Intelligent People 'less Likely To Believe In God'

[florduh]

just off the top of my head I'd say that religious people with the same IQ numbers probably outnumber atheists a few thousand to one.

 

That statement is no doubt true, but with due respect, sheer numbers isn't the point at all. My assertion is that "sophisticated" people are more likely to not have a god belief than those with less education and exposure to different ideas and philosophies. How does that not make sense?

 

The only way it connects to intelligence per se is the fact that smarter people are more likely to be educated. Remember high school, where the guys taking shop class were headed for a job or trade school after graduation while the A students in English and Math were definitely college-bound?

 

I don't think it is a coincidence that we don't see guys with a 78 IQ espouse the virtues of evolution, but people like Richard Dawkins do. Nor do we see great minds from science and industry, the inventors and Nobel laureates demanding that Creationism be taught in the schools. That phenomenon is directly related to intelligence.

 

Religion is superstition with society's stamp of approval. Superstition is for the people who don't know any better. Smarter, better educated people do know better, but don't always choose rationality over emotion.

[R. S. Martin]

Scotter, in your OP I notice the very strong emphasis placed on authority. To the best of my ability, at this point of my research I conclude that this makes the difference between the religious and nonreligious. The religious person subscribes to the voice of authority while the skeptic cannot accept the voice of authority for its own sake. I know you read my rant about my professor a few months ago. That he cracked over my emphasis on the voice of authority took me by complete surprise and gave me astounding insight on what motivates the religious person.

 

 

Up till that moment I looked up to him as one of the most brilliant people alive--one of the greatest skeptics and most astute thinkers. I’m still trying to put the situation into context. Florduh, Post 2, about faith and logic—what I observed as a general rule among highly educated and sophisticated theologians was that they are just as capable to apply the rules of logic to their thinking as anyone else. However, they remain inside certain parameters. Whether or not those parameters fit into the larger universe is not the focus; they presuppose that it does via God. And, it occurs to me now, THAT is where the voice of authority comes into play.

 

 

I challenged the voice of authority that said God is who he says he is. That is why my prof cracked. This challenged the fragile film that held his reality intact with the rest of the universe.

 

 

Re emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence. I think the two need to be balanced equally as I discuss here.

 

 

The question I would offer with respect to the topic is: Is it intelligence that plays a role in non-belivers, or is it something that make non-believers uncomfortable without a "complete" understanding in any particular situation. (by "complete", I mean reasonable certainty)

 

 

 

Non-believe in what? I believe in a lot of stuff, just not in something for which there is no evidence. And no, there is no discomfort around the disbelief whatsoever. In fact, I am quite comfortable with my position. As a Christian you are likely to put that down to self-deception. So be it.

 

 

 

Ok, that's fine, but here is what I am seeing....first, we seek to become intelligent so to gain understanding, that is, monetary understanding......then, when we acquire that, to show how much understanding and/or intelligence we have gathered along the way, we start to gather stuff....and when we become aloofly intelligent, we go to acquire stuff, primarily art, ect. to show how superior our understanding is. Then, somehow, after the realization it isn't what we had understood to be so damn smart, we go back to the beginning........but then, I could be just an idoit...

 

 

 

Your understanding of intelligence is so alien to me that I’m not sure we’re even talking about the same thing. I learn for the sake of learning new information—NOT for material gain or social prestige. You sound like a thorough-going materialism.

[Heavenslaughing]

 

What he said.

 

 

And what he said.

 

I very much enjoy disagreeing with someone in one thread (Burnedout re. water as a human right--curious to see his response to the latest there) and agreeing wholeheartedly in another.

 

It's highly questionable that the measures used for intelligence are valid. They are measures for the kind of intellectual achievement rewarded in America, however, particularly in urban, post-industrial contexts. It could be argued that a sense of exclusion from these contexts, which are more secular and further removed from social relations perceived as traditional, leads to a stronger identification with establishing a mode of knowing and of maintaining dignity opposed to them. "Intelligence" need not necessarily enter the equation at all with the data in hand.

