Religion and Intelligence

[eriador]

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

I stumbled onto this browsing around. Might as well give it a talk.

The long and the short of it is that there is a correlation between lack of religious belief and intelligence. My question: is there? and why would that be? Feel free to share any relevant information you know of, 'cause I think this is kinda interesting.

P.S.
Mods - If this belongs in Milagre, please move it.

[Jayelle]

Education does not a smart person make.

[zeroguy]

I like how the definition of "intelligent" seems to be "scientist".

[Eaquae Legit]

Yeah, that leaves us medievalists out in the cold!

[Rei]

Not to mention us linguists!

[AnthonyByakko]

Oh, you cunning linguists!

[Eaquae Legit]

I think every profession needs a joke that it hears over and over again until you want to scream.

I'm not sure what the one for medieval studies is, though. Maybe something involving the Da Vinci Code.

[anonshadow]

See, here's me thinking there's a correlation between becoming a scientist and not believing in God, not one between being smart and not believing in God.

That would make about as much sense as claiming that people who are pro-choice are stupider than people who are pro-life.

[jotabe]

People who is learned, and interested in scientific progress know or believe that most events can be explained scientifically. The trust in our technological civilization makes many of them reasonably doubt the need of God for the world to exist. This pulls up the average of the atheists/agnostics.

People who is intellectually lazy might find convenient the belief in a personal God to explain the world away, who sets up a scale of moral values for them, so they don't need to think it through. This pulls down the average of the believers.

But this doesn't mean that:
-Believers are intellectually lazy. Not even majoritarily.
-The lack of need of God disproves the existence of God.

Nowadays the current philosophical trend is positivism: Only the scientifical knowledge is actual knowledge. It hasn't been always like this.

I tend to consider that, because of the lack of social acknowledgement for our work we scientists suffer, we act like a scorned lover and think "oh yes? well, but only what we say matters, so there."
The knowledge we achieve might be true, but only in the experimental range. No matter how hard we try, we cannot achieve absolute knowledge (it is not our goal, either).

Addendum: the fact most religions actively oppose (or used to oppose) scientific progress also made many scientist to reject religion as a tool to keep mankind in ignorance. This fact, while true, is because of churches' fear that science might make God unneeded (as it happened), what might lead people away from religion (a stupid fear, in my oppinion). It has nothing to do with the veracity or rationality of religious tenets.

[AnthonyByakko]

But this doesn't mean that:
-Believers are intellectually lazy. Not even majoritarily.

I tend to disagree, but only with this statement. All else seems coherent. I would say that the only evidence anyone could have supporting/refuting the statement in question is anecdotal; but starting from the premise I believe in that most people (not just believers, but most people in general) are intellectually lazy, it would follow that, majoritarily, believers are intellectually lazy as well - not by virtue of being a Believer, but by virtue of being a person. Most people seem to flee from intellectual discourse, regardless of the content, and are averse to any sort of critical examination of any belief they hold, no matter how relevant or material the information being posited might be to it. Now, as you stated, a clearly defined set of moral guidelines, a simple to follow heirarchy of authority and mandates for all kinds of personal behavior simply make rejecting/avoiding mental labor easier for believers - it doesn't make them intellectually lazy, just lazier, and less likely to stop being lazy. When the guideposts towards eternal damnation and eternal bliss are marked out for you in bold red ink (no matter how absurd the paths, or unlikely the authority) it's simply easier to accept them as being true - as easily as someone driving down the highway simply accepts that the sign saying "Los Angeles - Next Exit" really means what it says. At least, if you've had the idea that the signs are correct pounded into your head for 20 years, chances are you are going to believe it - and have little reason to question.

[jotabe]

WOT!
uh... sorry this is the wrong forum for that

Well... i am not so pesimistic about people. I don't really believe most of people is intellectually lazy. From what i can deduce, talking to my friends and relations... is that intellectualism is somewhat looked down upon. It's "uncool". So people try to avoid looking intelectual simply because of peer pressure... a peer pressure that we exert one on another unknowingly.

