Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Religious people.. less intelligent than atheists

1500 people out of 7 billion people.

that's 1 out of every 4.6 million !!

getting a high IQ score does not mean that you are intelligent.

going to college does not mean that you are intelligent.

staying married does not mean that you are intelligent.

getting higher paying jobs does not mean that you are intelligent.

I have had conversations with professors of physics that have many years of college under their belt , been married most of their lives and have high paying jobs , etc.

some even told me that water would stop flowing through a
pipe at a certain distance inside the pipe because of his calculation and because he was a professor of physics and I wasnt.

( he was wrong BTW )


I have ran across similar situations many times in my life
and I have developed a theory that the more intelligent a
person becomes , he actually gets less intelligent.

some of these cant even figure out how to do the simplest of
task.

so for a scientist to start and maintain a poll about intelligence is nothing more than him trying to pat his own back , or to get some reassuring that he is correct.

peer pressure between the so called scientist of today is
more of the culprit that teaches them not to admit anything
even if they do believe in something that other scientist do not.

unless that belief becomes socially acceptable in the so called scientific community.

Oh c'mon... What can we believe if our statisticians aren't Godlike and setting the way for our attitudes and beliefs...

Science.. the NEW religion!

They should actually redo the stats with fundamentalist religions as their own group because those nutters are making the religious look bad.

I suspect if you removed the fundamentalist loons that the figures for religious and atheists would look very similar.

Why would science ever want to be considered as poorly and ridiculed as much as religion ... religion is not something one aspires to it is something one sinks into.

Ya think religion aspired to achieve ridicule?

Ego is still ego regardless of whether it attaches itself to an imaginary God or not.

I never quite get the wests preoccupation with ego ... you for example seems to have quite a fixation with it.

All ego would do is get you beaten or put against the wall shot, one learned very fast that ego is a flexible thing that always is subordinate to the party thinking.

One very quickly developed the art to have a very flexible ego

Mind you the party didn't think much of religion either

Orac, I ask: Are you of the strong opinion that all "religion" is evil? Do you assume that all religionists are evil people? lacking in intelligence? common sense and the like? Or what is your opinion?

BTW 1, I do agree that some religions are destructive. SO are some sciences and the knowledge they open to us. Both are powerful forces for good, or evil.

All forms of creative human activity lend themselves to be used or abused by us. By good and generous people, they will be used to serve the greater public good. However, by greedy, wealth and power-hungry self-serving people--people who don't know and don't care about anything but what helps them get power and the wealth it brings them--it will be used to serve their ego-maniacal whims.

BTW 2, let us not forget that some of the first scientists were also religionists. To name just a few great names: Copernicus (a Christian monk), Galileo, Father Georges Lemaitre (who, in 1927, gave us the BIGbang theory), Faraday, Max Planck (quantum physicist), Nicola Tesla (AC electricity).

Ego is not a western thing. It's a human attribute that is necessary to function in the physical world. The only problem with it is in the attachments to beliefs and Idealisms that stem from superstition, fear and superficial understanding of reality.

Ego when it becomes the master rather than servant to consciousness causes aging sickness and death.

You mean to put on a face. Doesn't hide stupidity, fear or superstition.
Must've been an influence in your life. There seems to be an agreement of your personal views and what you describe as the views of the party.

Orac, to my last post to you I add the following info about scientists, religion and the god-hypothesis:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
=========
But take note: Einstein, Kelvin and others did not talk about a person-like god--one with dimensions. Neither do I.

To answer that I need to ask do you want me to include the extremist and fundamentalist groups?

In the same way in science we have a pseudoscience lunatic fringe that considers themselves scientific but aren't.

One of the problems that religions face in answering the above is actually the various anti-discrimination acts set up to protect religion. As a scientist I can say something, someone or a group are unscientific there is nothing wrong in doing that and nothing anyone can do about that. However I can not say a religious group or persons are not religious or wrong because that is against the law so in some ways religion has a much tougher time than science with it's fringe elements.



In essence you have said the exact same thing above the difference is I can argue any way I like against science which I disagree with yet to do so against a religious person or group would see me in trouble with the law.

So to answer your question in as best way I can legally I find some religions very evil and destructive and unfortunately they taint the field for the good, kind and pure religions.




There is an interesting backdrop to the above statement however that religion is supposed to aspire to the good part of that statement yet for example you find religious people over represented in the prison system. There will definitely be some converting while in prison and you can argue around the figures and stats but in general you would expect given what religion stands for to be under represented not over.

The answer to that problem is a religion you don't get to choose who calls themselves your religion in science we do, you have to pass a test and get a degree so it isn't a level playing field. Religion is all inclusive by nature while science is exclusive by nature because if half the pseudoscience lunatics could claim they represented science we would be in the same boat.



