Is There a Correlation Between Atheism and IQ?

[MrMorden]

i like to think that I am an intelligent person, or least not a dumb one, yet I am also a creationist. i would love to explain why, as i believe i have a logical explanation, but I've already done so in numerous other posts.

let me just say for clarification, that believing in God and being religious are two totally separate things, and in fact can be argued that they are antagonistic towards each other. i don't think that God expects humans to believe in him through blind faith alone, but i do think that if a person allows God to reveal himself he will. and i believe that this is universally true regardless of a person's knowledge of the Bible. of course its hard for me to argue this because i don't have mathematical or scientific proof, and i know that its the reason that you won't be convinced by anything i say, but nonetheless, i believe in God for other reasons then the simple, brainwashing teaching of the church.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[noobie]

I'm a theists who does not believe in macroevolution. I studying to get a PHD in chemistry and I'm surrounded by people who often will talk of proteins and other biomolecules as the product of evolution. I'm not surprised if there is a negative correlation between those who are religious and so called intelligence for it says clearly in scripture:

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

1 Cor 1:20-21

I know a great number of highly intelligent creationist (all of them who are in some scientific or engineering field) because I've had the privilege of studying at the best universities. They are all certainly much more intelligent than myself. But unfortunately, many of these people are mild mannered and do not like to get into heated debates so you may not get to know them.

 

[Andrew Mason]

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?

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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?

This post is a mixed bag; some good arguments and some weak ones. Citing scientists of the past doesn't work in my opinion, because scientific knowledge was less and such things as biblical criticism were also nonexistent or in their infancy. But there are modern scientists who can be scientists who can be cited, such as Polkinghorne who is a good quantum field physicist and a cleric of the Church of England.

So the issue is not whether religious belief and high intellect can coexist.

Quite so.

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.

Again, many centuries is not a good argument. Kepler practiced astrology and Newton practiced alchemy; does that prove those pseudosciences are correct?

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

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.

 

[loseyourname]

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?

Read the whole thread before you post. I already addressed this.

Another thing: People need to quit acting live I've said an intelligent person cannot be religious. I never said anything of the sort.

 

[Janitor]

...Citing scientists of the past doesn't work in my opinion, because scientific knowledge was less ...

Yes. It has been pointed out in various items that I have read over the years that it was extremely hard to be a nonbeliever prior to Darwin's publications, because in those days there simply was no plausible nontheistic answer to the "Who made us?" question.

 

[Mazuz]

People aren't totally rational. Intelligence often corresponds with rationality, but not always. I've seen highly intelligent people who fundamentally are not rational in one of two ways. Either they only use reason to prove what they want. Or they simply believe something contrary to what is reasonable, often fully knowing they are doing this (I have actually heard a "I don't believe the universe is rational" defense). You can be fantastically intelligent and be completely irrational in the sense that while you have the ability to use and understand reason you don't trust its conclusions. Reason can be much like a tool that serves us, but clearly which does not define us. We know and believe what we feel, we all do. Some of us, with more faith in reason, are able to correlate how we feel more often than not what is reasonable.

This I believe helps towards explaining why people with so much intelligence can often believe and act in some of the ways that they do.

 

[MrMorden]

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.

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

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[MrMorden]

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.

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]

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.

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.

One can be a religious person and not believe that literal interpretations of scripture (such as Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, raising the dead and feeding the multitude) are accurate factual accounts. There are, among Christian theologians, a range of interpretations of the Resurrection. There are a variety of views among Islamic scholars as to the meanings of the Koran. In Judaism there are traditional and reform movements that take quite different interpretations of the Old Testament. But in each case, the adherents would say that they agree with the essential principles of their faith.

As experience shows, science provides very little useful guidance as to how humans should live their lives.

AM

 

[Andrew Mason]

Read the whole thread before you post. I already addressed this.

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.

I am saying that there can be no significant negative correlation between intellect and religious belief unless there is a causal connection. If there is a causal connection then the examples of religious people with high intellect are abberrations. But there is no evidence that they are abberrations. 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]

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.

Well, that isn't my understanding of what "creationism" means and that isn't the way the term is commonly used. Popular creationist movement do take Genesis literally. It isn't me. If you just believe that God was behind the scenes directing naturalistic events, then I guess there exists no evidence to contradict that viewpoint. It is very likely unfalsifiable and unverifiable, even in principle, so your belief in that case is purely a matter of personal choice. I have no clue why someone would believe something like that, but to each his own.

