Sunday, 11 September 2011

Dumb sheep? Doh!

Clawing through the bloated coverage of the Rugby World Cup in today's Herald on Sunday in the hope of finding something else to divert them, readers may have been surprised to find that "Bible believing" Christians featured in an unflattering report on research from the University of Edinburgh.

"The more religious you are, the less likely you are to be intelligent..."

Say what?!

"...Christians - particularly fundamentalists who believe the Bible is God's word - have a lower IQ than those who are less religious."

A Kiwi professor who participated in the research notes: "If you believe in religion, you haven't really questioned things."  Um...

The head of theology at Auckland University, Elaine Wainwright, seems less than convinced, though she would be, wouldn't she?

If I was the Herald journalist, I'd be pounding on Brian Tamaki's door for a comment, but I suppose it isn't worth the hassle, what with the body guards and all, so dear Abby took the soft option and found a more conventional bishop.  Perhaps Abby doesn't realise that, excluding Tamaki (who was ordained a 'bishop' by American 'youth specialist' Eddie Long) there are two Auckland bishops, one Anglican, one Catholic.  Which is Patrick Dunn?  She doesn't seem to think it's important for us to know that (he's the Catholic one).  Dunn himself seemed unable to respond in a coherent way, stating that the study's findings are "a bit hilarious."

"However, he did agree that less intelligent people of all faiths tended to be more fundamental in their thinking, 'whether they claim to be Christians or atheists or Muslims or whatever'."

Cold comfort your bishopness, cold comfort.

The actual research, shorn of journalistic 'gee-whiz', might make interesting reading.  If there is a negative correlation between faith and intelligence, it might have more to do with head-in-the-sand dogmatism (the fundamentalist's playpen concept of 'strong faith') rather than a sense of the divine.

But that hardly lets Dunn off the hook, does it?


  1. Dunn himself seemed unable to respond in a coherent way, stating that the study's findings are "a bit hilarious."

    I reckon that I have never seen one of them respond to anything in a coherent way. It's as if their minds are all wrapped up in a fog over in spirit land somewhere.

    Gods, angels, demons, witches, sorcerers and other forms of existence in the magical world of make believe can't be considered intelligent reasoning.

    It would be quite logical to be fearful of such things, if they existed, but since they don't, it has to be that people believe such things simply because they want to and because they think nearly everyone else does.

    It may insult some people to know this but the IQ of the average person is really pretty low. Therefore, since the average person is taught from birth to be naturally follows that the average religious person has an IQ that is pretty low.

  2. This is a common problem in many fields. People seem to have a need to stigmatize or stereoptype others in accordance with their opinions, choice in philosophy, or political affiliation. Though the stereotype can occasionally be accurate (what can we say about modern day "flat earthers"?), in many cases it is instead an artificial leveling device. It places an individual in the position of refuting the stereotype before he can support, defend, or articulate his beliefs.

    Pope Benedict is widely respected for his formidable intellect, but put him in the same room as Al Gore, and what would the partisan press have to say?


  3. To raise the ante a bit, one wonders what you may say about the IQ of proponents of the graphic ad in The Journal for

  4. Congratulations, Douglas! I hope everyone in the ACOGs visits your site as a result of your ad!


  5. Byker Bob, I doubt it will make much difference.

    It's more of a gesture.

    A hand gesture.

    You can guess which one.

  6. I see that the ad I paid for on The Journal website has been taken down after 14 hours.

    This demonstrates the total lack of integrity in any Armstrongist endeavor.

  7. The most persuasive evidence around for the refutation of BI is genetic evidence. The Jews of ancient Palestine were haplotype J along with many other Middle Eastern peoples. The people of the northwest and southwest fringes of Europe are all haplotype R1b1a2. This is quite distant from haplotype J. It is not remotely "next door" in the genetic hierarchy.
    I believe this will eventually lead Armstrongites to proclaim that all Israelites are R1b1a2 and that the people of haplotype J are gentiles. This will be a wholesale forsaking of the truth but will accord with a viewpoint that some Ambassador College faculty members have maintained for years.
    For Douglas Becker, Is there somewhere that I can see your article on the web? Thanks.

    -- Neo

  8. The really hilarious thing about the "lost ten tribes" is that Jesus (the know it all god-man) didn't know that the Samaritans were not gentiles.

    The Samaritans, persecuted because of claiming they were the remnants of the tribe of Joseph, and it turns out that they probably are. If they are, what happened to that "birthright" thingy?

  9. Neo (Neotherm?),

    The articles and website is at DNA Refutes British Israelism.

    If you are Neotherm, you will note your article about being a conscientious objector there. I apologize in advance, because I did try to gain approval before posting but couldn't find the author to do so, and, in fact, had to snag the article from the archives.

    You should be aware that a lot of Armstrongists find the site "angry" and "bitter". It isn't of course -- it's hilarious, but it's difficult to explain rainbows to earthworms, even on a rainy day. You should be warned further that it is still under development. I have not finished what is to be a "Flipping Book", "Misery of the Ages" but it is progress. Also, "A Crumby History of our Stupid Church" is on the dockett.

    There are actually two more websites in the works because is already a bit too big to keep it well organized. One of the websites in prototype is demonstrating that Armstrongism is a mental disorder according to the specifications of the DSM IV.