[OnceConvinced]

There are plenty of very intelligent people who are staunch in their religion. I can see several different reasons why they still remain "in the faith"

 

1) Indoctronation. Since birth (like myself). It's hard to throw out beliefs that are engrained from you since birth.

 

2) Mental gymnastics. The ability to find answers to back up your beliefs. Intelligent people are easier able to find reasons to believe. They can interpret scriptures in a way to back up their arguments a lot better than perhaps less intelligent people.

 

3) Lack of common sense. Intelligent people may be intelligent, but often lack common sense.

 

4) Stubborness. Another word for faith in my books. Have you ever noticed that the strongest Christians seem to be the most stubborn people? They won't budge on any issue, regardless of whether its to do with religion or not.

 

5) Ignorance. Just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they aren't ignorant on a lot things.

[MathGeek]

I tend to agree that intelligence must not be the marker if one is religious or not. Funny thing about perceptions: they always seem to fall at first glance. In all my discussions and debate with Christians, they have tended to have a timbre and tone that is respectful and rather intelligent. I would argue that many apologists and theologians are very reasoned people that are not afraid to tell any skeptic that they need overwhelming proof to give the challenge to Christianity any merit. That simple bit of evidence counters the assertion put forth by the academic in the OP.

 

I think religion is not about intelligence, but it is about either appeasing some metaphysical being or satiating some kind of spiritual concerns, or with the case of Christianity, a combination thereof. I am not versed in any other spiritual discipline, but my experience with Christianity has lead me to this conclusion. While it takes a modicum of intelligence or no intelligence to be religious, this argument has led me to believe that the existence of religion alone COULD suggest the existence of metaphysical reality and a metaphysical presence. However proportional the relation is between faith and intelligence is largely irrelevant to some degree. It only leads to further debate about the nature of reality itself.

[Ouroboros]

I'm late in the game on this thread, and without reading much of the other responses, my opinion is that religion can make you dumber. (Notice, "can", in the sense it doesn't have to, but sometimes it does) But it's not limited to religion. Even non-religious ideologies can restrict ones view on life, nature and science, and hence become dumber.

 

The reason why this is happening is not that the faculties of the brain is missing, but rather it's a voluntary limitations of the thought process. It's like creating patches of "do not enter" zones in the brain. For instance, if the religious view a person has say that life started by a miracle, then the person limits himself to see how evolution works. He he dumbing himself. But if he would let go of his religious view and allow his brain to process the input, he would become smarter.

 

I saw Antlerman made a comment about correlation vs causation, and I agree that it doesn't have to be that intelligence is the cause of belief or non-belief, but the problem however is that if they're both correlated then there must be an underlying cause. If they're not to each-other causative but correlated, then for correlation to exist they both must be commonly caused (unless it's pure random chance every time - which doesn't make sense if statistics show a consistent pattern) So what underlying cause would that be? My opinion is a dogmatic or categorical thinking. People who get stuck in one way of thinking and refuse to be open for new possibilities, or be honest to themselves (which is my mantra on this website) and even realize they can be wrong. And this apply to any kind of "idea" or "opinion". We all do this. We get stuck in a track of thought and opinion and sometimes it takes a big shakeup to get out of it. But during the time we're idea-stuck, we limit our thoughts and it affects our intelligence in that area (if we're wrong it makes us dumber, if we're right we look smarter). So the way to avoid this is to be dynamic and allow oneself to be wrong.

 

This also means that if the specific dogma a person has doesn't effect another area of science or knowledge, that person can be very intelligent in the non-patched area. For instance, a creationist can be very dumb regarding evolution and biology, but at the same time very smart in math. That's why we can see a lot of intelligent people be religious at the same time, because their particular faith might not interfere with the areas they're smart in.

 

(I know, the grammar isn't that great in this post. I just threw it together to get my 2 pieces out...)

[Antlerman]

I'm late in the game on this thread, and without reading much of the other responses, my opinion is that religion can make you dumber. (Notice, "can", in the sense it doesn't have to, but sometimes it does) But it's not limited to religion. Even non-religious ideologies can restrict ones view on life, nature and science, and hence become dumber.

