In The Scientific Fundamentalist
A Look at the Hard Truths About Human Nature
by Satoshi Kanazawa

The concept of Error Management Theory is used to examine the possible basis for why segments of most all human societies choose to believe in some type of highly variable God. An examination is made of the evolutionary consequences of how we utilize False Positive (Type I) errors vs False Negative (Type II) errors.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-do-we-believe-in-god-i

Part 2 examines how we tend to favor false positive errors:
"These theorists argue that the evolutionary origins of religious beliefs in supernatural forces may have come from such an innate cognitive bias to commit false-positive errors rather than false-negative errors, and thus overinfer personal, intentional, and animate forces behind otherwise perfectly natural phenomena."

Religion then becomes ". . . a byproduct of animistic bias or the agency-detector mechanism, the tendency to be paranoid, which is adaptive because it can save your life. Humans did not evolve to be religious; they evolved to be paranoid. And humans are religious because they are paranoid.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-do-we-believe-in-god-ii

Beliefs in higher unseen powers/forces promotes a sense of paranoia which is possibly protective when confronting unknown situations. Data seems to indicate that ". . . atheism is evolutionarily novel. The Hypothesis would therefore predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to be atheist than less intelligent individuals."

It appears that ". . . childhood intelligence has a significant and large effect on adult religiosity even when religion itself is statistically controlled for. So it appears that more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be atheists than less intelligent individuals, "
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-atheists-are-more-intelligent-the-religious

Douglas Kenrick goes on to examine the premise that "Atheistic Liberals ARE Smarter, But for a Funny Reason".
(The funny reason may be as simple as mating strategy)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201004/atheistic-liberals-are-smarter-funny-reason

The authors are careful to note that correlation does not equate to causation, and that there are smart conservatives and dumb liberals.

justthinking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...

> Religion then becomes ". . . a byproduct of
> animistic bias or the agency-detector mechanism,
> the tendency to be paranoid, which is adaptive
> because it can save your life. Humans did not
> evolve to be religious; they evolved to be
> paranoid.
...

An interesting idea. I'd say let the experts study it for
a few hundred years, and see what observation, experimentation
and analysis provides, in the way of additional information
for discussion.

It might prove helpful if we could examine those human
societies which have been the least religious, or the
least directly impacted by religion, to see how they
survived and/or evolved.

But can this same theory be reduced down to the study of
individuals, whose only major interactions with the societies
around them was to produce offspring very much like themselves?

I suspect not. Rather, even those individuals least influenced
by religion are naturally part of a larger population which
is so influenced.

I keep looking back to my experiences in a Buddhist village
in South Asia. Professed atheists, who nevertheless formed
a cohesive, vibrant society. Where do THEY fit in this theory?

UD

Atheists just tend to question more. A lot of my family is smarter than I am (Chemist/Microbiologist/computer programmer and so on) but they are also theists. They just turn off their critical thinking for that aspect of their lives.

It's an interesting correlation.

However, it can't be taken too far. There are plenty of very intelligent people who believe in religion. Intelligent people are just better at defending their beliefs.

bc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's an interesting correlation.
>
> However, it can't be taken too far. There are
> plenty of very intelligent people who believe in
> religion. Intelligent people are just better at
> defending their beliefs.


I just wonder if somebody here will ever come up with a
definition of "religion" which most of us can agree with
and use in our conversations.

As I've mentioned a couple of times previously, I've
encountered "religion" among Taoists in northern Taiwan,
Unitarian-Universalists in the USA, Buddhists in South
Asia, and some Korean Confucianists (whose daughter
nevertheless joined the RLDS).

All of the above mentioned people followed a religion,
or were associated with co-religionists. Not one of them
ever expressed an belief in God or "gods."

It does not make much sense to me, to separate folks
like this from other "intelligent" people, based upon
the fact that they are following the traditions of their
ancestors.

Can anybody inform me where I'm going wrong in my thoughts
on this topic?

UD

Atheists define themselves as more intelligent and feel pretty good about it. I have my own ideas about it. Atheists want to know the answers to life's deeper questions. Resolve it, and get it over with. There. There is no God because it isn't supported by science. I will close my mind to the thought that there is more than this. Now I can move on because I know the answer.

At least in my case this is a poor description of me and my decision making process.

In MTBI / Myers-brigg one of the indicators is perceiving vs. judging.

Your premise is basically saying that judging types are more likely to be atheists.

I'm pretty heavily tilted down the perceiving route and am an atheist.

In may case it's an issue of having thought about it for years and years and revisiting the question over and over. I have slowly come to the conclusion that people made up the concept of god. I don't think it's the easiest or quickest answer, just the most likely based on the information I have. To me the evidence that it is made up puts me over the edge of "I don't know if god exists" to "I'm pretty sure god is an invention of man".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2012 04:23PM by bc.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2012 06:46PM by steve benson.

I have questioned the existence of God so many times, so I get it. I understand. In the end my mind won't accept it. But I completely understand why people come to the conclusion.

I have met some very smart atheists and some who are as dumb as a sack of rocks. Same for theists.

suckafoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no God because it isn't supported by science. I will > close my mind to the thought that there is more than this.
> Now I can move on because I know the answer.

I'd rather think that most atheists realize that one can have one's mind so wide open that one's brain falls out of it. :oP There are pompous idiots in every walk of life, so there are probably a few atheists who actually think that they "know the answer". Unfortunately I don't know any like that. I should probably meet more people.

My atheist friends and I know that we don't know the answers, and that excites the heck out of us. Being able to admit to not knowing something, so we can keep trying to find out... rather than to pretend to have an answer that really doesn't answer anything at all.

I get this completely!

I think many atheists are just wired differently. The people in my family cannot imagine a universe not run by an aging anthropomorphic being in a toga. I've always struggled with that concept. It's just who I am and who they are.

