Religion and lower intellect?

Valmont

This recently came up in another forum, namely the self/defence martial arts forum. I've read something similar here before, to the tune that believing in God, living your life according to a religion etc... is an indication of a lower intellect. Personally I think this is ridiculous and I would hate to see the Athiesm movement/group/thing develop an (overt) supierority complex. Obviously we all believe we are right in our various ideas which is reasonable but I find it appalling that someone might think they are cleverer and more intelligent than someone based solely on faith or lack thereof.

Then I think of Descartes, Kierkegaard, Leibniz (I think) and countless other religious individuals of incredible intellect, what about them?

Personally I think if someone decides to take a leap of faith, fair play, it's up to the individual, but to label them 'not so clever' because of this?

Son Goku

Valmont wrote:

Personally I think if someone decides to take a leap of faith, fair play, it's up to the individual, but to label them 'not so clever' because of this?

It isn't elitist. Studies are increasingly demonstrating that the more religous you are the less likely it is for you to be intelligent, unless you are a mormon.

Dades

Its a very unhelpful assertion, frankly.

Whether or not there is a statistical trend to suggest this, is irrelevant - asserting this is a barrier to any attempted rational debate. I can't think of a worse way to engage a regular theist in a discussion than to suggest that because they believe in God, statistically they are of lower intellect.

5uspect

You'll find that many theists are actually quite clever. The fundalmentalists even more so. What they're lacking is objectivity.

Son Goku

The Atheist wrote:

Its a very unhelpful assertion, frankly.

Whether or not there is a statistical trend to suggest this, is irrelevant - asserting this is a barrier to any attempted rational debate. I can't think of a worse way to engage a regular theist in a discussion than to suggest that because they believe in God, statistically they are of lower intellect.

Well it would be elitist and stupid to use it and it does require a few qualifiers to be technically correct. Also you'd be equally incorrect to assert somebody is unintelligent due to being religous as it only holds on very large scales. It's also known that it's probably secondary. i.e., they both follow from an underlying cause only in certain areas. You're not less likely to be religous if you went to Oxford for example.

EDIT: Of course even this is irrelevant if you are a mormon.

Son Goku

Son Goku wrote:

Well it would be elitist and stupid to use it and it does require a few qualifiers to be technically correct. Also you'd be equally incorrect to assert somebody is unintelligent due to being religous as it only holds on very large scales. It's also known that it's probably secondary. i.e., they both follow from an underlying cause only in certain areas. You're not less likely to be religous if you went to Oxford for example.

EDIT: Of course even this is irrelevant if you are a mormon.

What's with the mormons?

magicbastarder

The Atheist wrote:

Its a very unhelpful assertion, frankly.

understatement of the year.

Son Goku

bluewolf wrote:

What's with the mormons?

I don't know. Weird, isn't it?

It also should be said the studies have a fair few gaps in them so nothing could really be claimed at an academic level. At personal level, as The Atheist said, it'd be useless and conversation stopping.

Son Goku

Son Goku wrote:

I don't know. Weird, isn't it?

It also should be said the studies have a fair few gaps in them so nothing could really be claimed at an academic level. At personal level, as The Atheist said, it'd be useless and conversation stopping.

No, why do you keep mentioning them...?


(psst, check PMs)

Son Goku

bluewolf wrote:

No, why do you keep mentioning them...?

Oh, in the results from most surveys on religious people they always appear as an anomaly that doesn't follow the trends in other groups.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

It isn't elitist. Studies are increasingly demonstrating that the more religous you are the less likely it is for you to be intelligent, unless you are a mormon.

So, mormons and morons, basically?

hiding under a rock,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Come on. This one is a basic syllogism. Most stupid people are theists, but that doesn't prove theists are stupid. Even if statistically it's shown that most theists are stupid, all that shows is that most people are stupid, and most stupid people are theists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote:

Come on. This one is a basic syllogism. Most stupid people are theists, but that doesn't prove theists are stupid. Even if statistically it's shown that most theists are stupid, all that shows is that most people are stupid, and most stupid people are theists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What a coincidence, I looked up 'syllogism' in the dictionary ten minutes before I read your post. I feel enlightened:D

I had no idea there was statistical research into this topic, interesting. I think the Athiest is right, it completely breaks down rational debate between both sides and only makes the proponents look like conceited eejits:p and basically doesn't serve any end except for a slight **** really.:D

Dades

Son Goku wrote:

Also you'd be equally incorrect to assert somebody is unintelligent due to being religous as it only holds on very large scales.

