"People who have faith . . . are not as smart as others"

[beenherebeforeagain]

"Conflict between science, religion lies in our brains

Clashes between the use of faith vs. scientific evidence to explain the world around us dates back centuries and is perhaps most visible today in the arguments between evolution and creationism.

To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking and engage the empathetic network, the scientists say. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people appear to do the opposite.

"When there's a question of faith, from the analytic point of view, it may seem absurd," said Tony Jack, who led the research. "But, from what we understand about the brain, the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and emotional insight."

"A stream of research in cognitive psychology has shown and claims that people who have faith (i.e., are religious or spiritual) are not as smart as others. They actually might claim they are less intelligent.," said Richard Boyatzis, distinguished university professor and professor of organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve, and a member of Jack's team.

"Our studies confirmed that statistical relationship, but at the same time showed that people with faith are more prosocial and empathic," he said."
source
​

I find this very surprising. I've always attributed the refusal of the faithful to consider the significance of science in explaining the world, to their need to hold fast to the security of religion. Not that it's an actual inability.



.

Just to note, this is a very short excerpt from a much longer article that says an awful lot more about this subject than the OP chose to note. Including this:

"You can be religious and be a very good scientist," Jack said.

The researchers agree with the New Atheists that suspension of analytical thinking--at the wrong time--can be dangerous, and point to the historical use of religious differences to persecute or fight wars.

"Although it is simply a distortion of history to pin all conflict on religion," Jack said. "Non-religious political movements, such as fascism and communism, and quasi-scientific movements, such as eugenics, have also done great harm."

The researchers suggest, however, that taking a carefully considered leap of religious faith appears be an effective route to promoting emotional insight. Theirs and other studies find that, overall, religious belief is associated with greater compassion, greater social inclusiveness and greater motivation to engage in pro-social actions.

Jack said the conflict can be avoided by remembering simple rules: "Religion has no place telling us about the physical structure of the world; that's the business of science. Science should inform our ethical reasoning, but it cannot determine what is ethical or tell us how we should construct meaning and purpose in our lives."

 

[lovesong]

Just to note, this is a very short excerpt from a much longer article that says an awful lot more about this subject than the OP chose to note. Including this:

"You can be religious and be a very good scientist," Jack said.

The researchers agree with the New Atheists that suspension of analytical thinking--at the wrong time--can be dangerous, and point to the historical use of religious differences to persecute or fight wars.

"Although it is simply a distortion of history to pin all conflict on religion," Jack said. "Non-religious political movements, such as fascism and communism, and quasi-scientific movements, such as eugenics, have also done great harm."

The researchers suggest, however, that taking a carefully considered leap of religious faith appears be an effective route to promoting emotional insight. Theirs and other studies find that, overall, religious belief is associated with greater compassion, greater social inclusiveness and greater motivation to engage in pro-social actions.

Jack said the conflict can be avoided by remembering simple rules: "Religion has no place telling us about the physical structure of the world; that's the business of science. Science should inform our ethical reasoning, but it cannot determine what is ethical or tell us how we should construct meaning and purpose in our lives."

Thank you for shedding more light on what these studies say.

 

[Valjean]

I find this very surprising. I've always attributed the refusal of the faithful to consider the significance of science in explaining the world, to their need to hold fast to the security of religion. Not that it's an actual inability.​

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

I really cannot believe this. Being of faith in and of itself does not cause a decrease in intelligence and faith is not a product of unintelligence. Some of history's (and today's) greatest minds have been religious. Yes, throughout history people have used religion as a means of rejecting science, and I'm sure that there is a correlation between religion and overall intelligence because there is a great deal of people who, to this day, say "well I can't understand it, it doesn't make sense to me, so it must be God," but remember, correlation does not imply causality.

The point is, a high degree of faith seems to inhibit critical analysis, which is what the article's equating with intelligence.

I'm saying that the intelligence of these religious people disproves these "studies."

How so? That doesn't follow.

​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But that's not what the science says. What evidence do you have that they're wrong?

Einstein, Darwin, Newton, it's folly to believe science is saying religious people aren't as smart when religious scientists have made some of our most fundamental and significant discoveries.

 

[lovesong]

Einstein, Darwin, Newton, it's folly to believe science is saying religious people aren't as smart when religious scientists have made some of our most fundamental and significant discoveries.

