Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Marguerite · 05-04-2002, 07:00 AM

I think some people are afraid to mess with tradition, so "if it was good enough for me, it's good enough for my kids" is the thinking there.

Also, one of the purposes of religion is to keep people in line. I'm sure that's quite an attraction for control freaks.

Marguerite · 05-04-2002, 07:10 AM

By the way, Bonduca, my brother(the atheist one, not the Baptist preacher) lives in NJ with his wife and kids. They love it there. I would probably love living in the Northeast, but my Cajun husband would definately be a "fish out of water" there.

Kip · 05-04-2002, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marguerite:
<strong>Kip,

What makes you think babies are not intelligent?
Do some research on how much a baby learns in his/her first two years of life.

(Sorry about the delayed response on that one. I had not read all the posts before I replied to the
topic question.)

--Marguerite</strong>

In my experience babies are quite dumb and could not use subtle intelligence to save their life. But I will not press the argument. I may be wrong to stress the relationship between brain size and intelligence, obviously intelligence has as much to do with sofware as with hardware, but the relationship seems obvious to me. Here is a good summary:

Quote:

Much attention has been paid to the size of the brain in comparison to the body of its owner. Scientists have found that what generally differentiates the brains of species with higher and lower intelligence is not the absolute mass of the brain, but a special comparison of the mass of the brain to the mass of the body. This brain/body ratio is called an encephalization quotient. The elephant may have a massive brain compared to ours but not in relation to its body. Many scientists have concluded that species with a higher brain to body ratio are more intelligent. However, this conclusion is debatable since the tree shrew, a mouse-like animal, has the largest brain to body ratio of all mammals. Its brain is around 3% of its body weight while a human brain is approximately 2.3%.

More important than brain/body ratio is the complexity of the brain. Things like the type and number of neurons and number of synapses are what intelligence researchers have found to be consistently linked to a person's intellect. For instance, areas such as the frontal lobes, responsible for complex characteristics and activities such as personality and problem-solving capabilities, are more highly developed in species we view as more intelligent. These areas have a greater number of neurons, glial cells, and synapses. The neurons and glial cells are also larger. Interestingly, dolphins have been discovered to exceed humans in the intricacy of brain structure, a wrinkle to the theory of brain complexity linked to intelligence. Perhaps dolphins are smarter than humans, but on a different level and thus rendering our perception of intelligence false and useless. On the contrary, perhaps we are looking for the wrong differences between those of superior and inferior intellectual capabilites. Humans may be relatively intelligent, but we still have a lot to learn.

<a href="http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110299/brain/intelligence.php?page=intelligence1" target="_blank">http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110299/brain/intelligence.php?page=intelligence1</a>

hinduwoman · 05-04-2002, 04:28 PM

Bonduca,
in India, from what I can see, women are more involved in religious activities. The men are equally devout, but it is the women who conduct the maximum number of rituals, do daily pujas, and insist on following rules strictly. Many of them fast for the well-being of their families and actually enjoy doing it. May be it gives them a sense of importance, or maybe they like having personal connection with gods: who knows?

Panta Pei · 05-04-2002, 11:07 PM

"Where is the proof (aside from personal anecdotes) that women actually are more religious than men? Until it is conclusively established that is IS so, how can we debate WHY it is so?"

I agree, bonduca, my theory was based entirely on my personal experiences here in the deep southern realm of SBC fundamentalism. It is not offered as proof that all women engage in this religious activity or for the reason I expressed

As an aside, two of my long time agnostic/deistic friends (both male) have recently 'converted' to christianity. When we engage in religious discussion they both reveal that they don't really believe in any of it and agree with many of my atheistic positions. (It was claimed, though, that not too many people can think on such a 'high plain' as I do

as if 'atheism' was some sort of strict intellectual exercise when it is simply stating the obvious.)

One is married to a Methodist and they now have three children, so he thinks it is necessary to establish social community ties with other families with similar aged children and 'church' is the best way to do it. He also claims that it is possible that without the 'controlling' factor of religious fear, the masses will collapse into anarchy

<turns off CNN>

The other is now dating a Baptist who has a son by a previous marriage. He takes the child to baseball practice and wants to make inroads to a more established relationship with the mother who is a staunch 'church-goer'.

I told them both that they are truly like brothers to me. However, to 'use' the delusional invention of christianity to manipulate its sheep for personal gain is far more disingenuous and malevolent than merely blindly following irrational dogma. I told them that I needed to invent a pair of sunglasses with the ability to expose just how many other 'christians' in the general population hold to these same tenets.

Our conversation digressed from there and we don't talk much anymore.

Call me naive, but, my ethical standards keep me from this type of behavior strictly on principle. I can understand remaining ambivalent for the sake of compromising with family or loved ones, but to 'role play' in their manner promotes dishonesty and is no foundation upon which to build a healthy relationship.