I think what may be helpful in this is to clarify exactly what is meant by someone's IQ or intelligence and being "dumb". Are they related? I do not believe that religion, TV, or anything like that can lower your IQ. Your IQ is your IQ, and it can only vary slightly in testing by a few points, but not say take you down from 120 to 95. That's not possible short of a brain injury, in which case it would be permanent.

 

Being "dumb" is a subjective value assignment which is more a pejorative word to describe being ignorant. Someone can have an IQ of 135 and be completely ignorant of science, and someone could exclaim "Boy, is he dumb!", but they would be incorrect if they meant he was unintelligent. They should say, "Wow! Is he ever ignorant!" That would be accurate. If that person found themselves in a JW church for 10 years, their IQ would remain 135, even if they were completely ignorant of anything outside the walls of Kingdom Hall.

 

Edit: Self correction. This is generally true after the age of 7 your IQ is an indicator of what it will be for the rest of your life, but they say it can vary as many as 20 points over a period of a lifetime in some cases, however the factors of this may be due to increased abstract problem solving abilities, to getting better at taking IQ tests themselves (which technically isn't increasing the IQ, or the other direction with emotional problems; or they may have had emotional problems where their IQ was suppressed, and with medication you would see a marked increase, etc. Link: http://www.brainy-child.com/expert/iq-score.shtml

 

The reason why this is happening is not that the faculties of the brain is missing, but rather it's a voluntary limitations of the thought process. It's like creating patches of "do not enter" zones in the brain. For instance, if the religious view a person has say that life started by a miracle, then the person limits himself to see how evolution works. He he dumbing himself. But if he would let go of his religious view and allow his brain to process the input, he would become smarter.

IQ is like voltage. It's a potential to do work, but doesn't do anything without a task being laid across its path. Consider a problem to solve like a load in an electronic circuit. If you have the same task to perform and you have two different energy sources, one that has 20 12 volt batteries teamed together in series, and one that is a single AAA battery, which one has the potential to take on a greater circuit load and do more work as a result?

 

Now you can have that team of batteries sitting there with only one tiny little light bulb attached to it, which the AAA battery can also handle, but what you have is not a loss of potential, but an underutilized battery. That's what happens in some religious contexts to some who have higher IQs. They are under-challenged. What relates to what you said, is that if those batteries sit underutilized for long enough, then they start to get some corrosion on them and need to be cleaned off and the contacts reseated.

 

In my case, on an emotional level this was frustrating for me and I needed to take on something more challenging. However, others with high IQs might be perfectly content emotionally not using their potentials in that area. It doesn't rank as high of a personal question to them as it did with me, and they apply their IQ potentials elsewhere. And that's fine. I wanted a greater understanding in this area, and the offerings of the church were overly simplistic to me. To someone else that doesn't look to religion for understanding on that level, but rather to fill some other social need, for instance, the answers are sufficient enough for them to satisfy that area in their life, or they may find some other religious context that does offer satisfaction intellectually if that's what's important to them. It has nothing to do with their intelligence.

 

In a simple word why I left Christianity, it's because it didn't work for me. It wasn't because I necessarily had a higher IQ than them. It was really finding the emotional fortitude to make a break to pursue my potentials looking beyond the doctrinal handbooks of the church.

 

This is another of my reasons why I consider it very limited in scope to equate religious belief with IQs. You realize there a chapels on University campuses such as Yale, Harvard, and Princeton that students actually attend? Religious belief and superstitious thinking are not directly the same things. There is a difference between a snake handler and those kinds of religiously minded people.

 

I saw Antlerman made a comment about correlation vs causation, and I agree that it doesn't have to be that intelligence is the cause of belief or non-belief, but the problem however is that if they're both correlated then there must be an underlying cause. If they're not to each-other causative but correlated, then for correlation to exist they both must be commonly caused (unless it's pure random chance every time - which doesn't make sense if statistics show a consistent pattern) So what underlying cause would that be? My opinion is a dogmatic or categorical thinking. People who get stuck in one way of thinking and refuse to be open for new possibilities, or be honest to themselves (which is my mantra on this website) and even realize they can be wrong. And this apply to any kind of "idea" or "opinion". We all do this. We get stuck in a track of thought and opinion and sometimes it takes a big shakeup to get out of it. But during the time we're idea-stuck, we limit our thoughts and it affects our intelligence in that area (if we're wrong it makes us dumber, if we're right we look smarter). So the way to avoid this is to be dynamic and allow oneself to be wrong.

