religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

[Audie]

I never really use the word common sense, but it seems to describe by the wisest choice. However, the problem in political decisions, or ones in morality, is that there may be multiple valid answers. What's one man's trash is another's treasure. Similarly, difference cultures, groups and individuals have numerous ideas of what's best.
So, I'm not sure how one could measure this.

One serious hard line yecster I ran into was always
about common sense. One of his common sense
observations was that all the glacial striae to be found
from the ice age are what they appear to be,
but, not from glaciers as such. The flood, you see,
dragged ice floes and...

There could have been no continental glaciation because,
glaciers only move down hill. And ice does not flow.

He was a priceless source of such insights.
All gained not by study by but via the simple
expedient of using common sense. And it led
him to understandings of arcane Truth beyond
the capacity of any devilish "researcher".

 

[ecco]

Theres lots of information about evidence for a flood.

You almost got that right. Almost.

There's lots of information about evidence for many localized floods.
There is no evidence for a global flood.
There are vast amounts of evidence proving there was no global flood 6000-10,000 years ago.

 

[ecco]

In my general perspective, i see atheists as the most irrational, not the theists.

Well, let's see.

There are billions of people believing in different gods. Rational thought tells us that they cannot all be right.

There are millions of Christians believing in different ways to revere their God. Rational thought tells us that they cannot all be right.

 

[Audie]

Well, let's see.

There are billions of people believing in different gods. Rational thought tells us that they cannot all be right.

There are millions of Christians believing in different ways to revere their God. Rational thought tells us that they cannot all be right.

Rational thought does not tell each of them they got
lucky and chose the right one.

 

[Audie]

In my general perspective, i see atheists as the most irrational, not the theists.

We do not doubt that it is your "general perspective",
which would bring very little on the open market,

Which of these theists do you find to be most rational?
religious ritual - Google Search:

religious ritual - Google Search:

 

[Augustus]

Indeed, may speculate and say there is a motivation reason why this is the case... I'd like to think it'll be far better to find ways to improve these studies than dismiss.

You don't really need to speculate that it is, it is up to the experimenter to demonstrate that it isn't. I've no evidence either way, but I'm not the one making a scientific claim.

I'm not sure a study like this can ever really be particularly useful though.

It can make a claim that 'Americans who self-identify as less religious score higher in low stakes IQ tests', but demonstrating "religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence" is a much more difficult proposition.

The degree to which such findings would be consistent across cultures is certainly questionable. If such trends differed across cultures then making generalisations could be problematic.

Also, given that IQ tests don't measure intelligence, just ability to do low stakes IQ tests (which also don't necessarily translate well across cultures), I'm not sure what the overall value of such studies is.

Ah, I see. You could have intelligent people who are doing things for selfish reasons or altruistic reasons but it backfires. Assuming they are intelligent, in analytic thinking anyway, I don't think it means much unless it's put to good use. Intelligence, in this sense, is good when working with complex ideas, which of course can be useful. Though I don't think intelligence determines if it's a good idea.

Personally, I don't think any definition of intelligence that has nothing to do with the ability to tell a good idea from a bad one is particularly useful. This is why "intelligence" tests that have nothing to do with the real world application of knowledge in complex, long term, high variance conditions that we live in are fundamentally flawed imo.

 

[Nakosis]

Hmmm.

I don't know about that...
Geniouses famously have their genious reflected in IQ test results, while many of them were notoriously dreadful in school - in part because of their genious, and sometimes simply because of them being to rebelious or whatever. Einstein comes to mind.

100 IQ is normal or average. It may be going to far to either extreme makes scholastic studies a problem.

 

[ecco]

Which of these theists do you find to be most rational?
religious ritual - Google Search:

Most of the pictures seen are testament to the irrationality of religion.

 

[Audie]

Most of the pictures seen are testament to the irrationality of religion.

Oh.

 

[Jollybear]

Why not say it straight out: "are you just as ignorant and
intellectually dishonest as the creos you criticize"?

I suppose if the bible seemed to say that the earth is
hollow, that you guys would all be insisting that it is.