Locke said it best, "To love truth, for truth's sake, is the principal part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all other virtues."

bonduca · 05-05-2002, 04:13 AM

Panta Pei, that was a great post.

My brother converted from plain old Baptist to Church of Christ, so you can imagine what a depressing thing that is.

I guess that makes him more religious than moi?

abe smith · 05-05-2002, 07:53 AM

To Selfology's initial qy, "why are women more religious..." . Whether this perception is accurate or not (Maybe it is, indeed.); the fact is "You've Got To BE Carefully Taught." (song from musical, *South Pacific*]; sentence was a-propos way back then and is still so now. As women as a CASTE have alwiz & everywhere been dominated by males, they [women] have been carefully taught the structures of their subservience; of which, of course, religious patterns are some of the most durable, pervasive, and rotten. The chances are/may be that women know that dependency, subservience, all-that, are USEFUL to them , in order to perpetuate their DNA, and .... ALAS! women DO NOT WANT to become FREE ---- do they?. If this opinion of mine is false, tell me. Abe

DRFseven · 05-05-2002, 07:24 PM

Quote:

kip: I have read the book. Gould shows how, even after accounting for smaller body mass, women still have (on average) smaller brains by about 15%. Hence the phrase "absolutely much smaller, and relatively somewhat smaller". In other words, the percentage of brain to body mass is less in women than in men. Gould cited this as the bane of the feminism movement.

To set the record straight, women's brains are a little smaller, but the connections are more numerous. Also there are differences in the proportions of gray to white matter according to gender, but no one knows what the relevance, so there's no use guessing.

There are some differences on average between the brains of males and females, but we're not sure how much is due to experiential impact on neural structure. I think the differences in religious behavior are mainly explained by circumstance, even though I do think that there is probably evolutionary benefit in the drive for social cohesion found in many maternal primates.

WJ · 05-06-2002, 12:17 PM

Samhain!

I was trying to be cautious when I made that statement/request, and just thought I'd use simple english... . Anyway, maybe one point is this:

If 'all is meaningless'[Ecclessiastes] and absurd, which personally I can relate to, then how does this involve (Christianity or) a religious belief in God viz. women(?). The answer I think doesn't necessarily stem from lower levels of intellect as it does with the analogy to the world as that of a man's domain and sentient existence. Though I would like to be critiqued by more women here, I'm wondering psychologically, if a women has only but so much 'control' over her Being in a socio-logical sense and/or if it's in fact true that there are lower levels of intellect (whatever that means) found in women as compared to men, then in the end, aquiescience is the end means regardless of how and why one get's to that point. It is just that 'their nature' drew them to that conclusion without going thru any other so-called trials and tribulations from life (or phenomena from life)from a male's point of view. The leap I'm making is because religion is more about the why's of existence, and not the how's.

On the other hand, on a 'secular level' if you will, I would be interested to know how many women consider the truth behind the statement that: 'all is meaningless'. My initial reaction would also be that whatever the answer, age might play a role. Which reminds me, I recall going to jazz concert recently wherein Roberta Flack sat at the piano and questioned the audience by asking...'what is love anyway?'

I guess the whole point to our discussion has been a one of means and ends. Some [people]end up realizing the same types of things about the absurdity of life regardless of how or how long it takes for them to reach that point, and however so illequiped they may appear. I don't know, the only empirical data we have relates to the old worn out theory called emotional intelligence? An unspoken system of thought that doesn't require words to articulate its meaning and subsequent action (ie, the reason your brain decides that you should be in love). Besides, I'm not a women, so how in the heck can I be expected to know any of this? Anyway, do we have an answer to the original question of whether women are more religious than men?

Sorry for the babble....I forgot the point af all this now... .

Walrus

scigirl · 05-07-2002, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bonduca:
Seriously, is there any conclusive proof that women really are more religious than men?

Hey bonduca, quit being so logical, you have two X chromosomes remember?

(I had the same question when I first started reading this thread, and 4 pages later, we are still debating a "maybe")

rational girl (I've got logic, and I feel good about it!)

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-04-2002, 07:00 AM	#91
Marguerite Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: LA, USA Posts: 53	I think some people are afraid to mess with tradition, so "if it was good enough for me, it's good enough for my kids" is the thinking there. Also, one of the purposes of religion is to keep people in line. I'm sure that's quite an attraction for control freaks.

05-04-2002, 07:10 AM	#92
Marguerite Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: LA, USA Posts: 53	By the way, Bonduca, my brother(the atheist one, not the Baptist preacher) lives in NJ with his wife and kids. They love it there. I would probably love living in the Northeast, but my Cajun husband would definately be a "fish out of water" there.

05-04-2002, 04:28 PM	#94
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Bonduca, in India, from what I can see, women are more involved in religious activities. The men are equally devout, but it is the women who conduct the maximum number of rituals, do daily pujas, and insist on following rules strictly. Many of them fast for the well-being of their families and actually enjoy doing it. May be it gives them a sense of importance, or maybe they like having personal connection with gods: who knows?

