So apparently religious people are dumber than atheists.

[ChristineES]

Well it appears that it was done reviewing other studies.

I can see this article working if it is addressing the religious who adhere to strict beliefs (YEC and the like), but I don't think it would apply to those who have a more liberal belief and even to some with more conservative beliefs.

If they are only testing those individuals with more, er, fundamentalist beliefs, then they won't have an accurate study. I am hardly a fundamentalist, myself. I don't know of many Christians who are. But since I don't know the methods the study used, I can hardly debate against it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For one thing, they don't test everyone, they wouldn't be able to.

They don't need to. Done properly, studies like the one in question (which can't be done properly yet) can infer from samples. Let's say someone gives me a bunch (say, a million) of pages from books. I have no idea what books were used nor any idea whether each page is from a book sampled only once or that in reality all the pages are from the same book but that the page numbers, the language the book was translated into, etc., have changed.

Now imagine that I all these million pages are spread out over the floor. A million pages, especially factoring translations of the same works, is a tiny, infinitesimal sample of the total number of pages. Yet if I start picking up page after page after page, and at most every 10th page and at least every 3rd page is from Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, or some translation of it, and furthermore that no other pages are from either that text (or a translation of it) nor from a text that any other page is from, I can infer that long before looking at anywhere near the full million pages that the probability is almost certain that this collection of pages is mostly from Essai philosophique sur les probabilités.

If I randomly (and carefully randomly) sample from people across cultures and this world, I can do the same. If I control for language, for SES, for exposure to literature, for orality, and for any number of other variables, and I still find that certain neurophysiological properties of the nervous system hold true, I don't need to sample all people.

Quite literally, you are suggesting we can't know whether a human has a heart or not based on the fact that we haven't checked every human.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If they are only testing those individuals with more, er, fundamentalist beliefs, then they won't have an accurate study. I am hardly a fundamentalist, myself. I don't know of many Christians who are. But since I don't know the methods the study used, I can hardly debate against it.

I know semi-fundamentalists (people at my church to a degree are). I would say that they are not at the pinnacle of intelligence, with some possibly below average (but that is due to their social circumstances).

They are however intelligent in other aspects.

I would take a wild stab and say that ones religiousity is impacted by ones social status, which in turn impacts ones access to education.

So the poorer or more hardship based your life was/is the more likely you'll be religious and in turn the more likely you didn't receive a great religion.

As your circumstances change, you may still hold on to your religion but it may change how you look at it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't think atheists are necessarily "smarter" than theists. But I do believe that those who use objective reasoning are more likely to be atheists or weak theists.

 

[ChristineES]

They don't need to. Done properly, studies like the one in question (which can't be done properly yet) can infer from samples. Let's say someone gives me a bunch (say, a million) of pages from books. I have no idea what books were used nor any idea whether each page is from a book sampled only once or that in reality all the pages are from the same book but that the page numbers, the language the book was translated into, etc., have changed.

Now imagine that I all these million pages are spread out over the floor. A million pages, especially factoring translations of the same works, is a tiny, infinitesimal sample of the total number of pages. Yet if I start picking up page after page after page, and at most every 10th page and at least every 3rd page is from Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, or some translation of it, and furthermore that no other pages are from either that text (or a translation of it) nor from a text that any other page is from, I can infer that long before looking at anywhere near the full million pages that the probability is almost certain that this collection of pages is mostly from Essai philosophique sur les probabilités.

If I randomly (and carefully randomly) sample from people across cultures and this world, I can do the same. If I control for language, for SES, for exposure to literature, for orality, and for any number of other variables, and I still find that certain neurophysiological properties of the nervous system hold true, I don't need to sample all people.

Quite literally, you are suggesting we can't know whether a human has a heart or not based on the fact that we haven't checked every human.

I am sorry but I just don't agree. I never have agreed with these studies, polls, etc. that only test .01% of a population (I know that is not the real percentage). Not just this study but any study at all.

 

[Willamena]

I am sorry but I just don't agree. I never have agreed with these studies, polls, etc. that only test .01% of a population (I know that is not the real percentage). Not just this study but any study at all.

The statistics are only as good as the randomness of their test samples, and it's difficult to construct good randomness.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The statistics are only as good as the randomness of their test samples, and it's difficult to construct good randomness.

Which is why there are many ways to do it, as well as basing it off of what you have.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I am sorry but I just don't agree. I never have agreed with these studies, polls, etc. that only test .01% of a population (I know that is not the real percentage). Not just this study but any study at all.

Well that's how almost every study works though. Mind you the title of this might not be what the actual title of the study was. And It just seems to be articles about the study and not the actual study itself.

Usually when you take away the sensationlism and read the actual study you see the methods they use and from that you can determine how accurate the correlation is.

Because that is what it is. A correlation not a cause.

 

[ChristineES]

Well that's how almost every study works though. Mind you the title of this might not be what the actual title of the study was. And It just seems to be articles about the study and not the actual study itself.

Usually when you take away the sensationalism and read the actual study you see the methods they use and from that you can determine how accurate the correlation is.

Because that is what it is. A correlation not a cause.

I am not too worried about it. I like debating but it doesn't mean I take any of this very seriously. Maybe I will take a look at this study and many other various studies, but right now, I have no reason to.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am sorry but I just don't agree.

