No, I only jest. But a British study is making no joke, as it revealed people with higher IQs are less likely to believe in "God"!
"Professor Richard Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts."
As far as I can remember, I always had doubts. I was raised Catholic, which means we were the typical C&E (Christmas & Easter) church-goers. But of course, my parents wanted us to be raised with a well-rounded faith, so they tried to drag us to church more than just twice a year. Not only did I express my unwillingness to go when I was young (just like every other kid who is dragged into a building wreaking of nostril-burning perfume and cheap alcohol), but I also never felt right sitting in the pews, asking some invisible sky-man to forgive me of the sins I had yet to commit! Also, this "god" was a stranger to me (as s/he is to all others because has ANYONE REALLY met god?), and it was confusing to be told to go TOWARDS this stranger when I was told to stay away from all other strangers. When you're a kid, a stranger is a stranger and you don't exactly have the cognitive ability to distinguish between a "good" and "bad" stranger. The whole experience just did not "speak" to me the way my parents said it would, and I just could never get a firm grasp on the concept of a higher power. If s/he's SOO powerful and all-knowing, why has s/he not made an earthly appearance?
Therein lies faith: what is faith? Does faith have to be associated with the devine? Because I definitely have faith, just not in an invisible sky-god. I have faith in people- that they will do what their brains tell them for no other reason than to follow their own convictions. I have faith in my family- that they will always come through for me if I need them and love me for who I am for as long as I am. I have faith in my boyfriend- that he will treat me with respect, and love and support me until given a reason not to. I have faith that good things come to those who wait. And I have faith that people will follow their own path, and not give in to social propoganda and harmful facades.
"Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else."
I'm graduating from college on Saturday. You can put that puzzle together.
48 minutes ago
4 comments:
Uh, well, DUH. LOL I really think that's an obvious one. Look at the majority of religious people! I think the MORE crazy religious the lower your IQ goes. There is an exception though... Ben Stein is a pretty smart dude. I don't know that he is religious though. He may just be like me and think logically there is a god and he made everything but doesn't do anything and most likely laughs at people who do so much religious crap. :-p If I was god I would laugh my ass off at some of the things people think they need to do to "be one" with me. hahaa...
well yea.. i know, right?everyone looks pased the only rule that applies to all religions (treat other as you wish to be treated) to prove that they're more religious than that person. it's all status based, and we're going to kill ourselves off sooner or later.
seriously. it seems the MORE religious someone is, the more competitive AND hypocritical they are. They think they are a better (blank) that you, or they think you shouldn't do that when they go home they do the same. People need to understand that the basic principles are nice (be good, don't judge, don't kill ect.) but you can't take everything these books or tablets say because they could (and most likely were) changed by humans who just made things up to please themselves. people need to live their lives the way that makes them happy and not try so hard to please some higher being or be a better religious person, its a waste of time. But, oh well, if it makes them happy I shouldn't say anything, but they damn well shouldn't say anything to me!! LOL
This is meant purely as a discussion-point and not in any other way, but I think some people have the idea of causality mixed up. IQ has to do with intelligence, which is comprised of logical thinking. Love, for instance, is the exact opposite. Love is an act of free-will, which is in conflict with logic. So, if a British study one day said that "People who spend more time thinking logically are less likely to believe in love," it would simply make sense. It does not necessarily mean that love does not exist. An intelligent person can be unwise, and a wise person can have a low IQ. Wisdom and intelligence are two different measurements, as are emotions. A person with mental retardation can be a wonderful giver of unconditional love, and the most intelligent person in the world could turn out to be a serial killer.
So, focusing on "IQ" alone is just a scape-goat for some other ulterior motive. Often, football players make fun of the intelligent by calling them nerds. Often, the intelligent make fun of football players by calling them dumb jocks. So, obviously, if someone is wanting to bash religion, they only need to use a scientific method. Likewise, if someone wants to bash science, they only need to invoke spirituality. Is the cloud beautiful or is it water-vapor? A debate between the two sides would say that it can be only one or the other... the reality is, it can be both to a world that is open enough to understanding.