05-04-2002, 11:07 PM	#95
Panta Pei Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: in the middle of things Posts: 722	"Where is the proof (aside from personal anecdotes) that women actually are more religious than men? Until it is conclusively established that is IS so, how can we debate WHY it is so?" I agree, bonduca, my theory was based entirely on my personal experiences here in the deep southern realm of SBC fundamentalism. It is not offered as proof that all women engage in this religious activity or for the reason I expressed As an aside, two of my long time agnostic/deistic friends (both male) have recently 'converted' to christianity. When we engage in religious discussion they both reveal that they don't really believe in any of it and agree with many of my atheistic positions. (It was claimed, though, that not too many people can think on such a 'high plain' as I do as if 'atheism' was some sort of strict intellectual exercise when it is simply stating the obvious.) One is married to a Methodist and they now have three children, so he thinks it is necessary to establish social community ties with other families with similar aged children and 'church' is the best way to do it. He also claims that it is possible that without the 'controlling' factor of religious fear, the masses will collapse into anarchy <turns off CNN> The other is now dating a Baptist who has a son by a previous marriage. He takes the child to baseball practice and wants to make inroads to a more established relationship with the mother who is a staunch 'church-goer'. I told them both that they are truly like brothers to me. However, to 'use' the delusional invention of christianity to manipulate its sheep for personal gain is far more disingenuous and malevolent than merely blindly following irrational dogma. I told them that I needed to invent a pair of sunglasses with the ability to expose just how many other 'christians' in the general population hold to these same tenets. Our conversation digressed from there and we don't talk much anymore. Call me naive, but, my ethical standards keep me from this type of behavior strictly on principle. I can understand remaining ambivalent for the sake of compromising with family or loved ones, but to 'role play' in their manner promotes dishonesty and is no foundation upon which to build a healthy relationship. Locke said it best, "To love truth, for truth's sake, is the principal part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all other virtues."

05-05-2002, 04:13 AM	#96
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	Panta Pei, that was a great post. My brother converted from plain old Baptist to Church of Christ, so you can imagine what a depressing thing that is. I guess that makes him more religious than moi?

05-05-2002, 07:53 AM	#97
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	To Selfology's initial qy, "why are women more religious..." . Whether this perception is accurate or not (Maybe it is, indeed.); the fact is "You've Got To BE Carefully Taught." (song from musical, South Pacific]; sentence was a-propos way back then and is still so now. As women as a CASTE have alwiz & everywhere been dominated by males, they [women] have been carefully taught the structures of their subservience; of which, of course, religious patterns are some of the most durable, pervasive, and rotten. The chances are/may be that women know that dependency, subservience, all-that, are USEFUL to them , in order to perpetuate their DNA, and .... ALAS! women DO NOT WANT to become FREE ---- do they?. If this opinion of mine is false, tell me. Abe

05-06-2002, 12:17 PM	#99
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Samhain! I was trying to be cautious when I made that statement/request, and just thought I'd use simple english... . Anyway, maybe one point is this: If 'all is meaningless'[Ecclessiastes] and absurd, which personally I can relate to, then how does this involve (Christianity or) a religious belief in God viz. women(?). The answer I think doesn't necessarily stem from lower levels of intellect as it does with the analogy to the world as that of a man's domain and sentient existence. Though I would like to be critiqued by more women here, I'm wondering psychologically, if a women has only but so much 'control' over her Being in a socio-logical sense and/or if it's in fact true that there are lower levels of intellect (whatever that means) found in women as compared to men, then in the end, aquiescience is the end means regardless of how and why one get's to that point. It is just that 'their nature' drew them to that conclusion without going thru any other so-called trials and tribulations from life (or phenomena from life)from a male's point of view. The leap I'm making is because religion is more about the why's of existence, and not the how's. On the other hand, on a 'secular level' if you will, I would be interested to know how many women consider the truth behind the statement that: 'all is meaningless'. My initial reaction would also be that whatever the answer, age might play a role. Which reminds me, I recall going to jazz concert recently wherein Roberta Flack sat at the piano and questioned the audience by asking...'what is love anyway?' I guess the whole point to our discussion has been a one of means and ends. Some [people]end up realizing the same types of things about the absurdity of life regardless of how or how long it takes for them to reach that point, and however so illequiped they may appear. I don't know, the only empirical data we have relates to the old worn out theory called emotional intelligence? An unspoken system of thought that doesn't require words to articulate its meaning and subsequent action (ie, the reason your brain decides that you should be in love). Besides, I'm not a women, so how in the heck can I be expected to know any of this? Anyway, do we have an answer to the original question of whether women are more religious than men? Sorry for the babble....I forgot the point af all this now... . Walrus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.