Notices
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: The negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief..does it exist?

  1. #1 The negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief..does it exist? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    89
    As an atheist, I find atheists just as misled as any other group out there. I have heard many times throughout the years that there is a negative correlation with intelligence and belief in religion. For all you non-statisticians out there, a negative correlation means when one variable goes up (belief in religion) that the other variable goes down (intelligence) or vice versa.

    Are atheists more intelligent than the religious?

    Normally, when I pose this question, I get a stream of angry Google atheists (a term I coined about atheists who never do any actual research beyond a quick Google search) stating that I am wrong! Then they show me the correlative studies that show that most scientists aren't religious. This is great but this shows nothing but the fact that scientists are generally not religious. This isn't proving anything about intelligence. What about lawyers, doctors and all the other jobs that require a high amount of intelligence? The data is just not there to support the conclusion.

    Unfortunately, this is a one-sided argument. Logically, you cannot prove a negative (atheists are NOT more intelligent than the religious) so the burden of proof completely stands on the other side. To be clear, I don't believe any group is more intelligent than the other.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by ReligionOfTheSemites View Post
    ...Then they show me the correlative studies that show that most scientists aren't religious. This is great but this shows nothing but the fact that scientists are generally not religious. This isn't proving anything about intelligence. What about lawyers, doctors and all the other jobs that require a high amount of intelligence? The data is just not there to support the conclusion. ....
    It also introduces a selection bias into the interpretation of the data. Comparing only the intelligence of religious scientist against nonreligious scientists might be a more fair comparison instead of assuming the relative number of them was the significant value.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,760
    There would need to be a standard definition of intelligence before it could be said that one element of a set is more or less intelligent than another member of that set.
    But that being said, atheists in America tend to score above average in religious knowledge tests; U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    There would need to be a standard definition of intelligence before it could be said that one element of a set is more or less intelligent than another member of that set.
    But that being said, atheists in America tend to score above average in religious knowledge tests; U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
    I agree that there needs to be a standardized definition of concept of intelligence, but this is the job of the person making the claim that atheists are more intelligent than the religious. I'm not so sure if you were implying this was my job or not but I might as well state it. Also, that is a very interesting link you posted, I would have imagined that the results would be similar to that but isn't necessarily on the topic of this post. Measuring the knowledge of religion among a people isn't measuring intelligence...but I think that you weren't necessarily implying this.

    To be clear, my purpose of posting this topic is to let atheists who believe they are inherently more intelligent than the religious to state their case and supplement it with peer-review research if possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ReligionOfTheSemites View Post
    ...Then they show me the correlative studies that show that most scientists aren't religious. This is great but this shows nothing but the fact that scientists are generally not religious. This isn't proving anything about intelligence. What about lawyers, doctors and all the other jobs that require a high amount of intelligence? The data is just not there to support the conclusion. ....
    It also introduces a selection bias into the interpretation of the data. Comparing only the intelligence of religious scientist against nonreligious scientists might be a more fair comparison instead of assuming the relative number of them was the significant value.
    Umm, I am not aware of any studies done on the intelligence of scientists and comparing the two groups (religious & non-religious) but rather I pointing to the fact that "most scientists are atheist" seems to be taken as some sort of evidence for the "atheists are more intelligent" assertion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by ReligionOfTheSemites View Post
    Umm, I am not aware of any studies done on the intelligence of scientists and comparing the two groups (religious & non-religious) but rather I pointing to the fact that "most scientists are atheist" seems to be taken as some sort of evidence for the "atheists are more intelligent" assertion.
    I am not aware of such a data set either, which is exactly my point.
    Claiming more scientists are atheists says nothing about how smart they are compared to scientists who subscribe to a religion. It simply does not support the assertion that atheists are smarter, not even in the scientific community and much less in the general population.
    You could almost say it is an argument from population fallacy (argumentum ad numerum) because although it is a bit woolly it certainly seems to go that way.
    If you can give me a better reason why it is a false argument I would like to read it.

