Religion and Intelligence

[anonshadow]

I don't quite take your meaning, and I'm not sure how it refutes any of what I just said.

[jotabe]

It was a comment, not a contraargumentation ^_-
I just wanted to point out that you can't (you shouldn't) believe or disbelieve science. Science it's there, and it works.

[mr_thebrain]

i'm just going to put the link to this article in here.

[zeroguy]

Jota, what about stuff like General Relativity, Superstring Theory, or P=NP? Seems like there's still some room for belief there (well, until something gets proven, or something).

[jotabe]

Not really room for belief. Scientists have their favourites, sure, but these theories are still queueing for experimental validation. The only room you could have for belief is when it comes to interpretation of physical laws, like, for example, the interpretation of quantum uncertainty. But such interpretations are hardly science, they are more like philosophy of science.

[Eaquae Legit]

I just realised something that I probably should have long before.

I'm sure many people here have heard of Louann Brizendine's book, The Female Brain. The most sensational "revelation" of the book is that women use approximately 20,000 words per day, while men use only 7,000. Dr. Brizendine claims this as fact in her book, and provides a slew of scientific studies "for futher research," if you're interested. Her claim has been taken as fact, and odds are good you've heard it before. Probably you nod your head and think "They needed a study to prove that?"

Problem is, it's wrong. Flat out wrong. Complete fiction. Dr. Brizendine has never done any studies on the topic. The studies she cites have nothing to do with her claim. In fact, there are many studies that compare how much talking men and women do -- they find small differences, often in the direction of more talk from men. The fall-back position that "communication events" rather than words were counted does not appear to be based on any empirical research either. Published counts of gestures and facial expression produce essentially the same results that word counts do.

What does this have to do with anything? Scientists can be wrong. Scientists can be biased. They can publish lies and myths as fact and have them accepted. My current favourite quote is "In today's public discourse, science is treated not as a search for the truth, but as source of edifying fables."

They aren't smarter or more impartial than anyone else.

[zeroguy]

What does this have to do with anything? Scientists can be wrong. Scientists can be biased. They can publish lies and myths as fact and have them accepted.

Another case in point: the whole global warming issue. Scoff if you will, but there are "scientific" studies "proving" both that it is happening and that it is not. And I've seen some pretty smart people on both sides of the fence.

[hive_king]

EL, where did you get that they're not any smarter than anyone else? You go from an anecdote about a crooked scientist to that statement, I don't think your logic follows. I mean, what does that even have to do with intellegence? I posit that most scientists are A) more educated than the majority of the population (After all, most have a phd. My former roomate got a doctorate in chemistry. I looked through his disertation, and let me tell you that's some complex stuff.) and B) Smarter, intellectually. Once again, we're talking about people that have doctorates, many in hard-science fields. As I understand it, you usually have to be pretty bright to get that far.

And also, but are you stating that they're not any more impartial than anyone else as a fact, or an opinion?

[starlooker]

There is a LOT I want to say in this thread -- I just found it -- but I don't have time. A lot of what I want to say has to do with the nature of statistics in general. And IQ studies. So, I'm probably going to come back to this thread a lot. I'll start with a statistical questions I wanted to comment on and return to other issues later.

I would need to know exactly how many people were in those studies to even consider them, eriador. And the first one, which does provide a number, is far too little to take very seriously. Any study that surveys less than a thousand people, especially regarding a topic where it's easy to find a thousand people, may not be used as a generalisation for society as a whole.

Actually, that's incorrect. It kind of misses the point of inferential statistics, generally. The idea is to take a sample and be able to generalize results to the rest of the population, with the assumption that the features you are sampling are normally distributed.

