Are those of higher intelligence less likely to believe in intelligent

[Loren Booda]

Are those of higher intelligence less likely to believe in intelligent design?

 

[zomgwtf]

I'm pretty sure a study was done on this and the answer is yes. Of course the term 'higher intelligence' is completely subjective, maybe to me having higher intelligence is actually having the courage to have blind faith in something...

 

[Blenton]

Higher intelligence or higher knowledge? I can imagine some intelligent theists, but a knowledgeable theist? To be a theist you have to forgo certain bits of information.

 

[logickills]

According to this article, their is a correlation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Of course, as a simple matter of professional jealosy.

 

[Jack21222]

I'm pretty sure a study was done on this and the answer is yes. Of course the term 'higher intelligence' is completely subjective, maybe to me having higher intelligence is actually having the courage to have blind faith in something...

Then you'd be making up a completely new definition of intelligence.

Maybe to me, intelligence as the ability to say "Chubby Bunny" with 9 large marshmallows in your mouth, but that doesn't mean my definition is valid.

 

[f95toli]

I think it is also depends on what you mean by "believe". I suspect quite a few people who say they believe in ID do so because it e.g. happens to be the official position of their faith (or at least their church); not because they have actually studied the evidence or even given the subject any serious thought. So it is not always a case of thinking about it and drawing the wrong conclusion.

Hence, I don't think there is a simple correlation. There are plenty of intelligent people who believe in all sort of strange things, usually because of strong religious convictions or simply because they can't be bothered to actually look at the evidence.

 

[celebrei]

If you mean intelligent design as ID creationist movement, then yes, only ignorant people will believe them

 

[logickills]

Yea, I know smart people who are also devout Christians. One of the guys that is in charge of mapping the human genome was a strong Christian.

 

[rewebster]

I believe there are beings 'out there' with a lot higher intelligence than us---they helped design their own civilizations---


did they intelligently design the universe? maybe the parts that they interacted with

 

[Proton Soup]

an intelligent person realizes it's not something you can either prove or disprove

 

[ideasrule]

an intelligent person realizes it's not something you can either prove or disprove

An intelligent person realizes that statement applies to everything and does not consider it useful.

 

[G01]

I've met PhD's in physics who are devout Catholics, and Muslims. They are good physicists who publish quality research. One of the best Math professors I ever had was a Jesuit priest.

 

[Mattara]

I've met PhD's in physics who are devout Catholics, and Muslims. They are good physicists who publish quality research. One of the best Math professors I ever had was a Jesuit priest.

Does not change the average.

 

[arunma]

Are those of higher intelligence less likely to believe in intelligent design?

I think it's more a matter of knowledge and information than intelligence. I know some very intelligent people who believe in intelligent design. A lot of those people possesses strong analytic reasoning abilities, but don't have a graduate level education in the sciences, and thus aren't aware of the problems with ID. I know a few such people in my physics department, but even these people, when pressed, will admit that there are serious issues with ID that make it pseudoscience.

A big problem with ID is that it's ill-defined. For any definition of ID that you propose, you'll see plenty of ID proponents who'll tell you that this definition is wrong. For some, ID is six-day creationism. For others, it's theistic evolution. Unfortunately, the ID movement thrives in part because it obfuscates its own platform, and this makes counterarguments difficult. But ultimately, I would hope that highly intelligent people who believe in ID will reverse their positions when confronted with scientific truth.

It's worth pointing out that the vast majority of the world believes in a deity of some sort. I recently read a fascinating book called "Did Man Create God?" by a medical doctor named David Comings. I personally don't share his atheistic beliefs (which come off pretty strongly in the book), but he claims that belief in God is hardwired into the human brain. Therefore, he says, it's unrealistic for atheists to require theists to give up their religious beliefs, and attention should instead be focused on putting these beliefs into practice in a peaceful manner. If you believe his conclusion, it also removes any ground for atheistic elitism, and makes it much more difficult to argue that theism is the result of some kind of foolishness. It would also explain the existence of religious people who are also competent and scientists. Anyway, it's worth looking into if you've got some spare time.

Yea, I know smart people who are also devout Christians. One of the guys that is in charge of mapping the human genome was a strong Christian.

This is true, but Dr. Francis Collins also rejects intelligent design and believes in biological evolution. He's actually an excellent example of an intelligent person who can hold a fairly strong religious belief without experiencing cognitive dissonance due to his scientific understanding. Many here seem to be equating theism with belief in pseudoscience. But I think that comparison isn't accurate. A distinction should be made between theism and pseudoscientific beliefs like intelligent design or creationism.

