Intelligence, Atheism & Relgiosity.

[Uber Genius]

A quick note to those engaging this topic. If you haven't had a background in philosophy of logic and specifically informal logic you want to start there.

Secondly, research is mostly done in the US in graduate schools. One's first year is spent learning how to design valid research and spot various faults in existing research. There is a lot of junk research that even makes it past peer review. The point is most people just don't have the background to engage research as to defects in design, data gathering, data analysis, or conclusions.

Why should they after all people have lives.

But don't be fooled by these fake attempts to use "so-called research," and if you decide to weigh-in at least go beyond the effort of the OP and Google a term or two.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes. And it is obvious on its face. So you tell me how they are guilty of a faulty design now that I have spelled out the fallacy. And any curiosity at all would have answered your own question. This isn't a connect the dots puzzle. I presented the fallacy, copied and pasted it, explained in detail why such fallacies are necessarily false. So spend more time studying why logical dodges are not a way to investigate philosophical truth claims.

No, I get that youve presented a definition of the fallacy.

I want to know where you think that fallacy was committed in the paper. Not even asking for you to re-write. If youve already explained it, just a post # of yours will do.

 

[keith99]

Yes. And it is obvious on its face. So you tell me how they are guilty of a faulty design now that I have spelled out the fallacy. And any curiosity at all would have answered your own question. This isn't a connect the dots puzzle. I presented the fallacy, copied and pasted it, explained in detail why such fallacies are necessarily false. So spend more time studying why logical dodges are not a way to investigate philosophical truth claims.

Yet you decile to reference the post where you did so. I do not recall it and it seems other do not either.

EDIT: I see you did address this with a wall of text in the last post on page 3 (at least as I'm set up). You failed miserably since you in no way demonstrated that she made such an error in logic. Quite the opposite as she only presented a study and asked for discussion. It also seems you manage to conflate the genetic fallacy with IQ being genetic, which is not entirely true.

It would seem the only genetic fallacy is dismissal of the study because of assumed biases of the researchers. Thus something twice false. It first assumes a bias and then dismisses the study because of it. Both assuming things not in evidence and the genetic fallacy.

Though I rather prefer the term Bulverism which more accurately describes the arguments of many Christians in this thread. Please note that term was coined by a rather well known Christian.

 

[Uber Genius]

Yet you decile to reference the post where you did so. I do not recall it and it seems other do not either.

It would seem the only genetic fallacy is dismissal of the study because of assumed biases of the researchers. Thus something twice false. It first assumes a bias and then dismisses the study because of it. Both assuming things not in evidence and the genetic fallacy.

Though I rather prefer the term Bulverism which more accurately describes the arguments of many Christians in this thread. Please note that term was coined by a rather well known Christian.

Please re read the genetic fallacy

And stop with the straw men and sweeping generalizations. Didn't anyone take a logic class?

This has nothing to do with researcher bias!

It has to do with the G E N E T I C F A L L A C Y!!!!!

So flawed in its design and invalid even if God produced the study!

We can sooner do a research study on how smart people beleive there are round squares or married bachelors. And I would expect people out here to asked about confidence levels and chi squared values and statistical significance. This topic is absurd in its design.

Read post 63 above and go obtain the requisite KSAV and we will have a cogent discussion. Shoot I will help you as I help my atheistic friends and student improve their arguments for atheism!!!

 

[Uber Genius]

This topic is perhaps the most ironic topic discussion in 5 years of engaging at CF.

 

[keith99]

...
Description: Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises.


Your study's claim: atheism is held by the smartest people.
Implicit premise: smarter people produce more true beliefs about the world then less smart people
Implicit argument: therefore atheism is true.
….

Is this the guts of your claim that the OP was an example of the genetic fallacy? If so it fails badly. Both of the claimed implicit premises is true, they are both a product of your own biases.

Even the first premise is false, the study makes no such claim, instead it claims that overall the population of non believers has a higher IQ than that of believers. It makes no claims about the high end of the bell curve.

 

[durangodawood]

...The research design fails in its inception due to the fact that IQ, the color of one's eyes or skin, the length of one's foot, and all other genetic factors about people who hold certain beliefs are not predictive of the truth-value of those beliefs....

