The atheist mindset

Hotblack Desiato

If nothing else it explains all the Assumptas born in the 50s and, in exponentially diminishing numbers, later decades.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Since 1950, though, catholics are required to believe that she physically flew up into the sky and somehow disappeared into heaven thataway.

No, they're not.

Samaris

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, they're not.

Well, they are actually. It's a Holy Day of Obligation in the Catholic Church, and it was indeed taken as doctrine on November 1st 1950. The idea of it is the "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" and it was asserted as dogma by Pius XII claiming papal infalliability over it in the Munificentissimus Deus apostolic constitution. The general feel of it is that she was assumed into heaven wholesale, but whether or not she did have a physical death isn't specifically covered.

I can't find anything wrong with the sentence you just categorically denied, bar perhaps a minor quibble with the word "flying".

Peregrinus

I'm not sure that the omission of any reference to flying is a minor quibble.

I'd also point out that the word "physical" is missing, as is the word "sky". It's simply not true to say that Catholics are required to believe that the Virgin "physically flew up into the sky". Every element of the claim is pure invention.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'd also point out that the word "physical" is missing, as is the word "sky". It's simply not true to say that Catholics are required to believe that the Virgin "physically flew up into the sky". Every element of the claim is pure invention.

Not sure which claim you're referring to - the religious one which clearly is invention, or mine, where I'm simply reporting what the religious claim is

Anyhow, you can read the full dogma here - with plenty of references to "bodily assumption":

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

Please note that it was considered important, following her death, for the body of Mary to remain pure - and for much the same reason that she remained a virgin while alive - namely, that decomposition was associated with impurity in much the same way that sex was associated with impurity. The virgin Mary avoided both - sex, death and decomposition. The Vatican document lists a few more reasons why the transfer had to be physical - not the least of which was to confirm that this is possible in the first place, thereby tying in with the religious promise to "raise everybody up on the last day" - if god couldn't do that to his own mum, what hope could there be that he could do it for everybody else? So that's the reason why she was moved physically.

As to the "flying" bit, well, Tizian's painting represents the physical understanding of the assumption well enough - that is, the physical transportation of a physical body away from the earthly domain of corruption, decomposition and hell and upwards into the radiant purity of a heaven beyond the clouds.

The usual word for physically transporting something through the air is "flying", so I trust that I'll be forgiven for using it - though I fully accept that by stating this religious belief in the simplest vernacular, the belief is shown to be the very silly thing which it actually is

Peregrinus

I'm sceptical that there's an "atheist mindset", as hypothesized in this thread. But, if there is, it's evidently a strong temptation to biblical literalism, and indeed to a similar literalism when reading any text dealing with religion, and even when looking at religious art.

Catholics aren't required to believe, Robin, that the paintings of Titian are a photographic representation of Christian teachings. Nor are they required to believe that "bodily assumption" can only mean "physical flight". Or that heaven has a physical location, which is upwards from here.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Catholics aren't required to believe, Robin, that the paintings of Titian are a photographic representation of Christian teachings. Nor are they required to believe that "bodily assumption" can only mean "physical flight". Or that heaven has a physical location, which is upwards from here.

I've described the reason for the religious requirement that Mary is held pure and how that can work out in practice via one specific way which has been promulgated via dogmatic pronouncement and art.

I do accept, of course, that almost no catholics believe this nonsense, but that's a problem for the Vatican, not for me.

As for it being a requirement, well, the Vatican believes it's a requirement:

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS wrote:

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

[...]

47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Peregrinus

It doesn't appear to be a problem for the Vatican. But is it a problem for you that it's not a problem for the Vatican?

RichieO

We laugh and learn from many ancient beliefs, not just the deity aspect but what was accepted as factual in many areas, they did not have the means to prove or disprove anything, that is not quite the case now. For the most part polytheism preceded monotheism, with a few exceptions... What is difficult to understand is why so many could drop the notion of a large family of gods for just the one, why is it such a great leap from one to none? Could it be that grasping at straws is so much easier than letting go completely, or just the Pascal’s wager effect? Or even the family attraction, Jesus, Joseph and Mary, mother, father, sister, brother, all theist and family titles…

kelly1

Lol atheists, fighting over Catholic doctrine! Like bald men fighting over a comb.

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

Lol atheists, fighting over Catholic doctrine! Like bald men fighting over a comb.

(Clarification: I'm not an atheist. I'm a Catholic.)

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

It doesn't appear to be a problem for the Vatican.

Perhaps you didn't read the Vatican's prose? It says that catholics are supposed to believe this but I'm fairly sure that most probably don't. That, as I said, should be a problem for the Vatican though you're correct to point out that the Vatican doesn't seem to care all that much, if it cares about it at all.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But is it a problem for you that it's not a problem for the Vatican?

Not in the slightest. As above, I find the whole thing very silly indeed.

kelly1 wrote: »

Lol atheists, fighting over Catholic doctrine! Like bald men fighting over a comb.