What would be more important would be to know the sampling procedure and whether or not the sample was stratified to match society - as well as who was included in the sample, and whether or not the features of that population differ in a meaningful way from society as a whole. However, generally speaking, if I had a study with over a thousand people I would die of sheer disbelief. (And, given that I'm a grad student with no financial resources, I think that it would prove God's nonexistence in the manner of the Babelfish from HGTHG.) However, the two main issues of sample size are 1) sample representativeness (which, after you reach the point that you are meeting the assumptions for the statistic you are using is not dependent on sheer sample number) and 2) Power. And if you have significant results, then your sample was big enough for adequate power.

Also, in correlational studies, the issue of significance of results as compared to effect size is a bit trickier. With enough people, EVERYTHING correlates significantly with EVERYTHING. That's just the nature of correlational studies. So, actually, with smaller numbers (assuming the numbers are high enough to meet the assumptions of the procedure you are using) if you find a significant correlation that's somewhat more impressive than if you had huge numbers. But the real question, after significance is met, is effect size. This is, sadly, unreported in a lot of studies since they tend to focus more highly on significance.

Now, that said, I looked at the site and, frankly, am unimpressed with the amount of data they give in these studies to back up their claims. That's why I tend to ignore ANY media announcement of "psychologists have found (and, also, ignore pretty much anything published in Psychology Today)" because they're often taken out of context. Really, in order to understand the implications of the study, you do have to read -- or at least, thoroughly skim -- the study itself. One study alone - or one scientist alone -- does not a scientific finding make. Replication is important.

That said, I do hear a lot about "tests are biased" and "scientists can be biased and wrong." These things are true. However, they cannot be blanket claims to dismiss findings, nor are they intellectually honest reasons to dismiss a finding you dislike. The disagreement cannot be with the person who is conducting the study but with the methodology and interpretation of the study itself -- or with the tests themselves. Yes, tests can be biased but they are biased in very specific ways -- many of which have been studied. There is serious debate in the scientific community about their proper utility. They do serve a purpose, and I like assessment. On the other hand, I'm aware that they have their faults and can be interpreted in such a way that folks are misled (e.g., the spurious and roundly discredited claims of "The Bell Curve.")

EDIT: Removed a point based on actually reading what the sites authors had to say about their findings.

However, continuing on, myself, I would not be surprised if there were a correlation. This does not mean I don't know intelligent, well-educated people who are quite religious -- it means I grew up in a town where religion was most central in the lives of those with less education, lower SES, and, yes, probably less intelligence on the whole (NOT saying unintelligent, btw. Not at all. Also, I will point out that I made my religious home with the folks I'm describing for years.) And I certainly do not think this has anything to do with the accuracy of faith, per se.

Even if there is a correlation, much depends on the strength of the correlation and the degree of overlap. It does not mean that people who are religious are not or cannot be intelligent -- doesn't even mean that it's uncommon. It's a statistical finding which means there's a degree of overlap, but on the whole here's the finding. How much of an outlier you intelligent religious folks are (if you are even outliers -- I haven't seen the statistics, so I don't know) cannot be inferred from anything posted thus far. But I think that people are getting really needlessly defensive here, and arguing against points they are afraid people are going to make rather than points that people are actually making.


EDIT: Ignore that last point. I just read the conclusions the sites authors drew, which I ignored at first because, as I said, I tend to do that with this types of reports and just look at the data. Yeah, they're overreaching quite a bit.

[starlooker]

By the way, since I don't REALLY need a dissertation proposal, I've started doing a cursory lit review on the subject. Just so you're aware, there have also been studies published which find no correlations between religiosity and intelligence, and a couple of studies that found positive correlations.

Francis, L.J. (1998). The relationship between intelligence and religiosity among 15-16-year olds. Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 1, 185-196.

provides a brief lit review of these, as well as other studies that have found a negative relationship. Anyone wants more info, PM me and I'll send you the article. I find it interesting that the original link didn't bother including studies that showed no relationship or a positive relationship, by the way.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE STATS, YOU MAY WANT TO SKIP THIS

I will now comment on the study itself, after having read it briefly, just so that you all have an idea what is missing from the brief summaries of those studies that are found at the link that originated this thread:

The study itself (done in England) found no relationship between intelligence and religiosity. It found a negative correlation between intelligence and social class. It also found more positive attitudes toward religion among girls compared to boys. It used Raven's Progressive Matrices as an indicator of intelligence, which I like in this sort of study as that has a high loading for general intelligence and is not dependent on vocabulary or factual knowledge.

