Meta-study shows religious people are less intelligent

[Mich the Tester]

So you cherry pick which bits in your holy book to believe then?

You could argue quite logically that the commandments and ‘rules’ written down in the bible were written a couple of thousand years ago and were relevant to the times, but need further interpretation to be relevant in or time. Think, for example, of the rules governing sexual intercourse and marriage. At the time there was no contraception and medicine had no answer to STDs. Something was needed to prevent unwanted children being born and a rapid and destructive spread of disease. Back then the measures of insisting on reproduction within marriage and chastitiy outside of marriage were very logical measures. These days it would seem that despite, or perhaps due to an astonishing lack of leadership from the Vatican, many catholics make their own interpretation based on their knowledge of modern contraceptives; it must be so, otherwise Italy wouldn’t have one of the lowest birthrates in Europe. You’re not going to convince me they’ve done that through mass chastity. What those people are doing is not ‘cherry picking’, but applying their knowledge and intelligence to taking decisions in the modern world.

There are plenty of other examples where intelligent believers choose not to follow the letter of the rules, but follow what they believe is the spirit of the rules.

I’m an atheist, as I’ve already said, but I object to the suggestion that believers are stupid or just cherry-picking. They clearly aren’t, and it’s better for everyone when believers and non-believers alike converse in a civilised way to try and solve problems.

[Ruprect]

You could argue quite logically that the commandments and ‘rules’ written down in the bible were written a couple of thousand years ago and were relevant to the times, but need further interpretation to be relevant in or time. Think, for example, of the rules governing sexual intercourse and marriage. At the time there was no contraception and medicine had no answer to STDs. Something was needed to prevent unwanted children being born and a rapid and destructive spread of disease. Back then the measures of insisting on reproduction within marriage and chastitiy outside of marriage were very logical measures. These days it would seem that despite, or perhaps due to an astonishing lack of leadership from the Vatican, many catholics make their own interpretation based on their knowledge of modern contraceptives; it must be so, otherwise Italy wouldn’t have one of the lowest birthrates in Europe. You’re not going to convince me they’ve done that through mass chastity. What those people are doing is not ‘cherry picking’, but applying their knowledge and intelligence to taking decisions in the modern world.

There are plenty of other examples where intelligent believers choose not to follow the letter of the rules, but follow what they believe is the spirit of the rules.

I’m an atheist, as I’ve already said, but I object to the suggestion that believers are stupid or just cherry-picking. They clearly aren’t, and it’s better for everyone when believers and non-believers alike converse in a civilised way to try and solve problems.

My point was that on one hand he was quoting a 90 year old woman getting pregnant as part of his argument, and then subsequently happily ignoring the whole "world created in 7 days" in favour of evolution. The argument is not exactly consistent is it? [Edit: and does look a bit like cherry picking to me]

[Purple Dalek]

Weeeeeelllll, vatican rulings on contraception have been largely a joke. Wasn't the original rhythm method rules actually proven, when science came along to look, the wrong way around.

I think they've been a little shy of the subject since.

[Ruprect]

There are plenty of other examples where intelligent believers choose not to follow the letter of the rules, but follow what they believe is the spirit of the rules.

This applies to Jihadis too right? The Qu'ran states that suicide is a sin, yet Takfiri jihadi's "interpret" this differently - as "dying in the line of fire in the holy war" - is this that they're not "intelligent believers", or does one's reading of a holy text allow any interpretation you like?

[Mich the Tester]

This applies to Jihadis too right? The Qu'ran states that suicide is a sin, yet Takfiri jihadi's "interpret" this differently - as "dying in the line of fire in the holy war" - is this that they're not "intelligent believers", or does one's reading of a holy text allow any interpretation you like?

No, there’s a very big difference between Jihadis ‘interpretations’ and those of less fundamentalist believers. In this exchange I see Cailin and deano making their interpretations while recognising that those with other beliefs or no belief may also provide valuable insights. In a way they’ve taken up my original challenge to ‘try atheism’ by discussing matters, sometimes quite eloquently, and trying to see things through someone else’s eyes. They’re open to discussion and that will influence the way they think and act, even if it doesn’t change their belief in a god. The Jihadis however ignore all argument from those who don’t share their beliefs and simply shut themselves off in a philosophical void where they don’t allow themselves to be influenced by others and only find destruction and ultimate oblivion. Atheists could end up the same way if we choose to simply insult believers or underestimate their intelligence.

[Ruprect]

No, there’s a very big difference between Jihadis ‘interpretations’ and those of less fundamentalist believers. In this exchange I see Cailin and deano making their interpretations while recognising that those with other beliefs or no belief may also provide valuable insights. In a way they’ve taken up my original challenge to ‘try atheism’ by discussing matters, sometimes quite eloquently, and trying to see things through someone else’s eyes. They’re open to discussion and that will influence the way they think and act, even if it doesn’t change their belief in a god. The Jihadis however ignore all argument from those who don’t share their beliefs and simply shut themselves off in a philosophical void where they don’t allow themselves to be influenced by others and only find destruction and ultimate oblivion. Atheists could end up the same way if we choose to simply insult believers or underestimate their intelligence.

I'm not insulting anyone, just pointing out inconsistencies. You seem to be tying yourself up in similar knots now too.

[NotAllThere]

This applies to Jihadis too right? The Qu'ran states that suicide is a sin, yet Takfiri jihadi's "interpret" this differently - as "dying in the line of fire in the holy war" - is this that they're not "intelligent believers", or does one's reading of a holy text allow any interpretation you like?

I think most people's definition of "intelligent" boils down to "think like I do".

If you don't agree with me, then you are, by my definition, stupid.

[Ruprect]

I think most people's definition of "intelligent" boils down to "think like I do".

If you don't agree with me, then you are, by my definition, stupid.

Now that is nonsense!