    PS:
    I am definitely an atheist and I consider myself very intelligent therefore atheists are very intelligent.
    These other people are atheists and they are very intelligent, more intelligent than the general population:
    Therefore atheists are smarter than the general population.
    Religious people are part of the general population:
    Therefore religious people are not as smart as atheists are.

    Do you think I got the logical flaws right in my example?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ReligionOfTheSemites View Post
    Umm, I am not aware of any studies done on the intelligence of scientists and comparing the two groups (religious & non-religious) but rather I pointing to the fact that "most scientists are atheist" seems to be taken as some sort of evidence for the "atheists are more intelligent" assertion.
    I am not aware of such a data set either, which is exactly my point.
    Claiming more scientists are atheists says nothing about how smart they are compared to scientists who subscribe to a religion. It simply does not support the assertion that atheists are smarter, not even in the scientific community and much less in the general population.
    You could almost say it is an argument from population fallacy (argumentum ad numerum) because although it is a bit woolly it certainly seems to go that way.
    If you can give me a better reason why it is a false argument I would like to read it.

    PS:
    I am definitely an atheist and I consider myself very intelligent therefore atheists are very intelligent.
    These other people are atheists and they are very intelligent, more intelligent than the general population:
    Therefore atheists are smarter than the general population.
    Religious people are part of the general population:
    Therefore religious people are not as smart as atheists are.

    Do you think I got the logical flaws right in my example?
    Okay, my bad, I somewhat misread your post. And yes, I can definitely see that as an accurate and valid argument. On a similar note, I can see much similarity between how atheists see themselves when it comes to intelligence and how conspiracy theorists do the same. Both groups contend that their side uses "logic" and "reason" to arrive at the conclusions of the group along with a "you don't see it my way...you're an idiot" type of egocentric thinking. I personally was a "militant" Google atheist and a conspiracy theorist at one point in time and I have personally used these types of thinking and have seen it with many others that I debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by ReligionOfTheSemites View Post
    On a similar note, I can see much similarity between how atheists see themselves when it comes to intelligence and how conspiracy theorists do the same. Both groups contend that their side uses "logic" and "reason" to arrive at the conclusions of the group along with a "you don't see it my way...you're an idiot" type of egocentric thinking. I personally was a "militant" Google atheist and a conspiracy theorist at one point in time and I have personally used these types of thinking and have seen it with many others that I debate.
    I've been a strong (militant) atheist for almost 10 years now. I've never had that attitude of that "you don't see it my way... you're an idiot," maybe it's because I used to be very Catholic, but I can see why people choose to believe in God, I just don't see anything that compels me to believe. I strive to look at most issues from alternative points of view. That being said, the only real religious group that I see as idiots are the young earth creationists (YEC), that isn't a case of them being idiots for disagreeing with me, but for for them being idiots because they ignore evidence and actual science.

    A lot of the conspiracy theorists that I've encountered also happen to be atheists and I agree that they have that attitude. However, I think this attitude is comparable to the YEC's who use circular logic to prove their points.

    Anyways as for the topic of this thread, there is a relationship between low education, poverty and religion which may account for how this idea was started. Poverty generally leads to lower education, which in turn leads to less of an ability to have an open mind and think critically. This combined with that fact that living in poverty diminishes your chances for betterment makes the idea that God loves you and has a plan for you more appealing. Religion gives them a chance for hope. However, I don't think religion itself leads to a lower intelligence, I know many people that are very religious and very intelligent. I also know atheists that are about as bright as burnt out lightbulbs. I think the socioeconomic factors are the main contributors.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    138
    I like this thread.

    When I read the first post I felt like if you choose to be religious, then according to religionofthesemites line of thinking, you automatically become less intelligent. So, we definitely have to know what are we talking about, when we talk about intelligence. And I think that an appropiate definition would be the capacity to solve problems, of any kind. So there will be people who are more intelligent in some areas than in others.

    The difinition of intelligence is very controversial... so that will be a hard thing to overcome for this thread. Because Im sure that someone will say something different.