Fighting? More like pointing and laughing! Well, Kelly, what do you believe about the Assumption of Mary? Is your belief compliant with the 1950 declaration?

Come on now, get with the discussion

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps you didn't read the Vatican's prose? It says that catholics are supposed to believe this . . .

But they don't have to believe your interpretation of it, Robin, is my point. You may choose to believe that when the Vatican text says "bodily assumption" that must be understood to mean "physical flight", but if Catholics don't believe that and the Vatican doesn't think that Catholics have to believe that, the only person who could possibly be bothered by this state of affairs is you.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may choose to believe that when the Vatican text says "bodily assumption" that must be understood to mean "physical flight", but if Catholics don't believe that and the Vatican doesn't think that Catholics have to believe that, the only person who could possibly be bothered by this state of affairs is you.

As I've pointed out to you time and again, I'm not bothered about this, so I'm unclear as to why you're continually telling me that I am

I am pointing out that the papal dogma is quite specific in claiming physical movement - and I've pointed out why this dogma fits in well with the historical and religious background to the dogma. You're free, of course, to disagree and say what, in your opinion, the text might mean instead and for extra marks - point out the historical and religious background which supports this different interpretation.

Over to you!

smacl

Samaris wrote: »

With Tarot cards, I tend to find that the interpretations are so broad that one can find a connection to one's own circumstances pretty easily with them.

Mostly my experience too. You get the combination of the card which lends meaning, its position (e.g. your house, the hopes & fears, etc..) which lends context, and what the person reading consciously and/or subconsciously thinks of the person being read all leading to some surprising results. Great fun, but unusual results can freak people out, e.g. reading for a friend's mother once for herself she drew the hanged man, for her house the tower, and for the future death. Very little wriggle room to explain it wasn't really that bad, and while nothing happened as a result she never had much time for me after that.

RichieO

You would have to be desperately delusional to pay for any kind of psychic based statements, yet it is still big business, some people are happy to be conned, just to feel a bit better... I can prove this, just cross my palm with your silver, or gold...

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

As I've pointed out to you time and again, I'm not bothered about this, so I'm unclear as to why you're continually telling me that I am [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Ultan/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png[/IMG]

I am pointing out that the papal dogma is quite specific in claiming physical movement - and I've pointed out why this dogma fits in well with the historical and religious background to the dogma. You're free, of course, to disagree and say what, in your opinion, the text might mean instead and for extra marks - point out the historical and religious background which supports this different interpretation.

Over to you!

Well, since you ask . . .

You’ve dropped your claim about “flight” and substituted one about “movement”; you say that “the papal dogma is quite specific in claiming physical movement”. But, yet again, I search in vain for that in the document; plenty of references to movement but it’s always in the analogical sense – move by affection, moved the minds of the faithful, moved by desire, but no actual bodies were moved in the making of this Apostolic Constitution. So maybe the claim about physical movement is not quite as specific as you think.

I don’t doubt the sincerity of your reading, and I also don’t doubt the sincerity of your conviction that this is the only authentic way to read the document, but you have to realise that this is coming from you, not from the document. While there is a tradition in Christian writing, and even more so in Christian art, which presents the Assumption as a physical uplifting of the (remarkably youthful-looking) virgin, the uplifting there is just as much symbolic iconography or analogical language as the youthful aspect. There’s also an artistic tradition in which the Virgin is depicted as an old lady on her deathbed and a separate figure of an infant above the scene signifies the assumption. And there’s a literary tradition in which the assumption unfolds as follows; the Virgin died and was laid in a stone tomb, and when the tomb was later opened there was no body. But nor was there any movement; the body was taken to have been translated to another place or state by some metaphysical process.

The 1850 decree was deliberately written to accommodate all these traditions and more besides; what it insists upon is the metaphysical reality of the bodily Assumption. This is, after all, the expression of a religion which see the metaphysical as every bit as real as the physical. But, as to how that metaphysical reality unfolded or would have been perceived by a hypothetical observer, you’re free to imagine that as you like. That’s left as an exercise for the reader.

Your particular reading both of the decree and of the artistic tradition exemplified by Titian obviously owes much to a literalistic approach. But that’s one that you’ve chosen and, if you’re not conscious of having chosen it, well, maybe that is because mindset. If you’re a philosophical materialist, you’ll default to thinking that every text which claims to describe a reality must first and foremost be claiming to describe a material reality. But the literalistic reading is a choice; the document doesn’t dictate it.