I blame on TV lol.
Seriously, though, TV transmits a spread of sterotypes that fit on seeing exercising your mind as something that a cool person wouldn't do. A matter of fashion, anyway... a fashion i would like it would fade soon.

[powerfulcheese04]

I think that I have an interesting perspective on this.

I am a scientist (a bioengineer) and the more I learn about science-- specifically biology/biochemistry/organic chemistry-- the more convinced I am there is a God. The emergence of life from pre-biotic Earth just seems too unlikely to me.

I can see how the combo of gasses, heat, electricity and a reducing environment would synthesize prebiotic molecules (after all, that's what you do in an OChem lab when you throw stuff in a beaker and hope) but how did self-templating arise?! How did a molecule that got trapped in a lipid bilayer manage to create RNA by accident? It just speaks of the Divine to me.

[jotabe]

As far as i know, theory goes that RNA or DNA molecules with metabolic capabilities were formed and floated in the prebiotic soup. The ones that happened to be caught in the middle of a mycele would survive better. The ones who would be able to repair that mycele would survive even better.

So, from what i know, the chicken (self-replicating molecule with metabolic capability) came before the egg.

It's unlikely... but they had like a billion years for that! ^_^

[eriador]

I have to admit, many of you do have a point, that most of this correlates being a scientist, not intelligence, but there are a few points you're glossing over:

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly anti-
religious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly anti-religious (1108), and religious (1022).

Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

As you can see, it is not only "being a scientist" that correlates negatively with belief, but also intelligence, as measured by various, widely accepted tests.
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. As the page says in conclusion:

The simplest and most parsimonious explanation is that religion is a set of logical and factual claims, and those with the most logic and facts at their disposal [scientists] are rejecting it largely on those grounds.

[Eaquae Legit]

Which means that those of us who are theists and highly educated and intelligent are... blips. Anomalies.

Sorry. Too simplistic. You've made the mistake of reading a causal link between the two, and at best you can argue correlation.

[zeroguy]

As you can see, it is not only "being a scientist" that correlates negatively with belief, but also intelligence, as measured by various, widely accepted tests.

Do you really call the SAT an intelligence test? Do you have any idea what the ACE actually is? I'll hold off on criticizing IQ tests too harshly, since I don't know a lot about them... but I'm fairly sure there's not just one big definitive "IQ Test", and it doesn't mention which test is used in that last example. (And the first one, well, it's from '34.)

Another thing to keep in mind is that scientists are people who's lives require both a certain level of intelligence

So does... any profession/vocation.

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.

I think we can agree that the meek and stupid who just believe what they are told tip the scales a bit to the religious side in some cases, since you have more theist proselytizers than atheist ones.

[Rei]

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.

[powerfulcheese04]

As far as i know, theory goes that RNA or DNA molecules with metabolic capabilities were formed and floated in the prebiotic soup. The ones that happened to be caught in the middle of a mycele would survive better. The ones who would be able to repair that mycele would survive even better.

So, from what i know, the chicken (self-replicating molecule with metabolic capability) came before the egg.

It's unlikely... but they had like a billion years for that! ^_^

Well, right. The RNA World Hypothesis does start that the RNA became self templating outside of micelles and then was internalized somehow. But, still, going from a random collection of sugars, nitrogenous bases and phosphate to a self templating molecule is huge. From there to a cell is even huger...

I just... I can't wrap my head around that happening accidentally.

[Eaquae Legit]

As I understand it, any IQ test, even the best one, is only accurate to within + or - 2 points. That's the BEST ones. We'd need Kirsten in here to give us an analysis of the ones they used.

[jotabe]

You know, powerfulcheese... something we learn in physics is that, when some event is not forbidden (impossible to happen, that is), then it is compulsory. That means that if a certain physical event has a certain probability to happen, no matter how ridiculously low it is... it will happen, sooner or later.

This is the way physics work (and hence all sciences, since they can be reduced to physics). Of course, i believe that physics was made to work this way ^_^

[Dr. Mobius]

See, here's me thinking there's a correlation between becoming a scientist and not believing in God, not one between being smart and not believing in God.