 

[loseyourname]

You have said that there is a signficant negative correlation between intellect and religious belief.

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.

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.

Anecdotal evidence does not contradict statistical trends. In any case, I was primarily maintaining that a belief in creationism is an unintelligent belief.

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

These studies have been done and they have been cited. They indicate a small negative correlation between intelligence, as measured by educational achievement, career achievement in the sciences, and IQ (along with other standardized tests) results, and religious belief. Scientists, are on average, more intelligent that just about any other group of people. That shouldn't be surprising, given the intellectual rigor of a scientific education. I'm not a scientist either, so it's not like I'm just making this up in an effort to glorify myself.

 

[noobie]

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.

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.

 

[Barbie]

I don't think that intelligence and religion are mutually exclusive either, and while I won't speak for loseyourname, I don't think he does either.

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.

 

[Andrew Mason]

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.

This is a rather extreme view of religion. What rational examination of what evidence have you done to reach your conclusions?

AM

 

[Andrew Mason]

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.

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.

Anecdotal evidence does not contradict statistical trends. In any case, I was primarily maintaining that a belief in creationism is an unintelligent belief.

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.

These studies have been done and they have been cited.

So give us the citations.

AM

 

[loseyourname]

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.

No, they aren't mutually exclusive, but let's face it: Most religions that are out there are not the carefully considered implications of philosophically rigorous thought. Most religions are simply revealed and accepted uncritically, a mostly passive process that is not particularly intelligent. That isn't to say there is no such thing as intelligent religion.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

True. I didn't realize you were speaking in statistical language when you said that. In that case, however, the correlation is significant, so it's not like I made a false claim.

A single example does contradict a flat statement that a person who believes in a creator necessarily is unintelligent.

Which is a statement I never made. Jesus, Andrew, you're arguing with an illusion here. Look at all of my posts. I think I've made it clear that I was arguing that holding a belief in creationism is unintelligent, not a belief in a creator. I explained exactly what I meant by "creationism" and it would probably do you well to take note of what I have actually said before you pass judgement.

So give us the citations.

AM

No. I provided one resource already, not the best admittedly, but it's not like this claim is contentious.

 

[Barbie]

This is a rather extreme view of religion. What rational examination of what evidence have you done to reach your conclusions?

AM

Andrew, I fail to see how you have classified my view as extreme. Its a simple observation I have been making for years while living in a very Atheistic and then a very Theistic country.

I hardly consider this to be the result of "examination of evidence", but simple people watching (and listening), and don't think it needs to be since I never claimed it to be anything more. I am sorry if I did not make that clear to begin with.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew, I fail to see how you have classified my view as extreme. Its a simple observation I have been making for years while living in a very Atheistic and then a very Theistic country.

I hardly consider this to be the result of "examination of evidence", but simple people watching (and listening), and don't think it needs to be since I never claimed it to be anything more. I am sorry if I did not make that clear to begin with.

In other words, you are unwilling or unable to rationally examine the actual evidence before establishing an opinion/belief about religious people. You have faith that your unscientifically analysed anecdotal experience can be generalized to all religious people. Why?

AM

 

[noobie]

No, they aren't mutually exclusive, but let's face it: Most religions that are out there are not the carefully considered implications of philosophically rigorous thought. Most religions are simply revealed and accepted uncritically, a mostly passive process that is not particularly intelligent. That isn't to say there is no such thing as intelligent religion.

I just don't see this at all. I've lived in various places in the US- the South, West Coast, East Coast and all the religious organizations I've been part of encourage an extensive rationalization of faith. And I would guess that I've spent a lot more time in religious circles and environments than you have. There are of course religious people who'd rather not get very philosophical about the nature of their faith. But they are still encouraged to give an account for the reason why they believe (that is clearly written in scriptures) . These people believe because it works practically in their lives. I don't think this is any different from the avg person in America. The avg non religious person is not any more philosophical or rigorous in comparison to a religious person. We cannot expect everyone to give the same level of thought to these questions that may interest you or me.

 

[loseyourname]

I just don't see this at all. I've lived in various places in the US- the South, West Coast, East Coast and all the religious organizations I've been part of encourage an extensive rationalization of faith.