Peregrinus

RichieO wrote: »

We laugh and learn from many ancient beliefs, not just the deity aspect but what was accepted as factual in many areas, they did not have the means to prove or disprove anything, that is not quite the case now. For the most part polytheism preceded monotheism, with a few exceptions... What is difficult to understand is why so many could drop the notion of a large family of gods for just the one, why is it such a great leap from one to none? Could it be that grasping at straws is so much easier than letting go completely, or just the Pascal’s wager effect? Or even the family attraction, Jesus, Joseph and Mary, mother, father, sister, brother, all theist and family titles…

Or it could be that the leap from one to none is fundamentally different, and much more radical, than the leap from many to few. After all, we moved from thinking that the most fundamental, indivisible chunks of substance were atoms, and there were scores of different kinds of atoms, to thinking that the atoms are all made up of relatively few different subatomic particles. But to move from that to thinking that there aren't any fundamental indivisible chunks of reality at all would not be entirely different.

oldrnwisr

Samaris wrote: »

oldrnwiser, you seem to be able to quote the bible pretty thoroughly! Isn't there mentions of superstition in the Bible, probably mostly talking about other religions and how one should reject them as evil ideologies, etc. Could that make for a division for Christian theists between their religion and the sorts of superstitions we're talking about? I don't entirely include "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (not least as it may well be a mistranslation), but witches tended to be seen as followers of Lucifer so they kinda get a pass as being included in the whole outlook.

I know they are all much the same manifestations of the same types of thing (the supernatural), but religion is very good at dealing with that sort of cognitive dissonance.

Well, there's no explicit mention of superstition in that the label itself is not used in the Bible. The Bible does however describe certain traditions, mostly in the form of a prohibition against them. A good example of this is found in Jeremiah 10:

"Thus says the Lord,“Do not learn the way of the nations,
And do not be terrified by the signs of the heavens
Although the nations are terrified by them;
For the customs of the peoples are delusion;
Because it is wood cut from the forest,
The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool.
“They decorate it with silver and with gold;
They fasten it with nails and with hammers
So that it will not totter.


Now some people (and I used to be one of them) have taken this as a prohibition on Christmas trees but it isn't since, mainly, it was written before there ever was a Christmas. In general traditions like this, outside of Jewish law and custom were seen as idolatry in line with no less than three commandments in Exodus 20:


" “You shall have no other gods before Me."


“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

"You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves."

As for the other things listed in the OP most of them carry explicit prohibitions throughout the books of Jewish law.


However, even in terms of the notion of luck or some vague cosmic force this is an idea which runs counter to the Bible. A lot of superstitions come down to luck or the belief that doing or not doing something will have some far reaching consequence (e.g. breaking a mirror). This, however, is contrary to the notion of predestination in the Bible. This is mentioned in both the OT and NT in passages like these:


"to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."
Acts 4:28

"with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth."
Ephesians 1:10

"Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets."

Amos 3:7


Believing in luck or free-will (if you're a Christian) means that it's possible to choose something that is outside God's plan which is contradicted by the Bible.

RichieO

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or it could be that the leap from one to none is fundamentally different, and much more radical, than the leap from many to few. After all, we moved from thinking that the most fundamental, indivisible chunks of substance were atoms, and there were scores of different kinds of atoms, to thinking that the atoms are all made up of relatively few different subatomic particles. But to move from that to thinking that there aren't any fundamental indivisible chunks of reality at all would not be entirely different.

I think they are still finding more little chunks of whatever, but that's science..

After a little more thought there is also the possibility the mind has a big problem accepting no afterlife, nothing, no existence just the state we had before conception? Not something to look forward to, but no fear of death or hell...

Peregrinus

RichieO wrote: »

I think they are still finding more little chunks of whatever, but that's science..

After a little more thought there is also the possibility the mind has a big problem accepting no afterlife, nothing, no existence just the state we had before conception? Not something to look forward to, but no fear of death or hell...

Sure, the mind may well have a big problem accepting that There's Nothing There, because of existential fears. But it's obviously not impossible to accept that There's Nothing There, because lots of people do accept it.

I'm a bit impatient with the trope that says atheism is the outcome of a brave, fearless, facing up to reality, whereas theism is the the work of craven cowardice driven by existential insecurity. It's just a a bit too smug and self-congratulatory to be convincing and, far from presenting atheists as the fearless realists, rather suggests the opposite.

And the trope that says "if you can move from many gods to one god, what stops you taking the extra step from one god to no gods?" just reinforces the perception of smugness and superficiality. If somebody can't see that the step from Something to Nothing is radically different from the step from X number of Things to Y number of Things, he obviously hasn't given the matter a lot of thought.

splashuum

Do religious people have lower IQ in comparison to atheists?
Many independent studies seem to suggest this.

Optimalprimerib

I don't believe in god, but I don't believe that science is the answer to everything either. There is a lot out there that science cannot prove yet.

People who do believe in the supernatural and mystic ways have a much more open mind than atheists and in certain ways show a higher level of intelligence and maturity, rather than the blinkered vision atheists tend to have.

Peregrinus

splashuum wrote: »

Do religious people have lower IQ in comparison to atheists?
Many independent studies seem to suggest this.

Short answer: Yes.