If we are nothing more than how our brains are wired, then love does not exist. It is nothing more than brain programming. If this is the case, relationships based on love need not exist. And if there is no "right" or "wrong" way to be, then there would be nothing to suggest that a boyfriend couldn't simply leave his girlfriend one day just because it felt like the right thing to do. If his girlfriend were upset, this would be an emotional response which is not logical, so she could be dismissed as being crazy. Likewise, it could be reasoned that people who choose a monogamous relationship have a brain defect, and one day our scientists can find a cure.
Some might resist, but what is resistance anyway? If we truly have no free-will, then we should all be programmed the same. Any differences should be considered to be a defect and science will find the cure.
If this is the world you yearn for, that's your prerogative. If it is the world that the masses yearn for, then it will come to be. There are a lot of unintelligent people in the church. There are also a lot of unhealthy people in hospitals and a lot of people without degrees in college. To misinterpret causality, one might say that clearly churches are either making people stupid, or only stupid people go to church. One might also say that hospitals make people sick, and colleges are for idiots. Maybe you agree. Whether you agree or not does not mean that you can't see the flaw in this logic. Just because it makes sense does not mean it is logical. It is about as logical as the woman who drowns her kids in the tub to "save" them. Maybe she can make a logical conclusion for her way of thinking, but the whole world shakes their head.
There is no invisible sky-man. There is no invisible sky-woman. The sky has nothing to do with God, and God has nothing to do with being male or female. These personifications are what don't speak to most. Many will agree that gravity exists, even though nobody can "see" gravity. Only the effects are seen. The effects of God is the Universe. We can all see the Universe, yet not all believe that a creation can be created and have a creator. Perhaps gravity has been a lie this whole time and it is really a giant spaghetti monster that is pulling us towards the earth. At least this would answer the age-old question of whether or not gravity is a push or a pull.
If you think the word "faith" means nothing more than "understanding," "belief", or "hope"... then you most certainly have faith. If, however, you think the word "faith" means trusting in an idea that has not been proven formally, then your examples have not demonstrated that you have faith. It doesn't take a leap of faith that people will do what their brains tell them to do, it just takes an understanding of science or a bit of experience in the world. You say you have faith that your boyfriend will love and respect you until he has a reason not to, but that's not really believing in anything. That's like saying "I have faith that this sentence is either right or it is wrong." It's just a generic sentence that doesn't contribute anything more to this world.
Usually, religion comes down to purpose or intent. If you believe the only purpose in life is to live it, then decisions don't matter. Your idea would be that purpose only exists in people's brains and nowhere else. So, once life ceases to exist, so does purpose. Which means that prior to life, there was no purpose. This means that life doesn't exist for a reason, it just happens to exist due to probability. So, a person's life is no more or less important than the life of a tree. And, in fact, life itself is no important than non-life... for instance, a rock. If nothing matters, then the living are just confused creatures crawling around in this muck for no better of a reason than a tree might fall down in the forest. If we were to compare the world to a computer program... the world wouldn't even be an application... it wouldn't even be a virus. It would simply be a corrupt hard drive. Each byte tries to find patterns in the other bytes, but it is all for nothing, because there are no patterns. Just random bytes on an otherwise empty and meaningless hard drive. But this would imply consciousness, for the bytes to even be concerned about the other bytes on the drive. Consciousness is full of intent and purpose... free-will. This means the hard drive isn't corrupt... it is full of programming, with intent... with purpose.
Can the world really exist where there is both science (rules, datasets, programming) and non-science (love, purpose, free-will)? Absolutely. Will humans still debate in a way that suggests that only science can exist, and not non-science... and vice versa? Yes. Just as the cloud can both be beautiful AND water-vapor, life can consist of both religion AND science. Life can consist of both psychology AND free-will. Life can consist of both us AND God. Just because the right brain knows little in the ways of the left brain and the left brain knows little in the ways of the right brain, the two co-exist as one brain. The left brain might say that the right brain is dumb and illogical. The right brain might say the left brain is unloving and lost. Without both halves functioning, there is no purpose to anything. Everything we know goes right out the window. Your personification of God might not make sense to you, but maybe it was the way in which God was personified to you. If your parents had been poor teachers in long division, would you have just suggested that long division does not exist? Perhaps so. That's your prerogative. Or is it just the way you have been programmed?
Anyway, I enjoy your blog. I hope you got that whole landlord/rent situation resolved. My place gives a few days leeway before charging late fees. Of course, it is also family owned.
Post a Comment