New Theory: Why More Intelligent People Tend to be Less Religious

[Lyndon]

Did your study mention how since there are more religious people, intelligent religious people outnumber intelligent atheists by quite a bit, something to think about.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Fifty-three studies finding essentially the same thing is quite a few studies to be arguing against based only on your personal inability to fathom how it's possible that there could be a reliable negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity.

First off they are talking about a meta-analysis, that looked at 63 studies. This is an important distinction to make because meta-analyses are somewhat controversial. You claim 53 studies said the same thing, but more studies means your type I error rate goes up. A type I error is the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis. The null would be similar to: there is no relationship between intelligence and religion.

Type I error rate: They predicted inflated error rates of between 11 and 28%. In fact, Field (2003a) has shown using Monte Carlo simulations that Type I error rates are inflated from 5% to anywhere between 43 and 80%. So, of the 21 meta-analyses reported by Hunter and Schmidt (2000) anywhere between 9 and 17 of them are likely to have reported significant effects when in reality no true effect may have existed within the population (see Field, 2003a).

http://psych.colorado.edu/~willcutt/pdfs/Field_2005.pdf

43 - 80% is a huge error rate.

Another controversial point on meta-analyses is that they tend to only look at published studies. If they only consider published studies then they have a very bias sample. Often articles are published because they will sell, not because they are good science. You say 53 studies, but how many studies are being overlooked simply because they were not flashy enough to be published?

Also a R value of -.20 through -.25 is nothing to go on about.

Let me explain how R works.

It is the measure of variation in Y that is explained with X in the model. Or more simply is a scale of the linear relationship between X and Y from 0 to 1. So you see a .2 is not a very strong indication of a correlation. Now what is considered a significant R value depends on the field of study. I don't know what is considered significant in sociology/psychology but I have my doubts it is a .20, that is just far too low to be taken seriously. If there is any type of relationship it would be a very weak one. This number is too small to rule out as just common random noise.

 

[joe1776]

I'm assuming that they're unsupported..

Unsupported? You can't you mean that you expect intuition to come supported by evidence so that it can be qualified as true by the reasoning mind.

I think you might have a low regard for intuition. If so, that attitude is common.

I think people we regard as having genius use both the reasoning faculty (probably a left brain function) and the intuitive faculty (right brain). I think we humans are much too proud of our ability to reason. Einstein thought so too.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover." - Henri Poincare

"It is always with excitement that I wake up in the morning wondering what my intuition will toss up to me, like gifts from the sea. I work with it and rely on it. It's my partner." - Jonas Salk

"All human knowledge thus begins with intuitions, proceeds thence to concepts, and ends with ideas." - Immanuel Kant

Disagree. Those opportunists have established institutions that perpetuate the belief across generations and centuries, without evidence, that there is a god

Is the fact that fortune tellers are fakes proof that precognition doesn't exist? Nope. That fact is irrelevant to the question. Similarly, the fact that religion is a hoax is not relevant to the question of whether the intuition of the existence of a spiritual nature is true.

 

[Valjean]

The message of atheism is the definition of atheism, the message of the disbelief in any deities. I would go one step further though and state that more atheists are also a - (without) spirituality, or supernatural events as well. When members of an atheist organization criticize religion they often criticize all religions, or at least the biggest player in the room - Christianity. When Christians promote themselves they make themselves out to sound as nutty as all the other religions they invalidate. Atheism has the liberty to say that it isn't a religion.

Any member of an atheist organization is not your typical atheist. Most atheists are not strong atheists, and certainly not the militant atheists you speak of here.

But does that mean anything?

[/QUOTE]
Again, this is not how most atheists would define themselves. Essential atheism does not have a message or position.
Thinking about the theological question is not a prerequisite, nor is usefulness or relevance. The only feature that applies to all flavors of atheism is lack of belief. That makes lack of belief definitive.

Q: How would an anthropologist describe a tribe that had no concept of God; had never even heard of such a concept? Would "atheist" not be a useful and relevant descriptor?