This is of course true - but the mere suggestion that a higher proportion of 'intellectuals' don't hold a belief in god(s) is liable to be misinterpreted (intentionally or not) as a personal slur on the religious as a whole.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

This is of course true - but the mere suggestion that a higher proportion of 'intellectuals' don't hold a belief in god(s) is liable to be misinterpreted (intentionally or not) as a personal slur on the religious as a whole.

And we'd never do that!

not entirely truthfully,
Scofflaw

Lou.m

Atheism is the new religion Richard Dawkins is their god!!:p

Sorry i know it isnt helpful but i could not resist. Why choose Richard Dawkins of all people he is so awful as a philosopher and there have been so many great atheists who were true philosophers.

Anyway i personally think anyone who thinks all theists are stupid should speak to a jesuit they all have like 50 different PHDs and spaek 20 languages.

And the catholic church still can produce a logical argument against contraception.The shame:p

Anyway i think part of the problem is that the standard of philosophical debate is do low for most theologians that they come accross they way they do. WHenever a noted Jesuit philosophy acedemic gets a paper published they usually get bashed by others within the church. I find that the intelligence in the church is often used up defending itself against itself ie others in the church.

ALthough i have to say i would accuse Richard Dawkins of much the same.
And considering few in society define themselves as either religious or atheist or agnostic ( i know what are you if you are not one of these i know but people dont) i dont see how you could really have a large enough and broad enough section of society to actually test this theory properly.

You would be much mistaken to believe that most intellectuals are atheist in fact i would say that for a long time in western civilisation that most intellectuals came form the church (of course this would be because they were really the only ones with access to education of course).And i think it would be a mistake in general to link intelligence to being theist or atheist or agnostic really.

I by the way am not a christian.

And of course a lot of intellectuals simply defined their own meaning or certain words such as the Aristotlean concept of soul. Or Plato's theory of the logos (many intellectuals have taken these ideas as their beliefs) and these beliefs are not really theist.


I find intelligent people walk to the beat of their own drum.

And of course their are the intellectuals who do not really care and just care about the really important stuff like what is for dinner?

karen3212

I think it is a left brain-right brain thing. I'm not sure I'm remember the details correctly but I heard somewhere, there was a guy that was missing a connection between the left and right hemispheres of his brain.
Using cards or ear phones or something the scientist was able to ask him if he believed in God in a way that only one side of his brain was working on the question and answering.
One side of his brain said, yes of course, and gave reasons for his belief, the other side said no of course not, and gave reasons for his non belief. Amazing!
Perhaps the more developed side of the brain determines belief/disbelief.
Also perhaps the more developed side of the brain determines what some think is intellect/lack of it.

2Scoops

Ever hear of the book 'The Bell Curve'? Opened a can of worms by showing some correlations of IQ with race. Nearly ruined the careers of the authors despite their presumably good intentions because people couldn't distinguish between a statistical observation and 'scientific racism.'

So, regardless of the statistical argument, it's a real dead end. It impossible to get the point across without being insulting unless you're talking to someone objective enough to look at the data from a purely statistical/logical point of view, which very few will, theists or otherwise.

Dades

2Scoops wrote:

Ever hear of the book 'The Bell Curve'? Opened a can of worms by showing some correlations of IQ with race. Nearly ruined the careers of the authors despite their presumably good intentions because people couldn't distinguish between a statistical observation and 'scientific racism.'

I thought of that when I read the OPs post. Another genuine, but ultimately doomed study. In a world lacking in objectivity and gone PC mad what did they expect?

Zillah

2Scoops wrote:

Ever hear of the book 'The Bell Curve'? Opened a can of worms by showing some correlations of IQ with race. Nearly ruined the careers of the authors despite their presumably good intentions because people couldn't distinguish between a statistical observation and 'scientific racism.'

Ugh.


Dear Human Race,

You suck.

Sincerely,
Zillah

Scofflaw

Theists may primarily be differently wired - Brain damage, evolution, and the future of morality..

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [Valmont] I find it appalling that someone might think they are cleverer and
> more intelligent than someone based solely on faith or lack thereof.

Yes, that's true, but I think it's fairly rare, or at least, not publicly articulated very often! What's more commonly expressed is the equally disagreeable belief that many religious people have in thinking that they're more ethically pure -- that they're "better" people -- than people who are not religious. Blanketing happens on both sides...

> [Son Goku] so nothing could really be claimed at an academic level.