How many do you know of that could name and explain Aquinas' five proofs and subsequent refutations of them? I've also lived in the south and on both coasts and I've known of very few. Besides, it's the "rationalization of faith" you speak of that gets me. This isn't the deists considering their observations of the natural world and concluding that certain questions can only be answered by appeal to a creator. What we mostly see are people that come up with extensive and convoluted lines of argumentation to justify their pre-existing faith. They didn't acquire that faith through any process other than uncritical acceptance.

And I would guess that I've spent a lot more time in religious circles and environments than you have.

Perhaps. It's certainly been awhile, but when I was younger I was involved in many church activities and even went to a Catholic school for a short time.

But they are still encouraged to give an account for the reason why they believe (that is clearly written in scriptures) . These people believe because it works practically in their lives.

Generally, what I've seen that corroborates what you are talking about are ignorantium and post hoc ergo hoc fallacies, perhaps better known in religious argumentation as the God of the gaps and non causa pro causa arguments. Practical reasons for belief have never gone over well in the philosophical community since the time of Pascal's wager.

I don't think this is any different from the avg person in America. The avg non religious person is not any more philosophical or rigorous in comparison to a religious person.

Maybe, but the stats provided seem to indicate that the average non-religious person in America is at least slightly more intelligent and achieves more in scientific fields than the average religious person in America.

We cannot expect everyone to give the same level of thought to these questions that may interest you or me.

Maybe you don't, but I do. If anyone is going to profess any metaphysical belief, regardless of whether it is religious in nature or not, he better have a good reason to do so; a good epistemic reason, not just a practical reason.

 

[Barbie]

In other words, you are unwilling or unable to rationally examine the actual evidence before establishing an opinion/belief about religious people. You have faith that your unscientifically analysed anecdotal experience can be generalized to all religious people. Why?

AM

I am far from unwilling or unable to examine evidence when I am out to form a conclusion.

My post was offering a possible explanation for the existing stereotype - not claiming a position. When dealing with stereotypes, it is exactly unscientifically analysed anecdotal experience and generalization that need to be considered, since that is how stereotypes come about.

 

[noobie]

This isn't the deists considering their observations of the natural world and concluding that certain questions can only be answered by appeal to a creator. What we mostly see are people that come up with extensive and convoluted lines of argumentation to justify their pre-existing faith. They didn't acquire that faith through any process other than uncritical acceptance.

I don't know what to say except that there are just as many uncritical people out of faith as in the faith. I think there might be a perception that atheists are more "critical" in their thinking b/c atheists do spend a considerable amount of time reading/thinking about these issues and their final conclusion is to reject God. If you haven't thought deeply about these things but aren't religious, you are most likely agnostic and are not likely to be as vocal as atheists. I can believe that there are some correlation between intelligence and atheism but I would be inclined to believe that it is largely because atheisms by definition requires one to have a very critical mind. Just because you are critical does not mean you are correct and the same goes for the many religious people who undertake the same thinking that atheists do but come to different conclusion.

I mentioned in the earlier post as well but I also believe that there is considerable peer pressure to turn to atheism in order to be consdered intelligent. So a good many young people who see that their professors are atheistics may be influenced to turn towards atheism just as a young person who sees that his professors are religious might turn towards religion. I believe this is consistent with one of the earlier studies mentioned about how there isn't as much of a correlation in younger people. So in conclusion, I'll agree that there seems to be a correlation but contend that it means nothing unless we actually understand the exact reasons for why.

Maybe, but the stats provided seem to indicate that the average non-religious person in America is at least slightly more intelligent and achieves more in scientific fields than the average religious person in America.

I would like to see clear evidence which correlates achievement in scientific fields to atheism. In any case, I believe there is considerable amount of prejudice in the scientific field against people who are religious.

Maybe you don't, but I do. If anyone is going to profess any metaphysical belief, regardless of whether it is religious in nature or not, he better have a good reason to do so; a good epistemic reason, not just a practical reason.

People do have good reasons and they can explain their faiths to the majority of the people they can encounter on a daily basis. If you want to be able to identify horses, what good is it to study zebras. Most of their daily experiences do not require deep philosophical manifestos about their faith. I happen to be at a place where most of the people require a more critical view so I take some time to think about these things so as to not make a fool out of myself.

