Brettongarcia]

78. It's easy to measure physical incapacity

Last edited Fri Oct 28, 2016, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Do they have a stone age technology? Do they have difficulty fixing their television set? Are they good at magical thinking, and bad at surgery?

By the way though? Math is in an odd niche here. In many ways it is extremely mental, and not tied at all to physical things, or empirical science. It's intelligent, but in odd ways, it is almost like spirituality. It's usually an interior mental meditation.

For that reason, out of disinterest in the physical world, now and then mathematicians are drawn to religion, spirituality. Though usually the rationality of math, and its application to physics, keeps them more allied with science.

[stone space]

87. Answers

Do they have a stone age technology?

Oh, hell, no! I have a flip-phone!

And I feel like a star trek character whenever I use my nifty futuristic flip-phone.

Do they have difficulty fixing their television set?

I can't imagine ever having difficulty fixing my TV, as that would require actually trying to take the damn thing apart!

Seriously??? You expect me to take it apart???!!!

Are they good at magical thinking

It's mathemagical.

and bad at surgery

I've never tried.

All I need is a volunteer, and I'll let you know how it turns out, ok?