Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

[charlie sc]

So it's not reasonable to point out the study was talking about those who self-identify as "religious" not "theist" and that both of these are extremely heterogenous categories? And that the study itself mentions there are pretty strong limits to its implications?

Okay then. Nice selective reading you have going on there.

I just had a thought; what if this is not about religiosity, at all. What if these studies are measuring dogmatism. If this hypothesis is correct, then any dogmatic ideology will demonstrate similar results. For instance, authoritarian politics are extremely rigid, punishing and indoctrinating, while also repressive to other thoughts. Hypothetically, this type of ideology should give similar results if this hypothesis is correct. Amusingly, religions also merge with politics. So, we can see these effects in like Sharia Law. Anyway, this reminds me of what Socrates said and taught: the more one claims knowledge, the more one also close their mind to other ideas.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So it's not reasonable to point out the study was talking about those who self-identify as "religious" not "theist" and that both of these are extremely heterogenous categories? And that the study itself mentions there are pretty strong limits to its implications?

Okay then. Nice selective reading you have going on there.

The study just exemplifies intellectual abandonment in favor of religious bias.

It's pretty specific as far as I can tell.

 

[Milton Platt]

If atheists are so smart, how come they don't believe in God, any intelligent person would. And I have an IQ of 150.

It isn't atheism that makes people smart, or anything else. It's the other qualities that lead to other positive outcomes which also often leads to refusal to believe in unfounded assertions about deities (atheism).
It isn't about IQ. It's about skepticism and critical thinking skills and the ability to use logic.

 

[Etritonakin]

I enjoyed reading your argument and relating the topic to a story. I think you're right saying intuition is important. To quote a character from Star Trek, Spock said, "logic is the beginning of wisdom not the end."
What remains to be seen is how important intuition is? Logic is not emotional, but, I think, intuition is. When it comes to the suffering of another human beings, I'd far choose logic over emotions any day. If intuition carries emotions with it or is motivated by emotions, then that means fear and anger influence decisions. These are bad combinations any way you look at it. This, I think, is the downfall of intuition. However, affection, love, hope, awe and happiness are its redeemers. The problem I see with some religions is that there's far too much fear and anger intertwined in their ideologies. Sadly, It may be inseparable for some.

I think of intuition as just as potentially logical -but something your mind does without involving "you" for the most part.

I think, therefore, it may be more subject to anything illogical also in the subconscious -whereas when actively considering something one could possibly guard against it more easily.

(I like to dredge up all sorts of weirdness from my own mind [I am rather suspicious of it ] -sort it out -then stuff it all back in there. It is strange to consider, but we really are mostly just along for the ride where mental processes are concerned -but perhaps less so as we go on.)

 

[Sapiens]

It isn't atheism that makes people smart, or anything else. It's the other qualities that lead to other positive outcomes which also often leads to refusal to believe in unfounded assertions about deities (atheism).
It isn't about IQ. It's about skepticism and critical thinking skills and the ability to use logic.

I suspect that skeptics who possess critical thinking skills and who have the ability to use logic tend to be agnostic or atheist (depending on definitions).

 

[Thief]

I've found the people that give me their rounded high IQ numbers highly dubious.

Mensa test...
what?.....they can't compose a useful cdrom?

for fun....I repeated the effort
and of course the score would come up

first time around would seem the sure thing

and I find retort of your type......more than dubious

 

[Thief]

hmmm....there was also the gov survey test at school
uncle Sam wanted to know how the little kiddies were doing

my test in science came back as superior
I was thirteen at the time
I've gotten a lot better since then

and some art school my skill with a pencil one out of 1400
I was fourteen

I took the industrial award of senior year with only one semester of woodshop
I exceeded the instructors ability
he said so

I instigated machine tools 103 and 104
at the college where I attended

I can lay down concrete block or brick
put up stud walls
shingle houses
take the dent out of your Cadillac

blah blah blah.....etc etc etc

and do these things and many more.....all the while
believing in God

it is written
Let your light shine

 

[Thief]

oh..and I can make a knife
a really nice one
and sell it on Ebay for $175
without a maker's mark OR a sharpened edge
(go figure)

and though I don't practice anymore
I can teach martial art

Thief is ninja!!!!