This directly relates to EQ. People no matter how intelligent become emotionally attached to things and will act irrationally about letting it go, or having it challenged. That's not a factor of one's intelligence, but rather of one's emotions. Being smarter doesn't mean you don't think emotionally as well. That's not a direct relationship.

 

The underlying causes? Again that correlation could be due to many factors, or just a simple misread of the statistics and there is no correlation. To me the statistics would need to be performed like this:

 

1. Within Christianity as a whole (not the snake handler churches only, but all churches), what does the IQ distribution curve look like? What's the average, and the percentages on the upper and lower ends?

 

2. With all those who identify as Atheists, perform the same sampling as above.

 

3. Compare this with the general population and see if there is any significant differences in the curve pattern.

 

If those with higher IQ's are generally atheists, then you should expect to see that the median IQ of atheists is higher than that of Christians, or of the population in general.

 

The problem with this however is the criteria for identifying atheists. Many people prefer not to identify themselves as such, and go under other terms like agnostic, or humanist, or secular, or some other term. So that fact alone, makes the study mentioned in the OP, suspect from the outset. What was the control criteria?

 

Even if all the above are satisfied and it shows a direct, strong relationship, then again you can't ignore socio-economic, historical, etc factors. The comment that smarter people seek higher education is unfounded. Higher education may not be a priority in their lives. People are emotional as well. They are social, there are economics involved, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

It's overly simplistic to make surface comparisons. Especially when one says "Everyone I know does ...." The sample group is way too small, and the interpretation of why is skewed totally by one's own understanding of things. It's a subjective thought applied from a local group to everyone beyond. It's the logic fallacy of Hasty Generalization to take a sample of few and apply it to many:

Hasty Generalization

 

Description: An argument in which a proposition is used as a premise without attention given to some obvious condition that would affect the proposition's application. This fallacy is also known as the "hasty generalization." It is a fallacy that takes evidence from several, possibly unrepresentative, cases to a general rule; generalizing from few to many.

Note the relation to statistics: Much of statistics concerns whether or not a sample is representative of a larger population. The larger the sample size, the better the representativeness.

Note also that the opposite of a hasty generalization is a sweeping generalization.

(emphasis mine)

 

(I realize you weren't suggesting some of these things. I'm just speaking in general)

[OnceConvinced]

I'm late in the game on this thread, and without reading much of the other responses, my opinion is that religion can make you dumber. (Notice, "can", in the sense it doesn't have to, but sometimes it does) But it's not limited to religion. Even non-religious ideologies can restrict ones view on life, nature and science, and hence become dumber.

 

The reason why this is happening is not that the faculties of the brain is missing, but rather it's a voluntary limitations of the thought process. It's like creating patches of "do not enter" zones in the brain. For instance, if the religious view a person has say that life started by a miracle, then the person limits himself to see how evolution works. He he dumbing himself. But if he would let go of his religious view and allow his brain to process the input, he would become smarter.

 

I saw Antlerman made a comment about correlation vs causation, and I agree that it doesn't have to be that intelligence is the cause of belief or non-belief, but the problem however is that if they're both correlated then there must be an underlying cause. If they're not to each-other causative but correlated, then for correlation to exist they both must be commonly caused (unless it's pure random chance every time - which doesn't make sense if statistics show a consistent pattern) So what underlying cause would that be? My opinion is a dogmatic or categorical thinking. People who get stuck in one way of thinking and refuse to be open for new possibilities, or be honest to themselves (which is my mantra on this website) and even realize they can be wrong. And this apply to any kind of "idea" or "opinion". We all do this. We get stuck in a track of thought and opinion and sometimes it takes a big shakeup to get out of it. But during the time we're idea-stuck, we limit our thoughts and it affects our intelligence in that area (if we're wrong it makes us dumber, if we're right we look smarter). So the way to avoid this is to be dynamic and allow oneself to be wrong.