The researcher you cite, Kanazawa, is often dismissed even among his own peers. If you like what he says about the intelligence of atheists, you may really love some of his other findings:

“Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?"

"His argument is that there is a set of data, which shows black women to be “objectively” less attractive than white, Asian or Native American women . . .”

http://www.salon.com/2011/05/17/psychology_today_racist_black_women_attractive/

"Low IQs are Africa's curse, says lecturer"

"Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist, is now accused of reviving the politics of eugenics by publishing the research which concludes that low IQ levels, rather than poverty and disease, are the reason why life expectancy is low and infant mortality high."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/highereducation.research

There are lots of good discussions to be had among atheists and theists, but I don't think ones driven with data supplied by Kanazawa are going to be very fruitful.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> ones driven with data supplied by Kanazawa are going
> to be very fruitful.


Depends by what is meant by "driven."

A bunch of very old fashioned astronomers might gather at
my house this afternoon, to put the finishing touches upon
their grand theory of epicycles, and I might just happen
to pull out some notes in Latin by some oddball German
guy called Johannes Kepler.

The original discussion may have been "driven" by notions
which were very unfruitful -- but they got people talking --
got the topic advertised -- maybe prompted some rebuttal.

And, a bit later -- some unknown guy named Galileo ends
up in the drivers' seat for awhile.

I'm happy to see ideas coming from all sides -- I just hope
that the better explanations win out over the course of time.

UD

Good point, UD. I'm a particular non-fan of Kanazawa after reading some of his stuff, but everything is fair game for a discussion.

Kanazawa's study cited here is very problematic. He followed a group with questions relating to their perceptions of whether they are religious or not. He then extrapolated that "non-religious" is the same as "atheist" without ever posing that specific question to the survey participants. This sort of word play is what makes for very unreliable study results.

Many people view religiosity and theism as two entirely different questions. Sort of the difference between, "Do you go to church regularly?" and "Do you believe there may be a God?" It's a safe bet that there are millions more theists in the US than actually darken the door of a church with any regularity. But when the researcher gets to apply his definitions to results without ever asking the participants that specific definition, the data becomes flawed. This is how you get studies that claim black women are objectively less attractive that all other ethnicities. Frankly, I think this is just bunk.

So, there's my two cents and quite a bit more.

BTW, my dear uncle. Count me among your fans. I find your responses often thoughtful and very insightful. Except when you lose all touch with reality in those occasional moments that you disagree with me.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
..
> So, there's my two cents and quite a bit more.
...

The exchange rate in my home is four Socrates and half
a Diogenes on the cent -- so I'm a full Diogenes richer.

Yes, religion and theism can be two separate phenomena --
but I'd guess that for most posters and lurkers here at
RFM, they have been so tightly intertwined as to be one
and the same.

I look to the future -- and wonder if things will ever
get better. But maybe I'm a fool for seeing beauty in
Black women and something more than paranoia in Confucius.

UD

I used to think that intellect must correlate with non-belief. I certainly felt smarter for rejecting mythological fallacies.

This board has changed my opinion somewhat. People who converse and debate here do seem much more empowered with critical thinking skills compared to the soft-minded types who spout pro-Mormon drivel. But the theory of cognitave dissonance goes a lot farther in explaining Mormon faith.

In a recent dream of mine, my TBM father told me that it took two minds to develop and protect his "kingdom." One mind could be used for defending the kingdom while the other mind was used for expanding the kingdom--i.e. making money. So it's impossible to lie in defense of the system. Anything the defending mind says is acceptable if it saves the works. Any sin the aquisitive mind commits is okay if it expands the "kingdom."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2012 06:50PM by steve benson.

Of course there are acceptions to the rule but studies have found that Atheists are typically more educated than theists so I would have to agree with the original post. I think that religion is nothing more than a defense mechanism. People fear the unknown and try to make sense by believing in imaginary Gods.

(Exceptions to the rule)

I believe that having a higher education usually goes along with learning critical thinking skills and learning how to evaluate date. However, higher education is not the same thing as intelligence. You're talking about ignorance -- and yes, ignorance can lead people into being more open to supernatural explanations to life's mysteries.

If atheists are more intelligent than theists, then surely it must follow that if a people is a theist, then becomes an atheist, they must ('magically?') become more intelligent?

Or is it that there are many atheists who are less than stellar in the intelligence stakes, but that nobody gives a damn about their views, yet smart, witty atheists gather crowds because they are smart and witty?

If you are a person who utilizes critical thinking skills AND if you highly value personal integrity, you will evaluate religious claims and probably end up not believing in a deity. However, a great many religionists are highly intelligent and use critical thinking in other areas of their lives -- they just choose not to use it in that one area of their life.

So, except for having a basic level of intelligence to actually think critically, I don't think intelligence is a factor at all. Education, on the other hand, is pretty important.

Hmm the name of this thread reminds me of the arrogance of Mormons,it is akin to saying "Why are people like me so much smarter than all the idiots who disagree with me." There are a ton of intelligent people who believe in God. In fact over the span of time the vast majority have believed in God. Einstein, who some might describe as intelligent, himself believed in a creator. He didn't believe in a personal God or in religion, but he saw scientific evidence for a creator.

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God"
Albert Einstein.

Yes, there's plenty of room for humility in the approach to this subject by all parties concerned. Some of the greatest minds of all time have been theists, and the atheists have their fair share as well.

Even with the current crop of physicists redefining "nothing," there is still no answer from any atheist as to "why is there something rather than nothing?"

We live in a world filled with information. Whether it's the JumboTron at a stadium or the chromosomes in our DNA, we're surrounded by information. Much of it is cogent and ordered. And information does not spring forth from a vacuum.