    Anyways as for the topic of this thread, there is a relationship between low education, poverty and religion which may account for how this idea was started. Poverty generally leads to lower education, which in turn leads to less of an ability to have an open mind and think critically. This combined with that fact that living in poverty diminishes your chances for betterment makes the idea that God loves you and has a plan for you more appealing. Religion gives them a chance for hope. However, I don't think religion itself leads to a lower intelligence, I know many people that are very religious and very intelligent. I also know atheists that are about as bright as burnt out lightbulbs. I think the socioeconomic factors are the main contributors.
    I agree with falconer. But this relationship between socioeconomical condition and believing in god, has no relationship with intelligence. If poor people could have access to education, they may probe to be very intelligent, and still believe in god.

    bye
    Last edited by M_Gabriela; September 21st, 2014 at 10:04 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    84
    Most of our traditions derive from religion, don't know if that's scientifically reserched but that's my opinion I've noticed allot of traditions in allot of countries either religious or atheists.

    my point is vem if it's origin is from a religion doesn't really matter because they still don't believe on god.

    i am a deist and a new one at that and most of my behavior and ideals derived from my old religion but my old religion is not what I thought it was, not the way my parents teached me so I refused to be part of it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    flattened rat 甘肃人's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gansu
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by ReligionOfTheSemites View Post
    As an atheist, I find atheists just as misled as any other group out there. I have heard many times throughout the years that there is a negative correlation with intelligence and belief in religion. For all you non-statisticians out there, a negative correlation means when one variable goes up (belief in religion) that the other variable goes down (intelligence) or vice versa.

    Are atheists more intelligent than the religious?

    Normally, when I pose this question, I get a stream of angry Google atheists (a term I coined about atheists who never do any actual research beyond a quick Google search) stating that I am wrong! Then they show me the correlative studies that show that most scientists aren't religious. This is great but this shows nothing but the fact that scientists are generally not religious. This isn't proving anything about intelligence. What about lawyers, doctors and all the other jobs that require a high amount of intelligence? The data is just not there to support the conclusion.

    Unfortunately, this is a one-sided argument. Logically, you cannot prove a negative (atheists are NOT more intelligent than the religious) so the burden of proof completely stands on the other side. To be clear, I don't believe any group is more intelligent than the other.
    Of course the Bible takes a whole other view. The only time it speaks of atheists or atheism is in Psalm 14:1
    1The fool says in his heart,
    “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
    there is no one who does good.
    2The Lord looks down from heaven
    on all mankind
    to see if there are any who understand,
    any who seek God.
    3All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
    there is no one who does good,
    not even one.
    So apparently, we are ALL atheists from God's POV.

    Then there's Mark 4;12-14 and its concurrent verses concerning the unbeliever.
    He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!"
    Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?"
    But I like what Woody Allen says on the subject.

    To you I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.
    And what does the Lord require of you but to love justice, to be merciful and to walk humbly with Him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    flattened rat 甘肃人's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gansu
    Posts
    285
    Oh. It looks like I was mistaken in my earlier post:
    Question: "What does the Bible mean when it says “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”?"

    Answer:
    Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Some take these verses to mean that atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the only meaning of the Hebrew word translated “fool.” In this text, the Hebrew word is nabal, which often refers to an impious person who has no perception of ethical or religious truth. The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “sinful people do not believe in God.” In other words, it is a wicked thing to deny God, and a denial of God is often accompanied by a wicked lifestyle. The verse goes on to list some other characteristics of the irreligious: “They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.” Psalm 14 is a study on the universal depravity of mankind.
    And what does the Lord require of you but to love justice, to be merciful and to walk humbly with Him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    flattened rat 甘肃人's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gansu
    Posts
    285
    I appreciate that many on The Science Forum want to read excerpts from Christian websites, but either you have me calling atheists fools, or a quote from a religious website that says atheists are not fools. One helluva choice, isn't it?
    And what does the Lord require of you but to love justice, to be merciful and to walk humbly with Him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,306
    Quote Originally Posted by 甘肃人 View Post
    I appreciate that many on The Science Forum want to read excerpts from Christian websites, but either you have me calling atheists fools, or a quote from a religious website that says atheists are not fools. One helluva choice, isn't it?
    Given the choice between being considered a fool OR that I have "no perception of ethical or religious truth ... often accompanied by a wicked lifestyle" and "corrupt, their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.” I think "fool" is slightly less insulting.
    On the other hand, given the laughable lack of logic and rationality displayed on that website I'm not particularly worried about whatever they decide to call me.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by 甘肃人 View Post
    Oh. It looks like I was mistaken in my earlier post:
    Question: "What does the Bible mean when it says “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”?"

