So apparently religious people are dumber than atheists.

[Sunstone]

lol well once I can get my hand on the actual study I'll be able to know more about the sample sizes used, what hte actual hypothesis was, and what the actual conclusion was.

That reminds me. I'm in dire need of taking some time off to refresh my memory of logic, and to perhaps even learn some new things about it. I'm 56, my mind is going into decline, and it's been more than 30 years since I last really studied logic. I'm feeling the effects of my neglect these days.

 

[Sunstone]

Meh...as someone who works in a fairly challenging business field intellectually, I can tell you that whilst there are some brilliant minds in the business realm, the average businessman is not exactly an intellectual giant.

I think that's very true, now that you've mentioned it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

My favorite professor of logic simply struck me with how strict he was about such things. Of course, I expected him to be that way when, say, discussing a formal fallacy, but he once objected to me that my view that "all politicians are scoundrels" was a "dangerous generalization". And we were just making casual conversation! I loved him, though.

It's why I try to be very careful in any conversation I have with people. Generalizations can be very dangerous especially because to it may appear to the laymen who might not be able to differentiate (especially if they trust you due to your more "elite" status as educated) as the truth.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That reminds me. I'm in dire need of taking some time off to refresh my memory of logic, and to perhaps even learn some new things about it. I'm 56, my mind is going into decline, and it's been more than 30 years since I last really studied logic. I'm feeling the effects of my neglect these days.

I've barely scratched the tip of logic. Honestly a lot of the talks on here that they have when they start discussing the logic of x or y hurts my head. I sometimes wish they could dummy it down for us who don't have the background.

 

[Sunstone]

It's why I try to be very careful in any conversation I have with people. Generalizations can be very dangerous especially because to it may appear to the laymen who might not be able to differentiate (especially if they trust you due to your more "elite" status as educated) as the truth.

That's a great point! I've wondered about that very thing in relation to posting on RF. Do we have some kind of obligation to others to be careful in our reasoning because we might mislead anyone who assumes we know what we're talking about. Not that, in my case, I think there are many people who assume that I know what I'm talking about. But the question really interests me. It gets at, I think, a social and moral obligation that most of us might not feel we had.

 

[Sunstone]

I've barely scratched the tip of logic. Honestly a lot of the talks on here that they have when they start discussing the logic of x or y hurts my head. I sometimes which they could dummy it down for us who don't have the background.

I think some people, such as my mother -- and probably you yourself -- have a natural inclination to logical reasoning. In the case of my mother, she has never learned the terminology, but when she was younger, she could run circles around most people.

 

[ChristineES]

That's a great point! I've wondered about that very thing in relation to posting on RF. Do we have some kind of obligation to others to be careful in our reasoning because we might mislead anyone who assumes we know what we're talking about. Not that, in my case, I think there are many people who assume that I know what I'm talking about. But the question really interests me. It gets at, I think, a social and moral obligation that most of us might not feel we had.

You must have watched Ronald Reagan when he was president. He'd be asked a question, he'd give a lengthy response and people were satisfied but never seemed to notice that he hadn't answered the question at all. If a president can fool people into thinking he knows what he is talking about, so can some of the people on the RF.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That's a great point! I've wondered about that very thing in relation to posting on RF. Do we have some kind of obligation to others to be careful in our reasoning because we might mislead anyone who assumes we know what we're talking about. Not that, in my case, I think there are many people who assume that I know what I'm talking about. But the question really interests me. It gets at, I think, a social and moral obligation that most of us might not feel we had.

I had a discussion with my friend last night whose working on this idea for spreading evidence to the mass public.

He pointed out that there are a group of people who will may not bother to look at the actual evidence and rather just go with what people tell them.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think some people, such as my mother -- and probably you yourself -- have a natural inclination to logical reasoning. In the case of my mother, she has never learned the terminology, but when she was younger, she could run circles around most people.

I do wish I could use the large words they use though. LIke when people use contingency, I know the laymen term means relying on. But I always feel that there is another meaning behind it when used in their discussions.

