We've Got You Outnumbered

I took the shortened test that I posted about yesterday. You can read the full questionnaire here and a breakdown of the results here. I scored 13/15, which means 93% scored worse than, 3% scored better than, and (by process of elimination) 4% scored the same as me. I won't go into the questions I missed, because I don't want the two people who haven't taken it yet to gain an unfair advantage.

Still, even atheists are wondering and throwing ideas out as to why atheists did so well. I think many of them can apply to individuals, but I have another idea that has to do with the communication amongst atheists themselves.

While deconverting and often after deconversion atheists examine religious claims. However, we don't just examine, we often communicate what we found. We discuss it amongst ourselves, and this is often on the internet.

However, unlike the usual Bible study held in churches, these aren't restricted to what the "leader" wants you to read or discuss. We flip back and forth between topics. It can be subjects withint the religion in question that are contradictory, and quite often the similarities with other religions. While traveling from their original belief to atheism an atheist will often "experiment" with other religions, or at least investigate them. This gives many a broad range of knowledge in the differences and similarities between religions.

However, I think the main difference between atheists and believers is authority. There are some atheists who are more visible than others, but we have no leaders or authorities. Some are more respected, but if we disagree with them we won't hesitate to say so. It often happens on the post or during the discussion that they were having on the subject even. When was the last time you ever heard of a member of some congragation tell a pastor, preacher, or priest that there's another passage in their religious text that contradicts what the leader said?

In the atheosphere this leads to any discussion covering a broad range of knowledge, with everyone being able to contribute. We're encouraged to think for ourselves, examine what is being said, and contribute our thoughts to the discussion. However, if we disagree with what's being said we don't have to worry about being "excommunicated" from the group. As long as we have evidence to support what we said, and we're willing to change our minds if proven wrong, then no one has a problem with revolutionary thinking. It's how we grow, and, I think, one of our greatest strengths.

So I don't think atheists are more intelligent than the relgious, but I do think we're more open to exploration. Examining different religions doesn't challenge our faith, because we have none. Putting forth a different idea that contradicts the "leader" is encouraged if you find reason to believe they're wrong.

Atheism can be more than not believing in the existence of gods. To me, it's the sharing, discussion, and broadening of ideas. We don't depend on an "elite" to lead the discussion, we can all participate and put in our own ideas. Instead of only gaining what we have time to learn, we can share what we've learned with others and learn from them at the same time. If what is said is interesting to the individual they can do more research to add even more to the subject. It isn't restricted to the path the "leader" wants the discussion to take, but to the minds and discoveries of those involved.

Even in our everyday lives atheists listen to others beliefs. Sometimes, hopefully when circumstances dictate, we point out the inconsistencies or errors, but such beliefs also can create interest. We'll study what is said, not just from one source but from many. Looking for both the supporting and contradicting evidence. Even if the subject never arises with that person again, we still have that knowledge stored for later use and in many cases the subject will come up somewhere else. If it's among other atheists, we explain our research and what we found, pointing them to the relavent evidence.

For those steeped in organized religion it's the opposite. The "leader" will tell them what passages to read and explain to them what the passages mean, often ignoring the parts before and after the passage that can contradict the message. This goes for the sermon, as well as Bible study. There is no open exchange of ideas, and anything contradicting the lesson is either ignored, blown off, or outright discouraged.

Basically, it's not that any particular atheist is more intelligent than any particular religious person. It's just that the religious person only knows as much as their "leader", where an atheist draws upon the knowledge of other atheists, and everyone else he knows.