 

[GCT]

atheism is strictly related to personality and independent of intellligence, it has nothing to do with and is not related to intelligence in any sense. Being more intelligent does not make you more prone to atheism, becoming an atheist does not have any adaptative significance. In other words becoming an atheist will not increase your intellligence; it an issue between that of a sound mind and a radical personality.

 

[selfAdjoint]

atheism is strictly related to personality and independent of intellligence, it has nothing to do with and is not related to intelligence in any sense. Being more intelligent does not make you more prone to atheism, becoming an atheist does not have any adaptative significance. In other words becoming an atheist will not increase your intellligence; it an issue between that of a sound mind and a radical personality.

Several bald assertions, no evidence. WIll the correlation just go away if you shout at it?

 

[katelynndevere]

atheism is strictly related to personality and independent of intellligence, it has nothing to do with and is not related to intelligence in any sense. Being more intelligent does not make you more prone to atheism, becoming an atheist does not have any adaptative significance. In other words becoming an atheist will not increase your intellligence; it an issue between that of a sound mind and a radical personality.

Interesting, that you should use a quote by Planck to support your bigotry: his words in fact seem to debunk your position. You seem highly emotional about this topic. Are you of a religious persuasion yourself?
I suspect that an intelligent person IS in fact more prone to atheism in the sense of leaving faith to join the ranks of atheists, since an intelligent individual is more likely to think critically, which is a prerequisite for rejecting the faith one has been born into. One cannot reject what one does not crticize, surely?
I should like to point out that I do not mean to imply that persons of faith are not critical or intelligent: Martin Luther springs to mind here.

Kate.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it funny how atheists want to believe that their faith is based on logic and those who disagree are illogical. Thousands of years of human experience testify to the existence of a greater power. To me it makes much more sense to not potentially risk one's immortal soul based on a hunch. Consider what the atheist risks without proof. If life means nothing then choosing one belief over another makes no difference either. Pascal essentially made the same argument. What is the risk/benefit ratio as risk approaches eternity?

 

[Andrew Mason]

I suspect that an intelligent person IS in fact more prone to atheism in the sense of leaving faith to join the ranks of atheists, since an intelligent individual is more likely to think critically, which is a prerequisite for rejecting the faith one has been born into. One cannot reject what one does not crticize, surely?

Atheism is a belief that, fundamentally, is based on faith (unless the atheist actually believes there is clear evidence that no God exists, in which case he/she is simply deceived). Religion is based on faith.

Both the atheist and believer use some form of reasoning to support their beliefs. The main difference is that the religious person readily admits the faith aspect and celebrates it, while the atheist refuses to acknowledge it.

Agnostics, on the other hand simply say they don't know (and probably don't care) whether God exists.

AM

 

[katelynndevere]

Andrew

You are right when you say that atheism and religion are both based on faith, in the case of the atheist who believes that deities do not exist. Your statement that the atheist who is convinced of clear evidence demonstrating that deities cannot exist is merely decieved is, as they say, not even wrong. Your statement that the main difference between them is simply that the believer 'readily admits the faith aspect and celebrates it' is rather simplistic; many deeply religious persons have gone to great lengths to prove that God or gods must exist - the creationists are a typical example. Many scientists believe that the nature of the universe is such that it must have had an intelligent designer - is this not an example of faith based on proof? As fot the atheist simply refusing to acknowledge the faith element of their belief, you are agin, not even wrong. many atheists have arrived at their position after a great deal of agonised soul searching and prayer.

By the way, which side of your fnce are you placing me, since I have not declared myself to be either atheist or religious?

 

[Joel]

Agnostics, on the other hand simply say they don't know (and probably don't care) whether God exists.

As an agnostic, I'll drink to that.

-Joel

 

[antiver]

IQ is easily quantized, and a degree of Atheism can be polled. The original post asks for a a correlation - a statistical correlation. With some research/study time, these two variables can be graphed against one another and a statistical correlation can be calculated (scale from 0 to 1, 0 being no correlation and 1 being perfect correlation). A correlation means nothing (as already pointed out in this thread, a correlation does not indicate any cause-effect relationships). However, I would like to see a correlation (r) value for these two variables. THEN the discussion/analysis of WHY a correlation exists, or doesn't exist, can begin...

 

[BicycleTree]

Actually, correlation goes from -1 to 1.