Possibly, but there is some circumstantial evidence (membership of The Edge, NAS, RS etc) quite apart from what looks like the mild suspicion of many non-religious people. Academically, I'd imagine that it would be pretty difficult to get funding for a large-scale study to investigate what human attributes are correlated with high levels of personal religious belief. Perhaps that's something useful the Templeton Foundation could do?

aidan24326

karen3212 wrote:

I think it is a left brain-right brain thing. I'm not sure I'm remember the details correctly but I heard somewhere, there was a guy that was missing a connection between the left and right hemispheres of his brain.
Using cards or ear phones or something the scientist was able to ask him if he believed in God in a way that only one side of his brain was working on the question and answering.
One side of his brain said, yes of course, and gave reasons for his belief, the other side said no of course not, and gave reasons for his non belief. Amazing!
Perhaps the more developed side of the brain determines belief/disbelief.
Also perhaps the more developed side of the brain determines what some think is intellect/lack of it.

At one time surgeons used to sever the corpus callosum as a 'cure' for epilepsy. What ensued was all manner of weirdness, which is hardly surprising since much of brain function is now known to work in a more holistic sort of way and not just as two separate hemispheres. Though why one 'side' of the brain would claim a belief in religion and the other not is still hard to fathom. But such a person is effectively brain damaged (as compared to what would be considered 'normal') so they might not be the best yardstick.

Other odd effects of right-left dislocation include things like your right hand carrying out some apparently-directed action without you having consciously instructed it, or both of your hands trying to oppose each other due to conflicting messages from different brain hemispheres. Strange stuff. So it would seem religious belief might be the least of your worries in that situation.

Oh, and I don't think there's any such thing as the 'more developed' side of the brain.

Red Hand

I was just reading this thread about religion and intelligence, and I was just wondering would we as a species have been better off if there had been no belief system or religion in place? Was it necessary for us to have developed a belief system for us to become 'human'?(whatever human means:))

Say, in a hunter-gatherer society, would it have been more advantagous to believe in something than not?

philologos

Son Goku wrote:

It isn't elitist. Studies are increasingly demonstrating that the more religous you are the less likely it is for you to be intelligent, unless you are a mormon.

I fail to see how that is true? Isaac Newton was a Christian but yet he was a great Scientist. There are plenty of Christians who are intelligent as well, and to be honest with you, I think there are just as much dumb atheists are there are dumb Christians.

Crucifix

Jakkass wrote:

I fail to see how that is true? Isaac Newton was a Christian but yet he was a great Scientist. There are plenty of Christians who are intelligent as well, and to be honest with you, I think there are just as much dumb atheists are there are dumb Christians.

I imagine it's an average intelligence affair. They've done similar things with countrys (I think Ireland fell below 100 ), and states in america. A lower average IQ doesn't exclude the possibility of a few high IQ, just as a higher average doesn't exclude the possibility of a few low IQs. Really, as people have stated, it doesn't mean anything at all.

philologos

I'd like to see the sources if there are any, it seems an incredibly general statement. That would be like saying that most Atheists / Agnostics were cowards because they aren't willing to put faith in anything without having any conclusive source for it.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

I'd like to see the sources if there are any, it seems an incredibly general statement. That would be like saying that most Atheists / Agnostics were cowards because they aren't willing to put faith in anything without having any conclusive source for it.

A number of sources are cited here - scroll down for a long list. I'd take it with a large pinch of salt, though - the site has a clear agenda, so it may well not be citing a balanced list of studies. There's a Wikipedia page, which also provides some links.

Also a graph here with country average IQ vs religiosity.

Since cowardice is not measurable, the "counter-claim" you propose is not valid, although I can see why you might want to say something in response - but please bear in mind that no-one on this forum has simply asserted this correlation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

If this is an average figure, how did they get the figures of all the theists IQ's (and as a lot of you complain, many are only theists on paper, but not theists in their daily lives). If it was a survey, it was probably only done for a select few people. (I don't remember having my IQ tested for a religious survey before). It's simply not accurate seeing that the "average" isn't inclusive of all theists.

mickoneill30

Jakkass wrote:

It's simply not accurate seeing that the "average" isn't inclusive of all theists.

In the world? How would you propose they do that?

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

If this is an average figure, how did they get the figures of all the theists IQ's (and as a lot of you complain, many are only theists on paper, but not theists in their daily lives). If it was a survey, it was probably only done for a select few people. (I don't remember having my IQ tested for a religious survey before). It's simply not accurate seeing that the "average" isn't inclusive of all theists.

Most of the studies are done on students. I agree they may not be the best representation of the general population, but there are both IQ and religion studies which are much broader.

