-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"People who have faith . . . are not as smart as others"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No, you are tying to read that into my posts. Nowhere have I lumped all Christians together, but I did state, specifically, that the literalist and Conservative upbringing that I had could only be proven false. That says nothing of the more liberal and less literal interpretations, such as those that view large parts of the Bible as nothing more than stories.
I specifically stated "literal" and "conservative." If you can't understand or comprehend that, and know what that means, it's not my problem.
And I've made no incorrect assumptions.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Now, now,now, is that anyway for a nice Mormon girl to talk, (your daddy would probably wash your mouth out if he heard you say this) especially when a nice agnostic guy like myself is trying to defend his good name and reputation? How would you like it if I purposely misrepresented what you said? Can I do that anytime I wish, and with your full approval?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Mormonator
Kolob University
lol @ "good name and reputation". You admitted you "don't care" what people think, even when you're throwing and hurling insults. And yet you are here, complaining and "caring". lol
Having now read the original research article (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149989 ) I can note that the authors spend very little time discussing "intelligence," and report no actual measures of intelligence; in fact, the studies were set up to compare individuals who primarily use analytic cognition with those who use social-emotional cognition--and spend much more of the article focusing on different kinds of social-emotional cognition and the relationship to belief than on the differences between analytic and social-emotional cognition.
The primary statement in the article about intelligence is: "There is mounting evidence, both correlational and causal, which demonstrates that analytic thinking (as measured by tests of intelligence and critical thinking) discourages the acceptance of religious and spiritual beliefs [1–7]." This is a citation of other papers/published research, not a statement about this study. In this study, no measures of intelligence were used, only analytic problem solving. Individuals in the study who scored better on the analytic problem solving tests tended to 1) score lower on belief, and 2) display a lack of empathy for others, along with a lack of moral concern. Individuals who scored lower on the analytic problem solving tended to 1) display more empathy for others, and 2) an even stronger tendency to express moral concern.
Other research, they note, has demonstrated that an individual can be induced to be more or less analytic, and conversely, more or less empathetic and morally concerned, through "priming," that is, setting the research situation so that the participants are more inclined to use analytic or social-emotional cognition.
Their model of brain functioning is based on the idea of two "circuits" in the brain that essentially exclude/repress the operation of the other: an analytic circuit, and a social-emotional circuit; when a person uses one, it represses the function of the other, so that it is difficult to do both at once. Most people can shift from one to the other, but it is suspected that individuals tend to operate in one mode or the other--the authors find evidence of gender differences.
While the studies do have statistically significant results, the explanatory power is limited: it appears that the hypothesized conflicting interaction between these two brain systems can account for between a sixth and third of the differences between individuals (the results varied in each of the 8 reported studies).
The authors report as their conclusion to the paper:
"Broader Significance
These results reported here present a challenge to a number of theoretical accounts of religious belief, especially those which emphasize a link between religious and spiritual beliefs and the perception of agency [8, 11, 16, 17, 22]. The present findings put religious and spiritual beliefs in a new light by suggesting that they are not so much linked to the perception of agency as they are broadly to moral concern, and in particular empathic concern. In line with this view, a number of theologians and religious scholars have claimed that compassion is a central theme that unites many religions [117, 118]. While further work is needed to establish causal links, it is plausible both that religious thinking increases moral concern, and that individuals who possess greater levels of moral concern are more inclined to identify with religious and spiritual worldviews."
The primary statement in the article about intelligence is: "There is mounting evidence, both correlational and causal, which demonstrates that analytic thinking (as measured by tests of intelligence and critical thinking) discourages the acceptance of religious and spiritual beliefs [1–7]." This is a citation of other papers/published research, not a statement about this study. In this study, no measures of intelligence were used, only analytic problem solving. Individuals in the study who scored better on the analytic problem solving tests tended to 1) score lower on belief, and 2) display a lack of empathy for others, along with a lack of moral concern. Individuals who scored lower on the analytic problem solving tended to 1) display more empathy for others, and 2) an even stronger tendency to express moral concern.
Other research, they note, has demonstrated that an individual can be induced to be more or less analytic, and conversely, more or less empathetic and morally concerned, through "priming," that is, setting the research situation so that the participants are more inclined to use analytic or social-emotional cognition.