That would make about as much sense as claiming that people who are pro-choice are stupider than people who are pro-life.

Right, because scientists are incapable of believing in god, just like priests are incapable of believing in science.

[mr_thebrain]

i think the person who wrote that page may have been a poor writer. however the person stated the stuff though, the studies may be true.

it really depends on where the studies were done, what types of religious folk we queried, and a combination of other things.

my personal experience with religious folk somewhat supports the studies. they spend too much time and effort explaining things as miracles and making science fit within their belief structure. whereas intelligent folk tend to accept scientific discovery as fact much easier, and then those who are also religious tend to then try to fit their religious beliefs into the scientific proof.

in short a religious zealot will be much less likely to accept science, and thus tend to be on the short end of the IQ stick.

but whatever.

I think that I have an interesting perspective on this.

I am a scientist (a bioengineer) and the more I learn about science-- specifically biology/biochemistry/organic chemistry-- the more convinced I am there is a God. The emergence of life from pre-biotic Earth just seems too unlikely to me.

I can see how the combo of gasses, heat, electricity and a reducing environment would synthesize prebiotic molecules (after all, that's what you do in an OChem lab when you throw stuff in a beaker and hope) but how did self-templating arise?! How did a molecule that got trapped in a lipid bilayer manage to create RNA by accident? It just speaks of the Divine to me.

the universe is a big big place. you seem to be thinking on a tiny scale. yeah, if earth were the only planet then sure the chances of an accident like life happening such that it has would be hard to believe. but we know that the universe is large, with a great many planets. earth just happened to be a lucky one that had the accident happen such that it has. there probably isn't going to be another planet with the sort of life that earth has. although life might have accidentally cropped up on other planets, the chances of it resembling humanity in any way is too hard to accept. anyway with a scale like the universe the concept of life as an accident is much easier to believe. the chain of events that would have led to life on earth in the way that it has has probably happened countless times on countless planets, but with our planet being the way it is... it just happened. bah, you get the point.

[eriador]

Which means that those of us who are theists and highly educated and intelligent are... blips. Anomalies.

No, you're just a well-educated theist. These studies only show that "smarter" people are more LIKELY to be atheists. That doesn't mean that they have to be atheists. There's nothing wrong with you being an intelligent theist, it's just that a lower percentage of "intelligent" people are religious than in the general population.

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.

You might want to take into account the large number of studies, using widely varying methodologies that all reach the same conclusion. I will admit that this person only presents evidence that supports them though. However, instead of just criticizing the evidence I present, you might want to find some evidence to support your views. I would suggest two things:
1. Look up the cited studies and find more information about them. You can't dismiss them until you know "how many people were in [them".
2. Look up studies that contradict what I've presented. Knocking me down is a start, but it doesn't make you right.

zero - Our society views the SAT, ACE and IQ tests as ways of approximating "intelligence". Of course they're not perfect, but at least they give us some idea. Of course there are also exceptions where they are extremely innaccurate, but for the most part, they work. The designers of these tests are continually inmproving them and they are widely accepted as indicators of intelligence.
The '34 study used the Terman IQ test, developed in 1916. Though it wasn't perfect, this test (according to Wikipedia [come on, it's not THAT bad guys]) is "the basis for one of the modern intelligence tests still commonly used today."* Even if it's not extremely accurate, this study is still referenced in discussions of religion and intelligence or morality (it also found that more religious youth were more likely to lie or steal).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_test#History

[Eaquae Legit]

Which means that those of us who are theists and highly educated and intelligent are... blips. Anomalies.

No, you're just a well-educated theist. These studies only show that "smarter" people are more LIKELY to be atheists. That doesn't mean that they have to be atheists. There's nothing wrong with you being an intelligent theist, it's just that a lower percentage of "intelligent" people are religious than in the general population.

Except that what you are saying is that really smart people are less likely to believe in God, and since they're really smart, they should know.

[eriador]

Huh? I don't get what you're trying to say, maybe you're just too smart / educated for me

[zeroguy]

How does one even measure the accuracy of an IQ test (i.e. "within + or - 2 points")? There's no meterstick, since it's kinda the only thing to measure it...

