nemo

I assume many here read the article in the news wire suggesting atheism is due to lack of fear of hell due to male shortsightedness.
[note: couple of people asking for link, I left a reference to newswire as props as well as in case it changed or was archived, but here you go.
link]

I was curious how many people here had responded. I hadn't found a thread on the subject, so decided to fire up my own.

While trying to remain polite, I asked him whether he had considered other physiological causes, such as perhaps the known link between mystical experiences and reduced spacial awareness.

I also asked how rates could remain roughly the same accross cultures and religions, with the penalties for irreligiosity varying so widely. (in some places, none at all)

Although of course, even if the cause is that, which I doubt from personal experience, none of my friend's atheism is such a simpleminded thing.

nemo

Oh, and although I forgot to ask, I'd dearly love to see the data used for such a metastudy, and the criteria for the statistical analysis (as well as whether they were formed before or after collecting the data).

Heck, I'd like to see the study, period, although I suspect I'd have to buy a subscription to some sociology magazine to do so.

Straight Hate

Male short-sightedness? Does that mean all the 'women' around here aren't really women after all?

Jokes aside, I suppose the idea could have a short measure of worth - but from what I've learned in my brief encounters with psychology, it's downright stupid to isolate one 'mechanism' and pretend it's the sole cause.

How, then, would this professor explain a group like the transhumanists?

Personal anecdotes never go to far, but theists seem to have the least vision of anyone.

Shake

Yeah, I saw that article too. Has this guy never met any short-sighted women?

As for me, my vision is roughly 20/15, and that's hardly short-sighted!

Actually, this study might just be short-sighted as well!

Wyz_sub10

One of the problems of this study is that is asks the wrong question - why *don't* people believe in an invisible, quiet, unaffecting, supernatural being is hardly a question worth asking.

Why people *do* believe is a much more valid question.

Believing in something intangible requires an explanation. *Not* believing in something intangible should be the starting position.

His conclusions are foolish. I don't believe aliens are abducting people - is that my "male" short-sightedness? I don't believe that rain is caused by the crying of angels. Am I afraid of angels?

Alludium Fozdex

Could someone post a link to this article or some info about it, please?

<edit: D'OH! I found it in, of all places, the newswire, via the link right up top. Sometimes me not think good...:banghead: >

theyeti

There's a (potential) serious flaw in their reasoning too.

Unless they've determined that norms of socialization are not common throughout numerous cultures, then there is no good reason to dismiss that possibility (or any socialization hypothesis). This is one of those grey areas where the dichotomy between nature and nurture completely breaks down. The natural differences between the sexes tend to be reflected in socialization. For example, I am not aware of any culture past or present in which females had a monopoly on political power. This is probably due to the fact that men have greater physical strength and aggressive tendancies, and so this becomes reflected in socialization where men are encouraged to be agressive, and women are encouraged to be more submissive. They may have determined that this doesn't hold in every culture, but it appears that they've simply dismissed the possiblity.

Translation: We simply picked the most satisfying ad hoc explanation, while ignoring the vast array of other possibilities, without further justification. If it's physiological, it must be this explanation, because it's the most insulting, and not another. Whether or not non-religious people actually believe that they're right is irrelevant to the situation.

theyeti

Nickle

Linky?

Corey Hammer

All I can say he's a sociologist. I don't see him dealing with education. I don't see him dealing with risk-taking in groups like missionaries to violent regions. If risk-taking tendencies are correlated with atheism, then what about that?

DMB

Well, as an atheist female, I don't bother with religion and simply don't think I am taking any risk at all, since I think the idea of hell is so much tosh.

Anyway, lots of religions don't automatically consign unbelievers to hell, so where does he get this idea that men are following a risky strategy by nor believing? Can't he grasp that if you don't believe in the religious dogma, you really don't believe that you are taking risks?