A more close look at the results is troublesome. The fact that they correlated sex (a categorical variable) with, well, anything without indicating using a different type of correlation (as, well, you can't DO that with simple linear regression and SPSS doesn't allow you to do it easily) makes me suspicious of their statistics in general. (Girls generally had more positive attitudes towards Christianity than boys, but wouldn't you use a T-test for this rather than reporting it in the bivariate correlation matrix? Or simply note that it's related in the multiple regression where it was, presumably, dummy-coded?) In simpler terms, I'm suspicious of their sophistication with regards to the procedures they're using -- and I'm not that sophisticated myself. I could be wrong on both those counts (but I don't think I am. Probably, they used a corrrect procedure but that they did not report it and this is not a well-respected journal (that I know of, anyways) makes me suspicious of their findings to begin with).

I like multiple regression, as it allows you to take a variety of variables into account as well as see how they relate with one another. This is the second procedure they used, in addition to simple bivariate correlation. They did a multiple regression indicating that intelligence, in the presence of sex and social class, does not significantly correlate with intelligence. As I said, I'm concerned about their use of this statistical procedure per se. However, they did not report part/partial correlations which are very informative with this sort of procedure. Also, they didn't report how they entered variables into the multiple regression -- both social class and intelligence were non-significant as predictors of religiosity, but did they do a stepwise procedure or an enter procedure? That is, did they run the equation with the variables entered or simply find that they were NS and therefore not entered into the equation at all? This has implications in regard to the possibility of findings being masked.

Their conclusions I find interesting, and intellectually fun to speculate with, but not really supported by their data. For example, they note the possibility of opposite social forces at work (since social class and intelligence negatively correlate). On the one hand, they point out, higher SES folks are more likely to go to church, which may promote positive attitudes toward Christianity. On the other hand, lower SES folks are more likely to have socially conservative attitudes which promote more positive attitudes toward Christianity. They point out this only shows up after controlling for church attendance, but I don't see where they did that. There's plenty of information that they did not take into account. Also, they only point out the significance of the SES/IQ correlation, and do not ever mention its relative size (tiny). Therefore, even if there is a relationship between IQ and religiosity mediated by SES -- which is what I think they're saying -- none of their statistics provide a convincing case for it. What WOULD have been interesting would have been a strong bivariate correlation between IQ and Religiosity which disappeared when entered into an equation with SES. THAT sort of finding would have made their discussion actually seem connected with the results section.

Also, they do not address their study's limitations, which are many. Anyways, their major finding is that there was no significant relationship between intelligence and religiousity. Limitations I found? 1) Generalizability from England given the possibly varied relationships between religion and social classes in different societies, 2) statistical questions raised above, 3) although their sample size, at first blush, seems adequate they only had 12 subjects from the lowest SES raising questions in regards to the correlation they found between IQ and SES (although, these questions would be addressable in regards to the study -- also, this is a finding that has been duplicated and reduplicated.). Also, they did not report what their avg. IQ WAS among these students, or the range of IQ, which I find a curious omission. 4) Although this correlation was significant, it was also VERY small (-.18 ) meaning that it only predicted 3% of IQ variance. This relates to my comments in my preceeding posts regarding the importance of taking into account effect size as well as significance when running correlations with a large sample.

IF YOU GOT BORED SILLY READING THE ABOVE, START AGAIN HERE:

Now, that's my thoughts after reviewing the study fairly briefly. That it's interesting, but quite flawed and raises a lot of questions.

If I were a newspaper reporter or wanted to strongly argue the case in a brief amount of space that there's no relationship between IQ and religiosity?