The SAT has verbal/reading, basic math, and (recently) writing sections. It tests knowledge and whether you can pay attention or not (when reading passages).

I actually have no idea what the ACE is, by the way. Can someone actually tell me? ("ACE Test" is kinda hard to search for.)

Of course there are also exceptions where they are extremely innaccurate, but for the most part, they work.

And how are you judging this?

[VelvetElvis]

You know, HBC... something we learn in physics is that, when some event is not forbidden (impossible to happen, that is), then it is compulsory. That means that if a certain physical event has a certain probability to happen, no matter how ridiculously low it is... it will happen, sooner or later.

This is the way physics work (and hence all sciences, since they can be reduced to physics). Of course, i believe that physics was made to work this way ^_^

i never posted in ths thread...

[eriador]

Of course there are also exceptions where they are extremely innaccurate, but for the most part, they work.

And how are you judging this?

It's inevitable that there will be occaisional extreme errors, so I was heading off somebody arguing that. To support the second part, I think that both of us would see somebody who got a 1600 (or 2400) on the SAT and had an IQ of 130 as smarter than sombody who scored 950 (or 1550) and 90 on the same two. They are, for the most part, roughly accurate.

[jotabe]

You know, HBC... something we learn in physics is that, when some event is not forbidden (impossible to happen, that is), then it is compulsory. That means that if a certain physical event has a certain probability to happen, no matter how ridiculously low it is... it will happen, sooner or later.

This is the way physics work (and hence all sciences, since they can be reduced to physics). Of course, i believe that physics was made to work this way ^_^

i never posted in ths thread...

oops
This proves that posting in forums and trying to write a paper don't mix.
Corrected.

[VelvetElvis]

That's what you get for doing your work. Everyone knows that doing your work is lame.

[hive_king]

Fetus, what were you looking for when you found this?

[zeroguy]

Of course there are also exceptions where they are extremely innaccurate, but for the most part, they work.

And how are you judging this?

It's inevitable that there will be occaisional extreme errors, so I was heading off somebody arguing that. To support the second part, I think that both of us would see somebody who got a 1600 (or 2400) on the SAT and had an IQ of 130 as smarter than sombody who scored 950 (or 1550) and 90 on the same two. They are, for the most part, roughly accurate.

No, what I'm not seeing is how you judge this as "accurate" or "inaccurate." What are you measuring against? How intelligent you think the person appears to be? I'm not even sure what "extreme errors" you're talking about.

And how many times must I say this? The SAT does not test intelligence. Memorizing vocabulary, comprehending reading, and utilizing algebra is not a measure of intelligence, it is of knowledge. (Though you could also say it is of studying effectiveness and how much you care about doing well on it, but that could be said of pretty much any test.) If you have not studied anything that is covered on it, it doesn't matter how intelligent you are, you will not do well on it.

[Eaquae Legit]

Timed tests are actually a fairly poor indicator of intelligence. Especially ones based on memorising facts and highly dependent on an assumed cultural background.

And I'm not sure why scientists are more rational and logical than everyone else. Scientists are just as crazy as anyone, they are prejudiced, and can and do stack the results of their research. They have a personal investment in their work; they don't live in this pristine vaccum void of human emotion.

[anonshadow]

See, here's me thinking there's a correlation between becoming a scientist and not believing in God, not one between being smart and not believing in God.

That would make about as much sense as claiming that people who are pro-choice are stupider than people who are pro-life.

Right, because scientists are incapable of believing in god, just like priests are incapable of believing in science.

Did I say that? No? Well, then stop putting words in my mouth.

I think that it's entirely possible that scientists are less likely to be religious, and I think that's it's entirely possible that very religious people are less likely to believe in science.

Does that encompass all?

No.

It encompasses some. It encompasses enough to make a difference in the stats. Nothing more.

[jotabe]

A small comment, anon.
Main difference is that religion requires belief, while science does only require acknowledgement.
While you can be irreligious and still be rational, you cannot simply "disbelieve" science, and keep your intellectual honesty.