Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Interesting ... Religious-People-Are-Less-Intelligent-Than-Atheists
64 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joko. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mmmm.... as an athiest I think this makes for uncomfortable reading although I can see how the conclusion was reached; I certainly don't consider myself more intelligent than the average person, religious or not. I think that perhaps the definitions of intelligence ate need more thoufht, you can be extremely clever and learned but it doesn't necessarily make you wise.
I'm also not keen on making this a religious v athiest thing; I would quite like to see religion become aprivate matter with no say in politics or schools for example, but I really don't think that aim can ever be achieved when articles like this cause bad feeling and can result in people digging thei heals in further for the cause of religion.
Anyway, 'scuse typos, smart phone typing at the same as eating peanuts is clearly out of tbe remit of my intelligence :-)
I'm also not keen on making this a religious v athiest thing; I would quite like to see religion become aprivate matter with no say in politics or schools for example, but I really don't think that aim can ever be achieved when articles like this cause bad feeling and can result in people digging thei heals in further for the cause of religion.
Anyway, 'scuse typos, smart phone typing at the same as eating peanuts is clearly out of tbe remit of my intelligence :-)
@Octavius - "OG, fair point, putting a poor religious person from Cameroon in parity with a european atheist academic would certainly promote the superiority complex of the avg. atheist cause. There definition of religioisty would also include many of our learned R&S antitheists."
Except they didn't. This was a meta-analysis of 60 odd studies, carried out between 1920s- present day. The authors themselves, good scientists that they are, recognised all the confounding factors and elucidated them in the conclusion of the report. One of those conclusions was that care had to be taken when extrapolating the results of this survey, since by far the greatest number of studies were conducted in the West.
They also made the caveat that we were only talking about analytical intelligence. There is some new thinking to suggest that actually intelligence comes in 3 distinct flavours; Creative, Analytical and Emotional. The conclusions drawn at the end of this meta-analysis was clear; This analysis was only looking at what would be described as analytical intelligence.
This is not just a slight, insignificant correlation though.Out of these 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, of which 35 were considered significant. On the other hand, of the 63 studies, only 10 showed a positive correlation between intelligence and religiosity, of which only 2 were considered significant.
That is a powerful result, statistically speaking.
What none of us can know, without seeing the selection criteria and weighting considerations is exactly which confounding factors were taken into account, but at the very least they themselves mentioned that gender and education were taken into account - were controlled for - when analysing the results of these studies.
I would imagine most scientists would have sympathy with the following quote, taken from the authors own conclusions;
"The paper concludes that: "Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme —the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who 'know better'."
Except they didn't. This was a meta-analysis of 60 odd studies, carried out between 1920s- present day. The authors themselves, good scientists that they are, recognised all the confounding factors and elucidated them in the conclusion of the report. One of those conclusions was that care had to be taken when extrapolating the results of this survey, since by far the greatest number of studies were conducted in the West.
They also made the caveat that we were only talking about analytical intelligence. There is some new thinking to suggest that actually intelligence comes in 3 distinct flavours; Creative, Analytical and Emotional. The conclusions drawn at the end of this meta-analysis was clear; This analysis was only looking at what would be described as analytical intelligence.
This is not just a slight, insignificant correlation though.Out of these 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, of which 35 were considered significant. On the other hand, of the 63 studies, only 10 showed a positive correlation between intelligence and religiosity, of which only 2 were considered significant.
That is a powerful result, statistically speaking.
What none of us can know, without seeing the selection criteria and weighting considerations is exactly which confounding factors were taken into account, but at the very least they themselves mentioned that gender and education were taken into account - were controlled for - when analysing the results of these studies.
I would imagine most scientists would have sympathy with the following quote, taken from the authors own conclusions;
"The paper concludes that: "Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme —the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who 'know better'."
Although those countries with the lowest average intelligence(how measured? I don't know) have the highest levels of religiosity and those with the lowest levels of religiosity have the highest average intelligence it doesn't mean that atheists are more intelligent than believers. After all it doesn't take much intelligence to realise that god doesn't exist and even intelligent people can be conned as even they are happy to believe what feeds their egos or their hopes.
LG, some fair points, but some good points also outlined by Jim. If we are alluding to the very basic premise that 'a label = a mark of inteligence' then we are all on a downward spiral to self assured smugness because any data can be analysed in such a way to substantiate the basic hypothesis.
An example from above, I can type on a smart phone whilst eating peanuts, therefore all men are better at multi-tasking than women but all women are more intelligent (China Doll is a boffin). Can that be claimed to be correct?
An example from above, I can type on a smart phone whilst eating peanuts, therefore all men are better at multi-tasking than women but all women are more intelligent (China Doll is a boffin). Can that be claimed to be correct?
@Octavius
"n example from above, I can type on a smart phone whilst eating peanuts, therefore all men are better at multi-tasking than women but all women are more intelligent (China Doll is a boffin). Can that be claimed to be correct?"
Of course not. Now show me where in the meta-study the authors attempted to draw such a correlation?
"n example from above, I can type on a smart phone whilst eating peanuts, therefore all men are better at multi-tasking than women but all women are more intelligent (China Doll is a boffin). Can that be claimed to be correct?"
Of course not. Now show me where in the meta-study the authors attempted to draw such a correlation?
Come on LG, lighten up! I don’t like the premise that my views (do you know what they are?) are the product of my intelligence (any idea what that might be??), atheism cannot be equated with intelligence any more than religion with stupidity because atheists also have their fair share of idiots. Like the playground attitude that often arises on R&S, devaluing the intelligence of opponents is what children do when they call one another stupid. It absolves the person from taking opposing arguments seriously, resulting in the usual exclamations of fairies, leprechauns and magical beardy blokes in the sky.
