Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TruthVsComfort

Religious People Are Less Intelligent Than Atheists, Concludes New Study

Recommended Posts

It does, but you didn't do that. You said "This study is bias." That is dismissing, not questioning... That's why I got angry. If your first post or second post said, "I think this is bias because it uses IQ as a measure and IQ isn't an exact measure of intelligence," I'd have responded TOTALLY differently.

I know such people exist, but do you have evidence the authors are part of that group? The fact they included papers where there was a positive correlation between religiosity and intelligence, rather than dismissing them, suggests to me they may not have been bias. I don't know why you think they weren't doing this from an objective academic background.

What I get most annoyed with is when people make statements about how some researcher is bias just because "that's how they are." So, I got pissed, because I see no evidence of bias in the study (they actually account for bias in the studies they look at...).

I said it because you seemed to be assuming that these people had some axe to grind against religious people and there's really no evidence I can see of that. But, it was uncalled for, and I apologize.

IQ is used as a proxy for intelligence in a whole slew of studies... It's limited, but it's what is done, at least right now. That will improve.

The "Shakiest" part to me is the fact they used IQ to measure intelligence. But that's all they really had... and honestly, I'm not positive using IQ to measure intelligence biases the study against people with high religiosity, unless you grant that religions are irrational and untestable... In which case, if IQ is a measure of analytic thinking, then yeah, IQ wouldn't really be the best thing to use. Unless analytic thinking ends up correlated with whatever the "actual measure" of intelligence is.

Anyway, to your point: It sounds like you're saying "Let's just not have this discussion at all and not do research like this at all because we can't really measure intelligence anyway." Is that what you mean? I think that's a fair point to try to make, I just disagree.

edit: holy poo, bed time. Sorry for writing so much. :P

No, I'm not saying that. But, intelligence is hard to measure, so that alone... honestly mav, at this time of night, I don't know what I'm saying lol.

As far as the discussion, I am saying it's hard to have these discussions online because it's so much easier to devolve into nonsense...

And I made the snide comment initially b/c of the responses (IIRC) that were essentially, "surprise!" So, I countered ignorant, thoughtless, inconsiderate comments with some of my own. I thought I mentioned the problem with it being based on iq tests in my 2nd post, but apparently didn't, so I sort of derailed on my own.

Oh, and the post you perceived as the rant against academics out of the same vein as the early posts in this thread essentially saying it was expected as though all religious people are dumb. So I returned with the volley of who conducted the study. Which takes me back to the point that these conversations always devolve into pissing contests, lol.

Regardless, I got caught up in the shuffle, because as a believer who considers himself unique among other believers, I find it insulting when ALL believers are lumped together because there are clearly a lot of idiots in any demographic you don't want to be grouped with. I'm not saying that's what these researchers did, but at minimum, I mean the comments that come from people after just reading the title of the study are often generalized and inflammatory.

That's all. Thanks for your perspective and for further breaking down the study mav.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


i'm not sure how this study is any kind of a surprise to anyone. no one's saying "christians r retarded lol" (which is the strawman being attacked here by super duper defensive people) but rather establishing the fact that there's a correlation between intelligence and belief.

Wouldn't you say some of the comments made about the study could be interpreted as "christians are retarded"?

I admitted that I escalated that derailment philly, but hearing those type of comments do irritate me because as I said earlier, it's like racial stereotypes. They're painting all believers of faith with one gigantic stroke of the brush... or at least that is the takeaway a lot of people appear to be walking away with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is ironic about it cat? It's pretty obvious this isn't exactly objective. The majority of instructors i've encountered at institutions of higher learning dont adhere to a religion. In fact, many are coming from that same condescending, hateful, vindictive place of "those with religion are retards that can't think for themselves." So, forgive me for not automatically giving this a ton of credence.

Furthermore, you're assuming someone dismissing this study due to bias is a confirmation of the same characteristics this study is trying to prove... You know, anyone with religion is all like, "oh noes, you're performing your magical voodoo science experiments and my tiny brain can't deal with it! I can't believe in science! I can't question anything because I have relijons!" *brain explodes*

While I think one's habit to question this study, or ANY study or claim for that matter, is a sign of greater intelligence. Isn't that at the root of it all? One's ability to question and seek out answers or truth?

Yes, there are some idiots out there who do NOT think for themselves and simply follow what they are told or taught by someone else - the ones that function on tradition rather than actual spirituality.

But it gets so old listening to those who are without faith writing off everyone who does have it as being dumb or incapable of thinking for themselves. We get it... That's been the whole premise behind non-believers' arguments since the beginning. There are dumb people that dont believe in any religion, just as there are some dumb ones that do.

