Restating My "Religion Does Good" Post More Explicitly

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Childhood indoctrination, I already agreed, can make a difference in close cases like politics. </font>

I think this is just wrong.

<font color="blue"> Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?
</font>

Why not? The only reason astrology and alien abductions are less likely to stick is because there aren't enough other people that believe in them. But if you brought up a child to believe in astrology, and he sees that his neighbors and extended family are all astrologists, and he sees buildings erected all over the place to study/worship astrology, and he sees even the news media taking astrology seriously, do you REALLY think a 130 IQ is going to be the deciding difference in whether he believes in astrology when he's 30? If so, why? There's no fundamental difference between the two dogmas. The only difference is one is taken seriously all over the world, and the other is not and is even laughed at by most people.

Again, I think you're very (and unusually) wrong on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between the equally nonsensical notions of astrology and any specific religion is the upsides of believing in it. One of those upsides is indeed pleasing your parents and "fitting in". But there are other upsides to religion that astrology doesn't have. So if your parents believed in both, there would be less subconscious psychological pressure to keep you believing in astrology than religion and it would be more likely that an intelligent person would be able to break away from their parent's belief in astrology then lets say Christianity.

How is that not obvious?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> So if your parents believed in both, there would be less subconscious psychological pressure to keep you believing in astrology than religion </font>

Ah, but what about social pressure? This is probably a stronger motivator to sticking with religion than any upside. Or are you saying...

That moderately smart people can't face the notion of death? The abiltity/fantasy of living forever seems to be the biggest upside religion has going for it. Almost anything else, you can get from some other source, club, or support group, if you were so inclined. After all, I doubt the ratio of answered to unanswered prayers is much of an upside. What other upsides (aside from living forever), do you think religion has (that can't be had elsewhere)?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Childhood indoctrination, I already agreed, can make a difference in close cases like politics. It can also make a big difference when it comes to choosing between religions.
But it can't be the only factor when the choice is between religion and no religion (and the person has a 130 IQ.) Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yes it would. In at least 98% of cases.

This is a difficult issue because it involves extrapolating from a wide variety of observations, but there is no question that parental and societal influence are mostly responsible for beliefs and values. Everything else combined is small in comparison. The number of different types of evidence that back this up is staggering, from studies in behaviorism to analysis of cultures to twin studies to neurology and statistics and everything. The correlation is, in any case, almost perfect, and while this becomes less true at higher levels of intellect, it is definitely still true after two standard deviations (130 IQ on the Wechsler).

[remski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it can't be the only factor when the choice is between religion and no religion (and the person has a 130 IQ.) Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence is not a universally rational influence. Wittgenstein, Newton, Pascal, all with estimated IQ's 190+, had long periods of intensified religious conviction as adults at the height of their intellectual power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have heard anecdotes of Astronauts, who upon their return to Earth have become profoundly religious. Although I cannot confirm or deny this, it is an interesting phenomenon.

Does anyone have any facts regarding this?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it can't be the only factor when the choice is between religion and no religion (and the person has a 130 IQ.) Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence is not a universally rational influence. Wittgenstein, Newton, Pascal, all with estimated IQ's 190+, had long periods of intensified religious conviction as adults at the height of their intellectual power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have heard anecdotes of Astronauts, who upon their return to Earth have become profoundly religious. Although I cannot confirm or deny this, it is an interesting phenomenon.

Does anyone have any facts regarding this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure there are lots of factors that correlate with religion, almost independent of IQ.

Of course the classics would be extreme physical suffering, permanent social dysfunction, and near-death experiences. (Ship all three in Pascal's case.) But also stuff like psychological anguish from repressed homosexuality (Wittgenstein) helps. Or just general awareness of how utterly sordid human nature really is (Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky.)

Nietzsche is another great example, although he was obviously an atheist, his ideals for humankind are viscerally spiritual and demand transcendence. His life? About as alienated and physically miserable as you can imagine.

[remski]

Im sure Richard Dawkins would have some grievances with the notion; "religion does good".

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course many of these moderately smart people have a lot of deep down doubts about their religion that they won't admit in public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have proof of this or is this merely speculation on your part?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course many of these moderately smart people have a lot of deep down doubts about their religion that they won't admit in public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have proof of this or is this merely speculation on your part?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a pretty safe assumption.

An obvious example would be someone like Hillary Clinton. I'd bet my entire poker bankroll that she gives about as much of a chance for a personal god as I do. But there are many other not-so-obvious examples. Many people wouldn't dare admit their doubts, even to (or especially to), their close friends and family.

[Lestat]

I think even neo-atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, admit to religions good or harmless sides (for instance, what David talks about here).

The main problem they have with religion is with how rational people have been forced to keep their mouths shut and/or walk on eggshells in the face of irrationality.

An example is how we can't just state the obvious and call these Islamic fundamentalists out for being the loony tunes they are. Why? Well for one thing, we'd be insulting all the peaceful Muslims. We'd also be inferring that Christians have some of the same loony ideas. Can't have that for some reason. But it's perfectly ok to call astrologists goofy. Why is that?

[remski]

[ QUOTE ]
I think even neo-atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, admit to religions good or harmless sides (for instance, what David talks about here).

The main problem they have with religion is with how rational people have been forced to keep their mouths shut and/or walk on eggshells in the face of irrationality.

An example is how we can't just state the obvious and call these Islamic fundamentalists out for being the loony tunes they are. Why? Well for one thing, we'd be insulting all the peaceful Muslims. We'd also be inferring that Christians have some of the same loony ideas. Can't have that for some reason. But it's perfectly ok to call astrologists goofy. Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good observation. I find it strange that tele-evangelists, such as Benny Hinn, are able to fill a stadium with his obvious brand of parlor trickery. The "feats" that he perform could not possibly fool the majority of rational, logical people that witness such implausible "miracles".