There is a concept called "brain pattering". It's how people learn to do a task better by rote. As a person does a task over and over, the brain gets patterned to process the task more efficiently. And because of how the brain works, tasks that are related become better as well. The problem is, it works in negative ways. The more a person purposefully train your mind to ignore evidence, to only believe what you really want to be true, rather than look for truth through evidence and be open minded to knowledge, the less likely they are to be open minded in other tasks and thoughts. Granted, this is a generalization, there are some people who can separate these things, but as a general rule, this is why religious people tend to be anti-intellectual and under-educated. They have trained their minds to be that way.
Well, once a person stops believing fairy tales, that person will likely become smarter simply because of the fact that they are starting to evaluate evidence instead of deciding what they want to believe and then only look for evidence that supports that belief and ignore all other facts and evidence.
So, in essence, yes. A person who stops believing fairy tales immediately becomes smarter, based solely on that decision.
And, they often stop using bad logic--or, at least, a lot less of it. Also resulting in a sudden net gain in intelligence.
I have always thought that one of the most harmful effects of religion is that it comes with a plethora of lessons in bad reasoning.
Well, I agree with you that it CAN take years of growth. However, it can also come in a "revelation", if you will excuse the pun. If, for years a person has been railing against evidence because of their belief that it is invalid because of a religion, when that vale drops, that person can come to accept a LOT of information as true that the day before, so to speak, they denied the truth of. People change in a lot of ways, it's not necessarily a long, slow gradual process.
That being said, yes, you are right. For a lot of people, it tends to be a longer process.
Welcome to the light! :)
So, would you say it was more effective for people to just point out the "hypocrisy" (as you describe it) with your belief system rather than trying to play on your emotions, so to speak?
I believe that, when trying to get a person to see reason, it is crucial to be as unemotional and concise as possible when having a conversation with them. It seems that once a "personal attack" happens, the unreasoning person just shuts down and almost feels justified in their belief because they were able to fluster their debate partner. Did you find this to be true or am I off the mark in my reasoning?