 

[Sunstone]

You must have watched Ronald Reagan when he was president. He'd be asked a question, he'd give a lengthy response and people were satisfied but never seemed to notice that he hadn't answered the question at all. If a president can fool people into thinking he knows what he is talking about, so can some of the people on the RF.

Reagan! Good analogy, Christine! He did fool a lot of people at the time, myself included. I never really believed he knew much, but I was fooled into thinking he was much less dangerous to my interests and the interests of most Americans than he really was.

As you might know, his aide, Roger Ailes, is credited with having been especially influential in teaching Reagan how to avoid telling the truth, Christine. Ailes is now the head of FOX News.

 

[Sunstone]

I had a discussion with my friend last night whose working on this idea for spreading evidence to the mass public.

He pointed out that there are a group of people who will may not bother to look at the actual evidence and rather just go with what people tell them.

I certainly hope he succeeds. That sounds like rewarding, albeit very difficult work.

 

[ChristineES]

Reagan! Good analogy, Christine! He did fool a lot of people at the time, myself included. I never really believed he knew much, but I was fooled into thinking he was much less dangerous to my interests and the interests of most Americans than he really was.

As you might know, his aide, Roger Ailes, is credited with having been especially influential in teaching Reagan how to avoid telling the truth, Christine. Ailes is now the head of FOX News.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[Sunstone]

I do wish I could use the large words they use though. LIke when people use contingency, I know the laymen term means relying on. But I always feel that there is another meaning behind it when used in their discussions.

I see what you're saying. The word "logic" itself has a precise definition to logicians, that it certainly doesn't have with most people.

 

[Sunstone]

Doesn't surprise me at all.

Nope. When you think about it, my friend, it might almost seem inevitable.

 

[Breathe]

This is kind of what I've been trying to say, but not as well as this, obviously.

I have my moments of sanity.

 

[Skwim]

Oh , how sad , to think so calld inteligent people waste time and money on carying out such surveys ???

''a real correlation to one's intelligence?''
impossible as their notion of inteligence can only be based upon their own limited understanding

''Do you think this study has any real merit?''
none what so ever

''I just wonder why such a study was made?
I immagine as is ususl some highly inteligent person wanted to justify their existence and walk away with a pay cheque for doing so
''What does it prove? ''
it proves that the person or persons writing it were just about inteligent enough to find some facts and figures that backed up their arquement , but unfortunately they were not inteligent enough to see the limited nature of such an exercise .

of course you are right to say that there are as many highly inteligent theists as there are atheists , .....we must consider also that many they woild deem to be theists or men and woman of faith who come from simple backgrounds , often their religion and beleifs are culturaly based and have not had the opertunity of the education many in the west have been fortunate enough to receive . on the other hand there are many atheists who are equaly culturaly conditioned in their beleifs despite their higher levels of education .

from where I stand there are many atheists who do not look beyond their culturaly conditioned norm , which strikes me as rather uninteligent !

''Is one's belief (or lack thereof) a real correlation to one's intelligence?''

it would very much depend upon whos conception of inteligence we are measuring this by ?

A bit piqued are we.

 

[idav]

I just wonder why such a study was made? What does it prove? What does it do, besides create more divide between believers and non-believers? What will happen when Redditors get a hold of it? There will be chaos! *sarcasm*

I have found over the years that intelligent people do also tend to have hope and faith, I know it's unbelievable.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I see what you're saying. The word "logic" itself has a precise definition to logicians, that it certainly doesn't have with most people.

Yup, like when scientist say theory and a regular person says theory.

 

[illykitty]

There's more people who are religious, bigger range of intelligence. Less people who are atheists and yes, it takes more effort and thinking to research and form your own opinions when a lot of people just stick with what they were born into. (But of course you do get some that are lazy and don't bother researching religions and end up assuming everyone theistic is a creationist fundie.)

However, if we look at these forums, plenty of people have done just that above and have reached different conclusions (theism, agnosticism or atheism). I don't think someone is more intelligent being an atheist but rather from doing their own research and forming their own opinion.

I'm hoping that most people who do this seriously wouldn't end up a creationist fundie.

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect some of the responses in this thread are overly defensive.