And of course, there is nothing more intelligent than making sweeping generalizations about an entire demographic regardless of individual differences. I mean, when that is what you're out to prove, that screams of being a sound and reliable study! Can't wait to see how it turn out! Oh, wait...

 

 

 

The reason it is ironic is two fold.

 

A. You dismissed the study because of alleged bias that your never researched and verified existed. You just simply believed it was bias because you wanted to and disregarded the study. I find that humorous because it's very "religious" of you. (also called the genetic fallacy) It's not based on evidence, it's truthiness.

 

B. You think because it's bias it is dismissible. However every historical source we have in regards to your religious beliefs are considered bias sources. Also any personal experiance you have in regards to your religious beliefs is a bias account. Therefore you have a double standard in regards to the type of evidence you need to form a belief.  Bias accounts that back your religious are acceptable. Bias accounts that fuel other beliefs are not valid sources. 

 

 

 

I have no problem with questioning the study. I question the study! I don't just automatically believe it true. I haven't looked into how the study was performed which is what I think is important.  I wouldn't bring this study up in conversation with anyone until I actually looked into how it was performed. 

 

Also The religious beliefs or lack there of, of the researchers are irrelevant. I would be committing the genetic fallacy if I simply dismissed all information because I didn't like the source. I don't care if the study is done by Pat Robertson or Richard Dawkins, if the methods are scientific and peer reviewed, it simply doesn't matter.

 

I do think studies can determine basic generalizations regarding groups of people. I happens all the time. ie: poor people do worst in schools and are less educated.   However I don't assume all people are stupid and do poorly in school. I think we should all know better than to do that.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest philosophy to maintain.

I won't go so far as to say that the religious are less intelligent, but at their respective cores, none of the religious tenets can or should be believed by a thinking person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason it is ironic is two fold.

 

A. You dismissed the study because of alleged bias that your never researched and verified existed. You just simply believed it was bias because you wanted to and disregarded the study. I find that humorous because it's very "religious" of you. (also called the genetic fallacy) It's not based on evidence, it's truthiness.

 

B. You think because it's bias it is dismissible. However every historical source we have in regards to your religious beliefs are considered bias sources. Also any personal experiance you have in regards to your religious beliefs is a bias account. Therefore you have a double standard in regards to the type of evidence you need to form a belief.  Bias accounts that back your religious are acceptable. Bias accounts that fuel other beliefs are not valid sources. 

 

 

 

I have no problem with questioning the study. I question the study! I don't just automatically believe it true. I haven't looked into how the study was performed which is what I think is important.  I wouldn't bring this study up in conversation with anyone until I actually looked into how it was performed. 

 

Also The religious beliefs or lack there of, of the researchers are irrelevant. I would be committing the genetic fallacy if I simply dismissed all information because I didn't like the source. I don't care if the study is done by Pat Robertson or Richard Dawkins, if the methods are scientific and peer reviewed, it simply doesn't matter.

 

I do think studies can determine basic generalizations regarding groups of people. I happens all the time. ie: poor people do worst in schools and are less educated.   However I don't assume all people are stupid and do poorly in school. I think we should all know better than to do that.  

 

On point A, I don't know if you read the rest of the thread Cat, but I didn't "dismiss" the study.  I questioned it's validity and did so through my first snarky post in this thread.  Did I think it was unquestionable truth?  No.  I read through what was posted and suspected from what was laid out in front of me that from both my own experience and the information I just read that this study was less than reliable and led to the aforementioned generalizations, and therefore I mocked the study.  I didn't dismiss it.  And this is again, what I have previously discussed with others in this thread, where the assumptions resulting from a study like this come in...  I didn't dismiss the study, I responded with a snide post to the typical religion bashing that came after the OP.  And again, considering I didn't dismiss the study itself, tell me the argument has no merit that bias doesn't play a role even in peer reviewed studies...  EVER.  Even Mav, coming from a more atheistic perspective acknowledged there are a few holes that can be poked in the study.  Because I am a believer, it was automatically assumed that I didn't read what was provided and "dismissed" the study without a second thought.  I find that humorous.

 

On point B, again, where did I "dismiss" its findings?  I mocked it in my first post, and then throughout my discussions in the rest of the thread, I said I question it's purpose and/or validity and reliability.  And then the rest of what you said brings me back to my big gripe with any studies of this sort...  They always boil down to, "well, this is where I'm coming from and your bias doesn't allow you to see the truth," from both sides.