    Answer:
    Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Some take these verses to mean that atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the only meaning of the Hebrew word translated “fool.” In this text, the Hebrew word is nabal, which often refers to an impious person who has no perception of ethical or religious truth. The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “sinful people do not believe in God.” In other words, it is a wicked thing to deny God, and a denial of God is often accompanied by a wicked lifestyle. The verse goes on to list some other characteristics of the irreligious: “They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.” Psalm 14 is a study on the universal depravity of mankind.
    This is not the topic of the thread. Please, if you want to debate something different, start a new thread.

    Thank you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    First, could you please note where you have heard or seen this negative correlation?
    I have only noted it by atheists trying to denounce and bully a person of religion. If a group of people make up a "study" about them selves, I doubt it could ever be logical (NOT bias).

    Second, why waste time with this? to prove you are better than someone else?

    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    There would need to be a standard definition of intelligence before it could be said that one element of a set is more or less intelligent than another member of that set.
    But that being said, atheists in America tend to score above average in religious knowledge tests; U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
    If one were to consider "what if" then the study would need to clarify what is "religious."

    A person to state believe or someone who actually participates with a group defined as religion? Perhaps this may leave out cults or non-religious affiliated individuals such as agnostics or those who may be considered border line, and though believe in a supernatural presence does not follow a religion (or cult). Or would the survey be atheist vs. everyone else?

    Also, what type of experiment would this be? Double-blind? then how may we choose participants who know nothing about the experiment? where will the survey be taken? Age; surveying college kids only or targeting senior groups? What economic background is being considered?

    It appears trying to complete such survey with out bias is not probable. perhaps survey does not portray an accurate picture. A person's habits determines their effort and consideration for intelligence/knowledge.

    Do look at the provided survey once more, who is on the list? Might the list say more about which groups rely more on information than those who do not? Think about each groups history. Atheists must examine why they do not believe daily until the point where they do not. There is often a transitional period in which a person moves from examining a religion (to other religions) and then deciding against religion.

    Jews have a rich history culturally at being the most hated and sought against. others have raised walls against them, therefore one must identify who they are. a "why" for the walls but also a sense of pride as to whom they are. A reason to examine - with great effort - as to who one is.

    Last, other surveys and studies have tried to determine criminals, minorities, etc. as being less inelegant all to have someone else being raised above. all studies have since been determined inaccurate. I ask again - what is the point of this?
    Last edited by chero; September 25th, 2014 at 10:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    If we are willing to break "intelligence" into smaller parts, like different intellectual areas of ability, then perhaps we could say religious people generally have poorer "critical reasoning" skills. They're clearly susceptible to confirmation bias, for starters.

    On the other hand, I find that many religious people have an incredible capacity for dealing with cognitive dissonance. They can both fully believe that god loves everyone, and fully believe that god hates fags. They can applaud Jesus for turning the other cheek, and healing the ear of one of the men who came to arrest him before his crucifixion, and approve of their own nation launching a destructive, bloody, and possibly unnecessary war in a faraway land.

    The reason I left religion is because I figured out after a while that this particular intellectual skill is necessary in order to lead a happy life as a Christian, and that I did not possess it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    flattened rat 甘肃人's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gansu
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If we are willing to break "intelligence" into smaller parts, like different intellectual areas of ability, then perhaps we could say religious people generally have poorer "critical reasoning" skills. They're clearly susceptible to confirmation bias, for starters.

