Are those of higher intelligence less likely to believe in intelligent

[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.

 

[Frame Dragger]

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.

Reformulate his statement thusly: "Claims of ID are not falsifiable, and therefore are not scientific." That would be correct, or at least close. Maybe, "What is not open to falsification or confirmation is invalid as a scientific theory," is a bit more exact. That doesn't make it false, but it means that what is being presented as a theory in line with the scientific method is not.

@Gokul43201: "Intelligent Degisn" (capital ID) is a specific family of theories put forth in American politics. It is a thinly veiled attempt to present Creationism as a scientific theory, and not a religious one. Specifically, it is meant to compete with and discredit through erosion, the notion of 'Science' and 'Theory' and spefically what some in the religious right call "Darwinism". This should be separated from a simple study of the evolution and the existing fossil record, which is considered standard science outside of Kansas.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

I deleted my sentence when I realized it didn't come out exactly the way I wanted it to. But in any case, do you have a reference for the scientific position that you cited in your earlier post?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I deleted my sentence when I realized it didn't come out exactly the way I wanted it to. But in any case, do you have a reference for the scientific position that you cited in your earlier post?

I happen to be the source of that quote. If you repeat it, please attribute it to me.

 

[DaveC426913]

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:

Can you explain what I'm seeing? Not sure how to interpret these charts.

 

[Leptos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Also:
http://ccannizzaro.com/images/iq_vs_religion_lg.bmp
http://lifeloveandcs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/iq_vs_religion.png

 

[jeffonfire]

Wow, great graphs!

 

[Proton Soup]

isn't IQ usually mapped to a normal distribution with 100 at the mean? if so, why aren't those graphs more dense with data points near the mean? (the first three, which are in fact all the same graph)

 

[zomgwtf]

isn't IQ usually mapped to a normal distribution with 100 at the mean? if so, why aren't those graphs more dense with data points near the mean? (the first three, which are in fact all the same graph)

It's because that's not a demographic graph of IQ, it's a graph of percentage of people with this IQ believing religion is very important.

So it would appear that people with IQs above about 95 have a tend to believe that religion is not important.

you have to read the titles

EDIT: to make it more clear the graph shows that around 11% of people with an IQ of 105 believe religion is very important. Thats for the first 3 graphs.

The next graph just shows scores on some 'religiousity' test (presumably to test how religious an area is) compared to the GDP per capita. So it appears more wealthy an area is the less religious they become.

 

[Proton Soup]

It's because that's not a demographic graph of IQ, it's a graph of percentage of people with this IQ believing religion is very important.

So it would appear that people with IQs above about 95 have a tend to believe that religion is not important.

you have to read the titles

the data seems fairly discontinuous for that to be true.

 

[zomgwtf]

Can you explain what I'm seeing? Not sure how to interpret these charts.

These charts show that the confidence in existence of God decreases as people make more correct answers to questions.
First question is How alike are dogs and lions.

Second question would have been a vocab test, the more amount of correct words a person got the less likely they were to assert gods existence.

It's comparing these answers on standardized test but people would have to have had to answer both questions on the same test, if a person decided not to answer one of the questions then their result would not be included at all.