But do you know what you are disagreeing with? That is, are you aware of the logic underlying sampling for such studies (by that I mean the mathematical proofs)?

I never have agreed with these studies, polls, etc. that only test .01% of a population

Have ever received any medical treatment for any reason? Have you eaten food because you were told it was healthy? Medical studies, like so many studies we rely on or must rely on as they become EPA or FDA laws, are all based on the same logic and all use the sampling you don't agree with. Were you correct, we have no basis to assume that a medicine isn't lethal for most of the population because they are never tested on most of the population.

Not just this study but any study at all.

The food you eat, the water you drink, the transportation systems you use, the advertisements you see, any OTC or prescribed medication you've taken, and the entirety of research behind mental health issues all are based on studies that use this logic. Many don't use it well, because they were never taught more than what the tests are for and a bit of the underlying logic, and thus do not know why particular methods make particular statistical tests useless. But without this logic, we'd be without medicine, we'd have foods covered in pesticides that kill, therapy wouldn't exist, and most of us would be dead.

 

[Breathe]

Nah, I consider studies like this to be a load of bollocks by a few atheists who want to mentally masturbate their own egos, so they can congratulate each other about how enlightened and smart they all are.

For one, very possible (and probable) sampling bias.
Two, education level varies in people - is it being assessed correctly? (I doubt it)
Three, religiosity (coaapring a fundy to a suburbanite liberal?)
Four, when relgiosity is the norm, there will be less intelligent people as theists, and vice-versa if irreligious, because they aren't thinking about it.
And five, you have to believe in one, measurable intelligence. I don't think it works.

I've said many times that where I live, irreligiosity is the norm. And some of the stupidest people you will meet are irreligious. They can say some of the stupidest stuff ever, that'd make even a fundy say "don't be silly".



If you become an atheist, does your IQ raise?
And if you become a theist, does your IQ lower?
What a load of bollocks.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Nah, I consider studies like this to be a load of bollocks by a few atheists who want to mentally masturbate their own egos, so they can congratulate each other about how enlightened and smart they all are.

Yay .... if staff members can say this what can I do but applaud

I've said many times that where I live, irreligiosity is the norm. And some of the stupidest people you will meet are irreligious. They can say some of the stupidest stuff ever, that'd make even a fundy say "don't be silly".

sadly it is not just where you live !.... out here I would say that the sheep have more intelligence than the masses .

If you become an atheist, does your IQ raise?
And if you become a theist, does your IQ lower?
What a load of bollocks.

please please you must help me here , I am but a sImple theist I do not understand , what is an IQ , ....?

 

[Breathe]

Yay .... if staff members can say this what can I do but applaud

sadly it is not just where you live !.... out here I would say that the sheep have more intelligence than the masses .

Yep, that's what I mean.

If a study was done in the UK where we live, I expect that it'd be vastly different.

Plus, there's also the counter-claim that more education = more religious.

Study: More educated tend to be more religious, by some measures – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Sunstone]

I think the question of whether there are correlations between beliefs and intelligence is an interesting one. I'd like to see studies that are much more specific than to merely look at "religious people". I'd like to see, for instance, a study that measured the intelligences of a large group of people, all of whom report believing in the Virgin Birth, or free markets, or evolution. I wouldn't expect to find too many strong correlations, though. But that in itself would be significant to understanding human nature.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think the question of whether there are correlations between beliefs and intelligence is an interesting one. I'd like to see studies that are much more specific than to merely look at "religious people". I'd like to see, for instance, a study that measured the intelligences of a large group of people, all of whom report believing in the Virgin Birth, or free markets, or evolution. I wouldn't expect to find too many strong correlations, though. But that in itself would be significant to understanding human nature.

You think there is a correlation between cynicism and intelligence?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I've uploaded the study to my an academic account I have, but I would prefer not to post a direct link to it publicly (as I understand it, there is nothing wrong with sharing research even if it's not your own, but posting a permanent link to someone else's study may be breaking the rules). For those interested in reading the study, just say so in this thread, in a PM, or on my visitor message page and I will provide the link.

Also, this is exactly why I hate meta-studies. Meta-analyses can have flawless experimental methods (at least as these are described in such a study) and still be totally wrong. Many problems can be due to accidents (missing a relevant study or reporting one thing as x when it was really y, and so on), to poor practices (e.g., describing the literature search as meticulous when really somebody took 10 minutes to grab some studies), and to just plain bias (e.g., ignoring studies that should be counted and including those which shouldn't in order to artificially enhance the results).

Often enough, then, the only way to find out if a meta-analysis was done poorly is to replicate the search procedures and to read the included (and not-included) studies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Real atheists are too smart to flaunt their superior intelligence in the faces of lesser brethren & sistern.
Therefore, any supposed atheist who appears smart isn't really an atheist....just some status seeking poser.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've ask about 10 doctors if they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, savior of mankind, they all said yes. I have'nt ask any lawyers.

Of course, they follow Satan instead.

 

[Sunstone]

You think there is a correlation between cynicism and intelligence?

I've no idea, but the question would interest me.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Of course, they follow Satan instead.

I don't know why people assume doctors are the pinnacle of intelligence....

Not saying that their intelligence isn't higher than the average population but they aren't geniuses.