Yes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My own anecdotal evidence is I was still highly intelligent when I was religious, but it used to be that was all I knew. Nothing changed except my exposure to the world and gaining new insights as I was exposed to new ideas.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe they'd have achieved even more had they been less religious.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe they'd have achieved even more had they been less religious.

Achieved more? They fundamentally changed our very approach to physics and biology. Relativity and evolution via natural selection are two of the biggest achievements and contributions to science. You're saying "achieved even more" to the names of people whose findings are the fundamental cores of entire branches of science.

 

[lovesong]

Achieved more? They fundamentally changed our very approach to physics and biology. Relativity and evolution via natural selection are two of the biggest achievements and contributions to science. You're saying "achieved even more" to the names of people whose findings are the fundamental cores of entire branches of science.

Thank you!

 

[Riverwolf]

Every spiritual person who holds above average grades, or graduates at the top of their class.

Just to play devil's advocate, because this suggests something that really bothers me, when I was psychologically evaluated a little under ten years ago, I was determined to have an IQ of 137. I know that's not much of an indication of intelligence on its own, but I am pretty competant at problem solving, thinking outside the box, and quickly seeing meaningful connections between things, among other patterns, that others can't seem to notice right away. For example, I caught a connection between the French word "écrive" (to write), and the English word "scribe", and pointed it out in my High School French class, and the teacher (who is trilingual, English, Spanish, and French) apparently had never noticed it before I pointed it out.

However, I'm TERRIBLE in traditional academic settings. I spent six years at a local two-year junior college and ultimately dropped out, not for a lack of intelligence, but because that setting clashes with the way I learn.

I say all this because I want to seriously challenge the (frankly pernicious) assumed correlation between "good grades" and intelligence that's far too prevalent in our culture.

 

[lovesong]

Just to play devil's advocate, because this suggests something that really bothers me, when I was psychologically evaluated a little under ten years ago, I was determined to have an IQ of 137. I know that's not much of an indication of intelligence on its own, but I am pretty competant at problem solving, thinking outside the box, and quickly seeing meaningful connections between things, among other patterns, that others can't seem to notice right away. For example, I caught a connection between the French word "écrive" (to write), and the English word "scribe", and pointed it out in my High School French class, and the teacher (who is trilingual, English, Spanish, and French) apparently had never noticed it before I pointed it out.

However, I'm TERRIBLE in traditional academic settings. I spent six years at a local two-year junior college and ultimately dropped out, not for a lack of intelligence, but because that setting clashes with the way I learn.

I say all this because I want to seriously challenge the (frankly pernicious) assumed correlation between "good grades" and intelligence that's far too prevalent in our culture.

I was only using it as the most obvious, unchallengable indication of intelligence. Nobody can say that the top of their class is unintelligent. Certainly there is intelligence outside of this stereotypical classroom type, I just needed the most basic well known example to make a point.

 

[Valjean]

Achieved more? They fundamentally changed our very approach to physics and biology. Relativity and evolution via natural selection are two of the biggest achievements and contributions to science. You're saying "achieved even more" to the names of people whose findings are the fundamental cores of entire branches of science.

No-ones downplaying their achievements. "Inhibitory" doesn't equate with total blockage in all cases.

 

[Riverwolf]

I was only using it as the most obvious, unchallengable indication of intelligence. Nobody can say that the top of their class is unintelligent. Certainly there is intelligence outside of this stereotypical classroom type, I just needed the most basic well known example to make a point.

Thing is, I'm not even sure that's actually unchallengable. A lot of it depends on the credentials of the school, the field in question, and what the student actually did to get to the top.

I wholly agree with your point; just not this particular reason for it.

However, I can give you something related to use in the future: the modern Western University model was invented about a thousand years ago by the Catholic Church. It's not inaccurate to say that the modern sciences as we know them, secular though they must be, are basically a Christian legacy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No-ones downplaying their achievements. "Inhibitory" doesn't equate with total blockage in all cases.

I realize that. But what more could they have achieved? Einstein even doubted some of his own findings, but the math worked out, and it turned out he made some startling accurate predictions with his numbers. Darwin, for his time, he was about as radical of a thinker as there could be, so much that he needed encouragement to have Origin of Species published because he knew of the backlash it would bring. If Darwin were to have achieved more, it wasn't his stance on religion that needed changed, it was society as a whole.