As I have said to you I certainly do not exclude there being a god however if there is a good and pure god I have some scientific bounds I can put on him/she/it and that religion

1.) There must be reason to why we exist which a religion would answer.

why: An omnipotent god already knows all answers so there would be no reason for us to exist as a sort of plaything with no real purpose ... the god already knows what we will do and how we will all act.

2.) There must be a reason why evil, pain and suffering exists which the religion would answer.

why: For an good and pure omnipotent god to leave such things in existence without a reason would imply the god is sadistic which is not pure and good. So if you want to have your god as slightly sadistic then you can probably take this condition out.

3.) Given the god is omnipotent I need an answer on if I have free will and the religion would answer

Why: If I don't have free will I am merely acting a role as designated by the god. If I have free will then an omnipotent god has deliberately curtailed his omnipotent powers to allow me free will so he is an omnipotent god except over me.


My trouble with religion is I have not found any that are willing to directly address those three points. Most seem to want you to join in and in time I am supposed to learn the answers I seek ... sorry I am a scientist we don't work like that

"In GOD we trust the rest of you bring data".... W.E Deming

The difference is in the West you may sneer or frown on ego but you don't get killed or locked up for it.

Read the background of Karl Marx and his view on ego and how the various communist powers embraced that ideology.



Face is an Eastern/Asian thing but you at least understanding that cultures have different ways they view things.




Most peoples upbringing has an influence on them and I am not special in that regard. What I have had is the opportunity to live and work under both systems and there are plus and minuses for both.

Which system do I prefer definitely the Western capitalism but the system is not without flaws especially religion which seems to get intertwined in it all.

You don't describe ego, but rather political fanaticism. Which is a belief/religion. Something Ego creates and perpetuates.

You seem a bit consumed by your past. Also something ego does. Focuses on the past rather than the present moment.


Putting on a face or pretense is ego and it applies to all humans not just Asia. Dividing humans into cultural variants is also ego.



Influence or programming is the essence of the subjective ego. It does not have an objective viewpoint because it, in and of itself is not consciousness nor does it have free will.
The human consciousness either engages the ego as its servant or becomes enslaved by its definitions and programs.

Religion is belief. It is created by the ego. It (belief) permeates all actions of the waking state individual, no matter what the cultural background or political interests, or trade, or hobby.

From 1930-1949, I grew as a British subject--Our king was George V. The prime minister was Winston Churchill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
Orac, you continue, Keep in mind that I speak in very broad terms when I say,

If you call that ego then I won't argue I really don't care enough about such things.



Again fine you are just making ego a very broad term no wonder you appear hung up on it.

In my native tongue you have joined at least 5 different concepts which have specific words and meanings under your one term ego.

To me you are simplifying a lot of different concepts into the a concept of ego.




That's a 6th different concept you have folded into ego as far as I would see it.




Seven

No wonder you appear to be hung up on ego to me your definition is almost all encompassing to me.

I really don't have much to say about it your definition is too broad for me to argue. The world probably does all appear to be about ego if you want to simplify and widen ego to that sort of description but I do think you mix in many different motives and personality traits but that's my view.

Totally agree the key issue is for the people



For me you missed the mark here.

Communism, socialism are fine as political systems (I know I have lived under both) but the problem in there execution is separating the powers of state in particular that of justice.

The main problems in my homeland was not political but justice. Where justice fails crime and corruption soon follow.

Infact if you look at the listing of the most socialist countries in the world Canada rates 5 and 9 out of 10 are democratic.

http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/



They didn't harness they did so by fear .. people started to disappear in the night.



That is why justice being free from political interference is so important no matter what political system you have.

Any dictatorship or absolute monarchy I dismiss because that has nothing to do with good political governance.

So the freedom of the justice arms to exercise power over all including politicians is the most important aspect of a society.

USA needs to think carefully about that given it's recent revelations of Edward Snowden and it's use of drone strikes and extra judicial executions which would not be legal inside USA.

All of those aspects undermine justice and it is a very very slippery slope. JFK stood up to and removed the power of Hoover and many think it cost him his life. Here we are 70 years later and the dark shadowy intelligence world is gaining back a lot of the powers it lost under JFK.

For me as an outsider living in USA it is strange that more people in USA seem oblivious to the dangerous path they are now treading capitalism and democracy does not guarantee you freedom and justice.

What, is personality?

By your definition it is probably ego because your definition is wishy washy touchie feely to me and could basically be anything. It reminds me of trying to read the mumbo jumbo of Sigmund Freud.

Personality is a lot more than ego if you let me bring my scientific and ancestral beliefs to bear on it.