Slightly longer answer: Yes, but this depends to some extent on whether, by "religious people", you mean those who profess religious beliefs or those who engage in religious practices. (The two groups are not the same.) There's also some evidence that the correlation varies as between different denominations.

Still longer answer: There's a Wikipedia article on the subject that you can read if so inclined.

This is a hoary old chestnut, and it's probably best if the thread doesn't get diverted too far into it. To cut to the chase, the discussion usually proceeds as follows: There are similar correlations between IQ and race, IQ and nationality. There are also correlations (though different correlations) between IQ and gender. What do these correlations mean? This lead to a discussion of what IQ means? Does it measure anything more significant than the ability to perform well in IQ tests? If so, what?

If there's a relevance in all that to this thread, it may be here: There's some suggestion that particular patterns of thinking are linked to IQ - i.e. people who think analytically score better in IQ tests than people who think intuitively. And it's also suggested that a higher propensity for atheism is linked to analytical thinking. Hence, both the atheism and the IQ score may be the outcome of a particular mindset.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

If there's a relevance in all that to this thread, it may be here: There's some suggestion that particular patterns of thinking are linked to IQ - i.e. people who think analytically score better in IQ tests than people who think intuitively. And it's also suggested that a higher propensity for atheism is linked to analytical thinking. Hence, both the atheism and the IQ score may be the outcome of a particular mindset.

I'd also question the limitations of IQ as a statistic when applied to individuals. Across a bank of tests you can arrive at a given figure via a similar result across all tests or by very high results in some tests and very low in others. Thus two people with the same result might be similarly intelligent but they might also be differently intelligent. IMHO, IQ and Gi try to conflate far too much information into a single figure and as a result lose value. Correlations drawn between IQ and other statistics have proven divisive in the past and need to be closely inspected for confounding factors. (e.g. level of education, wealth etc..)

Peregrinus

Sure. I agree with all that. But the question raised by splashuum was "do religious people have lower IQ in comparison to atheists?", and the answer, at the risk of oversimplifying is "yes". We can then ask some quite separate questions, such as "Does this matter?"; "Should we care?"; "Does this tell us anything of significance?"; to which the answer, again at the risk of oversimplifying, may be "no". But in the context of this thread, the interesting question is "Does the atheists relatively high IQ point to the possibility of an 'atheist mindset'?". And the answer to that is "Um, maybe, yes. It might.".

RichieO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
If there's a relevance in all that to this thread, it may be here: There's some suggestion that particular patterns of thinking are linked to IQ - i.e. people who think analytically score better in IQ tests than people who think intuitively. And it's also suggested that a higher propensity for atheism is linked to analytical thinking. Hence, both the atheism and the IQ score may be the outcome of a particular mindset.
I'd also question the limitations of IQ as a statistic when applied to individuals. Across a bank of tests you can arrive at a given figure via a similar result across all tests or by very high results in some tests and very low in others. Thus two people with the same result might be similarly intelligent but they might also be differently intelligent. IMHO, IQ and Gi try to conflate far too much information into a single figure and as a result lose value. Correlations drawn between IQ and other statistics have proven divisive in the past and need to be closely inspected for confounding factors. (e.g. level of education, wealth etc..)
smacl is online now Report Post

If you add to this the fact that women tend to be very intuitive and more religious than men, then it appears to have more merit than that other explanations, basic thinking pattens will lead to different conclusions, before adding in all the variables... Moi brane urts...!!!

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

But in the context of this thread, the interesting question is "Does the atheists relatively high IQ point to the possibility of an 'atheist mindset'?". And the answer to that is "Um, maybe, yes. It might.".

That presumes there is such a thing as an 'atheist mindset' which remains to be seen. The fact that religiosity apparently correlates with lower IQ doesn't to my mind show this. Even putting aside socioeconomic factors, if you took two groups of children and gave the first group X hours of religious instruction and the second group X hours of instruction in languages, logical reasoning and spatial awareness, I would imagine the second group would do better in IQ tests than the first group. Put another way, IQ tests primarily test how good you are at IQ tests, religious instruction isn't going to help this but other types of education are. This doesn't imply the existence an atheist mindset, it means time spent on religious instruction doesn't benefit the type of education that leads to improved results in an IQ test. FWIW, the same could be said of many other subjects such as art, where one of the big criticisms of IQ is that it doesn't test for creativity, yet creative thinking is generally considered to be a sign of intelligence.

RichieO

Words are labels for concepts, mindset may not be the best word for the concept, as many atheists are open minded and not set firmly in any area beyond that of not having a belief in a deity... If anyone had a better label I appreciate it...

beefburrito

There's all different personalities one person might like to be called an Atheist and be quite militant about it.

Then the Atheist who's described as militant will interpret that as they're being compared to a soldier, while the person who's saying militant Atheist means being a strident Atheist.
Then the Atheist being described as strident thinks their whole persona is described as strident....

Then there's a poo storm and it gets personal....