 

[celebrei]

Yea, I know smart people who are also devout Christians. One of the guys that is in charge of mapping the human genome was a strong Christian.

yes that would be francis collins

This is true, but Dr. Francis Collins also rejects intelligent design and believes in biological evolution. He's actually an excellent example of an intelligent person who can hold a fairly strong religious belief without experiencing cognitive dissonance due to his scientific understanding. Many here seem to be equating theism with belief in pseudoscience. But I think that comparison isn't accurate. A distinction should be made between theism and pseudoscientific beliefs like intelligent design or creationism.

Yes I completely agree, and add "intellectual deception" to cognitive dissonance = Dembski,Behe,Tipler's ID

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The scientific answer to ID: It's not falsifiable, and it's false.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Loren, why would you start a thread like this? You do realize that it just opens the door to religion bashing, right? If you want an answer, look it up. You are opening the door to opinions, which can be completely subjective, and are generally hostile towards this subject.

I think one also has to allow for personality types. My personal theory is that scientists and engineers often have a need to believe that they understand the the world. This worldview does not tend to be compatible with matters of faith. My view here is partly motivated by six years of moderating S&D. Many particpants almost seem fearful that some things might still exist that we just can't explain. When I took over S&D it soon became clear that many debunkers needed debunking as much as the fringe groups. And there still tends to be the assumption that any prosaic explanation for an unusual claim is valid, whether it speaks to the facts or not.

 

[MotoH]

Why does it matter if one person believes in a higher being and another doesn't? Why does it matter if one person believes in intelligent design and another doesn't? As Ivan said, this seems like the start of a religious bashing thread, and from what I have seen, the church is far out numbered here.

Why does it matter if a great scientist believes in intelligent design? Does that make his work any less credible? Is the Cartesian coordinate system any less useful because Descartes was a Catholic?

 

[DaveC426913]

Are those of higher intelligence less likely to believe in intelligent design?

ID and belief in God are apples and oranges.

ID is an attempt to rationally deduce the existence of a designer. It attempts to use the language and tools of a rational, logical person, but does so badly. Its arguments are weak and easy to refute. An intelligent person would not be convinced of ID.

Not true of the concept of God. It is based on faith. It does not require rational deduction. Intelligent people are as capable as the next person of choosing to believe something when the arguments for or against are difficult to refute.

In this sense, in the pecking order of sceptics' acceptance, ID falls well below God.

 

[Loren Booda]

Loren, why would you start a thread like this? You do realize that it just opens the door to religion bashing, right? If you want an answer, look it up. You are opening the door to opinions, which can be completely subjective, and are generally hostile towards this subject.

I think one also has to allow for personality types. My personal theory is that scientists and engineers often have a need to believe that they understand the the world. This worldview does not tend to be compatible with matters of faith. My view here is partly motivated by six years of moderating S&D. Many particpants almost seem fearful that some things might still exist that we just can't explain. When I took over S&D it soon became clear that many debunkers needed debunking as much as the fringe groups. And there still tends to be the assumption that any prosaic explanation for an unusual claim is valid, whether it speaks to the facts or not.

Thank you, Ivan, for pointing out the possibility for prejudice here. I personally try to resolve my "cognitive dissonance" from being a physicist and theist. As a physicist, I have been exposed to - in my passive opinion - hostile atheism, and as a theist have been bombarded with a lot of what I consider, also passively, to be feel-good myths.

As has been mentioned in this thread, there is some middle ground. I encourage those who believe in creation by an Intelligent Designer to recognize beauty reciprocally with those who believe in the same beautiful, physically infinite universe. Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder, and I believe this subject (albeit worded differently) needs to be addressed by science and religion alike.

 

[Frame Dragger]

ID is a political tool. No rational person needs to find a conflict between their religion and physics. You can ALWAYS believe that beyond all observational limits there is a god, or not.

Personally most people I know who are in this and related fields consider the question to be of academic interest only; a god would be beyond human comprehension unless it wanted to make itself known... which it presumably could. Barring that, life goes on, ends, and what comes after is a mystery we'll unravel when we die, or not.

That's the kind of agnostic I am... no reason to believe, no reason not to.

EDIT: Like Loren I am TIRED of people of "faith" (Atheists and Theists) being... pushy. The behaviour must be hardwired.

 

[f95toli]

Why does it matter if a great scientist believes in intelligent design? Does that make his work any less credible?