I just love posting that

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Mensa test...
what?.....they can't compose a useful cdrom?

for fun....I repeated the effort
and of course the score would come up

first time around would seem the sure thing

and I find retort of your type......more than dubious

But here's the real problem with "IQ" tests via CD-ROMS:

Repeat the test? The scores go up. Repeat it several times over the course of a day or so? The score rises significantly. A person taking the "test" is literally learning the test -- which measures nothing. Learning the test is how you get from a collection of learning algorithms to an AI computer system.

It measures nothing, except for one's ability to answer specific multiple guess questions on a CD.

Whereas a properly administered IQ test? Changes with each iteration-- guessing won't get you a better score of multiple instances. It'll quickly become obvious, one was simply guessing.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Mensa test...

LMAO! Oh.... my.... I just can't.... that's so funny! "mensa test" ... oh, my. You do know that "mensa" is something of a running joke among people in general, right?

So much so the TV cartoon The Simpsons lampooned this group multiple times, over multiple episodes-- it became one of their running gags, in fact.

 

[atanu]

You didn't address my responses to you, but, to be honest, I don't blame you. I have the psychologist's book from the link you gave. If you have a claim about yogics, then I can see if your perception accurately reflects the only evidence were able to provide. Nonetheless, I don't think it'll come to this and the argument seems to have deteriorated to faith on your part.
Fair enough. Next time you have evidence, don't be shy to share it

If you recollect, in an earlier post I had acknowledged that religiosity indeed correlates negatively with certain cognitive competencies. You will remember because low intelligence of theists is a pet subject with you, it seems.

First. The paper in question begins with: It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence.

When a scientist says that (as close and shut case), I begin to doubt. I can also say "It is well established that females are less intelligent than males", based on some test results. But that statement would be wrong because I do not know what all competencies the 'real intelligence' comprises of. If females were less intelligent, would nature entrust the task of child rearing-nurturing to the female species? I do not know.

So, I believe that IQ style tests indicate certain competencies and not intelligence. YMMV.

Psychologists have tried to grapple with this (mostly unsuccessfully) by proposing: 'Multiple Intelligence' or 'Emotional Intelligence' or 'Spiritual Intelligence'. That these concepts have not taken root does not mean that conceptually these are wrong. These are not yet amenable to scientific testing.

But that is an inherent problem in all subjective knowledge. Although, you will probably not appreciate or agree with what I am going to say, yet let me say it. In Buddhism or in Vedanta, the rational intellect is not forsaken, but its wavering is observed with unswerving attention. And ultimately, when the wavering is stilled, the reality is known as non dual -- devoid of subject-object division. This experience (although it is not an experience) and abidance in it is said to be liberation. I guess that Christian and Jewish mystics and Sufi-s also will agree.

Now, this kind of competence and attainment is not measurable from first person perspective. One can only see effects in brain etc. But those who have attained such non dual knowledge are teachers amongst us. Please do not grudge their benevolent hold over people. Atheists will say "Theists are fools and so they repose blind faith on teachers/deities". But atheists simply have not tasted the mango to be able to claim that mango taste is useless.

Second. Although the paper begins with: 'It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence', it goes on to conclude 'Negative Relationship between Reasoning and Religiosity Is underpinned by a bias for intuitive responses'.

IMO, the conclusion as reflected in the paper title and the opening sentence conflict.

 

[Milton Platt]

I suspect that skeptics who possess critical thinking skills and who have the ability to use logic tend to be agnostic or atheist (depending on definitions).

True. One could say that an agnostic is actually an atheist....If he claims to have no knowledge of a god, it would be difficult for him to believe in one. But they are just labels , so no big deal.