 

[DavidFirth]

That's a term of use only to creationists. Scientists don't have any reason to distinguish between evolution over shorter and longer periods of time.It's all evolution, not micro- or macro-evolution.

Two more such terms have apparently come from religious apologists: irreducible complexity and fine tuning cosmology. None of these ideas are useful to scientists or come from them.

Evolution happens among like kinds. This has been observed in the lab. No one has ever seen one organism change into a completely different organism over time. This is just a theory that it does, a scientific guess. Like fossils and bones don't prove anything. Dating rocks doesn't prove anything. I'll stop there. If you can't prove men came from ape-like creatures, and you can't, then I don't believe they did. There isn't anything hard to understand about that and it doesn't make me stupid.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm assuming that they're unsupported.

Unsupported? You can't you mean that you expect intuition to come supported by evidence so that it can be qualified as true by the reasoning mind.

Correct. I did not mean that.

I meant that the other guy's intuitions do not constitute support of his claim for me and shouldn't for him, either. If you sense the presence of a god, that might be meaningful to you, but not to me. And if I sense the presence of a god, I will understand the limitations of intuition. I have such intuitions in other areas, and I understand that they might or might not be meaningful. I would never offer them as evidence, and those intuitions remain unsupported.

Disagree. Those opportunists have established institutions that perpetuate the belief across generations and centuries, without evidence, that there is a god.

Is the fact that fortune tellers are fakes proof that precognition doesn't exist? Nope. That fact is irrelevant to the question. Similarly, the fact that religion is a hoax is not relevant to the question of whether the intuition of the existence of a spiritual nature is true.

Agreed. But the presence of a church to promulgate the god belief is not irrelevant to the fact that people claim to have an intuition of a god.
How many would claim that they feel the presence of a god without previous indoctrination?

 

[joe1776]

Agreed. But the presence of a church to promulgate the god belief is not irrelevant to the fact that people claim to have an intuition of a god.
How many would claim that they feel the presence of a god without previous indoctrination?

But you weren't referring to the people who had previous indoctrination when you wrote:

People first started believing in spirits for a number of reasons such as an instinct to assume agenticity (a conscious agent with thoughts and volition) behind unexplained phenomena, but soon, presumably, opportunists learned how to exploit them, and developed a priesthood. Look at all the advantages of such a job both then and now.

My point is that the intuition of the existence of a spiritual nature probably preexisted its exploitation, and while religion is surely bunk, the intuition that it exploited might be accurate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Honestly I don't see how a belief in a god would make you less intelligent.

It doesn't mean that.
Certainly, many believers are much smarter than I.
If valid, the claim is only that there's a slight statistical association with atheism & intelligence.
We're all individuals, & needn't worry about general tiny tendencies found in stastical studies.

 

[FearGod]

A weight of studies over the years have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But if that's the case, then why is it so? A new theory proposes that the reason more intelligent people tend to be less religious is because (1) religiosity is rooted in instinct, and (2) more intelligent people are able to overcome their instinctual religiosity relatively more often than less intelligent people.

Source: The reason why atheists are more intelligent

What do you make of the theory?


At the risk of pointing out the obvious: Just because there is a well established negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity does not mean that all religious people are dumb and all non-religious people are smart, or that all religious people are dumber than all non-religious people. Second, the focus of this discussion should be the notions that (1) religiosity is instinctual and (2) relatively high intelligence allows people to more readily overcome instincts. If you wish to discuss the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, get your own thread.

Does that mean their ancestors were idiots and the new generation atheists are brilliants?

 

[Vaderecta]

It doesn't mean that.
Certainly, many believers are much smarter than I.
If valid, the claim is only that there's a slight statistical association with atheism & intelligence.
We're all individuals, & needn't worry about general tiny tendencies found in stastical studies.

Correct, I agree we are all individuals. There is a claim that religion is instinctual and those of higher IQ would be able to overcome that instinct. For some atheists their atheism is instinctual. They were born into it but then eventually through a variety of factors convert to one religion or another. (Consider Scandinavian societies or just families who grew up as atheists)

People believe in religion (or not) for many reasons which I do not think are encapsulated in the word "instinct".