In my view yes. There is HUGE difference between being religious and being a proponent of ID. There are plenty of good scientists that also happen to be religious. But ID is -as has already been pointed out- not about "faith", it is an attempt to use use misleading arguments to create a conflict where there is no need for one, to fool the general public that scientific arguments that were settled over 100 years ago are still open to debate, and to push a religious -often political- agenda.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why does it matter if a great scientist believes in intelligent design? Does that make his work any less credible?

If a scientist gave serious (as opposed to merely whimsical) time and energy to the existence of the Easter Bunny, yes I would say it calls his credibility into question.

 

[jeffonfire]

Einstein, Neils Bohr, Louis Pasteur, Mendel and lots of the other fathers believed in a God of some sort. Some of them claimed that their belief in God encouraged them to do science.

I can't think of a major scientific discovery that helped mankind discovered by an atheist. (I would love to be told I am wrong at this point, my memory just fails me.)

 

[zomgwtf]

Einstein, Neils Bohr, Louis Pasteur, Mendel and lots of the other fathers believed in a God of some sort. Some of them claimed that their belief in God encouraged them to do science.

I can't think of a major scientific discovery that helped mankind discovered by an atheist. (I would love to be told I am wrong at this point, my memory just fails me.)

what does this have to do with ID?

 

[jeffonfire]

O sorry, I didn't notice the ID debate leaning of the thread. Manny of the greatest scientist were accepted ID though. If I remember correctly Louis Pasteur and Mendel were some of them(Although the term ID had not been coined yet).

 

[DaveC426913]

I can't think of a major scientific discovery that helped mankind discovered by an atheist. (I would love to be told I am wrong at this point, my memory just fails me.)

You want us to tell you you're wrong about not being able to think of an example? We can't do that. Only you know if you can't think of an example.


Point being: your argument is one-sided. Have you examined some set of major scientific discoveries and correlated them with scientists who are atheist? No? Then what has this demonstrated?

 

[jeffonfire]

LOL, That was not at all what I meant. I meant could someone give me an example of an atheist/agnostic scientist who accomplished something near or above the level of Mendel or Pasteur.

 

[Frame Dragger]

O sorry, I didn't notice the ID debate leaning of the thread. Manny of the greatest scientist were accepted ID though. If I remember correctly Louis Pasteur and Mendel were some of them(Although the term ID had not been coined yet).

EDIT: Oh, and... Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud, Linus Pauling, Paul Dirac, Jaques Monod, Subrahmanyan Chandresekhar, Alan Turing... *deep breath... savouring jeffonfire's foolishness*... Francis Crick AND James Wartson both, Claude Shannon, Richard Feynman, Peter Higgs, Stephen Weinberg, Carl Sagan... DEMOCRITUS...

and so on. Keeping in mind that historically atheism proclaimed in such a way could get you killed, as in the case of Diagoras of Melos. So, historical bias should favour those in the mainstream at the time, or who truly or falsely proclaimed their faith.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well I was about to post a list of scientists as well... but appears it's been done no point to further it.

Besides, I do not see the POINT of attempting to make a comparisson between the 'validity of works between atheist and theist'. It has ALREADY been concluded by polls that atheism is extremely prevelent in the scientific community. I do not think this has had any negative effects on the science of our times. Not to mention the fact that being atheist is one thing but being OPENLY atheist is an entirely different thing. Historically being openly atheist has not been a good choice as far as preservation of life is concerned... Even in modern times it is quite difficult to be openly atheist, it's much better but still gets 'frowned' upon.

Not that this really has anything to do with ID.

 

[jeffonfire]

Wow, I can't believe I forgot about Hawking. Thanks for the list of scientists!

This doesn't show religious/ID people to be less smart or more smart than atheists/agnostics though. It just shows that religious presumption has little to do with intelligence.

And I in no way will challenge the claim that atheists dominate science today, they quite obviously do! But what does atheist persecution have to do with any thing?

 

[Loren Booda]

Physics appears to be based on logic, as I grant an Intelligent Design might. Atheists objectify, and theists personify, the universal source.

An Intelligent Designer would manifest an ethical basis, one explored by many without referring to a God. Ideas like beauty, peace, love and truth have guided most scientists, I believe, whether they knew it or not.

Can any of you suggest past correlatives to Intelligent Design? Certainly this is not the first dispute of this type in history.

Please try to keep your passion constructive.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Physics appears to be based on logic, as I grant an Intelligent Design might. Atheists objectify, and theists personify, the universal source.

An Intelligent Designer would manifest an ethical basis, one explored by many without referring to a God. Ideas like beauty, peace, love and truth have guided most scientists, I believe, whether they knew it or not.