 

This also means that if the specific dogma a person has doesn't effect another area of science or knowledge, that person can be very intelligent in the non-patched area. For instance, a creationist can be very dumb regarding evolution and biology, but at the same time very smart in math. That's why we can see a lot of intelligent people be religious at the same time, because their particular faith might not interfere with the areas they're smart in.

 

(I know, the grammar isn't that great in this post. I just threw it together to get my 2 pieces out...)

Aren't you really describing stubborness?

[Ouroboros]

I intentionally tried not to use the word "intelligence" because I don't think intelligence (as an ability) is affected by religion or ideology, just like in the sense Antlerman describes it. However, intelligence is twofold: one is the faculties (ability), the other is the skill (through training).

 

Second, I was talking about dogmatic religion, where belief has become more important than open inquiry. Dogmatism exists also in ideology, and hence, it's not religion as such that cause the problem, but dogmatic behavior (call it stubbornness if you want).

 

This stubbornness, or willful ignorance, or dogmatic ideology, all cause what is called cognitive blindspots. A cognitive blindspot is also called, or is similar to, cognitive bias, or bias blind spot, and other terms. Basically it's the situation that a person, through his decisions and actions, block his own mind to get more input in a subject because his "stubbornness" or his ideological standpoint makes it so.

 

Try to convince a person who is hardcore believer in something that he's wrong. We see that all the time here, even among ourself. It's human nature. We make subconscious decisions that sometimes are very hard to break. And during that time, we're blinded in that particular area. The danger to get this blindspots are just as common among low intelligence people as well as high intelligence people. So it's not because of intelligence.

 

Now consider a person that believes that science is wrong regarding carbon-dating. How well will he do on a test that contain questions about carbon-dating? His mind is programmed to refuse to believe the science behind it, and even if he memorize the facts about it and the formulas, he's mind is actively acting against that knowledge. It's busy trying to disprove it. If all things being equal, i.e. two people who have the exact same brain capacity (=faculty for intelligence), the unbeliever are still far more likely to fail or score lower than the one with an active mind for the subject.

 

Try to teach a person a subject that he hates, and you know what I mean.

 

And when it comes to IQ and how it's measured, no it's not a voltage meter. It's not one subject that is tested in an IQ test. You have spatial, geometric, algebraic, memory, cognitive functions, deductive reasoning etc, and we are all strong and weak (naturally) in different areas, but we can train these different sides.

 

So again, if it came out as saying "religion makes people lose intelligence", that wasn't the intention. I do however believe that dogmatic and hardheaded religion, and dogmatic ideology of other kinds as well, do create blindness in some areas for the person. With that said, it doesn't mean they lost the ability, they're only reducing it or holding it back. And also, it doesn't mean they are dumbed down in all areas, but only in certain areas where their belief has a stronghold.

 

And when it comes to causation, correlation and statistics, it's important to realize that even if two events are correlated and not in any way causative between each other, that still means they have an underlying cause. Example: a large number of lung cancer patients have yellow teeth. We know that these two things are not causative to each other. We don't get rid of lung cancer by brusher our teeth, and we don't get white teeth because we get cured from lung cancer. Both are however correlated, meaning, there is an underlying cause to the correlation. Smoking. Smoking is the reason to both symptoms.

 

When it comes to a statistics of religion and intelligence, the problem is, how do you measure intelligence and what kind of religion or belief does the person have? So to sum it up: 1) it's not religion, but dogmatic and unrelenting and unwilling attitude to allow new ideas to enter a person's mind that is the real cause, not religion or belief itself. The culprit is the hard-headed attitude. So the poll is misleading because of that. Basically, fundamentalism is a lot worse for the brain to take in new ideas, than a liberal mind. 2) It's not intelligence as the ability or faculties of the brain that are affected, but the dynamic, soft intelligence, learned ability, skills, trained behavior and ideas. And that's why a title where the word "intelligence" is used is also misleading, since there are two sides to the coin.