Oi! Leave me and my kak handedness out of this you two... Or I'll take your handbags off you! ;oP
'...devaluing the intelligence of opponents is what children do when they call one another stupid. It absolves the person from taking opposing arguments seriously...'
^^^ Actually Oct has said what I was trying to say in a much betterer fashion. I don't like this attitude because as an athiest, I don't feel I'll get what I want (no religion in schools and politics, just a quiet personal choice) by devalueing the intelligence of religious people because when you do that it tends to make people more stubbon (in general). And we do know that sort of approach doesn't work - something about hammers and nails as I recall.
'...devaluing the intelligence of opponents is what children do when they call one another stupid. It absolves the person from taking opposing arguments seriously...'
^^^ Actually Oct has said what I was trying to say in a much betterer fashion. I don't like this attitude because as an athiest, I don't feel I'll get what I want (no religion in schools and politics, just a quiet personal choice) by devalueing the intelligence of religious people because when you do that it tends to make people more stubbon (in general). And we do know that sort of approach doesn't work - something about hammers and nails as I recall.
I think atheists are intelligent enough to not take an article like this too seriously. So I wouldn't worry too much about smugness.
LG has pointed out that the report was concerned with only analytical intelligence and I assume that rationality and logic would fall under that banner.
Given that atheists do not take on faith any supernatural deity then the findings of the report were already self evident.
LG has pointed out that the report was concerned with only analytical intelligence and I assume that rationality and logic would fall under that banner.
Given that atheists do not take on faith any supernatural deity then the findings of the report were already self evident.
@ Octavius You are the one drawing the facile comparisons, not me. And if you want me to "lighten up " - as in take one of your responses as an attempt at humour, you need to work much harder at your delivery.
Your personal feelings, whether you like or dislike the conclusions, whether you resent them or not, are irrelevant to the findings themselves.
The findings of such are study are almost guaranteed to elicit a defensive rejection in those less thoughtful respondents, defensive of their religiosity and indignant at some perceived personal slight to their own IQ, but the study itself highlights the caution that should be used in interpreting the study. And since when was it established that a study of this kind could EVER be applied to a specific individual?
Yes, atheists do indeed contain within their midst a fair share of loons kooks and trolls in its ranks, just as the theists do. In fact, there are studies out there to suggest that the atheist ranks contain disproportionately greater numbers of the social inadequates in their midst. This particular study, as you should well know, is not trying to claim otherwise! But neither does that admission - that there are exceptions, and that you can find exemplars of low IQ within the atheist community - do not invalidate the findings of this meta-analysis.
To attempt to claim otherwise, to reject the data, merely because the conclusion hurts your feelings is unscientific.
The study only devalues a particular individual if you choose to interpret it that way, AND if you choose to apply the results personally. That does not alter the trends and correlations though. Its not an argument to say the findings are wrong because you can highlight exceptions, or because you take offence, or worse, you think others might be offended.Sorry, but there it is.
Rather than rejecting the conclusions because they hurt your feelings, or you feel they are not "helpful" to the debate, you should be looking for reasons why those trends and correlations occur. And there are plenty of potential confounding factors that I have no idea how well they have controlled for, without reading the paper in greater detail than I have. The authors themselves rather helpfully point out some caveats in the way the data should be interpreted; Amongst those respondents within the survey that were atheist, there were longer periods spent in education, for instance.A greater emphasis on science education. Less time spent on religious education. Religiosity of family and community proportionately less.Greater opportunities for education. Greater material wealth, greater exposure to other forms of thinking. All of these, as the authors themselves recognise, will undoubtedly play a part.
Your personal feelings, whether you like or dislike the conclusions, whether you resent them or not, are irrelevant to the findings themselves.
The findings of such are study are almost guaranteed to elicit a defensive rejection in those less thoughtful respondents, defensive of their religiosity and indignant at some perceived personal slight to their own IQ, but the study itself highlights the caution that should be used in interpreting the study. And since when was it established that a study of this kind could EVER be applied to a specific individual?
Yes, atheists do indeed contain within their midst a fair share of loons kooks and trolls in its ranks, just as the theists do. In fact, there are studies out there to suggest that the atheist ranks contain disproportionately greater numbers of the social inadequates in their midst. This particular study, as you should well know, is not trying to claim otherwise! But neither does that admission - that there are exceptions, and that you can find exemplars of low IQ within the atheist community - do not invalidate the findings of this meta-analysis.
To attempt to claim otherwise, to reject the data, merely because the conclusion hurts your feelings is unscientific.
The study only devalues a particular individual if you choose to interpret it that way, AND if you choose to apply the results personally. That does not alter the trends and correlations though. Its not an argument to say the findings are wrong because you can highlight exceptions, or because you take offence, or worse, you think others might be offended.Sorry, but there it is.
Rather than rejecting the conclusions because they hurt your feelings, or you feel they are not "helpful" to the debate, you should be looking for reasons why those trends and correlations occur. And there are plenty of potential confounding factors that I have no idea how well they have controlled for, without reading the paper in greater detail than I have. The authors themselves rather helpfully point out some caveats in the way the data should be interpreted; Amongst those respondents within the survey that were atheist, there were longer periods spent in education, for instance.A greater emphasis on science education. Less time spent on religious education. Religiosity of family and community proportionately less.Greater opportunities for education. Greater material wealth, greater exposure to other forms of thinking. All of these, as the authors themselves recognise, will undoubtedly play a part.
