Intelligence, Atheism & Relgiosity.

[durangodawood]

...There was a relationship between decreasing IQ with increasing fundamentalism...

Makes total sense. Outsource your thinking and imagination to a strictly face-value notion of scripture. Ugh.

 

[Zoii]

'm a professor at a business school in the US. I teach how to do research and statistics and how to do detection of bad research. However I'm not arguing from my 30+ years of experience doing research but rather that the inability demonstrated in the OP and later replies to recognize a common fallacy recognizable by any sophomore at any undergraduate school in the US.

Apparently instead of doing a simple 30-second search on Google to engage my claim or my examples or an apology for engaging in propaganda like appeals to snobbery, we get, "Apparently research isn't your thing."

Well done on your career - I should not have jumped to an incorrect conclusion concerning your experience in reading research; and to prove my sincerity will edit my previous post. Again well done on your academic standing.

We now have added reading comprehension to the list of challenges.

No I think most here, including me comprehend quite well. I can see that most here have contributed quite thoughtful comments.

No straw men, sweeping generalizations, ad hominems or other informal fallacies can rescue your claims.

Not my claims - I am not the author of the research under discussion.

We simple derive philosophical truth claims based on logic not genetic characteristics of claimants.

Well this is a research topic but sure - I and others will certainly welcome philosophical statements

GENETIC FALLACY
(also known as: fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue)

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.

Well again - not MY claim, but the Authors. AND they did not claim "atheism is held by the smartest people'. There research question asked if there was a correlation between two variables - Religious belief and IQ. Its best to be accurate with these matters.

Example #1:

Lisa was brainwashed as a child into thinking that people are generally good. Therefore, people are not generally good.

Explanation: That fact that Lisa may have been brainwashed as a child, is irrelevant to the claim that people are generally good.

Well as you haven't identified how that remotely connects to the authors paper, I shall just metaphorically nod to the point raised; though it has nothing to do with the testing of the two variables aforementioned

He was born to Catholic parents and raised as a Catholic until his confirmation in 8th grade. Therefore, he is bound to want to defend some Catholic traditions and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

Again - I nod to your example but you again have not shown where this is connected to the research. Interesting examples as they are Professor.

IN YOUR FAKE RESEARCH YOU MAKE AN APPEAL TO IQ (a genetic trait) an an explanation of a claim about God's existence.

No the research is genuine not fake - and again - its not my research.
Now as to your comment re IQ being a genetic trait - that's an interesting discussion point. I'm sure there is a genetic component, but I'm also certain there is a myriad of lifestyle factors that contribute to IQ as well - Is this a discussion you wish to pursue further?

If we are uneducated or fooled by your research-speak, we might miss the fact that the Kalam and leibnizian cosmological arguments for God's existence stand or fall based on the soundness of the argument and truth-value of their premises.

Again - its not my research
And an authors arguments on the existence of God is NOT what is in question here. The OP is not concerned with the wisdom, or logic, or expression, or paradigm of any religion. Its purely a focus on the correlation between religious belief and IQ.

So too for the fine-tuning argument for life based on the laws and values of the constants and other teleological arguments such as the sudden arrival of massive amounts of complex specified information in first biological life.

life-based laws and values are not elements measured or referred to in the research and its best we stay on topic.

So too the moral argument from the intuitive notion that objective moral values and duties exist.

Or various transcendent arguments such as the strange applicability of math towards discovery of features of our universe to there seem to be no atheists in fox holes.

While of course you are free make a statement on the imperative for moral values and duties....it has nothing to do with the research topic under discussion. Still - I have no issue with a philosophical discussion on morals etc if posters here are interested. Actually I think I would quite like it. - or if you like start a new thread and I promise to contribute.

Your pretense is getting absurd.

I dont pretend anything Professor

 

[Extra Toasty]

Intelligence, September-October 2013, Vol.41(5), pp.482-489

Abstract
Is there a positive impact of intelligence on religious disbelief after we account for the fact that both average intelligence and religious disbelief tend to be higher in more developed countries? We carry out four beta regression analyses and conclude that the answer is yes. We also compute impact curves that show how the effect of intelligence on atheism changes with average intelligence quotients. The impact is stronger at lower intelligence levels, peaks somewhere between 100 and 110, and then weakens. Bootstrap standard errors for our point estimates and bootstrap confidence intervals are also computed. •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.

The conclusions are a little concerning when seeking a religious pathway.