As a basic example if you let me beat you enough with a stick I bet you will flinch when I lift a stick and avoid me. So you will have personality traits which have nothing to do with ego as I would define it.

Within my homeland beliefs we have several personality splinters I will list a few of them as best I can

Identification: That is a sense of belonging to community/family etc. That is not something one decides consciously certain people have it in different amounts hence some people get home sick etc you don't consciously decide such things.

Repulsion: The sense of repulsion from things acts and events with no conscious reason. In my homeland it is usually but not exclusively around things like animal cruelty and sort of not obvious morality issues. A child seeing an animal killed may cry for example even though they are told the animal is being killed to eat and the death is not frowned upon by society.

Conditioning: That is the beating with stick trick above. Your parents may try and give you certain behavior if you are a little naughty and society or mistreatment may impose such personality traits.

Cultural: That is doing things that feel right for historic or cultural reasons again usually without really thinking about them and reasoning. They are rare and in my culture often equated to the ancestors showing you the right way ... mystical if you like.

Stimuli: Certain things are attractive for unknown reasons to certain people. This is the why certain breeds of dog chase cars effect because it seems to be inbuilt in their DNA. So we say some people seem to exhibit the same sort of problems.

Risk: Two siblings with identical upbringing exhibit totally different risk strategies. Our belief is some are born as risk takers others are not and it is not a conscious decision that is necessarily in your control.

Unknown fear: Some sense fear of things they don't understand or have never seen some do not. Given a situation or experience a person has never seen and has no base to make a judgement they react totally different. Peoples fight/flight reactions to being startled are an example of this.


This is getting long so I will leave it there but I view personality as a mixture of DNA and Environment as well as things one sub consciously and consciously decides.

To me ego is those you consciously decide the rest as far as I am concerned are practically outside your control unless you deliberately set about trying to fix them.

I believe you can override personality traits by using conscious decision (ego) or conditioning.

So there you have it for me ego and personality are vastly different things and hence we will never agree I am afraid.

Identification: The mind identifies with something out of acceptance to conditioning. Experiences give the mind something to respond to. Children, without preconceived ideas accept all stimuli without conditioning and in innocence.
Old folks have usually accumulated memories stimulated by a choice to identify with what is accepted as important. Fear of pain is usually a big one, but identification with ones past accomplishments, measured by the individuals value system generally amount to the idea of I am the totality of my accomplishments and experiences (see the personal biography of the Rev. Lindsay King as an example and his insistence in subjectively measuring others by their profile). The innocence of who you are as a child has been replaced by something other than innocence, and is subjective.
This is ego as the master of ones actions and thoughts.

Repulsion: Children are not repulsed by most things unless taught to be afraid, or to judge something. The body however does have a consciousness of its own and will stimulate the senses to move away from danger. The conditioned mind however that is trained to ignore such intuition, will often put the body in danger even when the intuition says no. Reason is, ego is conditioned to accept what the authority has dictated as real. Intuition is not accepted by the current scientific community as anything that can be measured, and so it doesn't exist. Such conditioning by authority is what ego follows above and beyond natural sensibility, in favor of the dictates of what is sensible.

Conditioning: Ego is a sponge and is a construct meant to translate the physical world into experience. When conditioning of the ego strips the uniqueness of individuality and trains it in a social system like public school or thru the media, it is trained to accept individuality as a fault. DNA is responsible for all things good and bad in the human nervous system and free will is not an option. You are stupid or smart by default, and you are judged according to the system of measure instigated by the social system. If you do not like what the system dishes up, you are a reject. If you do not meet the standards of success, you are a failure. Acceptance of these standards and systems as the reality of Human values and beliefs is what ego uses to identify with. IT will accept what conditioning implies unless it is shown something different.

Cultural: Culture is basically conditioning, belief, stimuli. Like religion if someone is not shown an alternate reality belief is going to control the thoughts of who you are and what is important. This leads to identification with social mores and social standards of judgment and values of human life and importance.
For example. Many cultures accept the inferiority of women in all aspects of measure. Those that don't, find that women can surpass men in many fields.

Stimuli: Cognition of reality based on states of consciousness have a direct impact on how one receives stimuli. Someone who has been conditioned by fear, will filter every detail thru the past memories looking for what they experienced in the past. There is no innocence or a lack of experiencing the present moment. As I said, the child without conditioning has no preconceived ideas. Their DNA does not presuppose conditioning to stimuli.

Risk: Based on the understanding of limits, (physical reality) risk is subjective.

Unknown fear: Psychosis. Not a condition of birth.

All of the above that you have mentioned fall into the realm of ego. It either works innocently for you or subjectively against you by defining you and the world around you.