    On the other hand, I find that many religious people have an incredible capacity for dealing with cognitive dissonance. They can both fully believe that god loves everyone, and fully believe that god hates fags. They can applaud Jesus for turning the other cheek, and healing the ear of one of the men who came to arrest him before his crucifixion, and approve of their own nation launching a destructive, bloody, and possibly unnecessary war in a faraway land.

    The reason I left religion is because I figured out after a while that this particular intellectual skill is necessary in order to lead a happy life as a Christian, and that I did not possess it.
    Excuse me, but it sounds like you have some cognitive dissonance going on yourself. You disapprove of people who hold certain beliefs, and yet you see yourself as rational and right. You both fully believe that you love reason and scientific thought, while you believe any one who is religious cannot be rational. Correct me if I am mistaken about you, please.

    Has it ever occurred to you that a person could choose to believe in religion by way of observation and reason? it does happen. Some people weigh up every thing they have seen, have known, have learned and decide to be religious.

    While I'll grant that there are many religious people (and to be fair, you did say 'many' and not 'all') believe that God loves everyone, and hates homosexuals, not all of them are that way. Many are not. Some are even homosexuals themselves. I think you may have reached a faulty conclusion when you reasoned that you need to be cogntively dissonant to be a Christian. You may have left religion, but you retain your own cognitive dissonance: an unwarranted prejudice against 'the other', you have only changed from one 'other' to another.

    Hate the sin and not the sinner, brother.
    And what does the Lord require of you but to love justice, to be merciful and to walk humbly with Him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Gansu people
    Excuse me, but it sounds like you have some cognitive dissonance going on yourself. You disapprove of people who hold certain beliefs, and yet you see yourself as rational and right. You both fully believe that you love reason and scientific thought, while you believe any one who is religious cannot be rational. Correct me if I am mistaken about you, please.
    I'm sorry! But I'm at a lose to know how that is cognative dissonance, where is the contradiction. Could you please explain, thank you.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    flattened rat 甘肃人's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gansu
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gansu people
    Excuse me, but it sounds like you have some cognitive dissonance going on yourself. You disapprove of people who hold certain beliefs, and yet you see yourself as rational and right. You both fully believe that you love reason and scientific thought, while you believe any one who is religious cannot be rational. Correct me if I am mistaken about you, please.
    I'm sorry! But I'm at a lose to know how that is cognative dissonance, where is the contradiction. Could you please explain, thank you.
    I won't say he 'dislikes' Christians, because I don't know that for a fact . I say kojax disapproves of them. He disapproves of them because they unreasonably look down on others (according to kojax ) and yet he looks down on them. So what is the difference? He left their ranks because he disapproves of intolerance while purporting high-minded values. He has high minded values of his own (rationality and science) but he is also intolerant of others. They hate "fags" (as he calls homosexuals) and he hates Christians - is what I think he might mean. So how is he superior? Hate is hate. Intolerance is intolerance. Disapproval is disapproval.

    Also note, I have asked him if I am perhaps mistaken about his beliefs.
    Last edited by 甘肃人; September 26th, 2014 at 09:40 AM.
    And what does the Lord require of you but to love justice, to be merciful and to walk humbly with Him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    138
    I guess we all agree that there is no correlation between intelligence and religion belief.
    And it is actually very simple. Religion exists since humans can reason. In human history, religion has been the center of everything during a long long long period of time and yet... we survived and learned a lot of things that helped our societies to make improvements. There was of course a revolution of science when studies were made more critically and objectively (which of course started the fight between religion and science). But that does not mean that all we learned from the past history was wrong. And for the matter of this thread, religious people are not less intelligent and did make improvements in science, in politics, in economy, etc.
    Period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    I guess we all agree that there is no correlation between intelligence and religion belief.
    And it is actually very simple. Religion exists since humans can reason.
    Then you need to define intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    And for the matter of this thread, religious people are not less intelligent and did make improvements in science, in politics, in economy, etc.
    Period.
    As far as I'm aware the term intelligence comes from the Latin intelligere, to comprehend or perceive. How does one comprehend or percieve that which isn't corporial or intelligible.