Wow. Its like you totally miss the point.

The paper makes no claims at all about the truth value of religious beliefs. None. Thats not at stake here.

(Although I'm will to conjecture that IQ actually is predictive of the truth value of a person's beliefs, on average.)

 

[Roidecoeur78]

Is this the guts of your claim that the OP was an example of the genetic fallacy? If so it fails badly. Both of the claimed implicit premises is true, they are both a product of your own biases.

Even the first premise is false, the study makes no such claim, instead it claims that overall the population of non believers has a higher IQ than that of believers. It makes no claims about the high end of the bell curve.

Which nazi is that in your profile pic?

 

[Speedwell]

Which nazi is that in your profile pic?

Claus von Stauffenberg, a German Army officer who attempted to assassinate Hitler.

 

[bèlla]

The key idea is that the scale of intelligence is a human measure. It has nothing to do with the faith to God. Use the amount of faith to measure the degree of intelligence is like use the speed of light to measure the size of an airplane.

The key is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Most people aren't working to their capacity. Their comfort about the world to come has diminished their effectiveness and impact. We are told to ask and we shall receive. Therefore, if you're lacking intelligence, proficiency, expertise, etc. There's nothing wrong with asking the Lord to help. We should earnestly desire to master whatever we've been given to perform.

 

[Go Braves]

We can sooner do a research study on how smart people beleive there are round squares or married bachelors. And I would expect people out here to asked about confidence levels and chi squared values and statistical significance. This topic is absurd in its design.

Well, a lot of folks haven't taken a class in logic, but they have taken classes to learn how to spell the word believe properly, Uber Genius.

 

[Go Braves]

This topic is perhaps the most ironic topic discussion in 5 years of engaging at CF.

It says you've been a member since August 13, 2016. Did you have previous accounts that got banned or something?

 

[keith99]

Claus von Stauffenberg, a German Army officer who attempted to assassinate Hitler.

And my choice because he is the best known of the conspirators. In terms of who I admire the most of German Military officers there are at least 2 ahead of him, Hans Oster and Henning von Tresckow. But few would recognize a picture of either.

For those interested in this area google 'Graf Neun'. A search on Hans Scholl the White Rose should also be informative.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

@Zoii

You seem to have completely missed my point. I don't doubt the internal statistics, but I am doubting its external validity. This is a known problem thereof, why Disraeli (maybe?) called statistics one of the three forms of lying.

Let me explain: Say we did a study correlating lack of melanin to IQ and income by country. What do you think it would find, seeing that we have wealthy, high IQ and mostly white Western countries? It would find a correlation therefore between darker skin and lower IQ. Correlation is not causation however, so this does not mean they have lower IQs because their skin is darker. If you think that, you might as well shave your head and get a Swastika tattoo. You'll find such statistics floating around the internet. Historical forces such as the rise of Scientific method in Europe, conprehensive education, colonialism, etc. better describe causation here.

Now back to this study. We have a correlation, but again their data is coloured by specific historic and cultural trends. They recognise as much, when they try and explain continued US religiosity from 19th century Irish and later Latin American immigration (being from poorer countries). It does not mean that being religious results in lower IQ, nor that higher IQ results in Atheism - that causitive mechanism has not been established, and frankly societal trends describe it better than IQ or income ever could. If we did this study 80 years ago, I think we would find very different results - what with more religious attendance in Europe, and openly Atheist regimes in the Soviet Union. The external validity of the study is doubtful, thus its use in a discussion moot.

Even then though, they arbitrarily asign a modification factor for Muslim majority countries, and exclude them from certain examined factors like income - citing cultural discrimination and the like. They also determine confidence interval by taking internal data to create artificial datasets and then applies this to validate the internal conclusions. I don't know, but I am used to Forrest Plots and EBM and such things would never pass muster in medical trials. The raw data itself weights the conclusion, with the great growth of Atheist self-identification in the developed world, but that doesn't mean it veridical. I am not surprised they have solid conclusions with such chicanery. This looks like a conclusion with a study written around it to me, and its magical Fisherian 5% statistical significance to ensure publication merely strengthens my feeling.