I think it's true, but that it shouldn't concern you on your seeking.
The way I see it is that intelligence and rationality, though important in seeking truth, are not to be necessarily associated with wisdom or truthfulness.
It's like, if you ask a very smart person about why you shouldn't kill people, they might give you some philosophical or practical arguments. If you ask someone objectively less smart, but with a good heart, they will give you a simple, but sincere and heartfelt answer. Which one is wiser? Which one is more worth listening to? I would say the latter.
This is just a scenario and is not meant to say that smart people are cold-hearted, but simply to break the concept about intelligence being a measure of excellence.

This might not have been what you were looking for in an answer, but thank you for reading anyway.

 

[durangodawood]

....It's like, if you ask a very smart person about why you shouldn't kill people, they might give you some philosophical or practical arguments. If you ask someone objectively less smart, but with a good heart, they will give you a simple, but sincere and heartfelt answer. Which one is wiser? Which one is more worth listening to? I would say the latter....

Depends on what youre looking for.

Sometimes the heartfelt answer comes across as "just your feelings" on the matter, and is therefore dismissable.

I mean, people also sometimes give sincere heartfelt answers to justify absolute atrocities.

 

[Extra Toasty]

Depends on what youre looking for.

Sometimes the heartfelt answer comes across as "just your feelings" on the matter, and is therefore dismissable.

I mean, people also sometimes give sincere heartfelt answers to justify absolute atrocities.

Well I think that, depending on the person, "just your feelings" can contain much wisdom. I do admit that we need to be careful about it because we can be easily deceived, but it is important nevertheless.

So I think that fundamentally, the issue at hand is the standard of right and wrong. We can neither solely rely on feelings nor intellect to know what is right or wrong, so there has to be some sort of balance (unless of course you believe there is no such thing).

 

[Ophiolite]

This is just a scenario and is not meant to say that smart people are cold-hearted, but simply to break the concept about intelligence being a measure of excellence.

It is a measure of excellence when assessing the rational evaluation of reality. Do you disagree?

 

[Extra Toasty]

It is a measure of excellence when assessing the rational evaluation of reality. Do you disagree?

Well when you add "rational" to "evaluation of reality," its hard to disagree. I just think that it is not necessarily a measure of excellence when assessing the evaluation of reality. That is, reality is not necessarily best understood/evaluated through rationality.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well when you add "rational" to "evaluation of reality," its hard to disagree. I just think that it is not necessarily a measure of excellence when assessing the evaluation of reality. That is, reality is not necessarily best understood/evaluated through rationality.

Fair enough. I'll leave you to your irrational approach to evaluating reality. It's not my thing.

 

[USincognito]

I'm reasonably sure that many intelligent people think they actually know that Mars exists, when what they are really doing is believing it exists...

That's a quite bizarre statement. I see it numerous nights per year. I do know that it exists and it has nothing to do with my intelligence or the lack thereof.

 

[USincognito]

I do not know what you mean by 'Genetic Fallacy'

Given that your OP was not a genetic fallacy (rejecting any argument based on the source rather than the content or claims of the argument) it appears he doesn't either.

 

[Roidecoeur78]

That's a quite bizarre statement. I see it numerous nights per year. I do know that it exists and it has nothing to do with my intelligence or the lack thereof.

So you admit seeing a pinpoint of red twinkling light in a sky filled with countless other twinkles, and to believing it is what you were told from other sources it is. Or have you been there and actually seen it, smelled it, touched it, and experienced what it is first-hand? I'd say you are a true believer in something you have not experienced first-hand. Because without personal experience you don't have personal knowledge, what you have is information which you either believe or disbelieve.

 

[USincognito]

So you admit seeing a pinpoint of red twinkling light in a sky filled with countless other twinkles, and to believing it is what you were told from other sources it is.

No. I admit no such thing.

Or have you been there and actually seen it, smelled it, touched it, and experienced what it is first-hand?

Yes, I told you I have seen Mars first hand.

 

[Strathos]

So you admit seeing a pinpoint of red twinkling light in a sky filled with countless other twinkles, and to believing it is what you were told from other sources it is. Or have you been there and actually seen it, smelled it, touched it, and experienced what it is first-hand? I'd say you are a true believer in something you have not experienced first-hand. Because without personal experience you don't have personal knowledge, what you have is information which you either believe or disbelieve.

I've actually seen it through a telescope. It looked like a red circle with dark patches on it.

 

[Abraxos]

This sort of mind reading is why philosophy is useless.

This is an interestingly odd statement mainly because to consider philosophy to be useless is in and of itself a philosophy. But I sorta agree as the wisdom of the world in its understandings are ultimately foolishness to God. (1 Corinthians 1:20).