Here is a question for you. Do you think that every single
one of t he tens of thousands of researchers from dozens
of fields of study could possibly have missed ever finding
even one datum point for a "flood" if there had been
such an event?

Do you find it odd that only one subset of christians
who choose a certain way of interpreting the bible
are able to detect "flood evidence", and know more
than all the scientists on earth?

Take you, for example. Do you "know" there was
a flood?

I asked you a question first. Do you read any of the stuff from scientists who believe in the flood? Or from geologists who believe the earth is young?

 

[Jollybear]

Why?

Why are atheists more irrational?

Let me list them.

1, they dont answer alot of questions directly. Depends on the atheist though too. But, its happened alot ive experienced.

2, they mostly preach that they are rational and logical and pump that evidence is always on there side. But when you question them more closely, that rational goes out the window.

3, they ad hom religious folk quite alot in different ways. Of course im saying most atheists, but not all.

And a 4th i cant think off the top of my head.

 

[Jollybear]

I suppose we should go easy on him, but, it is a bit
thick for him to be saying I am intellectually dishonest and
irrational.

I think Clint had some sort of saying about how a man
outta know his limitations.

Yes, you need to go easy on me because im right and your not.

I on the otherhand am going easy on you because im right and your not.

 

[ecco]

Do you read any of the stuff from scientists who believe in the flood? Or from geologists who believe the earth is young?

Which scientists, specifically geologists, believe in The Flood and that the earth is young.

I'm not aware of any.

 

[charlie sc]

You don't really need to speculate that it is, it is up to the experimenter to demonstrate that it isn't. I've no evidence either way, but I'm not the one making a scientific claim.

I'm not sure a study like this can ever really be particularly useful though.

This is where speculation is quite important in correlation studies is, especially when the cause is mysterious. Actually, it's called interpreting the data You may have noticed that Zuckerman gives a rather negative, but logical, interpretive stance of the data. These studies are useful because we can understand why this is the case. Interpreting the data and giving a speculation means someone can go out, or myself, and perform a study to include this variable.

It can make a claim that 'Americans who self-identify as less religious score higher in low stakes IQ tests', but demonstrating "religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence" is a much more difficult proposition.

The degree to which such findings would be consistent across cultures is certainly questionable. If such trends differed across cultures then making generalisations could be problematic.

True, in the meta-analysis limitations section they admitted this. They, therefore, say they don't know how much culture had an influence. Most of the participants were from USA, so that's a potential limitation as well.
If you want, I can see if there's anymore recent studies that have done included these variables in depth?

Also, given that IQ tests don't measure intelligence, just ability to do low stakes IQ tests (which also don't necessarily translate well across cultures), I'm not sure what the overall value of such studies is.

So, this is how they defined intelligence in the meta-analysis.

Following Gottfredson (1997), we define intelligence as
the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly,
comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from
experience” (p. 13). This definition of intelligence is often
referred to as analytic intelligence or the g factor—the first
factor that emerges in factor analyses of IQ subtests (e.g.,
Carroll, 1993; Spearman, 1904). Other newly identified
types of intelligence, such as creative intelligence (Sternberg,
1999, 2006) or emotional intelligence (Mayer, Caruso, &
Salovey, 1999), are out of the scope of the present work
because the available studies on the relation between intelligence
and religiosity examined only analytic intelligence.

The studies they used for the meta-analysis used these measures to test IQ.

Studies included in the present meta-analysis used a variety
of intelligence and religiosity measures. Most of the intelligence
tests are widely used (e.g., Wechsler tests, Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test, etc.). A subgroup of studies used
university entrance exams (UEEs; e.g., SAT, GRE), which are
highly correlated with standard IQ measures (correlations in
the .60-.80 range are typical for college students). Indeed,
these tests are often viewed as measures of general intelligence
(Frey & Detterman, 2004; Koenig, Frey, & Detterman,
2008). We also included studies that administered tests of cognitive
abilities (e.g., synonym tests, working memory tests)
that could reasonably serve as proxies for IQ measures.