So I see much cause to doubt here, and though I take their results at face value, I see no reason to think anything other than socio-historical artifact. I am not going to waste more time on this though. Nothing in the article really means anything concrete in the real world.

 

[keith99]

It doesn't seem as if someone posted the actual article yet. I have attached it.

Reading it, I am not much impressed. They are extrapolating from single variables to try and make further correlation: That wealthier countries have more atheists, countries with higher IQs are wealthier, so Atheists are more likely with higher IQs. They then attempt to correct for wealth as a factor, with limited success.
Correlation is not causation, and of course, humans would rely less on God if better off - this is that old problem of self-worship, distraction, and the selfish nature of man. Compelle Intrare has always been a way many approach God, for we must realise ourselves powerless sometimes, to be able to set the self aside at all, for God. Many other factors may be at play, from political to social to historical, that may account for this. Nordic countries weigh it in favour of Atheism, while the US bucks the trend. This is better explicable from the history of thought in those countries, through the Enlightenment, Existentialism and the middle way Socialism in Scandinavia. The conclusions are presented as statistically valid, but the external validity thereof is frankly lacking. I hadn't seen it before, but it really doesn't add to the discussion of Intelligence and Religiosity except in obfuscation.

Fairly pointless, and says very little.

Actually the paper raises a lot of interesting questions and points out many of the problems with analyzing the situation.

And if nothing else even just skimming it one learns that it is about correlations between national averages, not about individuals. That alone makes many of the posts in this thread laughable.

The paper discusses a positive feedback loop regarding wealth and IQ. One would expect a country where the IQ is higher to have more financial success, which leads to better nutrition (and often education) which leads to higher IQs.

I am reminded of something Robert Heinlein said through the mouth of his character Lazarus Long:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded--here and there, now and then--are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”

I wonder if perhaps in many cases the atheists are the canary in the coal mine. Historically religion has held power and those who lacked it or had a different religion were at risk of their lives. This only recently changed in part of the world. It just might be possible that those countries that tolerated the crazy atheists also tend to tolerate that despised creative minority.

The study says Vietnam has one of the highest (perhaps the highest) rate of atheism. It is likely because it was imposed by the state. It would be interesting to compare those countries where atheism was or is state enforced (or encouraged) to those that allow free choice where a large percentage have chosen atheism.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This isn't a thread that seeks to ask personal questions of people or demand to know anything of their faith or any other personal matters. This thread does not seek to blight a person's religious path, regardless of what that may be, and nor does it seek to extol or denounce any teachings of any religion.

Therefore can I ask that you stay on topic.

This thread is focused on a particular piece of research concerning religiosity and IQ

 

[Pavel Mosko]

•It has been established that intelligence positively correlates with atheism.•We show that intelligence impacts atheism even we account for economic development.•Impact curves of intelligence on religious disbelief are constructed.

As a believer I have no doubt that Atheism is positively correlated with intelligence. In my younger days, I've had doubts myself. One bad aspect of institutional religion are people accepting pat answers rather than learning to dig for the truth. In Christianity for example it's common to get the same old sermon on "How to go to heaven" rather than a message aimed at some other area of the Bible that addresses problems people are having etc. And people are often not willing to address those other areas of the Bible that deal with archaic imagery etc. (I think they keep preaching the same sermons over and over because of mental laziness)


I guess my big problem are the Bill Maher style atheists. For a month or two, I hung at one of the major atheist boards because I had some things common with them on hobbies and I don't think many of them were exposed to some of the more pro-science ends of Creationism. (I am a fan of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believer ministry). But I was greatly disappointed with my interactions with online atheists. Basically many seem to have the idea that just by embracing atheism they have +30 or better boost to their IQ and pretty much believe they are better than any theist on intelligence and that simply is not true! Atheists like to talk about things like Logical Fallacies, but it is amazing how many they can use when talking about Christians and why they are Atheist etc.!


Besides that many online atheists seem to push "the Conflict Theory" which proposes science & technology are completely at odds with religion and that simply is not true when you study the history of science in the West. In spite of the famous examples of Galileo etc. the Catholic Church was actually a positive benefit for science (preserving the ancient Greek philosophers, using advanced methods and technology in monasteries etc.). And many great scientists have been Christian or at least people of faith.