In regards to the OP, I thought that OP was an objective and fair assessment, though the methodology of using IQ as the metric to measure intelligence left me thinking the thesis is unreliable and mediocre. The measurement of IQ is really just a glorified short term memory test. Intelligence is the manifestation of more involved mental processes, and the IQ test is about pattern recognition. It's the closest analogy to primitive ways of thinking found in chimps and rats. We mainly use math as a way of expressing pattern recognition and critical thinking, so if you are good at math you will most likely do better in an IQ test. However, it is also a poor construct of measuring one's intellectual expression. Things like emotional IQ (ability to empathize and influence others) and creativity (abstract and non-conventional or non-critical thinking skills) are not expressed through the measurement of IQ. So when you think about it as an analogy for intellect, it's a rather poor analogy.

 

[USincognito]

This is an interestingly odd statement mainly because to consider philosophy to be useless is in and of itself a philosophy.

This sort of Omphalos nonsense is exactly what I'm talking about. It's the type of thing Oolon Colluphid would come up with.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This sort of mind reading is why philosophy is useless.

Philosophy isn't about mind reading.

 

[USincognito]

Philosophy isn't about mind reading.

I didn't say that it was.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I didn't say that it was.

True enough - and I didn't say that you did...

 

[Zoii]

This is an interestingly odd statement mainly because to consider philosophy to be useless is in and of itself a philosophy. But I sorta agree as the wisdom of the world in its understandings are ultimately foolishness to God. (1 Corinthians 1:20).

In regards to the OP, I thought that OP was an objective and fair assessment, though the methodology of using IQ as the metric to measure intelligence left me thinking the thesis is unreliable and mediocre. The measurement of IQ is really just a glorified short term memory test. Intelligence is the manifestation of more involved mental processes, and the IQ test is about pattern recognition. It's the closest analogy to primitive ways of thinking found in chimps and rats. We mainly use math as a way of expressing pattern recognition and critical thinking, so if you are good at math you will most likely do better in an IQ test. However, it is also a poor construct of measuring one's intellectual expression. Things like emotional IQ (ability to empathize and influence others) and creativity (abstract and non-conventional or non-critical thinking skills) are not expressed through the measurement of IQ. So when you think about it as an analogy for intellect, it's a rather poor analogy.

There are several formats for IQ tests. They test pattern recognition, [what will the next shape be], word association [eg piano is to music - matches is to fire], complex thinking [eg Jane speaks french and smokes capstan cigarettes while Bill speaks Bahasa and smokes Camel etc.] ; number sequences,.... No they dont test empathy and artistic ability.

I wouldn't regard someone as necessarily being intelligent simply because they are empathetic or can draw well.

If you do that's fine - its just your opinion is not accepted internationally. This research tests conventional intelligence. So in that regard, the research is robust.

If you believe ones artistic ability v religiosity should be tested, then that would be a different research. As it is, they have adopted accepted standards for measuring IQ albeit you personally disagree with those international standards.

 

[Abraxos]

There are several formats for IQ tests. They test pattern recognition, [what will the next shape be], word association [eg piano is to music - matches is to fire], complex thinking [eg Jane speaks french and smokes capstan cigarettes while Bill speaks Bahasa and smokes Camel etc.] ; number sequences,.... No they dont test empathy and artistic ability.

I wouldn't regard someone as necessarily being intelligent simply because they are empathetic or can draw well.

If you do that's fine - its just your opinion is not accepted internationally. This research tests conventional intelligence. So in that regard, the research is robust.

If you believe ones artistic ability v religiosity should be tested, then that would be a different research. As it is, they have adopted accepted standards for measuring IQ albeit you personally disagree with those international standards.

IQ isn't that robust in measuring human intelligence as there are three necessary components to human intelligence to where IQ only measures one aspect of it, hence calling the thesis mediocre at best.

The reason why you don't associate intelligence with other human cognitions (which are found to comprise of at least three distinct mental traits), is mainly because of the current social, academic construct. Intelligence is broad enough to cover many aspects of human potentials. For example, we could call Michelangelo a genius for his artistic creativity, or his measure of brilliance for his skills as an architect. Alternatively, we could call a person with high leadership qualities as ingenious. Both are technically a display of high levels of intelligence, but not in the sense of a mathematician or a physicist.

The issue I have is that IQ is unreliable as an accurate measurement of human intelligence and requires an overdue upgrade. The science into this has been out for a while now, and I'm confident as the science progresses (with the need of letting go of dogmatic consensus), models that take into account pattern recognition, intuition/heuristics and creativity, we will have better theories in measuring human intelligence.
In the meantime, the general standard of the IQ test has its use in academia and is relatively accurate for what it is, but it is fundamentally flawed and a fallacy in the measurement of human intelligence.