 

Dogmatic fundamentalism (religious or ideological) -> Lower ability to learn, cognitive blind-spots, and held back reasoning.

 

Examples of ideological fundamentalism that caused blind-spots: Soviet were hardcore believers in Lamarck's evolution theory, which lead to stupid experiments and lost harvests. Result, starving people. And what did they do? They tried it again, and failed again. And why? Because those darn Capitalists believed in Darwin's theory. ... blind-spot caused by ideological stubbornness.

 

(I repeated the same thing in at least three different ways. Maybe one of the explanations makes sense to someone.)

 

--edit--

 

To beat this dead horse just a little more:

 

Wiki on Cognitive Biases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

 

There's a section there, specifically for "statistical and belief" biases. Just by reading through that list, you can see many relates to religious beliefs (as well as philosophical, political, ideological and even scientific opinions). This is just how we are as humans. Nothing to do about it, more than knowing we all do it. The only problem with religion is that it's a system where a whole truckload of beliefs are collected, and the people in the system of religion usually have to accept this truckload of beliefs. In most other ideologies there are far less of "just accept, don't question". And that's probably why religious groups tend to have more biases than other groups.

[Antlerman]

I see the point of cognitive blind spots causing weaknesses in areas of achievement. I see that it can cause a certain 'dumbing down' of one's otherwise capable mind, but as you said it's not just religion that causes that. The same thing happens almost anywhere where we are familiar with framing things in a certain context and our minds sometimes can't incorporate the new information readily. This is one of the arguments I make about what happens with language, how that it creates these 'blocks' in certain areas because of how it affects the framework we look at the world inside of. A good example of this is the difference between those who speak English and those of the Hopi Indian language in their respective abilities to understand the concepts of quantum mechanics. Our understanding of time puts blinders on that make these concepts outside that framework, whereas the Hopi look at time differently and can grasp those concepts more readily because it fits within their framework. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Whorf )

 

I believe though that IQ expressly is a measure of potential in all the areas you listed combined (hence my voltage comparison which is raw potential to be harnessed to perform tasks). My spacial abilities affect my overall score, so if they are not as high, they will bring my score down, even if in other areas I'm brilliant by some standards.

 

To look at what points you bring up about the cognitive blind spot, I have to ask the question underlying that which is what is the cause of that? That's why I was citing socio-economic, historical, emotional, etc factors. If someone with a high IQ is afforded the economic luxury to be able to be a part of a culture of intelligentsia, they are allowed exposure to a wider culture in which to find a place to fit more easily. As a result of that, they are less restrained by social factors to only speak a single language in order to operate solely within their little local village of home so to speak, and as a result of becoming "poly-lingual", those blind spots become lessened as the vocabulary is expanded to include concepts outside a single framework. If someone isn't so advantaged, then they will be limited in the scope of their thoughts, regardless of the potentials of their mind.

 

So there is some correlation, but I see it being far more a factor of culture and language, than one's brain power. IQ has an economic factor really, as our society will value the more intelligent among us and advantage them with higher educational opportunity, whereas those with less academic potential will become the labor class. But I see no reason at all that with a solid proper, liberal education that your average IQ person is any less capable of expanding their mind to include other concepts than anyone else. The format in which it's presented may have to be simplified, but no more so than any basic skills taught that allow them to function in society as it is.

 

It's not that it's above their abilities to understand, per se, other than like any adult who tries to learn another language, it becomes more difficult the older we get. Why are so many hard-core fundamentalist types so anti-education? This is why. They want their kids to carry on the identity of their own culture and speak the pure language of their own upbringings. It's keeping their world understandable, and their response against education is a fear-based reaction.

 

So you're right, it is cognitive blind spots, and these are the reasons behind that which I suspect are mainly responsible for them.

[Antlerman]

Then again, there are stats like this that make me rethink everything I've just said.