 

[charlie sc]

Mensa test...
what?.....they can't compose a useful cdrom?

for fun....I repeated the effort
and of course the score would come up

first time around would seem the sure thing

and I find retort of your type......more than dubious

I assume this is the Mensa IQ test released in 2000 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Focus-Multimedia-Ltd-Mensa-Mindbenders/dp/B00004UCQO. The description of the IQ tests is, ""Take 8 brain-teasing "Fun IQ" tests.""
I'm not going to claim this is not a good IQ test but it's highly dubious. My reasons for saying this is because I know somewhat how IQ tests work. You need some kind of norm to compare to, but there are no details about this and some of the problems Bob the Unbeliever mentioned. If you want to take an IQ test, take one of the popular ones onsite. Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia
These tests have massive norms and have been rigorously tested for years.

hmmm....there was also the gov survey test at school
uncle Sam wanted to know how the little kiddies were doing

my test in science came back as superior
I was thirteen at the time
I've gotten a lot better since then

Good for you. From what I know of IQ tests at school, they compare you to the academic year norm. They aren't comparing you to the general population.

and some art school my skill with a pencil one out of 1400
I was fourteen

I took the industrial award of senior year with only one semester of woodshop
I exceeded the instructors ability
he said so

I instigated machine tools 103 and 104
at the college where I attended

I can lay down concrete block or brick
put up stud walls
shingle houses
take the dent out of your Cadillac

blah blah blah.....etc etc etc

and do these things and many more.....all the while
believing in God

it is written
Let your light shine

Well done.

a really nice one
and sell it on Ebay for $175
without a maker's mark OR a sharpened edge
(go figure)

and though I don't practice anymore
I can teach martial art

Thief is ninja!!!!

I just love posting that

I'm happy for you.

 

[charlie sc]

First. The paper in question begins with: It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence.

When a scientist says that (as close and shut case), I begin to doubt.

Since this is my pet project, I've not found any scientific evidence to the contrary. All the research for 70 or so years still demonstrate religiosity negatively correlates with IQ. I gave a link to a meta-analyses in another post I made. Therefore, this is a truthful claim with the current scientific literature unless shown otherwise. They gave references where they said this.

I can also say "It is well established that females are less intelligent than males", based on some test results. But that statement would be wrong because I do not know what all competencies the 'real intelligence' comprises of.
So, I believe that IQ style tests indicate certain competencies and not intelligence. YMMV.

Ah, well, most articles will give a definition of intelligence and what they're trying to measure. For instance, in the meta-analysis from the other thread, they specifically say they aren't measuring emotional intelligence, etc. They're specific in saying this measures analytical thinking, and so on.

If females were less intelligent, would nature entrust the task of child rearing-nurturing to the female species? I do not know.

This makes no sense.

Psychologists have tried to grapple with this (mostly unsuccessfully) by proposing: 'Multiple Intelligence' or 'Emotional Intelligence' or 'Spiritual Intelligence'. That these concepts have not taken root does not mean that conceptually these are wrong. These are not yet amenable to scientific testing.

Well, show evidence, because this is just an assertion. Show me where psychologists critique this subject the way you said here.

Buddhism or in Vedanta, the rational intellect is not forsaken, but its wavering is observed with unswerving attention. And ultimately, when the wavering is stilled, the reality is known as non dual -- devoid of subject-object division. This experience (although it is not an experience) and abidance in it is said to be liberation. I guess that Christian and Jewish mystics and Sufi-s also will agree.

Now, this kind of competence and attainment is not measurable from first person perspective. One can only see effects in brain etc. But those who have attained such non dual knowledge are teachers amongst us. Please do not grudge their benevolent hold over people. Atheists will say "Theists are fools and so they repose blind faith on teachers/deities". But atheists simply have not tasted the mango to be able to claim that mango taste is useless.

You seem to doubt the measurability of various intelligence, but then claim there's something like, "unswerving attention." Okay fine. You know, the secular world is becoming more and more proponents of mindfulness. There are a plethora of studies showing the benefits of mindfulness. Therefore, I don't know why you think atheists can't use this type of thinking skill/meditation.

