Originally Posted By ecdc While I admit the whole notion is crudely put, and I think it is a bit silly to lump such broad groups - atheists and liberals - I do think on some level there's value to these kinds of studies, flawed as this one might be. I know the politically correct thing to do is to laugh at the absurdity of such claims, but I'm not convinced there's nothing there. Even an anecdotal observation of the American political landscape right now allows one to draw some reasonable conclusions about differences between liberals and conservatives on education, intelligence, critical thinking, etc. Of course, you have to start with a general agreement on definitions: liberal, conservative, intelligence, knowledge, etc. But even a glance at the contempt many self-identified conservatives have for higher education, "elitism," etc., can tell us there's something worth exploring. I've long found it amusing that conservatives love to label universities and "the media" as liberal. In other words, places where there's knowledge and information are "liberal" - and that doesn't maybe tell you something? I know, I know, it's an oversimplification. But I think a strong case can be made that, right now in the United States, those who self-identify as liberals are more intelligent than those who self-identify as conservatives. I would never argue that it's universal, or that the acceptance of the principles of liberalism make one inherently smarter. I'd just argue that at this point in time, self-identified liberals value knowledge, facts, and education more than self-identified conservatives. Yes, I get that there are very intelligent, educated conservatives that abhor the Sarah Palin's of the world. But they're drowned out by people who scream, "Keep your government hands of my Medicare!" I think a big reason for this can be traced to conservative media and the "noise machine." The rise of talk radio and then the Internet allowed people to get all their news from one or two sources that simply validated what they already thought. There's a reason you can point to several dozen conservative talk radio hosts, some whose listeners number in the millions, even as Air America goes bankrupt. It's not because, as these conservatives would have you believe, more Americans are interested in "the truth." It's because liberals are more diverse and their more nuanced approach to the world can't be boiled down to simple black and white issues courtesy of Glenn Beck, Crazy Person.
Originally Posted By ecdc Oh, and I also find it amusing that people are so quick to say "How absurd!" when a liberal dares suggest their intelligence is better than a conservative. Isn't that a bit more civil than the blatant, even dangerous conservative contempt for liberals that says we aren't patriotic and we want the terrorists to win?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder In this era of extreme partisanship. I think it is just fanning the flames to come out and say "we're smarter than you", especially when the two popular food groups for conservatives, liberals and atheists, are lumped together.
Originally Posted By ecdc ^^^Agree 100% I don't think it's valuable as a rhetorical device to convince people to change their views. I think it's only valuable as a potential way to understand people's motivations and thought processes, assess the overall state of the country, and then make better decisions on how to reach out to people. The article mawnck (?) posted on metaphorical thinking and why Obama's reasoning with the GOP fails talks about this.
Originally Posted By Labuda "So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals." Funny that I'm just now getting to this thread. Sorry for my tardiness, but, yes, I believe this is true. Evidence within my family: 3 children break down as follows: 1 conservative 2 liberals 1 solid B/C student 2 solid A students who got full ride academic scholarships courtesy of being National Merit Scholars Guess who the liberals are?
Originally Posted By snappyfun >>Guess who the liberals are? << Hate to feed a troll, but I’d say the lib is the C student, unless they’re in public school and the teacher is a nut then the lib kids would get big time grade inflation.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Mr X, I thought you told me before that you weren't an Atheist?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I am very confident in the validity of this study's results. Another coal to burn in the fire of truth (not sure what that means ) but the fact that like 99.999999999999999% of scientists are atheist adds to the validity of the claim. I think for someone to even begin to question their faith in today's society, they have to be quite a bit more open minded and curious and studious. (It's a lot of heavy reading and weighing of facts, etc) And when that leads to an investigation into the validity of religion, weighing of evidence, and coming to the conclusion that there is no God, it makes perfect sense that a person such as this would be more intelligent than a person who blindly accepts faith no matter the facts you present them with. Or a person who has no desire to search out the truth. Of course this is a generalization. BUT, I think the very nature of a statistic such as "atheists and liberals are smarter" is a generalized fact. Taking the overall average out of the groups of people.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Did you really just claim that "the fact that like 99.999999999999999% of scientists are atheist?"
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Did you really just claim that "the fact that like 99.999999999999999% of scientists are atheist?"<< Obvious hyperbole, however, it is true that the vast majority are indeed atheists. Richard Dawkins discusses this at length in his book, "The God Delusion."
Originally Posted By pecos bill Liberalism and freedom from religion are, in my opinion, about progress, while conservative, old time religious values are just that, old time. I dont think one side has more brain capacity over the other, but one side is certainly open to more stimulating thought. Behold the two in Webster's own words. Conservative, 1.tending to conserve 2.tending to preserve established institutions, etc.; opposed to change 3. moderate; cautious. Liberal, 1. generous 2. ample; abundant 3. not literal or strict 4. tolerant; broad minded 5. favoring reform or progress. If people want to remain the same, or even regress, while kneeling to ancient Gods, thats their business, but some of us are moving on.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I'll gladly continue to kneel to my Living God while still learning and working toward the betterment of myself, my family, and my community.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>while still learning and working toward the betterment of myself, my family, and my community.<< Better not let Glenn Beck hear you say that. He doesn't support those things and wants you to leave your church, which has preached social justice for generations.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I didn't say the way I looked to accomplish those things was through government programs.
Originally Posted By Mr X Neither did he. He said churches that worked towards social justice were bad, and you should leave them immediately. He didn't say anything about government.
Originally Posted By Mr X What, about me being an atheist? If that's what they want to call me, I'm fine with it. I don't believe in any of the preconceived HUMAN tales about supernatural gods and magical miracles, and I CERTAINLY don't think any of those church folk know even one little bit more than anyone else about it and most of them have proven they have NO RIGHT to dictate their twisted versions of morality to ANYONE. But I'm not convinced there isn't something out there beyond our comprehension, no. So I think I could fall somewhere between agnostic and spiritualist. But as for the business of big religion, I'm more than proud to wear the badge "atheist" and tell them all that they are bad, bad to the core, for their actions in particular but also for the way they manipulate people into joining up with them and financing them, and keep them around with threats of being outcast in this life and/or being damned for eternity in the "next". Does that answer your question?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance And UtahJosh, I did claim that, but I was exaggerating but only slightly, I will copy and post a synopsis from a study on the matter. "The percent of "leading" scientists who hold religious beliefs has been declining from around 30% in 1914 to less than 10% in 1998. " The actual numbers were: 72.2 percent outright didn't believe in God, 20.8 doubted in a God or were agnostic, and 7% believe in a God. This study only surveyed the Nation's top scientists. The best of the best so to speak, not just your average high school science teacher. Some of the most gifted and intelligent out there. I'm certainly not arguing with you on the existence of God, I'm merely backing up the claim I made that you seemed to disagree with.