Then you have a person who says they don't believe in God but wouldn't describe themselves as an Atheist,then the strident Atheist says well then you're an agnostic Atheist.....

And the beat goes on......

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

That presumes there is such a thing as an 'atheist mindset' which remains to be seen. The fact that religiosity apparently correlates with lower IQ doesn't to my mind show this.

Oh, sure. What I’m offering here is purely speculative. If there is an atheist mindset, that might be connected in some way with a correlation between analytical thinking and atheism. That is to say, a tendency to analytical thinking might be a feature of this hypothetical atheist mindset.

smacl wrote: »

Even putting aside socioeconomic factors, if you took two groups of children and gave the first group X hours of religious instruction and the second group X hours of instruction in languages, logical reasoning and spatial awareness, I would imagine the second group would do better in IQ tests than the first group. Put another way, IQ tests primarily test how good you are at IQ tests, religious instruction isn't going to help this but other types of education are.

You might imagine that, but your imagination is not evidence, so this is equally speculative.

For myself, I’m sceptical of what you say here. In the first place, religious education will encompass philosophy, ethics, reading of texts, social studies, history; it’s perfectly possible to teach these in ways which foster analytical thinking. Conversely it’s perfectly possible to teach maths, science, etc in ways which don’t; rote learning, for example.

In the second place, much of the evidence linking IQ and religiosity comes from the US, where of course most religious people have been to public school and have had a secular education. So, whatever else is at work here, a history of spending too much classroom time on religious studies is probably not at work.

(And it occurs to me, of course, that the converse is true in Ireland. Most Irish atheists have in fact had a religious education, so if your speculations are accurate, we’d expect them not to share in the IQ outperformance that characterises their fellows in other countries. Present company excepted, of course. )

smacl wrote: »

FWIW, the same could be said of many other subjects such as art, where one of the big criticisms of IQ is that it doesn't test for creativity, yet creative thinking is generally considered to be a sign of intelligence.

Yup. In fact I think your speculation has implications which go beyond just art. Many European countries have education systems in which, at a much earlier age than is common in either Ireland or the US, pupils are streamed into maths/science/technology concentrations, or humanities/classics/literature concentrations. If the former were better at inculcating analytical thinking than the latter, we’d expect that to be showing up in IQ performance of students from those countries. And that would probably be a better test of your hypothesis than comparing people who went to religious schools with those who did not.

smacl

beefburrito wrote: »

There's all different personalities one person might like to be called an Atheist and be quite militant about it.

Then the Atheist who's described as militant will interpret that as they're being compared to a soldier, while the person who's saying militant Atheist means being a strident Atheist.
Then the Atheist being described as strident thinks their whole persona is described as strident....

Then there's a poo storm and it gets personal....

Then you have a person who says they don't believe in God but wouldn't describe themselves as an Atheist,then the strident Atheist says well then you're an agnostic Atheist.....

And the beat goes on......

And then there's the dictionary definition of atheist which is no more nor less than someone who doesn't believe in god. As per my previous post, there are a lot of atheists out there and to assert that the majority have anything in common other than not believing in god demands supporting evidence.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the former were better at inculcating analytical thinking than the latter, we’d expect that to be showing up in IQ performance of students from those countries. And that would probably be a better test of your hypothesis than comparing people who went to religious schools with those who did not.

I didn't make any reference to religious schools though, I simply speculated that spending a number of hours studying religion or art versus a number of hours studying subjects more closely aligned to IQ tests will leave you better able to do well in IQ tests. Performance in IQ tests improves with practise, which of course it shouldn't if it was an accurate measure of intelligence. It is similar to the unfortunate effect whereby we focus teaching efforts on scoring well in exams rather than properly understanding the subject matter being taught. While I think general intelligence is a useful statistic at population level, it is dangerous when applied at an individual level. If we accept that religious people may have lower IQ scores than atheists as per your linked article, the next question becomes 'Do you think religious people are less intelligent than atheists?' Personally I don't, do you?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I didn't make any reference to religious schools though, I simply speculated that spending a number of hours studying religion or art versus a number of hours studying subjects more closely aligned to IQ tests will leave you better able to do well in IQ tests. Performance in IQ tests improves with practise, which of course it shouldn't if it was an accurate measure of intelligence. It is similar to the unfortunate effect whereby we focus teaching efforts on scoring well in exams rather than properly understanding the subject matter being taught. While I think general intelligence is a useful statistic at population level, it is dangerous when applied at an individual level. If we accept that religious people may have lower IQ scores than atheists as per your linked article, the next question becomes 'Do you think religious people are less intelligent than atheists?' Personally I don't, do you?

Well, there are some conspicuous individual examples but, as a class, no.

I get that performance in IQ tests improves with practice, and that you can "teach to the test" for IQ tests as readily as for anything else. But it's a step beyond that to suggest that the discipline of studying religion is a less good practice for IQ tests than the discipline of studying other subjects is, and if there's any evidence that this is so, I'm not aware of it. (And, as stated, I'm sceptical that it is so.)