"In a study of adolescents using 711 subjects, well-accepted IQ tests and religiousity measures, and controlling for the effects of sex and SES, no relationship was uncovered between IQ and religiousity."

And THAT is why you should always be distrustful of little blurbs and go read the source article yourself, if possible.

~~~~~~
New topic:

Oh, and in my VERY cursory glance through PsychInfo, it appears that there are some folks, interestingly, who are arguing for adding a "spiritual" intelligence to Gardner's multiple intelligence framework (Gardner argues against it.) Myself, I do not believe in "multiple intelligences" at all -- I think the construct is fallacious, the numbers don't support it, and it plays into the argument it's making (i.e., we value "traditional" constructs of intelligence too highly) but for those who DO like the concept, just thought I'd throw that out there. I find the concept intriguing, and possibly with some merit, though I wouldn't put it in the sphere of its own "intelligence" per se.

[zeroguy]

EL, where did you get that they're not any smarter than anyone else? You go from an anecdote about a crooked scientist to that statement, I don't think your logic follows. I mean, what does that even have to do with intellegence? I posit that most scientists are A) more educated than the majority of the population (After all, most have a phd. My former roomate got a doctorate in chemistry. I looked through his disertation, and let me tell you that's some complex stuff.) and B) Smarter, intellectually. Once again, we're talking about people that have doctorates, many in hard-science fields. As I understand it, you usually have to be pretty bright to get that far.

I thought EL was more going for the angle that the studies cited are not infallible. Those were the things that were biased, influenced, whatever. (And even though it doesn't have to do with this, I'm still not convinced of your B.)

[starlooker]

By the way, I'd like to point out that as we're dealing with human behavior, etc. the scientists we're talking about are psychologists, which is why my sudden interest in this forum.

What does this have to do with anything? Scientists can be wrong. Scientists can be biased. They can publish lies and myths as fact and have them accepted. My current favourite quote is "In today's public discourse, science is treated not as a search for the truth, but as source of edifying fables."

They aren't smarter or more impartial than anyone else.

I addressed this indirectly in one of the above two lengthy posts, but want to address it a bit more directly here.

1. Yes, scientists CAN be wrong and biased. So can theologians. So can medieval scholars. And all of these people can publish lies and myths as fact and have them accepted. And, generally, when that happens the members of the profession scream and yell in outrage because that's unethical no matter WHO does it. Faking data and publishing it as fact? Covered pretty clearly in most ethics codes, I do believe.

Frankly, using an example or two or more of psychologists who've done unethical things as a way of debunking psychology as a whole is equivalent to me debunking historical scholarship as a whole because of the biased views of some of the scholars. Or arguing that the Catholic church is inherently corrupt with no truth in it because some of its priests and popes and members have done bad things, and so we should always look for the holes in what "they" say rather than also listening for anything true that "they" might say. Would I ever argue such a thing? No, because that would be, well, wrong.

Also, the beauty of psychology as a science is the fact that there generally will be a confluence of findings - or lack thereof. People are required to publish their methodologies so that studies can be replicated or refuted as necessary. I am utterly against people taking a blurb from a literature review on faith in its accuracy without reading the article. I totally agree that people should be skeptical of mass-published findings. However, that does NOT mean that all of it is bunk. It just means people should educate themselves in regards to what good science looks like.

2. "In today's public discourse, science is treated not as a search for the truth, but as source of edifying fables."

Part of the beauty of science is the fact that, generally, whatever you publish will be ripped apart by someone else as they attempt to prove that their study improves upon it. Myself, I've given up on thinking there's an ultimate truth that psychological study will find. However, there are specific truths that it does uncover, and specific exceptions. If public discourse treats it as "edifying fables" that is because it's easier to do than actually discuss ambiguity and limitations in findings in terms of what they are -- ambiguity and limitations. Personally, I hate public discourse on psychology because it tends to fall into two categories. The first is people who spout blurbs and generalizations to support their own biases without admitting to limitations to those or investigating them any further. They tend to overrespect the profession and its findings (selectively ignoring disconfirming evidence), treating them as unquestionable truth. The second category, which also irritates me, is that of people who are entirely and cavelierly dismissive of psychology (in all its branches) because of hearing of a few examples of its failures (lord knows, there are plenty) without remembering its successes or who use this in defense against the first group or when confronted with a finding they don't like. Also, ironically, this sort of public bias tends to conveniently ignore the fact that the holes in the studies that they're pointing out and the contrary evidence they're pointing out came to our attention ALSO because of scientists and psychologists.