 

[Zoii]

As a believer I have no doubt that Atheism is positively correlated with intelligence. In my younger days, I've had doubts myself. One bad aspect of institutional religion are people accepting pat answers rather than learning to dig for the truth. In Christianity for example it's common to get the same old sermon on "How to go to heaven" rather than a message aimed at some other area of the Bible that addresses problems people are having etc. And people are often not willing to address those other areas of the Bible that deal with archaic imagery etc. (I think they keep preaching the same sermons over and over because of mental laziness)


I guess my big problem are the Bill Maher style atheists. For a month or two, I hung at one of the major atheist boards because I had some things common with them on hobbies and I don't think many of them were exposed to some of the more pro-science ends of Creationism. (I am a fan of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believer ministry). But I was greatly disappointed with my interactions with online atheists. Basically many seem to have the idea that just by embracing atheism they have +30 or better boost to their IQ and pretty much believe they are better than any theist on intelligence and that simply is not true! Atheists like to talk about things like Logical Fallacies, but it is amazing how many they can use when talking about Christians and why they are Atheist etc.!


Besides that many online atheists seem to push "the Conflict Theory" which proposes science & technology are completely at odds with religion and that simply is not true when you study the history of science in the West. In spite of the famous examples of Galileo etc. the Catholic Church was actually a positive benefit for science (preserving the ancient Greek philosophers, using advanced methods and technology in monasteries etc.). And many great scientists have been Christian or at least people of faith.

That was a nice post Mavel - I enjoyed reading it. I agree with you that science does not need to be at odds with religion [whichever religion one may choose]. I am studying science - while there seems to be a cohort of my peers that are 'seeking' or 'agnostic', there are few [none that Im aware of actually] that declare themselves as having a strong religious faith. Most declare they are atheist.

My interest in universal intelligence is sparked by chemistry. I marvel that we are a coalescence of carbon nitrogen and oxygen, sprinkled with various electrolytes. Yet this collection of chemicals has suddenly formed a self awareness. The more I think about that the more I question our being and assert my status as a seeker.

As to the OP - theres been other papers on this topic - One in particular that assessed a large cohort of those identifying as being religious. There was a relationship between decreasing IQ with increasing fundamentalism. Conversely those with an open mind to their religious philosophy, were correlated with increasing intelligence. This perhaps would have been a better article to discuss given the small explosions I seem to have set off with this OP.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

My interest in universal intelligence is sparked by chemistry. I marvel that we are a coalescence of carbon nitrogen and oxygen, sprinkled with various electrolytes. Yet this collection of chemicals has suddenly formed a self awareness. The more I think about that the more I question our being and assert my status as a seeker.

There are a number of things in the universe that can hint that there is a Creator or some kind of higher intelligence at work in the universe.


1) I remember talking about the Golden Ratio with an English atheist and he was intrigued. I remember hearing about it in a lecture in a Coptic Church which isn't surprising the ratio originally came from the time of the pyramids.


2) Michio Kaku talks on String Theory and God.

3) Hugh Ross has a number of interesting talks and books lecturing how he believes physics and other scientific discoveries reveal God.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

As to the OP - theres been other papers on this topic - One in particular that assessed a large cohort of those identifying as being religious. There was a relationship between decreasing IQ with increasing fundamentalism. Conversely those with an open mind to their religious philosophy, were correlated with increasing intelligence. This perhaps would have been a better article to discuss given the small explosions I seem to have set off with this OP.

I'm not surprised at that.

Because much of what is called Fundamentalism is about shutting down discussion and investigation.
Now mind you under some definitions of "Fundamentalism" I would be considered a Fundamentalist by virtue of holding to traditional beliefs of divine inspiration of Scripture and so on. But the one thing I wont do is try to get away from discussion, investigation etc.

There are actually spiritual and Biblical reasons for being open to that. The term "mysterion" mystery is used to describe the Faith. Faith, the nature of our being etc. can be understood as an mystery that is slowly revealed as people investigate it. And of course God has called some people to do that, and be involved in more intricate areas of Faith and study.