I appreciate that you didn't mention religious schools but, if you offer this account as a possible explanation of why religious people score lower in IQ tests, the minor premise is that religious people are more likely to have had this kind of education, isn't it?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, yet again, I search in vain for that in the document; plenty of references to movement but it’s always in the analogical sense – move by affection, moved the minds of the faithful, moved by desire, but no actual bodies were moved in the making of this Apostolic Constitution. So maybe the claim about physical movement is not quite as specific as you think.

I'm not sure how closely you read the document - which is, I fully grant, full of analogy, metaphor and other obscurantist prose and you are free, of course, to say that all of the movement described is metaphorical, but that denies the reference which is made clearly and unambiguously in section 42 of the document, and which I alluded to above:

A Former Pope wrote:

42 [...] Finally it is our hope that belief in Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven will make our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more effective.

The new testament is replete with references to the dead physically rising from their graves - ten seconds with google gives the following references and I'm sure there are many more:

http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/4.htm
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-52.htm
http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-52.htm
http://biblehub.com/john/5-28.htm

So there is a clear religious expectation that people will rise, physically, up out of their graves and recover the various forms of liveliness lost at the point of death.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t doubt the sincerity of your reading, and I also don’t doubt the sincerity of your conviction that this is the only authentic way to read the document, but you have to realise that this is coming from you, not from the document.

Unfortunately, it is coming from the document and the document places it fairly, squarely and quite clearly in its historical and religious tradition. All I'm doing is pointing out that this is the case. Again, you are of course, entirely free to disagree, however, you will need to suggest why what appears to be the principal, historical intended meaning is - in fact - wrong and the text means something else entirely.

With respect to your general claim that it's all metaphor, I can't help but be reminded of Jerry Coyne's comment that when something in the bible is found to be false, the factual claim becomes a metaphor.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The 1850 decree was deliberately written to accommodate all these traditions and more besides

The dogma was promulgated in 1950, not 1850

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, there are some conspicuous individual examples but, as a class, no.

I get that performance in IQ tests improves with practice, and that you can "teach to the test" for IQ tests as readily as for anything else. But it's a step beyond that to suggest that the discipline of studying religion is a less good practice for IQ tests than the discipline of studying other subjects is, and if there's any evidence that this is so, I'm not aware of it. (And, as stated, I'm sceptical that it is so.)

The specific alternates I listed to religious instruction were specific areas addressed by IQ tests though, i.e. logic, spatial reasoning and linguistics. Do you doubt that spending time studying these subjects versus time spent on subjects that do not feature on a typical IQ test will result in improved scores on an IQ test?

I appreciate that you didn't mention religious schools but, if you offer this account as a possible explanation of why religious people score lower in IQ tests, the minor premise is that religious people are more likely to have had this kind of education, isn't it?

Honestly, no idea. Aside from the individual student, there are many variables that play a such major effect in educational outcome, notably the quality of the teachers, that the effects of a losing a few hours per week to religious education that could have been spent elsewhere are going to be very difficult to isolate. As for atheist mindset, i'd suggest that terms such as inquisitive, critical and sceptical might be more useful than atheist in this context.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

The specific alternates I listed to religious instruction were specific areas addressed by IQ tests though, i.e. logic, spatial reasoning and linguistics. Do you doubt that spending time studying these subjects versus time spent on subjects that do not feature on a typical IQ test will result in improved scores on an IQ test?

I see what you're saying, smacl, and I don't disagree. But this can't account for the different IQ scores of religious people and atheists unless you establish or assume that the atheists did more IQ-relevant study than the religious people. It's not established and, on the whole, there's no reason to assume it, so there must be some other explanation for the disparity in IQ scores.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure how closely you read the document - which is, I fully grant, full of analogy, metaphor and other obscurantist prose and you are free, of course, to say that all of the movement described is metaphorical, but that denies the reference which is made clearly and unambiguously in section 42 of the document, and which I alluded to above . . .

Yes, I did see that sentence. But I don't see that that helps you. Christians don't understand the general resurrection of the dead as involving physical flight up into the sky, so a parallel between the Assumption and the general resurrection doesn't go very far towards justifying your claim.

Yes, the general resurrection of the dead is presented in terms of people rising from the grave and walking the earth. You can understand that as literally or figuratively as you like. Inconveniently, however, the Assumption is not presented this way. The Virgin does not walk the earth; she was assumed into heaven. So the parallels between the Assumption and the general resurrection are not really about the physical characteristics of each which, if we take a literalist reading, are actually quite different. It's only your preoccupation with the physical as the only true reality that makes you read that sentence as imply a physical similarity between the Assumption and the general resurrection. The sentence doesn't say that, and Catholics aren't required to read it that way. It just say that a belief in one phenomenon will hopefully strengthen a belief in the other, but that would be the expected result from the two phenomena having a metaphysical similarity. So no physical similarity is expressed or implied.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I see what you're saying, smacl, and I don't disagree. But this can't account for the different IQ scores of religious people and atheists unless you establish or assume that the atheists did more IQ-relevant study than the religious people. It's not established and, on the whole, there's no reason to assume it, so there must be some other explanation for the disparity in IQ scores.