3. "They" aren't smarter or more impartial than anyone else.

Re: "They aren't smarter" -- yes, statistically speaking, they are. I mean, than the general public, not necessarily than everyone in the whole world or other people who specialize and get graduate degrees in certain areas, but in terms of general IQ, yes. "They" are. In terms of the scientiest surveyed in the studies in question, they were probably smarter than the average person.

However, given what you wrote above about a scientist who lied about her data, I'm thinking the "they" you are referring to are the people who conduct the studies linking IQ and Religiosity. And therefore, I feel the need to point out that "they" are smarter in terms of the fact that a person who specializes in a field, lives and breathes and gets degrees in it, and spends time in the literature looking closely at a subject to understand it rather than skimming it as the general public does is more expert in areas than people who do not. I've seen over and over again in this forum people pull out their expertise on their religion based on their membership and intimate knowledge of the religion, based on books they've read or classes they've taken. And I've seen, over and over again, the affirmation that people who've taken the time and education to acquaint themselves with a particular area of knowledge should be more respected than those who have not. I agree with that entirely, but would suggest that ALSO applies to expertise in areas of science. This is not to say that studies are unflawed or reasoning is good just because someone with a degree does it, but that there is more authority leant to those who have spent time in the area of study they are expert in than someone who's taken a couple of psychology classes (and more weight leant to the opinion of the person who's taken a couple of psychology classes than to the person who's never opened any book having anything to do with the subject.)

Regarding "They are not more impartial than anyone else" --

No. But, in this field, that doesn't have a whole lot to do with it. What's great about it is that, even if the scientist is not impartial, we have means of judging the likelihood that bias played a role in the findings in terms of looking at the methodology, the instruments chosen, the data that is being ommitted or not commented on, etc. Science doesn't ask anyone to take things on blind faith, which is why arguing that "scientists are not impartial" doesn't actually render the findings meaningless. Part of the joy of looking at psychological research is tearing methodology to shreds, granted, but spurious findings are not necessarily related to the motives to the scientist. A solid study is a solid study, no matter who is conducting it. Granted, the discussion ALWAYS has an element of "spin" to it. But, the more you know about the subject, the more able you are to judge whether or not that "spin" is grounded in the data or simply the last gasping hope of what the person thought they would find, but didn't.

[Eaquae Legit]

By the way, I'd like to point out that as we're dealing with human behavior, etc. the scientists we're talking about are psychologists, which is why my sudden interest in this forum.

What does this have to do with anything? Scientists can be wrong. Scientists can be biased. They can publish lies and myths as fact and have them accepted. My current favourite quote is "In today's public discourse, science is treated not as a search for the truth, but as source of edifying fables."

They aren't smarter or more impartial than anyone else.

I addressed this indirectly in one of the above two lengthy posts, but want to address it a bit more directly here.

1. Yes, scientists CAN be wrong and biased. So can theologians. So can medieval scholars. And all of these people can publish lies and myths as fact and have them accepted. And, generally, when that happens the members of the profession scream and yell in outrage because that's unethical no matter WHO does it. Faking data and publishing it as fact? Covered pretty clearly in most ethics codes, I do believe.

Yep. I wasn't trying to say that any one group is worse than another. I was mostly reacting to eriador's statement that scientists, as a group, are better than everyone else. We're all subject to the same human foibles, regardless of profession. Nothing more.