The question often asked, though, is whether "religion is important in your daily life". It doesn't matter whether the person is a good Christian/Muslim/whatever - it's about whether they consider religion important.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

Jakkass's lack of familiarity with simple statistics and the value of random sampling (albeit not particularly random in many of these examples) is a case in point to why this argument is a dead duck, blind alley, counter-productive waste of time.

2Scoops OUT.:)

Zillah

2Scoops wrote:

Jakkass's lack of familiarity with simple statistics and the value of random sampling (albeit not particularly random in many of these examples) is a case in point to why this argument is a dead duck, blind alley, counter-productive waste of time.

QFT.

magicbastarder

2Scoops wrote:

Ever hear of the book 'The Bell Curve'? Opened a can of worms by showing some correlations of IQ with race. Nearly ruined the careers of the authors despite their presumably good intentions because people couldn't distinguish between a statistical observation and 'scientific racism.'

according to blink by malcolm gladwell, the average fall in score for a black american student when doing a college entrance exam, when they are asked to indicate their race on the cover of the answerbook, is (if memory serves) 14%.

Zillah

magicbastarder wrote:

according to blink by malcolm gladwell, the average fall in score for a black american student when doing a college entrance exam, when they are asked to indicate their race on the cover of the answerbook, is (if memory serves) 14%.

Probably more to do with economics and previous education rather than anything else.

Scofflaw

magicbastarder wrote:

according to blink by malcolm gladwell, the average fall in score for a black american student when doing a college entrance exam, when they are asked to indicate their race on the cover of the answerbook, is (if memory serves) 14%.

Hmm. The test referred to was a multiple-choice, using questions from a College Entrance Exam. The drop was roughly 50%, and the students were asked to indicate their race before doing the test - and they marked themselves.

As you have put it, it sounds like a case of marker bias - I see Zillah has taken it that way (quite correctly, given your post). It's actually a demonstration of the effects of negative thought on your capabilities immediately following the thoughts, and has no relevance here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

magicbastarder

yeah, i should have expanded more. but it raises the question as to whether the authors of the bell curve took this phenomenon into account, or were even aware of it.

Scofflaw

magicbastarder wrote:

yeah, i should have expanded more. but it raises the question as to whether the authors of the bell curve took this phenomenon into account, or were even aware of it.

Well, it would only apply if the people taking the IQ tests were asked to write their race on the test. As far as I know, that wasn't the case - it would be completely unnecessary, since it is something the 'examiner' could record. It's always possible though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

I fail to see how that is true? Isaac Newton was a Christian but yet he was a great Scientist.

2Scoops has already mentioned this but anyway....

This is something which has come up on the Creationism thread a few times. A basic misunderstanding of statistical results. Do you understand that it is irrelevant that Isaac Newton was intelligent and a Christian?

An analogy would be if a study that came out showed that airplanes were a safer mode of transport than cars. Imagine if somebody responded with "Yeah, well I once saw this titanium car that couldn't move, that'd be safer than a plane". That would be similar to your Newton comment. Statistical statements are, by definition, not an analysis of outliers and extreme cases.
Your second example of:

Jakkass wrote:

There are plenty of Christians who are intelligent as well

This would be like saying "I've seen loads of cars that never crashed". It doesn't matter that loads of cars don't crash, it doesn't matter if there is a super-car that can't crash, cars still aren't as safe as planes.

Jakkass wrote:

If it was a survey, it was probably only done for a select few people. (I don't remember having my IQ tested for a religious survey before). It's simply not accurate seeing that the "average" isn't inclusive of all theists.

Averages don't have to include everybody. For instance if you want to survey a population of 200,000 it is sufficient to test only 500 people. This is due to the fact that it is 95% likely that the survey will give 95% accurate results.

Anyway as 2Scoops already said, you don't appear to understand how statistics works.

magicbastarder wrote:

according to blink by malcolm gladwell, the average fall in score for a black american student when doing a college entrance exam, when they are asked to indicate their race on the cover of the answerbook, is (if memory serves) 14%.

A related and possibly frightening statistic is that when Asian women are asked to do the same mathematics tests and separate into three groups, the group whose test has no title gets 100, the group whose test has the title "Asian test" gets 120 and the group whose test is titled "Test for women" gets 80. Repeating the test with different groups returned the same results, so apparently your abilities change when you are reminded what stereotype you fall into.

Zillah

Son Goku wrote:

the group whose test has no title gets 100, the group whose test has the title "Asian test" gets 120 and the group whose test is titled "Test for women" gets 80. Repeating the test with different groups returned the same results, so apparently your abilities change when you are reminded what stereotype you fall into.