    Intelligence today is more widely understood to be the ability to reason, to think abstractly, to comprehend complex ideas, and to solve problems, it is about making sense of things. but it is still basically to comprehend or perceive. This is where the problem lies with religious believe, a person can be intelligent in all other aspects of there life, bar their religious belief, simply because of that one fact you can't comprehend or perceive the non-corporial or the unintelligible.

    This is not saying they are any less intelligent. Just that they are not using there skills at critical thought very well when it comes to their religious beliefs. This also does not mean that atheists are any wiser, bar that one thing above.

    If people want to bandy about that one is more intelligent than the other, that would be a fallacy. What one may be better at is not letting cognitive dissonance control their thoughts. I.E. not letting their quest for the truth be over shadowed by illogic.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    I guess we all agree that there is no correlation between intelligence and religion belief.
    And it is actually very simple. Religion exists since humans can reason.
    Then you need to define intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    And for the matter of this thread, religious people are not less intelligent and did make improvements in science, in politics, in economy, etc.
    Period.
    As far as I'm aware the term intelligence comes from the Latin intelligere, to comprehend or perceive. How does one comprehend or percieve that which isn't corporial or intelligible.

    Intelligence today is more widely understood to be the ability to reason, to think abstractly, to comprehend complex ideas, and to solve problems, it is about making sense of things. but it is still basically to comprehend or perceive. This is where the problem lies with religious believe, a person can be intelligent in all other aspects of there life, bar their religious belief, simply because of that one fact you can't comprehend or perceive the non-corporial or the unintelligible.

    This is not saying they are any less intelligent. Just that they are not using there skills at critical thought very well when it comes to their religious beliefs. This also does not mean that atheists are any wiser, bar that one thing above.

    If people want to bandy about that one is more intelligent than the other, that would be a fallacy. What one may be better at is not letting cognitive dissonance control their thoughts. I.E. not letting their quest for the truth be over shadowed by illogic.
    And I agree with you.

    If people want to bandy about that one is more intelligent than the other, that would be a fallacy. What one may be better at is not letting cognitive dissonance control their thoughts. I.E. not letting their quest for the truth be over shadowed by illogic.
    The man who started this topic wanted to know if aheist were more intelligent tan religious people.

    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    I guess we all agree that there is no correlation between intelligence and religion belief.
    And it is actually very simple. Religion exists since humans can reason.
    Then you need to define intelligence.
    I think that too. That is why in post #9 I said:

    And I think that an appropiate definition would be the capacity to solve problems, of any kind. So there will be people who are more intelligent in some areas than in others.

    The difinition of intelligence is very controversial... so that will be a hard thing to overcome for this thread. Because Im sure that someone will say something different.
    I tried to put an end because people are starting to get off the topic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I don't know of any correlation between religion and intelligence, any more than the number books you own the more intelligent you are. Recently I met a man (a baptist) who started talking to me about the Fall of Man. When I protested that there could be life elsewhere in the universe he replied that this was the only planet where the Fall had happened. This guy was a doctor. To me, beliefs like that are not only unsupported but totally absurd. I made the comment that I believed in the opposite - the rise of man.
    The last time I went to church I remember thinking that I simply couldn't believe in what these people believe. That does not make me more intelligent than they. Maybe I'm a bit more in touch with the workings of the physical universe, but there again I don't have many of the skills that some have. My social skills are not great. I can't cook. I can't fix a car...
    Philosophy is a comparison. We are all philosophers to some degree. Some people are intelligent, others stupid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If we are willing to break "intelligence" into smaller parts, like different intellectual areas of ability, then perhaps we could say religious people generally have poorer "critical reasoning" skills. They're clearly susceptible to confirmation bias, for starters.
    Based on what study, experience, or research?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If we are willing to break "intelligence" into smaller parts, like different intellectual areas of ability, then perhaps we could say religious people generally have poorer "critical reasoning" skills. They're clearly susceptible to confirmation bias, for starters.
    But you are not?

