Are Atheists Smarter Than Theists?

[TruePathFinder]

Let's ask that question in the next 'eternity' life, who will be there to answer it?
ronandcarol

Lets ask the people in fairy land the same.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yes, using the argument of “self evidence” surely bolsters the claim that atheists are more intelligent. See how overwhelming and intelligent that argument is!

QED

 

[Jumi]

He also yes, and anyone who dares question evolution is also 'insane or wicked'

I rather call most of them ignorant, because when they talk of evolution they seem to have no idea what the theory is about but prefer the straw man. An imaginary enemy is easy to defeat.. you know all the faults. But if he's not real what will you get from defeating him? Truth or self-satisfaction?

 

[PureX]

FYI, that is NOT how intelligence is determined. As for being smart, smart generally hinges on the amount of knowledge one has and how well that knowledge is used.

Correct. They are not.

My point is that these terms are vague and subjective. So are our definitions of "being religious". And because of all this vagueness and subjectivity, bias runs amok.

 

[PureX]

You are familiar with the idea of a strawman argument?

Now-

Lets say you go to some place like Chad, or some other low IQ place and grab a hundred teenagers at random.

Chad is a "low IQ place??? I find this rather difficult to accept. Why would people in Chad have lower IQs than people anywhere else?

And a like number from Denmark.

Which group will score higher on any cognitive sort of test you care to give them?

Well, the people who have had lots of experience taking tests that require one to possess worldly information will do better at taking them. But how does this have anything to do with their intelligence? Testing for accumulated knowledge is not the same as testing intelligence. And testing for accumulated knowledge of science and the world does not reveal accumulated knowledge about living life as a human being. Which is what I would expect knowledge to entail at a base minimum.

Look at it this way. In WW2, American soldiers had
a very hard time training Chinese troops to use any
of the equipment. The American soldiers learned much faster.

Of course. It was THEIR equipment, and THEIR method of use, and THEIR language.

Are Chinese inherently or genetically less intelligent? Why was it so hard for them to learn?

Because the equipment, methods, and language were foreign to them. We would have had just as hard a time learning to use their traditional equipment, by their traditional methods, through their language.

See if you can come up with an answer.

It wasn't very difficult. I must be really smart. But then I'm an American. I live in the "high IQ place".

 

[Audie]

Take the LSAT and see if it is about how much
you have memorized.

As for the difficulty training peasant soldiers, you just made up a reason.
How smart is that?

 

[PureX]

Take the LSAT and see if it is about how much
you have memorized.

As for the difficulty training peasant soldiers, you just made up a reason.
How smart is that?

Being an artist all my life, I'd say it's pretty smart.

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[Mock Turtle]

Chad is a "low IQ place??? I find this rather difficult to accept. Why would people in Chad have lower IQs than people anywhere else?
Well, the people who have had lots of experience taking tests that require one to possess worldly information will do better at taking them. But how does this have anything to do with their intelligence? Testing for accumulated knowledge is not the same as testing intelligence. And testing for accumulated knowledge of science and the world does not reveal accumulated knowledge about living life as a human being. Which is what I would expect knowledge to entail at a base minimum.
Of course. It was THEIR equipment, and THEIR method of use, and THEIR language.
Because the equipment, methods, and language were foreign to them. We would have had just as hard a time learning to use their traditional equipment, by their traditional methods, through their language.
It wasn't very difficult. I must be really smart. But then I'm an American. I live in the "high IQ place".

A bit ironic now concerning the Chinese, since they seem to place above the USA at present, as do many of the South-East Asian countries overall:

Top 10 Countries by Highest Average IQ

The US does not feature on this list, sitting in joint 19th place on 98 points (just below the median IQ score of 100). Canada fares worse, on 97 points, whilst the UK and China manage to score slightly better, at 100.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well believing in things that only comes from and plays out in the mind, and acting as if they actually exist, does knock things down a rung or two in the intellectual department.

I think theists are prone to be more insecure and emotionally sensitive that clouds a person's rationale and critical thinking more than anything else.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence. A prominent hypothesis states that this correlation reflects behavioral biases toward intuitive problem solving, which causes errors when intuition conflicts with reasoning.

Reading further in the study, it is not a difference in intelligence, as much as a bad habit of relying more on intuition in specific situations.