 

 

From here: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/US-Election-IQ2004.htm

 

 

.....................................AVG IQ....AVG Income....'04 Electoral

 

(1) Connecticut..................113 $26,979 Kerry

 

(2) Massachusetts..............111 $24,059 Kerry

 

(3) New Jersey..................111 $26,457 Kerry

 

(4) New York.....................109 $23,534 Kerry

 

(5) Rhode Island................107 $20,299 Kerry

 

(6) Hawaii.........................106 $21,218 Kerry

 

(7) Maryland.....................105 $22,974 Kerry

 

(8) New Hampshire............105 $22,934 Kerry

 

(9) Illinois.........................104 $21,608 Kerry

 

(10) Delaware...................103 $21,451 Kerry

 

(11) Minnesota..................102 $20,049 Kerry

 

(12) Vermont....................102 $18,834 Kerry

 

(13) Washington................102 $20,398 Kerry

 

(14) California...................101 $21,278 Kerry

 

(15) Pennsylvania..............101 $20,253 Kerry

 

(16) Maine.........................100 $18,226 Kerry

 

(17) Wisconsin...................100 $18,727 Kerry

 

(18) Virginia......................100 $20,629 Bush

 

(19) Iowa...........................99 $18,287 Kerry

 

(20) Oregon........................99 $18,202 Kerry

 

(21) Colorado......................99 $20,124 Bush

 

(22) Michigan.......................99 $19,508 Bush

 

(23) Nevada........................99 $20,266 Bush

 

(24) Ohio............................99 $18,624 Bush

 

(25) Alaska.........................98 $21,603 Bush

 

(26) Florida.........................98 $19,397 Bush

 

(27) Missouri.......................98 $18,835 Bush

 

(28) Kansas........................96 $19,376 Bush

 

(29) Nebraska....................95 $19,084 Bush

 

(30) Arizona.......................94 $17,119 Bush

 

(31) Indiana.......................94 $18,043 Bush

 

(32) Tennessee..................94 $17,341 Bush

 

(33) North Carolina.............93 $17,667 Bush

 

(34) West Virginia...............93 $15,065 Bush

 

(35) Arkansas....................92 $15,439 Bush

 

(36) Georgia......................92 $18,130 Bush

 

(37) Kentucky....................92 $16,534 Bush

 

(38) New Mexico................92 $15,353 Bush

 

(39) North Dakota..............92 $16,854 Bush

 

(40) Texas.........................92 $17,892 Bush

 

(41) Alabama.....................90 $16,220 Bush

 

(42) Louisiana.....................90 $15,712 Bush

 

(43) Montana......................90 $16,062 Bush

 

(44) Oklahoma...................90 $16,198 Bush

 

(45) South Dakota..............90 $16,558 Bush

 

(46) South Carolina.............89 $15,989 Bush

 

(47) Wyoming.....................89 $17,423 Bush

 

(48) Idaho..........................87 $16,067 Bush

 

(49) Utah...........................87 $15,325 Bush

 

(50) Mississippi...................85 $14,088 Bush

 

 

 

Bush..... IQ: 91

 

Kerry.... IQ: 128

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for understanding my incoherent ramblings!

 

Part of why I took this standpoint is that there is an older study showing that a students belief in his own intelligence affects his intelligence. Basically, a student who believe he can learn, can learn, while a student who believe his intelligence is fixed and can't be improved, doesn't.

 

Our beliefs, whatever they are, affects our abilities and our growth.

 

Or to take another example: I used to have a car with 400 HP, and could drive that frigging car really fast... you would think... but no! I couldn't, because California law forced the manufacturer to install a cap, so when you hit a certain speed, the gas cuts off and you can't go higher. (Very annoying... but hey, 120 MPH is pretty fast anyway...) And that's how I see I see ability of intelligence (the engine) vs ideology or religion enforcing thoughts that limits the ability (the cap).