    On the other hand, I find that many religious people have an incredible capacity for dealing with cognitive dissonance. They can both fully believe that god loves everyone, and fully believe that god hates fags.
    There is a group of terribly misguided and hateful people who evidently call themselves "Christians" and say such things. But for you to spread their venom across all Christians, in the sense of its being the dominant belief system in the United States is simply another example of your own cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
    By analogy, a parent loves his children even when they do horrible things, just as God loves everyone but hates their sins, for which they will be judged.

    They can applaud Jesus for turning the other cheek, and healing the ear of one of the men who came to arrest him before his crucifixion, and approve of their own nation launching a destructive, bloody, and possibly unnecessary war in a faraway land.
    Which "possibly unnecessary war" in which "faraway land"? Millions of people have been freed from oppression by American troops, and you have the temerity to besmirch them for giving their blood and their lives in defense of not just these United States, but also in defense of a free Europe and south Korea and Japan, and Afghanistan, and Iraq and indeed much of the world!

    The reason I left religion is because I figured out after a while that this particular intellectual skill is necessary in order to lead a happy life as a Christian, and that I did not possess it.
    You misinterpret "this particular intellectual skill" very badly, and suffer from the hopelessness which must accompany it. Ahead of you lies only darkness, at best. At worst, something you don't even want to contemplate, but can only deny.

    The Norwegian Wharf Rat Experiment

    Someone tested a control group of Norwegian wharf rats by timing how long they would swim in a bucket of water before drowning. The time of about 15 minutes is what I recall.

    Then he tested a different group, obviously and just when each rat was about to slip underwater forever, he pulled them out, dried them off, gave them a hearty meal, and let them sleep overnight before returning them to the bucket of water for a retest.

    After having been rescued, having been given HOPE, these test rats swam for 35 hours. There is a lesson in this experiment for atheists, if they will but learn it. I doubt that many will. Pride is like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,306
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    The Norwegian Wharf Rat Experiment
    If you're going to "quote" an experiment you could at least get the facts right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_despair_test
    35 hours?
    (The rest of your post is equally flawed).
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 10th, 2017 at 10:09 AM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    The Norwegian Wharf Rat Experiment
    If you're going to "quote" an experiment you could at least get the facts right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_despair_test
    35 hours?
    (The rest of your post is equally flawed).
    So your "research" consists of going to wikipedia and citing that as the "facts" being utterly "right"?

    You know for a certainty that nobody did this test and observed rats swimming for scores of hours, do you?
    Don't pretend that wikipedia is the absolute authority and you are as brilliant as you always pretend.

    The totality of your response is horribly flawed, as is so often the case. But you "moderators" jump all over anyone who deigns to disagree with your left-wing, atheist worldview. And your word is of course absolute, here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,306
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    So your "research" consists of going to wikipedia and citing that as the "facts" being utterly "right"?
    Ah, my apologies.
    You can't read.
    I, at least, linked to a study that relates to (if it's not the one you specifically referred to) an experiment with rats in buckets.
    You, on the other hand, just waved your hand and relied on "what you could recall". (I do admit to finding 35 hours of swimming somewhat unbelievable).

    You know for a certainty that nobody did this test and observed rats swimming for scores of hours, do you?
    That is neither what I wrote nor what I implied.

    Don't pretend that wikipedia is the absolute authority
    Nor was this.

    The totality of your response is horribly flawed
    As opposed to unsupported claims based on what you "recall"?

    But you "moderators" jump all over anyone who deigns to disagree with your left-wing, atheist worldview.
    Your spelling "left-wing, atheist worldview" is incorrect. What should have been written was "scientific": i.e. sourced and checkable.
    Try it in future.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,429
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    The Norwegian Wharf Rat Experiment
    If you're going to "quote" an experiment you could at least get the facts right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_despair_test
    35 hours?
    (The rest of your post is equally flawed).
    So your "research" consists of going to wikipedia and citing that as the "facts" being utterly "right"?