Science is a lot like religion. It takes the universe and reduces it to the image of man. Then it reduces man to subjective ramblings of peer beliefs, and subjective studies based on limits of understanding and a lack of experience.

There is still no agreed psychological understanding of personality. This is because psychologists have yet to agree on their understanding of human nature. Different psychologists can hold fundamental beliefs that are diametrically opposed.

For instance, is there such a thing as free will, or is everything we do determined by factors beyond our control such as unconscious processes? Can people change of their own volition or are they doomed to remain the same throughout their lives?

Some psychologists believe in free will and others don’t. This has a dramatic effect on how they study human behaviour and personality, how they interpret research findings, and what they believe is possible for human beings to achieve.

Some psychologists, such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, have emphasised the importance of free will and individual experience in the development of personality. From their ‘humanistic’ perspective, personality development is at least partly the result of our conscious choices in life. And if people want to change their own personalities, their conscious intention to do so is important.

For those psychologists who refuse to believe in free will, personality is entirely the result of genetics, or unconscious forces, or environmental conditioning. It’s all out of our control.

Evolutionary psychologists tend to see everything in terms of genetics and natural selection.
Psychodynamic psychologists tend to see everything in terms of unconscious conflicts and repressed memories from childhood.
Behaviouristic psychologists tend to see everything in terms of conditioning.
Social psychologists tend to see everything in terms of people’s social environment.

Each of these schools of thought emphasises the importance of one factor. Stepping back to see the bigger picture, though, it is clear that each is a valuable but, in itself, limited perspective.

Sorry don't agree one does not choose to be home sick one just is ... what you have written is like Freud mumbo jumbo.




Complete garbage just because something can't be measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist to science IT JUST MEANS IT'S NOT SCIENCE. I can't measure religion so it can't be science but science doesn't claim religion doesn't exist which is what you are saying ... hence that is a TOTAL FABRICATION.

Then again you disappear neatly into mumbo jumbo about ego.




This is pointless you don't even get a chance to register conditioning responses at a cognitive level. Flight and fight reflexes have been tested for decades and there isn't even cognitive recognition they are purely survival reactions and the idea that ego has anything to do with it is beyond my ability to bother arguing.



yeah sure I believe you but science says otherwise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics


I resign this is like trying to discuss genetics with Paul you just randomly change science data because it conflicts with what you believe.




I am sorry the DNA, survival and instinctive changes in a person are NOT CONTROLLABLE BY THE INDIVIDUAL ... science is very clear on that.

You may see this big picture that you think you see but I am sorry science doesn't and I certainly don't.

It's called attachment. Its due to a conditioned dependence on the environment. Not all people are conditioned in the same way.



Not a fabrication. Not science, so to science it is not a subject of science as you say. Does not exist as science, does not exist, and as you are inclined to speak in terms of science, not something you would speak of without some kind of egoic commentary. Like those you have made about religion.

There it is..



Not at the waking state level where ego is in charge.

Agreed. Beyond your ability. Given that to be so, don't bother arguing then.

You believe a person reacts without cognitive understanding or the ability to witness what they are doing. You believe this is always the case or just generally specified according to certain stimuli and testing?


If you believe me then why give science the authority?


I changed science data? When? Where? What data?
You're refusing to acknowledge the human factor, where ego defines science according to personal belief, and where science specializes thru the personal approach and argues for authority and definition of scientific principals.
If you want to argue that everyone who claims their specialty is science sets the standard for thinking and acting, then I would say all the arguments you have gotten into with others who call themselves a scientist, are the example I have been speaking of when it comes to ego. Science is not of one mind. It tries to remove itself from its own humanity by idealizing a scenario or setting that is beyond human error. Trouble is, when you decide a human is not capable of making a decision without a measure of control outside of individual thought and action, why bother interacting when you have made yourself inefficient to begin with. Almost like religion creating the original sin. No human can imagine a god because they are not godlike.
Similarly no science is perfect because it is created by the imperfect instrument, which fabricates instruments of measure.

People are subject to intellectual identification and emotional influence when conditioned by the rules of life dictated by science and people magazine....

Science is defined by people, and science does not always emulate human characteristics but rather contrived ideals that work within confined parameters.
Kinda like scientific laboratories don't exemplify real life?
Probably why science has taken an opposite point of view on fish oil, or acid reflux medicines.. or thalidomide. They don't perform in the real world like they do in confined conditions where science is not operating like the real world.

Love is reduced to genetic influence and chemical changes in the body. The meaning of life has no soul or life to it, by any definition of science.


Not a reason to worship science as absolute or God... Science is not infallible.

That has pretty much been obvious.

I lose sleep at night because you don't agree with me..