 

Or another example. I have to older brothers, the oldest one is a fundamentalist who thinks Jesus is the reason why planets rotate the sun. (No, seriously) He's not unintelligent... but he's dumb... My other brother used to be a fundamentalist like me, but he's a backslider... he tested his IQ a few years back (he's up there in age), and scored some frigging high numbers. And yet, there are things difficult to talk about with him. Or take me as an example. When I was in high-school, I was hardcore fundamentalist. That affected my grades, because I thought Jesus would come back tomorrow! So I didn't care about my stupid grades. One day we had an IQ test in Psychology class. I shared first spot together with another guy who was a straight A student. Obviously I had the brains... but my religion limited my use of it.

[Ouroboros]

I was thinking in the car, driving to work: how about if we made a poll between vegans (violent, hard-core, anti-carnivores), vegetarians and meat eaters. Would there be a chance that we'd probably find that the hard-headed ideologically bound vegans score a tad less intelligence than the other groups? It wouldn't surprise me.

 

Basically, the problem with polls like the one with "religious v intelligent" is that it doesn't fully cover all the parameters. If they included a check-box for "hard-core fundamentalist", and "liberal secular religious", you probably would see the majority of the "low intelligence" in the first of those two groups.

 

I think it was Michael Shermer who wrote a book about how scientists in history have fallen prey for the same trap. I see if I can find the title, later tonight.

 

This dilemma does not apply to religion specifically, but religious people tend to fall more for these things because of the basic nature of religion as such (be conforming and non-inquisitive). And that's why statistics show these co-relationships.

[Angel of Hope]

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/211...n-God'.html

 

Content pasted:

 

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

 

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.

 

But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics

 

Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.

 

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

 

A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.

 

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.

 

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

 

He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time as people became more intelligent.

 

But Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College, London, said it failed to take account of a complex range of social, economic and historical factors.

 

"Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response," he said.

 

Dr Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at Leeds University, said the conclusion had "a slight tinge of Western cultural imperialism as well as an anti-religious sentiment".

 

Dr David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt institutions."

 

Source Credit: UK Telegraph.

 

-----

 

This post is worth posting and sharing. No hard feelings on my part, or else I wouldn't have post it with a catchy title.

 

I haven't read all the follow-up feedbacks and comments, so there could be overlapping. My own comment would be that belief has a content of faith, and faith is the emotional part. Subscribing the notion of EQ, I think intelligent people have have high IQs no doubt, just that the high IQ part overwhelms the EQ part. So it is a natural explanation.

 

btw, I have been quite away since last time I post about in the other Department - I have been waiting for some phone calls. I am like old-fashioned dial-up, so I had to minimize internet access.

 

As the article itself notes, this study was extremely biased. I expect this will go down like the immoral and questionable experiments of Dr. Kersey in the late '50's, in which he used questionable and unethical methods to try to prove the idea of hereditary homosexuality. If you notice, the study was done solely on members of Parliament, who are (at least in some circles, most likely the ones this doctor chose to interview and study,) predominantly secular... not to mention that secularism enjoys it's greatest popularity in England and the European Union. I'm sure that, if the study were done on a double-blind, or even just blind basis, the results would be dramatically different.

 

God Bless,

 

~AOH~

[Vigile]

As the article itself notes, this study was extremely biased. I expect this will go down like the immoral and questionable experiments of Dr. Kersey in the late '50's, in which he used questionable and unethical methods to try to prove the idea of hereditary homosexuality. If you notice, the study was done solely on members of Parliament, who are (at least in some circles, most likely the ones this doctor chose to interview and study,) predominantly secular... not to mention that secularism enjoys it's greatest popularity in England and the European Union. I'm sure that, if the study were done on a double-blind, or even just blind basis, the results would be dramatically different.

 

God Bless,

 

~AOH~

 

Attempting to find a correlation between intelligence and belief is no doubt going to lead to a biased study since measures of intelligence are so subjective. I'd be willing to wager, however, that a strong possitive correlation can be found between education and belief, which is much easier to quantify.

[Antlerman]

Attempting to find a correlation between intelligence and belief is no doubt going to lead to a biased study since measures of intelligence are so subjective. I'd be willing to wager, however, that a strong possitive correlation can be found between education and belief, which is much easier to quantify.

Unless one considers a lack of religious instruction being uneducated. Define "educated"