Their model of brain functioning is based on the idea of two "circuits" in the brain that essentially exclude/repress the operation of the other: an analytic circuit, and a social-emotional circuit; when a person uses one, it represses the function of the other, so that it is difficult to do both at once. Most people can shift from one to the other, but it is suspected that individuals tend to operate in one mode or the other--the authors find evidence of gender differences.
While the studies do have statistically significant results, the explanatory power is limited: it appears that the hypothesized conflicting interaction between these two brain systems can account for between a sixth and third of the differences between individuals (the results varied in each of the 8 reported studies).
The authors report as their conclusion to the paper:
"Broader Significance
These results reported here present a challenge to a number of theoretical accounts of religious belief, especially those which emphasize a link between religious and spiritual beliefs and the perception of agency [8, 11, 16, 17, 22]. The present findings put religious and spiritual beliefs in a new light by suggesting that they are not so much linked to the perception of agency as they are broadly to moral concern, and in particular empathic concern. In line with this view, a number of theologians and religious scholars have claimed that compassion is a central theme that unites many religions [117, 118]. While further work is needed to establish causal links, it is plausible both that religious thinking increases moral concern, and that individuals who possess greater levels of moral concern are more inclined to identify with religious and spiritual worldviews."
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
People who have faith . . . are not as smart as others
Simply a wrong notion.
Regards
Simply a wrong notion.
Regards
Which entails that most people with faith are less smart. Necesssarily. For there is no God who is, or was, believed by the majority of people with faith.
Ciao
- viole
Imposing that something does not exist just because it can't be seen or proven to exist has something to do with being smart too
Imposing that something does not exist just because it can't be seen or proven to exist has something to do with being smart too
True. But my reasoning is not judgemental, but purely logical.
If less smart means believing in things that are not true, and viceversa, (your statement), then most believers are less smart. To make an example, do you think it complies with your criterium of smartness to believe that Jesus is One third of God or that Zeus exists?
Ciao
- viole
You said it yourself, most believers, not all. You're admitting that some believers are smarter
As for your question... never said they don't exit
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
The problem arises when correlating intelligence or lack thereof with religiosity as though they exist in a vaccuum. There is also a correlation that shows the less educated a population, the more strongly religious it seems to be. Gaps in knowledge are filled with god. The more understanding you have of the world, the fewer gaps there are to wedge god into. This is a lack of education, not a lack of intelligence.
You said it yourself, most believers, not all. You're admitting that some believers are smarter
As for your question... never said they don't exit
I never implied anything of the sort. I said that most believers are necessarily not smart,according to your statement. That does not entail that the rest are. It is just not the case that they are necessarily not smart, but they could still be. Statistics is not on your side, I am afraid
Ciao
- viole
I never implied anything of the sort. I said that most believers are necessarily not smart,according to your statement. That does not entail that the rest are. It is just not the case that they are necessarily not smart, but they could still be. Statistics is not on your side, I am afraid
Ciao
- viole
The same goes with non believers. My statement does imply maybe maybe not for both sides
*keeps searching for those statistics that so far there doesn't seem to be any*
The same goes with non believers. My statement does imply maybe maybe not for both sides
Who knows? At least we all seem to agree on the main character of God. His lack of existence. Apophatic atheology, so to speak.
You made those statistics. For you original statement entails, out of simple logic, the non smartness of the vast majority of theists, today and in the past. And that is statistically relevant.
I am not saying I agree with the conclusion. But that it necessarily follows from your premise.
Ciao
- viole
Nah, people are people. Having faith has nothing to do with their smartness. Smartness is an individual trait, not a faith related trait
What I remember was the opposite! I could be wrong tho. I have bad memory.
The statistics I made with "maybe this maybe that"? I'm not smart enough to make such statistics
I'm not saying I agree with you, but I sure respect your view in it and thank you for it
What I remember was the opposite! I could be wrong tho. I have bad memory.
The statistics I made with "maybe this maybe that"? I'm not smart enough to make such statistics
I'm not saying I agree with you, but I sure respect your view in it and thank you for it
Nah, people are people. Having faith has nothing to do with their smartness. Smartness is an individual trait, not a faith related trait
Obviously, since I was a believer most of my adult life
Ciao
- iole