Thats deeply disturbing.

robindch

> [...] when Asian women are asked to do the same mathematics tests [...]

More on this here and in Pub Med. The researcher's homepage is here.

robindch

> [jakkass] That would be like saying that most Atheists / Agnostics were cowards
> because they aren't willing to put faith in anything without having any conclusive source for it.

Jesus and Mo' think about this:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/03/05/sure/

.

philologos

Son Goku wrote:

Averages don't have to include everybody. For instance if you want to survey a population of 200,000 it is sufficient to test only 500 people. This is due to the fact that it is 95% likely that the survey will give 95% accurate results.

I know how surveying works, but I still find this one to be rediculous taking a sample of 200,000 isn't enough for billions of people. It can't possibly be accurate as there are far far more theists than 200,000.

robindch wrote:

> [jakkass] That would be like saying that most Atheists / Agnostics were cowards
> because they aren't willing to put faith in anything without having any conclusive source for it.

Jesus and Mo' think about this:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/03/05/sure/

9/11 was the result of misinterpretation of the Qu'ran not as a result of having certainty in something.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> [jakkass] That would be like saying that most Atheists / Agnostics were cowards
> because they aren't willing to put faith in anything without having any conclusive source for it.

Jesus and Mo' think about this:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/03/05/sure/

Personally, I think the important thing is that scientific "doubt" gave us both the airplane and the skyscraper in the first place....

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Surveys like these do no one any good.

I've heard religious people come out with stats like "Atheists are more likely to be depressed" or "Homosexuals more likely to engage in promiscuous behavior", I've heard white supremecists come out with stuff like, "Blacks more prone to violence than whites". These statistics do nothing but cause tension and underlying factors are often overlooked.

Fallen Seraph

Jakkass wrote:

I know how surveying works, but I still find this one to be rediculous taking a sample of 200,000 isn't enough for billions of people. It can't possibly be accurate as there are far far more theists than 200,000.


9/11 was the result of misinterpretation of the Qu'ran not as a result of having certainty in something.

They were certain enough in their misinterpretation to take their lives and the lives of anyone who was unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which I think was rather the point of the cartoon.


Also I believe Son Goku's point was that you don't need to survey everyone to have a reasonable statistical representation, simply a fraction of people.

WRT original post, I suspect that the whole statistic is skewed by on-paper theists and that in a philosophical sense the argument is inherently irrelevant (I mean I can't think of a reasonable arguement connecting intelligence and spiritual correctness)

robindch

> I think the important thing is that scientific "doubt" gave us both the
> airplane and the skyscraper in the first place....

Hear, hear!

bonkey

Jakkass wrote:

I know how surveying works, but I still find this one to be rediculous taking a sample of 200,000 isn't enough for billions of people.

If you know how surveying works, then you know there's a mathematical formula for determining the probable accuracy of a survey based on comparing the sample-size to the population-size.

If you know that then you shouldn't need to blindly claim the following....

It can't possibly be accurate as there are far far more theists than 200,000.

...but rather you can show mathematically why its invalid.

Otherwise, what you're saying is that you refuse to believe it can be accurate, not that you know it isn't.

So...can you show why the numbers don't add up?

bonkey

Jakkass wrote:

9/11 was the result of misinterpretation of the Qu'ran not as a result of having certainty in something.

Weren't they certain that their interpretation was correct?

philologos

bonkey wrote:

Otherwise, what you're saying is that you refuse to believe it can be accurate, not that you know it isn't.

So...can you show why the numbers don't add up?

It could be a coincidence that those interviewed or tested were less intelligent than the average theist and it could have just been that that batch wasn't particularly intelligent in comparison with the rest of us. It could be accurate, but it's highly likely that it isn't imo.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

It could be a coincidence that those interviewed or tested were less intelligent than the average theist and it could have just been that that batch wasn't particularly intelligent in comparison with the rest of us. It could be accurate, but it's highly likely that it isn't =>imo<=.

There is no need for "imo" my friend, it is mathematics. Mathematically it is 95% likely that it is 95% accurate. All the exceptions you mentioned could be true, but it is unlikely that they are. (To the tune of at best 5% likely)
The point is that your exceptions (i.e., that those interviewed or tested were less intelligent than the average theist) are accounted for in the statistical analysis. They are the contributions to the ensemble which prevent a 100% confidence interval.

Could you demonstrate to me why it is unlikely to be accurate since

I (i.e., You) know how surveying works