    You know for a certainty that nobody did this test and observed rats swimming for scores of hours, do you?
    Don't pretend that wikipedia is the absolute authority and you are as brilliant as you always pretend.

    The totality of your response is horribly flawed, as is so often the case. But you "moderators" jump all over anyone who deigns to disagree with your left-wing, atheist worldview. And your word is of course absolute, here.
    Please then provide the published research that documents 35 hour swim times you are asserting.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    So your "research" consists of going to wikipedia and citing that as the "facts" being utterly "right"?
    Ah, my apologies.
    You can't read.
    Dear Mister Big Shot,

    As ad hominem attacks go, you are The Master.

    I have earned a fortune and traveled the world, enjoying myself immensely along the way. I am happily married to the wife of my youth, and am truly blessed, unlike you.

    You are welcome to live day in and day out in your little *scientific* cesspool here, which you dominate by virtue of your Moderator status and pretense of absolute knowledge.

    If I never post here again, it will be because of your hatefulness, your arrogance, your intolerance here on what is SUPPOSED to be a "science" forum.
    Clearly you don't even know the etiology of "science." The root word from Latin is "scientia," meaning truth. You're all about bias - hateful bias, petty bias, not truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,306
    So, rather than support your claims, or address any points made you choose to make baseless assumptions, unsupported accusations and generally avoid a genuine reply.
    Got it.

    The root word from Latin is "scientia," meaning truth.
    Nearly missed this: utter crap.
    The Latin scientia is "knowledge".
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 10th, 2017 at 11:46 AM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    So your "research" consists of going to wikipedia and citing that as the "facts" being utterly "right"?
    Ah, my apologies.
    You can't read.
    Dear Mister Big Shot,

    As ad hominem attacks go, you are The Master.

    I have earned a fortune and traveled the world, enjoying myself immensely along the way. I am happily married to the wife of my youth, and am truly blessed, unlike you.

    You are welcome to live day in and day out in your little *scientific* cesspool here, which you dominate by virtue of your Moderator status and pretense of absolute knowledge.

    If I never post here again, it will be because of your hatefulness, your arrogance, your intolerance here on what is SUPPOSED to be a "science" forum.
    Clearly you don't even know the etiology of "science." The root word from Latin is "scientia," meaning truth. You're all about bias - hateful bias, petty bias, not truth.
    How are you going to pretend you are siding with science by any means? That isn't an ad hominem either. All you want to do is come on here and make up nonsense and then get mad when everyone calls you out on it. Post your source if you want to be taken seriously in the slightest. Nobody cares about your "traveled the world" story either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    The Norwegian Wharf Rat Experiment

    Someone tested a control group of Norwegian wharf rats by timing how long they would swim in a bucket of water before drowning. The time of about 15 minutes is what I recall.

    Then he tested a different group, obviously and just when each rat was about to slip underwater forever, he pulled them out, dried them off, gave them a hearty meal, and let them sleep overnight before returning them to the bucket of water for a retest.

    After having been rescued, having been given HOPE, these test rats swam for 35 hours. There is a lesson in this experiment for atheists, if they will but learn it. I doubt that many will. Pride is like that.
    If you are talking about the Richter experiment, at the end of that experiment, Richter let all of them drown. There's another lesson there.

    Not sure if that's the message you want to send.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 29th, 2014, 08:32 PM
  2. Do Aliens Exist? (No religious views please)
    By Gatene in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: February 8th, 2013, 07:31 AM
  3. Negative Magnetic Polorization To Increase Negative Polorized Projectile Velocity
    By bryan in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 10th, 2012, 02:17 AM
  4. intelligence correlation
    By free radical in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: December 18th, 2010, 02:35 PM
  5. A belief in one weaknes a negative feeling towards the other
    By Gods servant in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 31st, 2009, 11:58 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •