Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

[Danno 1,228]

This just confirms what we knew all along.

It's funny,

when IQ tests tell us what we like (We are smart) we like them, when they show some Groups are clearly smarter than other groups.... they are unreliable devices to reinforce Racial prejudices.

[scandal 951]

Forgive my wikiness, but this sums it up nicely:

Social evolution is also often regarded (especially, in the field of social anthropology) as evolution of social systems and structures ^[1]

In other words... it's silly science

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nihilistic? How? Hell, I think there's something downright comforting to the thought that this is the only life we have. It compels one to be one's best in this life, since this is our only kick at the can! There are no do-overs in an illusory heaven...there's just Life. So live it well!

Religion or a belief in something beyond our mere existence has been an integral part of societal structure throughout civilization. Even Neanderthals were discovered to have buried their dead in a ritualistic manner. If it were human nature to find comfort thinking that this life on earth is all there is, then we'd have seen that throughout history, but it simply didn't exist...at least not as a dominant societal characteristic.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In other words... it's silly science

Why silly? The ancient Hebrews were once polytheistic and eventually become monotheistic. In other words, their belief system evolved.

[scandal 951]

Why silly? The ancient Hebrews were once polytheistic and eventually become monotheistic. In other words, their belief system evolved.

No it didn't, at least not in the sense that social scientists want to co-opt the term evolution. Their belief system changed, sure. In the informal everyday usage of the word 'change'.

'Evolve' in the biological sciences means very specific things about adaptation of organisms to their environment based upon fitness. It doesn't just mean "change". I don't think it's helpful at all when social science jumps on the bandwagon of physical sciences and tries to use precise terms and concepts to express by analogy similar but very different things.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Why silly? The ancient Hebrews were once polytheistic and eventually become monotheistic. In other words, their belief system evolved.

May have helped that God actually came and talked to them.

[Peikko 1,575]

Religion or a belief in something beyond our mere existence has been an integral part of societal structure throughout civilization. Even Neanderthals were discovered to have buried their dead in a ritualistic manner. If it were human nature to find comfort thinking that this life on earth is all there is, then we'd have seen that throughout history, but it simply didn't exist...at least not as a dominant societal characteristic.

You make a lot of silly assumptions Mr Stones.

Not believing in god is necessarily nihilistic? Rubbish! In fact of all the many, many people I know who are either atheists or agnostics, I can't think of one that believes that because 'life' as we know it spans a very short term as regards one's existence as a human on earth and there is no personal god who has some 'special plan' for us so long as we play by the most complicated set of conflicting rules, that necessarily means one views that life as pointless. Far from it, if you rid yourself of the notion that someone else has mapped out your existence (however benevelantly) it brings a freedom to view human life as incredibly precious and a desire to live that life well and to the full. It also makes one much more aware of the responsibiilities one has for all ones fellow humans and ensuring everyone, no matter who they are, has access to the opportunity to live life well.

Secondly, you seem to be labouring under the impression that the degree of intenstity of belief has, until recently been compellingly strong among the general population. You are very badly off the mark if that's really your view. History is littered with prominant people who have not held a strong belief in god, regardless of the lip service they may have paid to appease the strong arm of the church not to mention that ordinary folks generally were too busy simply existing to worry overly much about the veracity or otherwise of the belief systems that were generally imposed from above.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No it didn't, at least not in the sense that social scientists want to co-opt the term evolution. Their belief system changed, sure. In the informal everyday usage of the word 'change'.

'Evolve' in the biological sciences means very specific things about adaptation of organisms to their environment based upon fitness. It doesn't just mean "change". I don't think it's helpful at all when social science jumps on the bandwagon of physical sciences and tries to use precise terms and concepts to express by analogy similar but very different things.

I disagree. Evolve is a better term than merely change because it is adaptive change, not just changing the curtains because you no longer like them. Behavior and particularly social behavior is very much part of larger evolutionary processes.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

if you rid yourself of the notion that someone else has mapped out your existence (however benevelantly) it brings a freedom to view human life as incredibly precious and a desire to live that life well and to the full. It also makes one much more aware of the responsibiilities one has for all ones fellow humans and ensuring everyone, no matter who they are, has access to the opportunity to live life well.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Secondly, you seem to be labouring under the impression that the degree of intenstity of belief has, until recently been compellingly strong among the general population. You are very badly off the mark if that's really your view. History is littered with prominant people who have not held a strong belief in god...

Religion has been an integral part of the evolution of society. Of course there were/are people within a society and culture who don't adhere to all the cultural traits, however, they were/are the exception rather than the rule. Can you name an ancient civilization where religion wasn't an important part of their cultural identity?

I'm not making an argument to persuade someone to join a religion, I'm just stating religion's importance in social evolution. Is altheism part of that evolutionary tree? You could make that argument.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

Religion has been an integral part of the evolution of society. Of course there were/are people within a society and culture who don't adhere to all the cultural traits, however, they were/are the exception rather than the rule. Can you name an ancient civilization where religion wasn't an important part of their cultural identity?

The problem is, how many people in earlier generations HELD atheistic beliefs but were forced to keep them to themselves, lest they be ostracized, exiled, branded as heretics and / or executed? There's no way of knowing. For all we know, there may have been just as many atheists in prior generations, but they were forced to lie about their beliefs (or lack thereof).

And when we talk about earlier civilizations, how much of the religion mattered, as opposed to ritual and routine? You start getting into some shaky anthropological ground there.

[scandal 951]

Religion has been an integral part of the evolution of society. Of course there were/are people within a society and culture who don't adhere to all the cultural traits, however, they were/are the exception rather than the rule. Can you name an ancient civilization where religion wasn't an important part of their cultural identity?

I'm not making an argument to persuade someone to join a religion, I'm just stating religion's importance in social evolution. Is altheism part of that evolutionary tree? You could make that argument.

This sounds sillier and sillier every time you repeat it. Evolutionary tree? What on earth are you talking about?

[Peikko 1,575]

Religion has been an integral part of the evolution of society. Of course there were/are people within a society and culture who don't adhere to all the cultural traits, however, they were/are the exception rather than the rule. Can you name an ancient civilization where religion wasn't an important part of their cultural identity?

I'm not making an argument to persuade someone to join a religion, I'm just stating religion's importance in social evolution. Is altheism part of that evolutionary tree? You could make that argument.

Religion or belief? Religion has played a huge part in the fabric of societies throughout history - trouble is for the most part religion has been highly political - the hierachy and physical structure playing a far bigger role in life than what one actually believes. What has been important is what one is seen to be doing, not what one believes to be true or false. What is more, the inability to give a scientific (alternate) explanation for the phenomena one experienced every day, and the real fears that if one did not perform religious rituals demanded by the religious hierarchy, these phenomena essential to life would just stop happening often drove belief but not in a meaningful way in terms of suggesting that humans 'need' to believe in a supernatural phenomena in order to feel comfortable in one's skin.

[Peikko 1,575]

This sounds sillier and sillier every time you repeat it. Evolutionary tree? What on earth are you talking about?

I agree. Societies change, but they don't really evolve.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This sounds sillier and sillier every time you repeat it. Evolutionary tree? What on earth are you talking about?

Steven is like VJ's very own Deepak Chopra