Frankly, using an example or two or more of psychologists who've done unethical things as a way of debunking psychology as a whole is equivalent to me debunking historical scholarship as a whole because of the biased views of some of the scholars. Or arguing that the Catholic church is inherently corrupt with no truth in it because some of its priests and popes and members have done bad things, and so we should always look for the holes in what "they" say rather than also listening for anything true that "they" might say. Would I ever argue such a thing? No, because that would be, well, wrong.

Also, the beauty of psychology as a science is the fact that there generally will be a confluence of findings - or lack thereof. People are required to publish their methodologies so that studies can be replicated or refuted as necessary. I am utterly against people taking a blurb from a literature review on faith in its accuracy without reading the article. I totally agree that people should be skeptical of mass-published findings. However, that does NOT mean that all of it is bunk. It just means people should educate themselves in regards to what good science looks like.

I don't generally go around trying to debunk psychology. I happen to respect it highly.

2. "In today's public discourse, science is treated not as a search for the truth, but as source of edifying fables."

Part of the beauty of science is the fact that, generally, whatever you publish will be ripped apart by someone else as they attempt to prove that their study improves upon it. Myself, I've given up on thinking there's an ultimate truth that psychological study will find. However, there are specific truths that it does uncover, and specific exceptions. If public discourse treats it as "edifying fables" that is because it's easier to do than actually discuss ambiguity and limitations in findings in terms of what they are -- ambiguity and limitations. Personally, I hate public discourse on psychology because it tends to fall into two categories. The first is people who spout blurbs and generalizations to support their own biases without admitting to limitations to those or investigating them any further. They tend to overrespect the profession and its findings (selectively ignoring disconfirming evidence), treating them as unquestionable truth. The second category, which also irritates me, is that of people who are entirely and cavelierly dismissive of psychology (in all its branches) because of hearing of a few examples of its failures (lord knows, there are plenty) without remembering its successes or who use this in defense against the first group or when confronted with a finding they don't like. Also, ironically, this sort of public bias tends to conveniently ignore the fact that the holes in the studies that they're pointing out and the contrary evidence they're pointing out came to our attention ALSO because of scientists and psychologists.

I'll be honest, I wasn't even thinking about psychology when I posted. I've been following this sad, sorry story since September on a linguistics blog. The degree to which things can be tested and retested is what sets science apart from other fields, and I'm not casting any aspersions on science itself.

3. "They" aren't smarter or more impartial than anyone else.

Re: "They aren't smarter" -- yes, statistically speaking, they are. I mean, than the general public, not necessarily than everyone in the whole world or other people who specialize and get graduate degrees in certain areas, but in terms of general IQ, yes. "They" are. In terms of the scientiest surveyed in the studies in question, they were probably smarter than the average person.

However, given what you wrote above about a scientist who lied about her data, I'm thinking the "they" you are referring to are the people who conduct the studies linking IQ and Religiosity. And therefore, I feel the need to point out that "they" are smarter in terms of the fact that a person who specializes in a field, lives and breathes and gets degrees in it, and spends time in the literature looking closely at a subject to understand it rather than skimming it as the general public does is more expert in areas than people who do not. I've seen over and over again in this forum people pull out their expertise on their religion based on their membership and intimate knowledge of the religion, based on books they've read or classes they've taken. And I've seen, over and over again, the affirmation that people who've taken the time and education to acquaint themselves with a particular area of knowledge should be more respected than those who have not. I agree with that entirely, but would suggest that ALSO applies to expertise in areas of science. This is not to say that studies are unflawed or reasoning is good just because someone with a degree does it, but that there is more authority leant to those who have spent time in the area of study they are expert in than someone who's taken a couple of psychology classes (and more weight leant to the opinion of the person who's taken a couple of psychology classes than to the person who's never opened any book having anything to do with the subject.)

