Is religion an evolved domain or instinct?

[trotsky]

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/s-ira051717.php

The question about why more intelligent people tend to be atheistic dates back to the times of Romans and Ancient Greeks. The link between intelligence and religion can be explained if religion is considered an instinct, and intelligence the ability to rise above one's instincts. This is the suggestion by Edward Dutton of the Ulster Institute for Social Research in the UK, and Dimitri Van der Linden of the Rotterdam University in the Netherlands, in an article in Springer's journal Evolutionary Psychological Science.

The Intelligence-Mismatch Association Model proposed by the two authors tries to explain why historical evidence and recent survey data in different countries and between various groupings supports the stance that intelligence seems to be negatively associated with being religious.

...

Dutton and van der Linden argue that religion should be regarded as a separate evolved domain or instinct, whereas intelligence allows people to rise above their instincts. Rising above instincts is advantageous because it helps people to solve problems.

...

"If religion is indeed an evolved domain -- an instinct -- then it will become heightened at times of stress, when people are inclined to act instinctively, and there is clear evidence for this," says Dutton. "It also means that intelligence allows us to able to pause and reason through the situation and the possible consequences of our actions."

[rug]

1. Ah, the old "believers are stupid" ploy.

Wrapping the word "science" around it doesn't cut it.

[Fix The Stupid]

2. What's your view on exorcism?

yeah...that's what I thought...

[rug]

3. About the same as my view of your posts.

[Fix The Stupid]

4. No answer? Can't defend a core RCC teaching?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[rug]

6. I gave you the answer, even though yoiur question was a disruptive non sequitur.

Tough shit if you don't like it.

[Fix The Stupid]

8. Hmmm...

I asked you what your views on a core catholic teaching was, specifically, exorcism...

And your retort is "about the same as I view your posts"

So...logically...

You think my posts are 'possessed by a demon'?

You think I need an 'exorcist'?

Why can't you just say it?

It is a deeply held religious belief - I can't mock you for thinking that way...

[rug]

11. They're both irrational.

Although exorcisms are less obnoxious.

[HopeAgain]

26. Well played, sir

[rug]

27. Thanks.

[Volstagg]

5. That's not how statistics work.

I mean, you know that, right? A correlation doesn't mean that everyone in an entire population is that trait. Just means that there is a correlation between the two traits (or, in this instance, a negative correlation between two traits).

But, hey, I guess saying "oh, you are saying all believers are stupid" and then stomping off might make you feel better. So don't let me stop you.

[rug]

7. Stomping off?

Since you have allegedly been here but four weeks, I'll assume you haven't seen the many posts that claim exactly that.

Here's a clue: trotsky's popcorn.

[Volstagg]

9. It's a phrase. Maybe not common where you're from.

No, I haven't seen that since I've been here. I'll keep an eye out. This certainly isn't one of them, though.

I see you ignore the discussion about what statistics do and that, specifically, they don't do what you are saying they do.

[rug]

10. I'll lay odds you'll see them by Monday.

[rug]

21. Only took three days.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/123053386#post7

[Volstagg]

23. I don't see any "Believers are stupid" in that.

It's the abstract explaining the negative correlation with three possible explanations.

[rug]

24. "atheists are more intelligent than religious people"

You're slicing the baloney pretty thin.

[Volstagg]

28. First of all, that's the title of the article

not what someone here is saying. Seems like a headline writer went for something more sensational than the article. I'm as shocked as you are. Do you want to be held responsible for the headlines of the myriad articles you post about atheists? Should the person who posted the OP have changed the title? Because from what I've seen here, that is frowned on (admittedly, I've only really hung out in about 3 placed).

Secondly, the abstract of the study doesn't say that. It only discusses the negative correlation with possible explanations.

[Lordquinton]

19. Been here four weeks

and he already has your number.

[rug]

22. What number is that quinton?

Are you hiding behind cryptic statements again?

[Lordquinton]

32. ...really?

Like, really really?

[rug]

34. Yeah, really.

[Volstagg]

30. Not that hard

when the number is worn like a football jersey.

[rug]

33. Even easier when posts are filled with talking points and memes.

[Volstagg]

35. This your first time on the Internet?

[rug]

36. No. Nor is my first time encountering internet antitheists.

The predictability is palpable.

[Volstagg]

37. So because somebody isn't religious

they are automatically labelled antitheist? Interesting.

I know a good number of incredible people that are antitheist, though, so it doesn't hurt as much as I think you hope it does.

[rug]

38. Most people who are not religious don't spend their time trolling the internet with antitheist memes

Those that do are indeed antitheists. If you go to the trouble to don a shirt, check the label.

[Volstagg]

39. So, I take it from the plethora of OPs you post in here, that you are an anti-atheist.

Yes? If no, apply shirt test to yourself. I don't recall posting any antitheist memes.

[rug]

40. Take it any way you want.

Although I do find that inference amusing..

[Volstagg]

41. It's basically the same inference you are making.

Don't like something about religion = antitheist
Don't like something about atheism (though you post A LOT about it) = anti-atheist

I'm not making an inference. I'm just using your inference and applying it to you. You are free to change your inference at any time if you find it amusing.

[rug]

42. If you think you're "just using your inference and applying it to you", you're not very good at it.

Atheism is far from antitheism, much as antitheists would like the cover.

[Volstagg]

43. Um, I don't think you address the question at all. Are you anti-atheist?

Based on what I can see from your posting pattern on the first page (no desire to look further), one would think that applying your standards.

"Atheism is far from antitheism" is a non sequitar to that.

[rug]

44. I don't think you read my post.

I'm not antiatheist. I'm anti-antitheists. I'm also anti-assholes. Particularly ignorant ones.

[guillaumeb]

12. How................insightful?

No, not quite.

Perhaps.....illuminating?

No, not that either.

I know! How very convenient that an atheist decides that atheism is an indicator for intelligence. Whoever could have guessed the outcome?

[Volstagg]

13. Um, Dutton has a degree in Theology

and teaches the Anthropology of Religion. Are you seriously doubting his credentials?

[guillaumeb]

14. Simply stating my opinion of the type of posts

that attempt to link intelligence with atheism. Intelligence levels vary among people.

I believe that Charles Murray also did some work attempting to correlate intelligence levels. Does he not also have a degree?

[Volstagg]

15. The posts aren't making those "links." The studies are.

And those studies are only indicating a correlation--or in this case of this study a negative correlation.

But your indication that the study was flawed because they person is an atheist is 1. not true and 2. irrelevant. The correlation exists if the correlation exists. It doesn't indicate causality.

[trotsky]

16. Did you read their findings?

What are your specific disagreements with their methodology or analysis?

[Volstagg]

20. I'm guessing it's more

than it is even an understanding of the methodology or analysis. But I'm relatively new, so I could be wrong.

[guillaumeb]

25. People can generally find "proof" for whatever they wish to prove. eom

[trotsky]

29. So no, you have nothing to criticize.

You just don't like the results. Understood.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. People generally trot out vapid anecdotes when they have nothing worthwile to offer.

You might actually identify what about the article leads you believe the author is biased or otherwise dishonest, but that would take some, you know... effort.

[guillaumeb]

45. Referring to the post?

Understood. Confirmation bias is a strong thing.

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. The referenced article is published in a scholarly journal.

If you suspect confirmation bias, the intellectually honest thing to do is demonstrate where in their method the authors gave into bias. I don't much care for the field of evolutionary psychology, for reasons I've enumerated here many times before, but I care for people making unsubstantiated character attacks even less. So, here's a link to the article. Put your money where your mouth is and tell us where they went wrong.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0101-0

[uriel1972]

17. Perhaps not "Atheists are more intelligent"...

more "Intelligent people are more likely to be atheists"... perhaps

[Volstagg]

18. Nothing about the study indicates causality.

It is just showing a negative correlation between intelligence and belief.