It is likely that pivoting on atheism in the west is skewing your results towards wealthy and well fed contrarians. If you are relatively successful and living in a peaceful environment without war, famine, disease and drought then you have time to analyze and examine whether god is likely or not. You also probably had nutrition and the benefit of many other environmental effects which are proven to have an influence on IQ. A study which states that maybe religion is just an instinct that smart people are just better able to think through and overcome comes across as over-simplified and a touch condescending.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-cont...a-Analysis-and-Some-Proposed-Explanations.pdf

Religiosity and intelligence - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would go one step further though and state that more atheists are also a - (without) spirituality, or supernatural events as well.

I find Christianity to be very nonspiritual - at least the most fundamentalist forms. Authentic spirituality is a sense of connection to one's world that elicits awe, gratitude, and a sense of mystery. Christianity severs that connection and redirects to an imagined realm and its inhabitants, the supernatural.

• Christianity teaches that our universe is made of base matter and is inferior to this other realm. This universe had no value in such a worldview, and is slated for apocalyptic destruction. It's basically just an audition room for souls. Don't become too attached to it.

• Christianity also teaches that the world is a dangerous place, and that we are to be separated from it. When a Christian refers to "the world," he is using the phrase disparagingly.

• Christianity teaches that our bodies are enemies - that we are souls trapped for now in flesh that is the source of carnal and destructive desires that compel us to do bad things and forfeit salvation. When a Christian uses the phrase "the flesh," he is also being disparaging.
  From an old gospel standard: "When the shadows of this life have gone, I'll fly away. Like a bird from prison bars has flown, I'll fly away"

• We are even to separate ourselves from our own minds, which are also the enemy. Experiences of doubt are the devil in our heads speaking to us trying to tempt us to perdition. Reason is also considered the enemy of faith.

This is the exact opposite of connectivity to our world. It's a total worldectomy including bodyectomy and mindectomy. People that accept that view of reality are often so disconnected from this life that they report that they see no purpose in it if there isn't an afterlife with their God to follow, and so disconnected from their fellow man that they tell us that they see no reason not to go berserking and begin killing people around you if there is no God or heaven.

Compare that to this from an anonymous Internet source:

• "When I looked at the galaxy that night, I knew the faintest twinkle of starlight was a real connection between my comprehending eye along a narrow beam of light to the surface of another sun. The photons my eyes detect (the light I see, the energy with which my nerves interact) came from that star. I thought I could never touch it, yet something from it crosses the void and touches me. I might never have known. My eyes saw only a tiny point of light, but my mind saw so much more ... That blue twinkle will blow up one day, sterilizing any nearby solar systems in an apocalypse that makes the wrath of human gods seem pitiful by comparison. Yet it was from such destruction that I was formed. Stars must die so that I can live. I stepped out of a supernova… And so did you."

That oozes with connectivity to his world and its author's sense of oneness with it.

Notice that no spirits are involved in spirituality. That's not to say that they can't be. Here we read about what is essentially the same experience from a famous ancient Greek polytheist:

• "I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia" - Ptolemy

Any thoughts about that?

 

[Revoltingest]

For some atheists their atheism is instinctual.

It was so for me.
Born that way.
Stayed that way.

 

[George-ananda]

What do you make of the theory?

My thought is the more intelligent types like a universe they can understand and that will make them dislike religious thinking with all this invisible strange stuff going on.

However, at some point I think this preference for a machine-like functioning universe does these more intelligent ones a disservice as they become closed-minded and develop a passionate dislike to evidence of the 'beyond the normal'.

I see a progression of simple believers (less intelligent), followed by non-believers (more intelligent) and believers once again (most intelligent based on a more advanced understanding than a mechanical universe).

 

[Revoltingest]

.....and believers once again (most intelligent based on a more advanced understanding than a mechanical universe).

A mythical understanding.
More intelligent?
Nah!