 

Science can prove or disprove almost anything in the PHYSICAL realm.  What it cannot prove or disprove is the existence of a God in the supernatural realm, and therein always lies the conflict.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting this double-standard from, other than what I just wrote in the sentence above.  I don't view science and faith as mutually exclusive.  I think science explains things that faith intuitively tells us.  Do I have all the answers?  No.  Do I think every thing in the Bible is limited to one interpretation and thus, gives me no room to think for myself?  No.  There are a lot of things I don't know.  I'm not going to turn this into a sermon, I'm just saying...

 

I don't view my faith as having an inherent bias.  I listen to any and all information I can and draw my conclusion from there.  It is assumed my faith requires bias, because, you know, religious types can't think for themselves...  When that couldn't be further from the truth.  And I know you know that.

 

You are an extremely intelligent person Cat, but I find it hard to be "corrected" for my opinion because it's assumed I have a bias due to my faith, but all I see is non-believing people on this board spewing vitriol about how dumb and ridiculous believers of faith (Christians in particular) can be..  Yet, I'm to believe that it's not coming from a place of bias and is somehow a result of this hyper-understanding of the world, free and devoid of bias, prejudice, and discrimination simply because the author of it has no religion to cause such things?

 

I admit, I may overreact to things that don't pertain to me, such as this...  I've never been accused of lacking intelligence, at least not that I know of, lol...  But, the constant barrage of "faith = weak mindedness" really gets me going.  I'm not in fear of someone accusing me personally of being dumb, less intelligent, or whatever, but anytime these things come up, it's as though people assume it's time to make as many insensitive, sweeping, insulting generalizations as possible about EVERYONE who believes in something.  It's en vogue, and yet, not bias or discriminatory in nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the article.

It makes sense to me but as stated in here I think the correlation has much to do with intelligence as it does the soceo economics of a person.

This can only be settled with a huddle brain bowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As religion was created to keep people in line in the first place, not sure how this is news.

Early religious philosophers and even our founding fathers were brilliant people. If they were alive today and able to witness scientific advances and our greater understanding of the universe and how it works they would be agnostic or athiest as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not sure how this study is any kind of a surprise to anyone. no one's saying "christians r retarded lol" (which is the strawman being attacked here by super duper defensive people) but rather establishing the fact that there's a correlation between intelligence and belief. why is it a shocker that an unintelligent person would be more likely than an intelligent person to believe that a man was literally raised from the dead after dying so that we could all go to heaven in the sky if we recite the magic incantation because it says so (according to some people) in this ancient divined infallible text?

this seems like common sense to me.

This is incredibly enlightening and instrumental to the conversation. Such deep, meaningful analyses is needed in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An individual's approach when considering the concept of God is likely more important than their overall intelligence.  

 

An intuitive approach will more likely lead to accepting the concept of God.

 

An analytical approach will tend to lead to a rejection of the concept of God.

 

Brainiacs tend to be analytical, so this study confirms both my intuitive beliefs and my analytical findings. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An individual's approach when considering the concept of God is likely more important than their overall intelligence.  

 

An intuitive approach will more likely lead to accepting the concept of God.

 

An analytical approach will tend to lead to a rejection of the concept of God.

 

Brainiacs tend to be analytical, so this study confirms both my intuitive beliefs and my analytical findings.

I agree with all of this but take a slight exception with line #3.

An analytical approach can lead you to a scientific "fact" that 10 years ago was a different scientific fact and 10 years from now, might be a whole new slant. I wish I had the article from several years ago where I read that many scientists had actually come to faith and it was precisely because of the movement of scientific discoveries which had discounted former norms. But, on the Huddle, it does not exists if you can't link it, so it won't meand much.

all I am saying is that some find it a slippery slope to put your eggs in one basket when the basket is always evolving. kinda "un" analytical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he said "tend to," he didn't say "always does," and he's right.

 

one of the powers of an analytic approach is exactly what you highlight; in the face of new evidence, typically world view doesn't crash and burn, so they can be less resistant to change and new information.  Some religious people are the same way, but in general, if you are an intuitive thinker it is harder to accept new evidence that might 'contradict' old evidence than if you're not looking at things from an analytic perspective, I have found - at least from talking to people that would be described as falling into this two camps.

 

but meh, personal observation etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although generally misguided, at least the religious types can recognize that there is a mysterious element to life and the human experience. Atheists on the other hand tend to limit and create for themselves a very narrow perceptional box of reality. To say that this group or that group is definitively smarter than the other is obviously an ignorant argument. These types of articles are worthless, and are seemingly composed with the sole intention of stirring people up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      19,413
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    dercrutch
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      141,511
    • Total Posts
      4,514,943
×