 

[lovesong]

I can give you something related to use in the future: the modern Western University model was invented about a thousand years ago by the Catholic Church. It's not inaccurate to say that the modern sciences as we know them, secular though they must be, are basically a Christian legacy.

Oh that's actually a really good point!

 

[Thana]

"Conflict between science, religion lies in our brains

Clashes between the use of faith vs. scientific evidence to explain the world around us dates back centuries and is perhaps most visible today in the arguments between evolution and creationism.

To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking and engage the empathetic network, the scientists say. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people appear to do the opposite.

"When there's a question of faith, from the analytic point of view, it may seem absurd," said Tony Jack, who led the research. "But, from what we understand about the brain, the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and emotional insight."

"A stream of research in cognitive psychology has shown and claims that people who have faith (i.e., are religious or spiritual) are not as smart as others. They actually might claim they are less intelligent.," said Richard Boyatzis, distinguished university professor and professor of organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve, and a member of Jack's team.

"Our studies confirmed that statistical relationship, but at the same time showed that people with faith are more prosocial and empathic," he said."
source
​

I find this very surprising. I've always attributed the refusal of the faithful to consider the significance of science in explaining the world, to their need to hold fast to the security of religion. Not that it's an actual inability.



.

Oh how interesting that this was in the article, yet no one has mentioned it....

"Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths--not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others."

I actually read the article, And literally the only part that comes up with 'Religious people are less smart' is the parts you've quoted, But that's it. The actual study doesn't seem to have much to do with measuring ones intelligence against one's religious beliefs. Just an apparent statistical correlation, which in other words, is less than nothing. Jeez, and we're called the unintelligent ones?

So tired of people considering Theists as less. It's ridiculous, and quite frankly, embarrassing. A desperate grabbing at straws.

 

[allfoak]

@Skwim

Lets post some of the rest of the article shall we?

They refer to Baruch Aba Shalev's book 100 years of Nobel Prizes, which found that, from 1901 to 2000, 654 Nobel laureates, or nearly 90 percent, belonged to one of 28 religions. The remaining 10.5 percent were atheists, agnostics or freethinkers.

"You can be religious and be a very good scientist," Jack said.


he researchers suggest, however, that taking a carefully considered leap of religious faith appears be an effective route to promoting emotional insight. Theirs and other studies find that, overall, religious belief is associated with greater compassion, greater social inclusiveness and greater motivation to engage in pro-social actions.

Jack said the conflict can be avoided by remembering simple rules: "Religion has no place telling us about the physical structure of the world; that's the business of science. Science should inform our ethical reasoning, but it cannot determine what is ethical or tell us how we should construct meaning and purpose in our lives."

Maybe now we can see more clearly what perspective this is coming from.

Notice the word may throughout the article.
They are not certain of any of it.

I would suggest reading the entire study or stop using it to push your agenda.
I do not see that the article says what you claim.

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Case Western Reserve University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The study quoted and linked to in the OP compared two of the numerous circuits in the brain, and there are a number of theories out there about different kinds of intelligence (musical, physical, mechanical, bodily-spatial, spatial, emotional, geographical, artistic (representational or abstract), linguistic...). Some of the theories of intelligence (such as the social and problem-solving identified in this article) seem to correspond with specific circuits in the brain, others with the way certain circuits interact with other circuits. Each is useful in certain situations, and not useful in others.

 

[Quintessence]

Hmm. The phrase "cherry picking" is coming to mind. I've never been a fan of that phrase. It's a pejorative way of stating something that all people do, and that's tell the story as they want to tell it. Those who want to hate on religion will tell hateful stories of religion and find this, that, or the other thing to support that narrative. Those who are uninterested in such stories won't tell them. I always find the good question to ask about the stories we tell is this one: what purpose does telling this story serve?

Personally, I'm not a fan of the purpose that hateful, put-down stories seem to serve... thus I tend to avoid telling them, whether they are "true" or not. I find it far better to honor the strengths and weakness of all things, and recognize that both of these are present in all things. Much depends on point of view, and our values - or the story we spin about what we experience.

 

[Valjean]

Good points, beenherebeforeagai