The Link Between IQ, Religiosity and Academic Subjects

[Subduction Zone]

That which I have heard repeatedly.





You can believe what you like.

Knowing that Einstein was an agnostic at the worst is supported by quotes that are not taken out of context. Yes, you can misquote him and make it look like he believed in some sort of god. You would be hard pressed to give that god any significant power at all.

 

[Radagast]

Several studies have shown that there is a negative link between religiosity, IQ and academia

There's no way I can take that seriously unless you link to the studies, and we can discuss their strengths and weaknesses.

The other thread already demonstrated that theists scientists outnumber atheist scientists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's no way I can take that seriously unless you link to the studies, and we can discuss their strengths and weaknesses.

The other thread already demonstrated that theists scientists outnumber atheist scientists.

Yes, but physicists and biologists are 8 times more likely to be atheists than the average man.

I guess that is because they are 8 times smarter than the average man

 

[Radagast]

Yes, but physicists and biologists are 8 times more likely to be atheists than the average man.

I guess that is because they are 8 times smarter than the average man

I studied logic for several years. I even taught it.

And nothing I learned helps me understand how your B follows from your A.

 

[Radagast]

And if we're going to do silly correlations, how about this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I studied logic for several years. I even taught it.

And nothing I learned helps me understand how your B follows from your A.

You should have studied humor too since it was an obvious joke.

But to break it down, physicists are often thought to be the brightest of scientists and scientists are thought to be the brightest of humans. If a physicist is 8 times more likely to be an atheist than the average person it follows that that result is because they are 8 times "smarter". When you get up to the "elite" scientists the number of atheists goes up quite a bit more.

 

[pyramid33]

You should have studied humor too since it was an obvious joke.

scientists are thought to be the brightest of humans.

That's certainly a funny joke, haha. Nice one.

 

[Radagast]

You should have studied humor too since it was an obvious joke.

Well, in this corner of CF, even the most insane opinions are presented in all seriousness. How on earth was I supposed to tell that this was humour rather than stupidity?

You But to break it down, physicists are often thought to be the brightest of scientists

Only by other physicists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, in this corner of CF, even the most insane opinions are presented in all seriousness. How on earth was I supposed to tell that this was humour rather than stupidity?



Only by other physicists.

I can't help it if you have an underdeveloped sense of humor. Perhaps you should have that as part of your signature to warn others.

And please note I said "brightest of all scientists". Math is not a science. It is its own little world. Mathematics is an area that actually does have "proofs". Non-science types are always demanding "proof" here when in reality they should be demanding sufficient evidence.

 

[Radagast]

Several studies have shown that there is a negative link between religiosity, IQ and academia

I've located one of these so-called "studies."

It's based on the idea that there is such a thing as "national IQ," and that people from "stupid countries" (i.e. Africans) are more likely to believe in God than people from "smart countries" (i.e. Europeans).

I'm astonished that such racist garbage gets published. I'm even more astonished that people take it seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've located one of these so-called "studies."

It's based on the idea that there is such a thing as "national IQ," and that people from "stupid countries" (i.e. Africans) are more likely to believe in God than people from "smart countries" (i.e. Europeans).

I'm astonished that such racist garbage gets published. I'm even more astonished that people take it seriously.

Don't worry too much. That source looks like it is from the "vanity press". In other words it looks "sciency" but it is not peer reviewed.

 

[Radagast]

And please note I said "brightest of all scientists". Math is not a science. It is its own little world. Mathematics is an area that actually does have "proofs". Non-science types are always demanding "proof" here when in reality they should be demanding sufficient evidence.

If it was indeed intended as a joke, as you say, why are you defending the statement so strongly?

And you don't find xkcd funny? An underdeveloped sense of humour, perhaps?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

There's no way I can take that seriously unless you link to the studies, and we can discuss their strengths and weaknesses.

From religjournal.com, which I mentioned in my OP:

Many studies have found inverse correlations between either intelligence and re-ligiosity or proxies for intelligence and religiosity (Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle 1997; Howells 1928; Kanazawa 2010; Lewis, Ritchie, and Bates 2012; Lynn, Harvey, and Nyborg 2009; Lynn and Vanhanen 2012; Meisenberg et al. 2012; Sinclair 1928)

...
Other studies have found that academics tend to be signifi-cantly less religious (Bello 1954; Ecklund and Scheitle 2007; Gross and Simmons 2009; Larsen and Witham 1998; H. C. Lehman and Witty 1931; Leuba 1916; Roe 1953)

From arstechnica.com, which I also mentioned in my OP:

Out of 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one. Significant negative correlations were seen in 35 studies, whereas only two studies showed significant positive correlations.

...
Among the thousands of people involved in these studies, the authors found that gender or education made no difference to the correlation between religiosity and intelligence; however, age mattered. The negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence was found to be the weakest among the pre-college population. That may be because of the uniqueness of the college experience, where most teenagers leave home for the first time, get exposed to new ideas, and are given a higher degree of freedom to act on them. Instead, in pre-college years, religious beliefs may largely reflect those of the family.

The issue now is whether these studies actually prove that religiousity is associated with lower intelligence, or whether they only represent a very narrow group of people ...

I think American Protestant culture has become very anti-intellectual, and I think that has a strong influence on the situation. Most Protestant church leadership seems strongly conservative, and like to downplay academic pursuits which can cause a lot of tension when students come to church wanting to sort through issues (if they're naive enough to think it's welcomed to begin with). It's a bad situation imho.

IIRC some of the studies that put atheists over most faiths also had them losing out in terms of IQ to Jews and Anglicans.

Good point. Even the article from arstechnica.com said "after controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants. For Catholicism and Judaism, the correlation may be less negative".

I don't think it's simply a coincidence that conservative Protestantism, especially in the USA, is the only major branch of Christianity which promoted creationism. Catholicism and Orthodox christianity never have.

 

[Radagast]

Don't worry too much. That source looks like it is from the "vanity press". In other words it looks "sciency" but it is not peer reviewed.

You consider Elsevier to be a vanity press?

Is that one of those "obvious jokes" again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it was indeed intended as a joke, as you say, why are you defending the statement so strongly?

And you don't find xkcd funny? An underdeveloped sense of humour, perhaps?

No, I enjoy xkcd quite a bit. I was just using your methodology of taking things too literally.

And creationists should never use the <doh> smiley. They never get it right.

 

[Radagast]

...

I was hoping for links to the actual studies. The one I found (see earlier post) was such garbage that I'm really not motivated to chase up any more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You consider Elsevier to be a vanity press?

Is that one of those "obvious jokes" again?

I can't even find it in this site that measures Impact Factor:

Impact Factor List | 2012 Journal Impact Factor

 

[Radagast]

And creationists should never use the <doh> smiley. They never get it right.

Are there any creationists here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was hoping for links to the actual studies. The one I found (see earlier post) was such garbage that I'm really not motivated to chase up any more.

Wait a second, you are calling the study you found "such garbage" and then defending Elsevier in another post? Consistency does not seem to be a trait of yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are there any creationists here?

If you don't want to be called a creationist do not act like one. Sorry if I made a mistake.