In conclusion, religiosity is associated with poorer reasoning performance during tasks that involve cognitive conflict. These effects may reflect learnt cognitive-behavioral biases toward intuitive decision making, rather than underlying abilities to understand complex logical rules or to maintain information in working memory.
The Negative Relationship between Reasoning and Religiosity Is Underpinned by a Bias for Intuitive Responses Specifically When Intuition and Logic Are in Conflict
_____________________________

Cognitive conflict is the discomfort one feels when his beliefs, values or behaviors contradict one another. For instance, if a person believes that honesty is the best policy in maintaining relationships, but then holds back the truth from a good friend, he might feel cognitive conflict. As a psychological theory, it originates from Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory, which proposes that humans need internal consistency as surely as we need food and water. Because of this, Festinger says, we become psychologically distressed when we experience discord in our thoughts.
Examples of Cognitive Conflict | Synonym

For atheists, there is no necessary set of values that are normally required by faith in a religious belief. So IMO, they have more freedom to analytically analyze those values in conflict and are more likely to reach a correct answer.

It shows that atheists are more rational and educated/knowledgeable, which translates to better test taking which is biased toward those qualities and downplays native intelligence. And if anything, agnostics are more rational than either.

 

[PureX]

It shows that atheists are more rational and educated/knowledgeable, which translates to better test taking which is biased toward those qualities and downplays native intelligence. And if anything, agnostics are more rational than either.

Being more rational does not equate to being more intelligent. But this seems to be the bias that's being promoted, here. And it's clearly a bias that many atheists ascribe to.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Being more rational does not equate to being more intelligent. But this seems to be the bias that's being promoted, here. And it's clearly a bias that many atheists ascribe to.

So a bias towards belief is more rational than just leaving the question open - especially when the evidence is hardly conclusive?

 

[syo]

For atheists, there is no necessary set of values that are normally required by faith in a religious belief. So IMO, they have more freedom to analytically analyze those values in conflict and are more likely to reach a correct answer.

i once asked an atheist ''what created you?'' and he answered ''my parents''

 

[stvdv]

i once asked an atheist ''what created you?'' and he answered ''my parents''

And silently you went your way, I guess

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Dawkins concedes his ignorance of information technology and -separately- that evolutionary biology has become in many ways a branch of it. His ignorance is not willful, he is as curious and capable of critical thought as anyone, just born a little early and without the qualification or experience to better grasp some of the key issues.

I would not even consider that anyone is remotely stupid, insane or wicked simply for sharing a widely held belief like Darwinism. And those words should certainly not be carelessly cast via mass media over the majority of free thinking humanity, that's getting into very dangerous territory

'stupid' 'insane' 'wicked' 'willfully ignorant' these are words people hurl at points of view they do not understand and/or are afraid of. I understand why you, Dawkins believe what you do, I used to also. skepticism, dissenting views, are nothing to be afraid of, science can never progress otherwise.

I've got a hunch Dawkins knows a bit more about evolutionary biology than you do. Just a guess.

 

[syo]

And silently you went your way, I guess

i didn't know how to respond and i still don't know how

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Being more rational does not equate to being more intelligent.

Actually, I didn't say that it did. I did say that testing is biased or testing for rationality NOT intelligence.

But this seems to be the bias that's being promoted, here. And it's clearly a bias that many atheists ascribe to.

So you're defending irrationality over rationality, and complaining that there's a bias for rationality here? The problem is when intelligent people are irrational. It's like the intelligent physicists in the 20th century thinking the Moon wasn't there if they weren't looking at it (Einstein's quip). If scientific rationality hadn't prevailed, we'd have the former science of physics becoming a religion where lunatics worship the Moon.

 

[PureX]

So a bias towards belief is more rational than just leaving the question open - especially when the evidence is hardly conclusive?

No, an ability to engage in a multiple of intellectual paths would be the more advantageous. Logic and skepticism are only two of the intellectual tools that we have available to us. We also have imagination, intuition, faith, subjective experience/evidence, desire, and our creativity in general. And the latter are equally as important as the former. And even more important would be an ability to determine when to use which, and how to switch, as needed. Something few of us are really much good at, regardless of our "beliefs". In fact, I think we generally place far too much emphasis on what we 'believe', and waste far too much time propping them up and defending them at the impetus of our egos.

 

[PureX]

Actually, I didn't say that it did. I did say that testing is biased or testing for rationality NOT intelligence.



So you're defending irrationality over rationality, and complaining that there's a bias for rationality here? The problem is when intelligent people are irrational. It's like the intelligent physicists in the 20th century thinking the Moon wasn't there if they weren't looking at it (Einstein's quip). If scientific rationality hadn't prevailed, we'd have the former science of physics becoming a religion where lunatics worship the Moon.

see post #79