Can any of you suggest past correlatives to Intelligent Design? Certainly this is not the first dispute of this type in history.

Please try to keep your passion constructive.

The very repeated and intractable nature of this debate is the cause of its rapid degeneration and cyclical nature. I'm all for debate for its own sake, but a debate over ID on a physics forum seems like trouble waiting to happen. This is a topic that requires time, and nuance; qualities forums were designed to lack.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Can any of you suggest past correlatives to Intelligent Design? Certainly this is not the first dispute of this type in history.

Through a significant portion of history most scientists and philosophers belonged to the church and I believe that many expressed ideas of a similar nature the most notable probably being the 'watchmaker' analogy which Dawkins spoofs in his book title "The Blind Watchmaker".

 

[Frame Dragger]

Through a significant portion of history most scientists and philosophers belonged to the church and I believe that many expressed ideas of a similar nature the most notable probably being the 'watchmaker' analogy which Dawkins spoofs in his book title "The Blind Watchmaker".

Traditionally NOT being a part of the church, temple, etc... was a quick way to a messy death. Look at Galileo Galilei, Hassan-i Sabbah, etc... etc... You didn't have to be an atheist to get into trouble. You could just be considered heretical was enough to end or make your life hellish.

However, why focus on THEIST vs. ATHEIST. I'm far more impressed by the Einsteins who could look down the throat of reality and realize that their faith and science didn't conflict. How about the Deist, Thomas Jefferson? We're so used to talking about the last thousand or so years in THIS country and western europe that we forget there is a spectrum of faith, and belief for which Atheism and Theism are faiths as blind as any other.

I would argue that the premise of ID is separate from faith, and religion, and atheism. ID is purely a political tool, fashioned in the image of religious speech. Period.

 

[olkster]

Hmm.. for me intellegence was still a gift a god that use to explain things around you just by observing it, or make things that could better explain it to you,just like asking question.. the more intellegence you have, the more curious you are,.. to know the answers to the questions bothering you.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Hmm.. for me intellegence was still a gift a god that use to explain things around you just by observing it, or make things that could better explain it to you,just like asking question.. the more intellegence you have, the more curious you are,.. to know the answers to the questions bothering you.

Olkster, I think English is not your first language, so this is understandable. Intelligent Design is the name of a specific theory advocated by a small number of fundamentalist Christians. This doesn't mean, "designed with intelligence in mind" or "using intelligence to understand one's surroundings". Intelligent Design is specifically an American (USA) political tool which tried to compete with Evolutionary Biology.

I think I understood the point you're trying to make (even if it is not relevant to the topic), and let me just say I appreciate your view on intelligence. I think you're right, and that people who are more intelligent are more prone to be curious or troubled by questions that might not occur to another.

 

[Jack21222]

I'm far more impressed by the Einsteins who could look down the throat of reality and realize that their faith and science didn't conflict.

What exactly was Einstein's faith, do you have any idea?

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. --Einstein

Einstein's "god" is just the sum total of the laws of the universe. Not a personal, anthropomorphic god.

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. --Einstein

Einstein was what some people today would call themselves "spiritual, not religious." The believers of a personal God are really grasping at straws if they want to call Einstein one of their own.

 

[Frame Dragger]

What exactly was Einstein's faith, do you have any idea?

As far as I can tell he had a more deterministic view pre-Heisenberg, after which he talked about a sense of there being a spirit that can be dimly reflected in physical laws.

Now, let's pretend for a second that you didn't pop-quiz me because you didn't bother to read back enough to recognize that I'm agnostic and by no means believe that Einstein was a religious man, shall we?

Now, tell me if The Unruh Effect implies the existence of Unruh Radiation. I just figured, while we were firing questions at one another...

 

[arunma]

Why does it matter if one person believes in a higher being and another doesn't? Why does it matter if one person believes in intelligent design and another doesn't? As Ivan said, this seems like the start of a religious bashing thread, and from what I have seen, the church is far out numbered here.

Why does it matter if a great scientist believes in intelligent design? Does that make his work any less credible? Is the Cartesian coordinate system any less useful because Descartes was a Catholic?

You seem to be presupposing that all theists believe in the modern intelligent design theory. This is not true. One can believe in a God without believing in ID. The problem with ID is that it claims to be legitimate science, but has thus far failed to offer any predictions or even offer any testable claims. How do you do a scientific test to determine whether ID is true or not? As a theist I'd love to believe in ID. The problem is that ID is bad science. This isn't religion bashing, in my opinion. It's exposing pseudoscience for what it really is.

