- #36
hitssquad
- 927
- 0
It does not, if you mean by "generalization" causation.Joel said:"more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion" [...] implies a generalization from the samples
It does not, if you mean by "generalization" causation.Joel said:"more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion" [...] implies a generalization from the samples
If you mean causation, could you please use that term instead of code-phrases like actual correlation?Joel said:to say something about the actual correlation based on the statistical correlation
hitssquad said:It does not, if you mean by "generalization" causation.
If you mean causation, could you please use that term instead of code-phrases like actual correlation?
Joel said:I admit 'actual correlation' is a bit fuzzy, but I didn't mean causation with it either. I meant the 'correlation' between the phenomenon, if they would be observable directly. Of course they are not, so we need to relay on statistical indicators. And I think that to explain why and how the indicators are used should also need to be done before a general conclusion like, "more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion" could be made.
loseyourname said:"Statistical correlation" and "correlation" mean exactly the same thing. We observe two things together more often than we observe them apart. That's all it means. In this case, those two things are high intelligence and lack of religious belief.
Joel said:I beg to differ, you can not observe religiosity like you can observe an electron, you are always dependant on better or worse indicators. That is why physical observations can be meaningful as such, but 'observations' about social phenomenon always require a theory of how the indicators relate to the actual phenomenon and the tested hypothesis. And since that's lacking, I can not determine if the statistics support the general conclusion made on the site.
But I feel I am repeating myself. Maybe I'm wrong, I only have two years of pol. sci. studies under my belt. Any social scientists around to give an expert opinion on this?
loseyourname said:Is this better for you: We observe a correlation between tested intelligence and self-stated religious belief. I suppose you're right to say that we can't actually observe the belief. But when the survey respondent says that he considers himself religious, we can generally take his word for it, unless you think these things are unreliable because people are lying. If that is the case, they sure lie an awful lot, as every study conducted seems to indicate a negative correlation between intelligence and people saying that they hold religious beliefs.
Francis (1979)(using fequency of prayer and chruch attendence) 2272 school children between 9-11,"found no relationship between school assigned IQ's and religious behavior after controling for paternal social class."
Francis'('86 replication) findings replicated in second study among 6955 students.
loseyourname said:The studies that showed no correlation were in children. There are beliefs at that point are mostly not their own. The whole point of those ones was to corroborate the hypothesis that religious belief in children is not the result of either intelligence or lack of it, it is simply that their parents are religious.
Joel said:(My bolding).
Okay, maybe, I don't know. But I can not stress enough the point that there is still nothing that suggest a causation in any way.
loseyourname said:It is certainly one hypothesis that can explain the correlation. What alternative hypothesis would you propose?
Joel said:I do not think I have an alternative hypothesis for that. I agree that church attendance of children would probably have more to do with their parents religious habits than intelligence. I apologize if you only where refereing to this, I misunderstood.
But let me ask you a question in return to clarify, what do you think explain the correlation in the studies about college students? To this I can think of many reasons.
loseyourname said:The hypothesis to explain the negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief in the adult population (whether in college or not) is that religious belief generally does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. The more intelligent a given person is, the more likely she is to realize this.
And how do you know this? How do you explain the very strong religious beliefs of Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Joule, Kelvin? These were not people with high intellect?loseyourname said:The hypothesis to explain the negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief in the adult population (whether in college or not) is that religious belief generally does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. The more intelligent a given person is, the more likely she is to realize this.
Andrew Mason said:And how do you know this? How do you explain the very strong religious beliefs of Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Joule, Kelvin? These were not people with high intellect?
So the issue is not whether religious belief and high intellect can coexist.
That seems to take a very narrow view of the nature of religious belief. Religion is based on the unknown and, perhaps, unknowable. Science is based on the known or knowable. Religion is an expression of one's spiritual nature. (Try defining 'human spirit' in terms of physics). Science is a result of humanity's desire for knowledge. The two seem to have co-existed for many centuries.
Even if one could explain how and why the universe originated and why the laws of physics are the way they are, one would still not be able to prove or disprove the essential principles of most of the world's religions.
AM
Andrew Mason said:And how do you know this? How do you explain the very strong religious beliefs of Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Joule, Kelvin? These were not people with high intellect?
selfAdjoint said:...Citing scientists of the past doesn't work in my opinion, because scientific knowledge was less ...