 

[selfAdjoint]

And you can't get a correlation just by studying atheists. You have to study a random sample of the population big enough to hold a statistically meaningful number of atheists - 30 or so - and and the same number of sigma 2 IQs. Then run your tests on the whole sample.

 

[Picklehead]

Honestly, I am suspicious of any declared correlation between atheism and intelligence. It reminds me of that study recently that claimed show differences between the brains of people who vote conservative vs. liberal.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Honestly, I am suspicious of any declared correlation between atheism and intelligence. It reminds me of that study recently that claimed show differences between the brains of people who vote conservative vs. liberal.

I would tend to agree. This thread has been mostly based on some pretty thin dervative evidence.

 

[BicycleTree]

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

Loseyourname posted this link at the beginning of this thread but I think that it should be posted again. The evidence here is far from thin.

 

[Joel]

I would tend to agree. This thread has been mostly based on some pretty thin dervative evidence.

Indeed. Altough it has made for some interesting discussion.

 

[selfAdjoint]

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

Loseyourname posted this link at the beginning of this thread but I think that it should be posted again. The evidence here is far from thin.

1. I am really dubious about the studies from the 1930s and earlier for three interconnected reasons: I don't thin the tests were really good yet, it was the depression and attitude were skewed by events (marxism was popular in colleges and many of these studies were on collefge students), and finally I don't believe the professionalism of many of the investigators was high enough for them to do the careful attention to disturbing factors that would tend to weaken their conslusions.

2. Many of the studies talk about weakness of religion or broad-mindedness toward atheism, which are miles away from being atheist. That higher intelligence people tend to be more tolerant is no surprise, and was not the point of this thread, to judge by its title.

 

[BicycleTree]

Why are you questioning the professionalism of researchers you know nothing about? And there were only a few studies from the 1930s.

The evidence is fairly plain. Perhaps the reason most of the studies did not ask (some did!) about absolute atheism is that most people are not atheist so the results are less accurate for a given sample size.

Tolerance of disagreeing viewpoints generally indicates that one is less certain of one's own viewpoint. It's a sliding scale from complete dogmatic belief to agnosticism to atheism. And some of the studies did expressly ask about atheism.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Why are you questioning the professionalism of researchers you know nothing about? And there were only a few studies from the 1930s.

The evidence is fairly plain. Perhaps the reason most of the studies did not ask (some did!) about absolute atheism is that most people are not atheist so the results are less accurate for a given sample size.

Tolerance of disagreeing viewpoints generally indicates that one is less certain of one's own viewpoint. It's a sliding scale from complete dogmatic belief to agnosticism to atheism. And some of the studies did expressly ask about atheism.

Sure I know about sliding scale, but in the case of atheism you don't have religious opinion = a(atheist) + (1-a)(theist), or if you do then NONE of the studies were capable of telling that. The world is full of irreligious people and broad minded people. Very few of them are atheists.

We can differ on the professionalism of the researchers but the full power of statistics (factor analysis and principal component analysis) didn't become available until the middle 1930s, and it wasn't the custom then to obsessively worry about whether your distribution was normal and whether your significance tests were valid.

 

[BicycleTree]

I don't know about factor analysis or principal component analysis, but by the central limit theorem the mean of your distribution is always about normal for a fair sample size. How much rigor are you talking about? And are you positive that significance testing was not around at the time?

Anyway, if you find a moderate correlation and your sample size is in the hundreds, your result is probably significant. They didn't have to _know_ how significant it was for it to be so.


Let's say I have a room full of people who said on a poll that religion is not very important in their lives. And I have another room of people who said that religion is very important in their lives. Now I bet you $20 that the first person you talk to in one of these two rooms is not atheist. Which room do you enter?

Let's say that I have the same two rooms except that everyone in both of the rooms also answered on the poll that they are not atheist. And you pick one of the people at random except that you get to choose the room, and my bet is $10,000 that the person you pick will still not be atheist in 20 years. Which room do you choose?

 

[marlon]

I have the highest IQ ever : 290 and i am a catholic fundamentalist. Just read my signature.

TOTUS TUUS EGO SUM

marlon

my point is : YES they do relate...Now, close this thread

 

[Lacy33]

So let it be!

"TOTUS TUUS EGO SUM"
"YES they do relate...Now, close this thread"



I agree!

"dalet-yud" "di" (enough)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Good enough.