I should have been more specific. I had meant scientists in general ("they") versus people of other professions. A PhD chemist versus a PhD historian, for example. Or a B.A. biologist versus a B.A.

Regarding "They are not more impartial than anyone else" --

No. But, in this field, that doesn't have a whole lot to do with it. What's great about it is that, even if the scientist is not impartial, we have means of judging the likelihood that bias played a role in the findings in terms of looking at the methodology, the instruments chosen, the data that is being ommitted or not commented on, etc. Science doesn't ask anyone to take things on blind faith, which is why arguing that "scientists are not impartial" doesn't actually render the findings meaningless. Part of the joy of looking at psychological research is tearing methodology to shreds, granted, but spurious findings are not necessarily related to the motives to the scientist. A solid study is a solid study, no matter who is conducting it. Granted, the discussion ALWAYS has an element of "spin" to it. But, the more you know about the subject, the more able you are to judge whether or not that "spin" is grounded in the data or simply the last gasping hope of what the person thought they would find, but didn't.

It certainly doesn't render the findings meaningless. But eriador seems to believe that scientists are universally objective and so their opinion on the existence of God holds more weight than someone else.

Another thing to keep in mind is that scientists are people who's lives require both a certain level of intelligence and a high level of logical critical thinking. In many ways, the correlation between being a scientist and religious belief does not show that intelligent people disbelieve, but rather that those who carefully consider what they're told are less likely to believe.

This is what has been really sticking in my craw. It's seems I've gone overboard in my annoyance. So I'll bow out now. Ciao!

[eriador]

Scientists can be wrong. Scientists can be biased. They can publish lies and myths as fact and have them accepted.

The difference between science and religion is that in science, this kind of thing happens sometimes, while in religion, it happens all the time.





IMHO.

[AnthonyByakko]

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion"

[Fish Tank]

There are many many studies that link higher a than average I.Q. to a lack of religious beliefs. The studies are accurate.

I also believe most "religious" people in America and Europe do not have a damn clue about their own religion and probably couldn't answer simple questions about it. If it's not "Adam and Eve" or "Noah's Ark" people just do not know about it.


How many people could devote their life to science and not be able to answer simple scientific questions?

Whats a nucleus?

Whats a mammal?

What are the ten commandments? No matter how often I ask this question, I have never gotten all 10. Well, except for on the internet lol.

What is the first thing god says in the bible?

[eriador]

let there be light??

(not a christian, so it doesn't matter)

[Eaquae Legit]

I also believe most "religious" people in America and Europe do not have a damn clue about their own religion and probably couldn't answer simple questions about it. If it's not "Adam and Eve" or "Noah's Ark" people just do not know about it.

That, I will agree, is sadly very true (though I bet my reasons are different, heh).

Doesn't mean they're stupid, though. Complacent, perhaps.

[Fish Tank]

Yes, "Let there be Light". Of course it wasn't in English when it was first written though

And I didn't mean it in the way that they are stupid... just that they should read and understand the Bible before they start preaching about heaven and hell. Or anything else.

[hive_king]

Some youth group type christian kid was doing some video survey thing, and apparently I was about the only one he interviewed that could name more comandments than types of beers. I got 9 out of 10, and was a confirmed atheist, it was funny.

[Eaquae Legit]

There are many many studies that link higher a than average I.Q. to a lack of religious beliefs. The studies are accurate.

Source.

Make sure they are peer-reviewed and give me the full citation so I can go look it up myself.

[Fish Tank]

There's a source in the topic, but you can never have just one! The websites below have their sources cited or are their own source.


http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelli ... ligion.htm

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/f ... le156.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm

Burnham P. Beckwith. (Spring, 1986). The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith. Free inquiry.

Clark, Regan (2004). Religiousness, Spirituality, and IQ: Are They Linked? (PDF). University of California. Retrieved on 2006-12-20.

(September, 1999). Scientific American.

Britt, Robert (2005-08-11). Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline (HTML). LiveScience.com. Retrieved on 2006-12-20.