Belief in God is one thing, but any man that has studied the alternatives in the least bit and is still a creationist is at the very least extremely unreasonable, if not unintelligent, despite what he would like to think about himself.
MrMorden said:pardon me, but i can't see where you get this logic from. i frequently state my beliefs as just that, beliefs. i am aware that they have no scientific proof. that however, does not prove anything, because what God be if he could be proven by scientific means. perhaps i don't share your point of view, but that doesn't make me any less intelligent
I suppose this strongly depends on what you mean by "creationism." I'm assuming that you mean what is generally claimed by "creationists," namely, that all of the planet and all of its life was created in a six day span roughly 10,000 years ago. If you believe that, it isn't the lack of scientific proof that convinces me you are holding an unintelligent belief. It is the fact that this hypothesis has been completely disproven. Continuing to believe in this falsified hypothesis is complete foolishness.
I said 'essential principles'. My point was that a weak intellect is not a prerequisite to acceptance and/or adherence to the essential principles of religion.selfAdjoint said:I don't know, the Abrahamic religions all have miracles performed by their founders, and those miracles violate basic physics. So you have to posit some force or energy to do that miraculous work, and science says momentum and energy are conserved, at least locally, so you can't put those postulated things under the scientific umbrella. Crank science has also coexisted with real science for centuries.
You have said that there is a signficant negative correlation between intellect and religious belief. You have said this many times (without references). While you maintain that you are not saying that an intelligent person cannot be religious, you have said that an intelligent person cannot be a creationist. So examples of people of high intellect who believe in some form of creation would refute that statement.loseyourname said:Read the whole thread before you post. I already addressed this.
MrMorden said:you're taking the bible too literally. i seriously doubt that God was working 24 hour shifts in his creation of the world. i instead see in as six steps, called days for whatever reason. i believe that god created the universe with the big bang. i will believe any scientific theory which has been proven fact. although the big bang has not been proven fact, it is very probable, and makes sense to me. i suppose what you have to ask yourself, is whether you believe that the big bang occurred spontaneously, or that it was set into motion. i tend to prefer the latter viewpoint.
Andrew Mason said:You have said that there is a signficant negative correlation between intellect and religious belief.
While you maintain that you are not saying that an intelligent person cannot be religious, you have said that an intelligent person cannot be a creationist. So examples of people of high intellect who believe in some form of creation would refute that statement.
You would have to do a study of intellect (however that is measured) among people with religious beliefs For all we know, it may be that religious people are, on average, more intelligent than scientists.
AM
loseyourname said:Belief in God is one thing, but any man that has studied the alternatives in the least bit and is still a creationist is at the very least extremely unreasonable, if not unintelligent, despite what he would like to think about himself.
This is a rather extreme view of religion. What rational examination of what evidence have you done to reach your conclusions?Barbie said:Blind faith and unwillingness and/or inability to rationally examine evidence before establishing an opinion/belief are the things that are mutually exclusive from intelligence. Many (if not most) religious people have these traits, and thus there exists a stereotype against religious people in general within the academic world.
The word 'signficant' has a particular meaning in statistics. It means that a result is not random. If there is a non-random correlation then it is signficant. If it is not significant, it is random and therefore not real. You allege a correlation. You allege, therefore, that there is a statistically signficant negative relationship, however small, between intellect and religious belief.loseyourname said:Quote me please. Don't just maintain that I said that. I don't believe I ever referred to a significant correlation. I also posted references, which indicate a very small correlation.
A single example does contradict a flat statement that a person who believes in a creator necessarily is unintelligent. There is no such thing as an unintelligent belief. Beings have intelligence. Beliefs are what they have.Anecdotal evidence does not contradict statistical trends. In any case, I was primarily maintaining that a belief in creationism is an unintelligent belief.
So give us the citations.These studies have been done and they have been cited.
noobie said:I believe this kind of thinking is actually very prevalent in the academic world. There is considerable "peer pressure" to eschew religion and faith if one wants to be considered intellectual. When I first enetered college, I definitely identified myself as liberal and a staunch atheist. Only when I actually did consider the alternatives, did I realize that intelligence and religion are not mutually exclusive.