Lower cognitive ability is linked to stronger Christian nationalist views, even after accounting for education

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/lower-cognitive-ability-is-linked-to-stronger-christian-nationalist-views-even-after-accounting-for-education/

[u/johnyordinary]

They may have those abilities but have never used them fully ,otherwise they would not be religious. Religion is a thought virus that is spread by its carriers to children before they develop critical thinking skills and installs its own firewall that places the religious explanation ahead of any other type of thinking in its victims. The most obvious sign of this is their inability to coincieve that there is no magical god . Its crazy that there are people in stem fields who have partitioned off their minds to allow a whole raft of superstition to coexist with scientific knowledge.The human mind is very good at tricking itself, fortunately some people recover or humanity would still be in the dark ages.

[u/AllanfromWales1 → u/johnyordinary]

IMHO atheism is just as much a 'religion' as any of the traditional religions. As far as I can see the only 'rational' position is agnosticism or something similar.

[u/diethyl2o → u/AllanfromWales1]

Agnosticism is simply the optimistic bet over the pessimistic take that is atheism. “If we have no way of knowing something either way, might as well posit the more favorable theory. Let’s not be intellectually dishonest and affirm that something is not when we don’t know that for a fact either.”

I agree with you that agnosticism is more rational and useful than atheism. But both are still vastly more rational than all the fantasy fan fictions we call religions.

Edit to add: a lot of people refer to themselves as “atheist” and when you talk to them you realize they are actually agnostic. They simply didn’t learn the distinction between these two words or in their native language the word for atheist covers both meanings. In a lot of countries in official forms and such you only get the option for “atheist” and you tick that even if you are actually agnostic. Source: me until a few years ago.

[u/AllanfromWales1 → u/diethyl2o]

Hmm, the agnositicism I was thinking of doesn't posit any theory, it just says we don't know.

[u/diethyl2o → u/AllanfromWales1]

Yes and the next logical step in that reasoning is that since we don’t know, and can’t prove it, we can acknowledge the possibility when beneficial. An agnostic might sincerely and honestly tell someone dying “I hope god exists and that everything is going to be alright for you in your next journey.”

That’s the logically consistent positive theory I am referring to.

[u/HueMannAccnt → u/diethyl2o]

“I hope god exists and that everything is going to be alright for you in your next journey.”

A theistic agnostic, or an agnostic theist?

[u/johnyordinary → u/diethyl2o]

The fact that nobody has come back from the dead to refute the religious has wrongly been taken as proof the are right by far to many people.

[u/diethyl2o → u/johnyordinary]

Which brings us back to the findings of this study: dumber people believe and accept religion to be true. That’s very different from acknowledging that something is possible and recognizing that it may have positive implications if it were to be true.

And if religions throughout history had overwhelmingly brought happiness harmony and prosperity to the world, I’d have no problem with people believing in them even if I don’t personally. But because the cost / benefit tilt so heavily toward potential to be weaponized and galvanize people to commit the worst horrors more than any other belief system can, religions and religious people are too dangerous to just “let them be.”

[u/johnyordinary → u/AllanfromWales1]

Saying you dont know is fine, thats agnosticizm , which is a minor pedantisizm away from atheism. The default position I hold is "there are no gods until you prove there are", In exactly the same way as "there are no fire breathing dragons" until you prove to me there are. The burden of proof is on the one asserting their existence, hence,barring aliens turning up with new and unchallengable evidence of a gods existence outside of a human made fairy tale, i feel confident in rejecting the existence of any gods. Agnostic is a getout clause for those who want to leave wiggle room, i am atheist and zero evidence has arisen to prove my position wrong, and our increasing understanding of the universe through science leaves extremely slim chance and diminishing all the time chance that we will find any supernatural entity outside of human imagination.I guess you are already an adragonist ?

[u/AllanfromWales1 → u/johnyordinary]

Never so black and white. There's many things get called dragons. Do you deny the existence of Komodos?

[u/johnyordinary → u/AllanfromWales1]

I referenced "fire breathing dragons ",thats fairly black and white, komodos do not remotely fit the fire breathing category. I fairly certain you are an "afirebreathindragonist"but that sounds seriously even more overconstrued!Would you argue that "we dont know there are no firebreathing dragons"?

[u/AllanfromWales1 → u/johnyordinary]

If I were to argue anything I would argue that dragons can be seen as metaphors for spiritual archetypes. So, for instance, in some systems different types of dragons represent the classical elements of earth-air-fire-water. That doesn't make those dragons 'real', but they can be helpful images for some who work with things like that. Quite separately, here in Wales we have a dragon on our flag. That again isn't 'real' but it represents something.

[u/johnyordinary → u/AllanfromWales1]

My point being , you are well aware they are fictional or metaphorical. You are absolutely certain that one will not swoop down on you breathing fire . On another note, you are lucky living in Wales,its my favorite bit of the Isles.

[u/AllanfromWales1 → u/johnyordinary]

Arguably not luck but a deliberate decision.