(1998). Nature. 394 (6691), 313. "Leading scientists still reject God" [1]

(1997). Nature. 386, 435--436. "Scientists are still keeping the faith"

Leuba, J. H., The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study. Sherman, French & Co., Boston. 1916

Newport, Frank (2006-06-23). Who Believes in God and Who Doesn't? (HTML). The Gallup Poll. Retrieved on 2006-12-20.

Stan L. Albrecht, "The Consequential Dimension of Mormon Religiosity" Latter-Day Saint Social Life, Social Research on the LDS Church and its Members, (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center,
1998), 286.

Princeton Religious Research Center. Religion in America. Princeton, N.J., 1982


Also I have been a member of MENSA for 6 and a half years, and have found out of the 200 or so people I talk to; religious people are in the minority.

Just a little edit, the articles do show a correlation between more educated people and lack of religious beliefs. Not the direct link between a high I.Q. and lack of religious beliefs.

[zeroguy]

Just a little edit, the articles do show a correlation between more educated people and lack of religious beliefs. Not the direct link between a high I.Q. and lack of religious beliefs.

Are you referring to the articles you just cited? Because that's quite a big difference. Much of the rest of this thread has been debating whether certain things show knowledge or intelligence.

[eriador]

*bump*

http://paulsen.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

This is a well supported article showing a marked correlation between the average IQ of a country's population and the percentage of people who say that religion is "very important" in their life. Read through the whole thing before you criticize, as there is a lot there.

[Eaquae Legit]

Aaaaaaaaand, we're back to intelligence =/= education. Did you notice that the countries with "lower IQs" are developing and third-world nations? Did you also notice that the "IQ" was based on a mathematical test administered to high school students?

The book the IQ values were obtained from is highly controversial, and most of the 185 "IQs" weren't obtained from actual surveys.

The figures were obtained by taking unweighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.[7] The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available.

I regret using wikipedia, but my journal database is down right now.

Several negative reviews have been published in the scholarly literature. A book review in Contemporary Psychology[3] stated: "In sum, we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionably validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified." In the journal Heredity[4], stated: "This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade. The Pioneer Fund of America, champion of many dubious causes in the past, will obtain little credit from having assisted this one."

In short, I wouldn't trust the study as far as I could throw it. And even if I DID accept it, we're right back at intelligence =/= education.

Sorry, please play again.

[eriador]

Just throwing more fuel on the fire. I didn't say it was that different, I was just adding to the body of evidence.


You do have a good point about it saying more about education than intelligence though, but you still haven't addressed why in God's name intelligent people don't believe in God.

[Eaquae Legit]

They do. Why? Because it makes sense to them. Not really that complicated.

[Fish Tank]

The smarter you are the more likely you are going to further your education.

[hive_king]

Eriador, you'd be alot better off arguing that as people become more educated, the trend is to become less religious .

[Eaquae Legit]

The smarter you are the more likely you are going to further your education.

Don't forget to mention the wealthier you are, or your location in a developed nation. Or your inclination towards academia.

[hive_king]

It really depends on how you define "smart." I mean, my father probably knows more about plants- how to care for certain plants, what they need to grow and thrive, how to identify a ton of different plants on site, a wealth of information- than probably almost anyone else I've ever met. However, he never graduated high school (he did, years later, get a GED) and isn't all that talented when it comes to things like spelling and math. Would you say my dad is dumb or smart? (don't worry, either way you won't hurt my feelings.)

[Eaquae Legit]

Indeed. You going to tell the !Kung warrior that because he can't do trig, he's not smart? I'm sure he'll laugh pretty hard when you eat that poisonous plant he's known about since infancy.

[eriador]

I've said from the beginning that by a relatively common standard of western society, the "intelligent" people are less religious. I never said that it was a universal way of measuring it. Whatever

[Eaquae Legit]

But then you posted a study which claimed to relate IQ and religious belief worldwide.

[eriador]

I didn't say I agreed with it, just that I was "throwing fuel on the fire."