Could well be. The veiled implication here, which I take as being point of the OP, is that as a person of above average IQ and a critical thinker one is likely to reject religion and become an atheist. I'm not sure I buy that, do you? Of the elements in a typical IQ test listed below, what element is going to be compromised by a belief in a god or god?

Verbal Intelligence
Mathematical Ability
Spatial Reasoning Skills
Visual/Perceptual Skills
Classification Skills
Logical Reasoning Skills
Pattern Recognition Skills

As per my earlier post, IQ is a problematic measure as it is conflating results from each of these elements into a single figure. Do religious people score lower across the board or do they fall down in one specific area? Logic maybe, but I'd suspect the correlation between religiosity and below average IQ is more likely the result of another confounding variable or two we're not seeing. Pure speculation of course.

Hotblack Desiato

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

People who do believe in the supernatural and mystic ways have a much more open mind than atheists and in certain ways show a higher level of intelligence and maturity, rather than the blinkered vision atheists tend to have.

There's a big difference between having an open mind, and accepting any old woo as fact without any credible evidence at all. Hardly a sign of intelligence, quite the opposite.

branie2

Have you ever been to Lourdes, Knock and Fatima?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I did see that sentence. But I don't see that that helps you.

You are certainly free to believe that "bodily Assumption" and "assumed, body and soul" does not mean, well, the assumption of the physical body. Personally, I'd go with the text that's there.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Christians don't understand the general resurrection of the dead as involving physical flight up into the sky, so a parallel between the Assumption and the general resurrection doesn't go very far towards justifying your claim.

Have a read of the 1 Thessalonians which I quoted above:

1 Thessalonians 4 wrote:

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

I think that's clear enough - resurrected people will fly up into the air - unless you're going to claim that "caught up", "clouds" and "air" are also metaphorical in some sense.

Anyhow, I think we should agree to disagree on this. As far as I'm concerned, the primary meaning is clear enough, albeit ridiculous - which is really the point I'm making.

kelly1

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's a big difference between having an open mind, and accepting any old woo as fact without any credible evidence at all. Hardly a sign of intelligence, quite the opposite.

I'll just leave this here, not going to argue over the interpretation:

Mt 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

I'll just leave this here, not going to argue over the interpretation:

Mt 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

Could you maybe explain to us what the point or purpose of that quote is?

branie2

robindch wrote: »

You are certainly free to believe that "bodily Assumption" and "assumed, body and soul" does not mean, well, the assumption of the physical body. Personally, I'd go with the text that's there.Have a read of the 1 Thessalonians which I quoted above:I think that's clear enough - resurrected people will fly up into the air - unless you're going to claim that "caught up", "clouds" and "air" are also metaphorical in some sense.

Anyhow, I think we should agree to disagree on this. As far as I'm concerned, the primary meaning is clear enough, albeit ridiculous - which is really the point I'm making.

The rapture!

RichieO

branie2 wrote: »

The rapture!

Thanks for contribution, one word that explains exactly what you need to know...

Rapture from the Greek word meaning "to snatch away"

Dictionary. Rapture;
Ecstasy, bliss, euphoria, elation, exaltation, joy, joyfulness, joyousness, cloud nine, seventh heaven, transport, rhapsody, enchantment, delight, exhilaration, happiness, pleasure, ravishment...

I'll go with Ecstasy, you have to be on it to believe any of it...

Hotblack Desiato

kelly1 wrote: »

I'll just leave this here, not going to argue over the interpretation:

In responding to the drive-by poster I was referring more to crystals, reiki, homeopathy, reflexology, etc. but if you want to drag christianity down to that level be my guest!

ginger_hammer

I don't get why non-atheists (yes double negative but it makes more sense to me) assume that atheists are a) a group and b) think that science has all the answers to everything. Science is just applying theories, making observations, revising theories when new data comes to light, etc - its not a belief system! Quite the opposite!

Also all the religions are mutually exclusive, in that if the christians/bible is actually 100% correct, then all muslims, hindus, etc are all wrong. The same applies to them all and the only logical solution is that they are all wrong.

Another thing that interests me is if a very religious person now was born before their religion was invented, then what would they believe? Say a Christian was born 2000 years ago, when Christianity wasn't yet invented. I suppose the holy books must insert some get-out clause.

RichieO

ginger_hammer wrote: »

I don't get why non-atheists (yes double negative but it makes more sense to me) assume that atheists are a) a group and b) think that science has all the answers to everything. Science is just applying theories, making observations, revising theories when new data comes to light, etc - its not a belief system! Quite the opposite!