Let ID proponents come up with some theories that can actually be put to the test in a scientific manner, and I'll be happy to subscribe to their views.

 

[jeffonfire]

According to intelligentdesign.org ID proponents test their theory by "...the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."

Let me restate quickly, ID proponents say they can test their theory(that some sort of intelligent designer is needed for some of the features of life) by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act and comparing the information types to that in various organisms.
For example people often use symmetry in their design and symmetry is often found in nature.

 

[Frame Dragger]

According to intelligentdesign.org ID proponents test their theory by "...the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."

Is this is a question, a statement, or spam?

 

[jeffonfire]

That, my dear Watson, is a statement! It is in reply to arunma's testable theory question, stating how ID people claim they can test their theory.

 

[arunma]

Thanks for the info, Jeff.

I doubt that their methodology holds water. I'd really like to see a way in which this "study and analysis of a system's components" can actually be quantified. But hey, I'll leave it to others to shoot this one down.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Thanks for the info, Jeff.

I doubt that their methodology holds water. I'd really like to see a way in which this "study and analysis of a system's components" can actually be quantified. But hey, I'll leave it to others to shoot this one down.

To me this falls into the category of "why bother?" I think most of us here have shot this kind of thing down, watched the cognititve dissonance resolve itself in the other individual, and then punched a wall.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Traditionally NOT being a part of the church, temple, etc... was a quick way to a messy death. Look at Galileo Galilei, Hassan-i Sabbah, etc... etc... You didn't have to be an atheist to get into trouble. You could just be considered heretical was enough to end or make your life hellish.

The leader of the Hashishin is a rather odd example and does not seem to be very related to the topic.
Many scientists and philosophers were part of the church because the church was about the only way one could have received a higher education. I do not believe it had much to do with the social problems of not being religious so much as the social problem of learning your three 'R's as anything other than clergy or noble.

I would argue that the premise of ID is separate from faith, and religion, and atheism. ID is purely a political tool, fashioned in the image of religious speech. Period.

The idea, in general, is old. A political movement has coopted it and attempted to make it more scientific than philosophical as a means of fighting the teaching of evolution.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The leader of the Hashishin is a rather odd example and does not seem to be very related to the topic.
Many scientists and philosophers were part of the church because the church was about the only way one could have received a higher education. I do not believe it had much to do with the social problems of not being religious so much as the social problem of learning your three 'R's as anything other than clergy or noble.


The idea, in general, is old. A political movement has coopted it and attempted to make it more scientific than philosophical as a means of fighting the teaching of evolution.

Well, he was the founder of the Hashishin. Do you know WHY he founded that order? What he really did was split from the main branch of Nizari Shiia Islam, for which he and others were persecuted. The use of 'Hashishin' and the like (which almost certainly did NOT use hashish) was specifically to protect a way of life that was considered heretical having been declared 'Taqfir' (apostate). My point, was that you didn't need to be an atheist, but rather ANY departure from established religious-political power structure was incredibly dangerous.

Why? Simple: Because you'd expect many bright people to avoid the fate of a religious outsider, by simply keeping with the party line. That seems very much in line with my argument and this thread. My point is also that this constant talk of 'The Church' assumes a narrow band of history ignoring THOUSANDS of years of various theocracies (Pharonical Egypt anyone?) where that was not a factor. Yes, Jesuits still get a fine education, but the converse; that to renounce one's faith leads to a fine and slow death... not so much the case in many parts of the modern world.

EDIT: I should add, the modern incarnation of ID would be considered pure heresy in most other points in Christian history. In its current form it is a pseudoscientific counterpoint to evolution. Nothing more.

 

[Gokul43201]

Are those of higher intelligence less likely to believe in intelligent design?

This is not a question of causation, but a pretty direct question of statistics. I'm not sure if by "intelligent design" you refer to the thing that was the subject of the Dover trial or simply a faith-based belief in a supreme designer/creator/God, and if by intelligence, you refer to something measured by some kind of standardized test.

Depending on what you do mean, one might simply be able to cite a study that measures and tabulates these two variables.

PS: There's a lot of raw survey data that can be cross-tabulated at the website of the Global Social Survey: http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/Data+Analysis/

Here's the tabulations from the results of a survey about belief in a God vs. results of (1) a standard reasoning test, and (2) a standard vocabulary test:

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Claims of existence elves, fairies and unicorns are no more falsifiable, and no less false.

If the first half of your statement is true, then the second half is not scientific. I'm not looking for the truth, I'm looking for the correct scientific response.