 

[George-ananda]

A mythical understanding.
More intelligent?
Nah!

Why do you say 'mythical'??

I was getting at thinking based on paranormal evidence, multiple dimensions, post-materialist science, etc..

The mythical thinking was for the stage 1 (least intelligent) in the progression I was talking about.

Perhaps you are an example of those at stage 2 (more intelligent) that develop a dislike of the paranormal and multi-dimensional science we can not get our heads around.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

A weight of studies over the years have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But if that's the case, then why is it so? A new theory proposes that the reason more intelligent people tend to be less religious is because (1) religiosity is rooted in instinct, and (2) more intelligent people are able to overcome their instinctual religiosity relatively more often than less intelligent people.

Source: The reason why atheists are more intelligent

What do you make of the theory?


At the risk of pointing out the obvious: Just because there is a well established negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity does not mean that all religious people are dumb and all non-religious people are smart, or that all religious people are dumber than all non-religious people. Second, the focus of this discussion should be the notions that (1) religiosity is instinctual and (2) relatively high intelligence allows people to more readily overcome instincts. If you wish to discuss the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, get your own thread.

How can you tell which influence you're observing, indoctrination, self-servng deception, knowledge or intelligence? Intelligence can expose flaws in knowledge or indoctrination (intelligence suppression), but we are only ones truly able to judge our degree of self deception.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution happens among like kinds.

Evolution occurs within populations and across generations.

No one has ever seen one organism change into a completely different organism over time.

And no one ever will, at least not naturally. The changing from fish to amphibians took about 140 million years (500 mya to 360 mya). Reptiles appeared about 60 million years later (300 mya), and mammals about 100 million years after that (200 mya). We don't expect to ever witness such a thing.

This is just a theory that it does, a scientific guess.

The theory of evolution is so well supported that should it ever be falsified, we would have no recourset but to invoke deceptive superhuman creators of earth and the life on it, whether that be an advanced alien race or gods, agents that went out of their ways to make us think that evolution had occurred, but slipped up somewhere, and we finally found the falsifying error after over 150 years.

Like fossils and bones don't prove anything.

They prove that creatures, often now extinct, often intermediate in form between existing forms, once lived. We need to account for that fact. How does the creationist do it?

Dating rocks doesn't prove anything.

Dating rocks gives us their approximate and relative ages. This works for bones as well. We can tell which life forms first appeared when, and if extinct, about the time that happened.

If you can't prove men came from ape-like creatures, and you can't, then I don't believe they did.

What's all of this talk about proof? Proof is rarely the basis for belief. It's neither my standard nor yours. Mine is evidence, Yours is faith.

What we can prove is that there is a succession of hominan (sic) bones connecting man with his last common ancestor shared with the chimps that range from older more chimp-like creatures to more recent and more manlike creatures. That evidence justifies a belief that man evolved from non-human great apes. Those fossils also need to be accounted for. Creationism can't do it. Creationism offers no explanation for why we find creatures like Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis). Evolution requires that such creatures once existed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do say 'mythical'??

I was getting at thinking based on paranormal evidence, multiple dimensions, post-materialist science, etc..

The mythical thinking was for the stage 1 (least intelligent) in the progression I was talking about.

Perhaps you are an example of those at stage 2 (more intelligent) that develop a dislike of the paranormal and multi-dimensional science we can not get our heads around.

It's mythical because without material verification, it's all in their heads.
I've no problem with them believing such things, but it's not evidence
of higher intelligence.

 

[George-ananda]

It's mythical because without material verification, it's all in their heads.
I've no problem with them believing such things, but it's not evidence
of higher intelligence.

'Material verification' of the 'beyond the material'? Sorry, but I still think you are showing the stage 2 (more intelligent) thinking. You do not like things we can not really get our heads around.

 

[Revoltingest]

'Material verification' of the 'beyond the material'? Sorry, but I still think you are still showing the stage 2 (more intelligent) thinking. You do not like things we can net really get our heads around.

I'm at stage 4.