Also all the religions are mutually exclusive, in that if the christians/bible is actually 100% correct, then all muslims, hindus, etc are all wrong. The same applies to them all and the only logical solution is that they are all wrong.

Another thing that interests me is if a very religious person now was born before their religion was invented, then what would they believe? Say a Christian was born 2000 years ago, when Christianity wasn't yet invented. I suppose the holy books must insert some get-out clause.

ALL babies are born atheist by default, religion is passed on from the parents, with the help of whichever church they belong to, only brainwashing can sustain religions...

keep looking, question EVERYTHING always....

One eyed Jack

ginger_hammer wrote: »

I don't get why non-atheists (yes double negative but it makes more sense to me) assume that atheists are a) a group and b) think that science has all the answers to everything. Science is just applying theories, making observations, revising theories when new data comes to light, etc - its not a belief system! Quite the opposite!

I don't think tribalism, in-group and out-group thinking is particularly peculiar to theists, deists or pantheists (see what I did there? ), or atheists for that matter, some of whom actually do regard themselves as a group, a collective, people whom happen to share at least one idea in common. Categorising people into their various groups is particularly useful in the social sciences, which depending upon other common traits among their peers, can often lead to some fairly funky belief systems coming to the fore of popular science. The physical sciences do of course lend themselves more naturally to the use of the scientific method, the metaphysical sciences - not so much! They tend to lend themselves more naturally to beliefs, whether it be philosophy, political science and so on.

Of course if you were like myself to view science itself as an all encompassing, abstract concept, then science is all around us, and it inspires us to investigate phenomena. The investigation of the physical sciences (in most of the Western world anyway) uses the scientific method, and has done for many centuries, because it's proven reliable for one thing - it is dependent upon consensus through peer review. In that context at least, it could be argued that because of the need for a common standard to examine evidence when it is presented, agreement is reached through a belief that the evidence is credible, falsifiable, etc. That's exactly why a theory will hold, until new data comes to light which may be offered as a more credible explanation for observed phenomena.

ginger_hammer wrote: »

Also all the religions are mutually exclusive, in that if the christians/bible is actually 100% correct, then all muslims, hindus, etc are all wrong. The same applies to them all and the only logical solution is that they are all wrong.

I don't know that I'd agree that all religions actually are mutually exclusive. Certainly while idolatry being forbidden is one of the basic tennets of the major world religions, they also all share a commonality as monotheistic ideologies derived from Abraham, so there's quite a bit of cross-over between the bible, the quran and the tanakh, For what it's worth, you may have noticed that literalists tend to tie themselves up in knots, as much of the texts of each of the different religions tends to be contradictory in many places. This is often due to misinterpretation, but much more of it is due to misrepresentation, so it's understandable at least, even logical, that contradictions are going to arise due to how different people can often interpret the exact same set of circumstances or events differently. Nobody started writing this stuff down until relatively recently in human history, and even then the bible at least was only popularised by the invention of the printing press!

The exception on that list of course is Hinduism.

ginger_hammer wrote: »

Another thing that interests me is if a very religious person now was born before their religion was invented, then what would they believe? Say a Christian was born 2000 years ago, when Christianity wasn't yet invented. I suppose the holy books must insert some get-out clause.

Could believe anything really, or nothing. It's impossible to know really. One thing is for certain at least - a Christian couldn't have been born before Christianity. What get-out clause might you think is necessary exactly?

RichieO wrote: »

ALL babies are born atheist by default, religion is passed on from the parents, with the help of whichever church they belong to, only brainwashing can sustain religions...

keep looking, question EVERYTHING always....

Actually I used believe too that people were born atheist by default, until it was pointed out that if a person has no awareness whatsoever of the concept of God, Gods, etc, then they would equally have no concept of atheism, which takes a position on the nature and concept of God, Gods, etc. Therefore it's more accurate to suggest that people are born non-religious by default, and then you could at least suggest that by exposure to the various social constructs, people form their identities, and they may lean more towards one group or another depending upon any number of both internal and external influences to which they are exposed as they develop from infanthood to adulthood, throughout their lives.

With regard to the efficacy of brainwashing, well...

First things first: There is no scientific proof that brainwashing (a theoretical form of mind control) exists or is even possible. The term itself is no longer used by mental health professionals (well, reputable professionals, that is), and no peer-reviewed experiments or studies have been done that demonstrate that it is even possible.

Source: Is Brainwashing Real?


Though I do agree that it is healthy to ask questions and seek answers to those questions, from as many sources as possible. Google isn't very helpful right now but I do remember reading a paper before that suggested that critical thinking is an innate ability in humans anyway, and even moreso in children, so the idea even that a child could be forced to believe something which doesn't make any sense to them is a misguided belief in itself, which definitely I would say warrants further questioning and investigation, should you be so inclined.