If you want, we can examine some(the meta-analysis gives their names) of these tests in detail to see if they reflect the definition they gave. There is some criticism against the idea of IQ, including IQ tests. So, if you want to say they're not valid in measuring intelligence then I'd be happy to accommodate you. However, that still begs the question why these tests rate lower on these measures. I noticed one was for, "Mensa membership," lol.

Personally, I don't think any definition of intelligence that has nothing to do with the ability to tell a good idea from a bad one is particularly useful. This is why "intelligence" tests that have nothing to do with the real world application of knowledge in complex, long term, high variance conditions that we live in are fundamentally flawed imo.

I mostly agree, except on real world application stuff. For instance, mathematics is incredibly good at measuring real world physics.

 

[charlie sc]

Why are atheists more irrational?

Let me list them.

1, they dont answer alot of questions directly. Depends on the atheist though too. But, its happened alot ive experienced.

2, they mostly preach that they are rational and logical and pump that evidence is always on there side. But when you question them more closely, that rational goes out the window.

3, they ad hom religious folk quite alot in different ways. Of course im saying most atheists, but not all.

And a 4th i cant think off the top of my head.

I see, thanks

Being an atheist myself, I'd like to think I'm rational but I'm sure everyone thinks they're rational.
I appreciate that you gave a good reason and a reason.

 

[Audie]

Yes, you need to go easy on me because im right and your not.

I on the otherhand am going easy on you because im right and your not.

Which scientists, specifically geologists, believe in The Flood and that the earth is young.

I'm not aware of any.

Dr. K Wise is a paleontologist -which includes being a
geologist-and a yec.

His position is that if all the evidence in the universe is
against against yec, he will still be
yec as that is what the bible seems to say.

This is a notable example of the intellectual dishonesty
required of an educated floodie.

Who knows how many scientists are yecs.

The number who have presented supporting
data, is zero.

IF someone did have data showing there must
have been a flood, or that ToE is false, it
would be a matter of tremendous excitement
and interest, Nobel for sure, for the greatest
discovery ever.

Comparable to finding a real flying saucer,
or the Lost Continent of Atlantis.

Perhaps our cheerful ursine would care to provide
some of the data he must suppose supports yec.

Or at least provide a link to what he presumably thinks
must exist.

 

[ecco]

Dr. K Wise is a paleontologist -which includes being a
geologist-and a yec.

His position is that if all the evidence in the universe is
against against yec, he will still be
yec as that is what the bible seems to say.

This is a notable example of the intellectual dishonesty
required of an educated floodie.

Who knows how many scientists are yecs.

The number who have presented supporting
data, is zero.

IF someone did have data showing there must
have been a flood, or that ToE is false, it
would be a matter of tremendous excitement
and interest, Nobel for sure, for the greatest
discovery ever.

Comparable to finding a real flying saucer,
or the Lost Continent of Atlantis.

Perhaps our cheerful ursine would care to provide
some of the data he must suppose supports yec.

Or at least provide a link to what he presumably thinks
must exist.

Thank you. I wonder if Jollybear will be able to come up with any.

After all, I did ask for geologists.

 

[Audie]

Thank you. I wonder if Jollybear will be able to come up with any.

After all, I did ask for geologists.

One will do. An amateur will do, for me. All anyone
needs is suitable data.

Marine fossils on Everest do not hold up as flood evidence.

 

[Cooky]

I can't believe this trash made it to featured status.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you think religiosity and/or strength of religious belief negatively correlates with IQ?

Well, I'm not going necessarily accept that conclusion without delving pretty deep into the studies you claim say this (and I'm not really inclined to put enough effort in to actually do that).

However, if a correlation does exist, it's useful to remember that:

- IQ doesn't really measure overall intelligence.
- IQ isn't a single measure. A "120" on one test isn't necessarily a "120" on a different test.
- because of issues with how IQ tests have been formulated, there's a correlation between culture and average IQ.
- there's also a correlation between culture and religion.

And @Quintessence made an excellent point: "religion" isn't one particular characteristic. For that matter, neither is intelligence. If the effect is real, then we should be able to drill down and identify which characteristic of religion is affecting which aspects of intelligence.