Second. Although the paper begins with: 'It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence', it goes on to conclude 'Negative Relationship between Reasoning and Religiosity Is underpinned by a bias for intuitive responses'.

IMO, the conclusion as reflected in the paper title and the opening sentence conflict.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the written structure of scientific articles. The introduction will usually give logical reasons and background evidence for the particular empirical study and will usually explain the hypothesis at the end. The discussion part is different and particularly talks about the results of the data and the hypothesis.

 

[atanu]

Since this is my pet project, I've not found any scientific evidence to the contrary. All the research for 70 or so years still demonstrate religiosity negatively correlates with IQ.

Well. To you IQ is intelligence.

I beg to differ. Namaste.

 

[charlie sc]

Well. To you IQ is intelligence.

I beg to differ. Namaste.

Namaste.

 

[Augustus]

All the research for 70 or so years still demonstrate religiosity negatively correlates with IQ

Measuring IQ does not measure intelligence though.

To create a simplistic metric for a complex phenomenon you end up measuring that which you can measure, and assuming that which you cannot measure is unimportant.

With intelligence, that which you can't measure in a standardised test is the most important part: the ability to apply knowledge in a complex, real world environment with real consequences for your actions.

(It's even dubious that IQ tests are particularly good at measuring people's IQ)

 

[charlie sc]

Measuring IQ does not measure intelligence though.

Perhaps you'd like to define them and/or give references before/after making an assertion.

To create a simplistic metric for a complex phenomenon you end up measuring that which you can measure, and assuming that which you cannot measure is unimportant.

You might be assuming this but I'm not. I place great value if not more value on emotional intelligence than IQ. I do know some psychologists are trying to measure emotional intelligence but I haven't checked on their progress.

With intelligence, that which you can't measure in a standardised test is the most important part: the ability to apply knowledge in a complex, real world environment with real consequences for your actions.

Sure, ecological validity is always a concern in psychology. This is specifically why I said that the onsite IQ tests are far better. They examine how you problem solve.

If you want, we can examine this particular study and what aspects of cognition atheists excel at compared to those who are religious?

 

[Audie]

Since this is my pet project, I've not found any scientific evidence to the contrary. All the research for 70 or so years still demonstrate religiosity negatively correlates with IQ. I gave a link to a meta-analyses in another post I made. Therefore, this is a truthful claim with the current scientific literature unless shown otherwise. They gave references where they said this.


Ah, well, most articles will give a definition of intelligence and what they're trying to measure. For instance, in the meta-analysis from the other thread, they specifically say they aren't measuring emotional intelligence, etc. They're specific in saying this measures analytical thinking, and so on.


This makes no sense.


Well, show evidence, because this is just an assertion. Show me where psychologists critique this subject the way you said here.


You seem to doubt the measurability of various intelligence, but then claim there's something like, "unswerving attention." Okay fine. You know, the secular world is becoming more and more proponents of mindfulness. There are a plethora of studies showing the benefits of mindfulness. Therefore, I don't know why you think atheists can't use this type of thinking skill/meditation.


There seems to be a misunderstanding of the written structure of scientific articles. The introduction will usually give logical reasons and background evidence for the particular empirical study and will usually explain the hypothesis at the end. The discussion part is different and particularly talks about the results of the data and the hypothesis.

The more religious they are the more the data is wrong.
C14 testing, say.

 

[Thief]

But here's the real problem with "IQ" tests via CD-ROMS:

Repeat the test? The scores go up. Repeat it several times over the course of a day or so? The score rises significantly. A person taking the "test" is literally learning the test -- which measures nothing. Learning the test is how you get from a collection of learning algorithms to an AI computer system.

It measures nothing, except for one's ability to answer specific multiple guess questions on a CD.

Whereas a properly administered IQ test? Changes with each iteration-- guessing won't get you a better score of multiple instances. It'll quickly become obvious, one was simply guessing.

I think I clearly posted explanation as I tested
and all you did was repeat it

I do guess.....now and then
but I like to THINK I do so.....intelligently