Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

From what I have seen of your posts I can conclude I do know more than you about spirituality, or anything else really. It's hardly an achievement.


I already linked and quoted the definition of naturalistic pantheism, which you ignored and is the type of pantheism Einstein apparently defended. But even regular pantheism is just barely supernatural anyway, so it's doesn't matter if we make the distinction. The point is Einstein wasn't religious, and even if he was that wouldn't refute the studies O'nus posted. (I know you think it would, but that's just because of your general lack of understanding about everything that doesn't involve the supernatural, conspiracies and other bs)

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

From what I have seen of your posts I can conclude I do know more than you about spirituality.

no.....you don't. And why would you know anything about it anyway, since it's all bullshit to you.

You didn't even know what pantheism WAS until i brought it up. I'm not even going to argue with you. I know you want the last word, so uhh, yea go ahead. Feel free to inflate your ego some more.

Hard wired, you have done nothing but demonstrate negligence and deliberate ignorance to what I have postulated. Your posts, with lacking intellectual perspicacity for logic, only perpetuate the truth of my original post. You fail to understand statistical trends and then rely on fallacious debating tactics. Sarcasm and desperate antagonism only reinforce the evidence as you may lack the intellectual capacity to actually read and understand the evidence, like juroara. I am not trying to be insulting, but when people respond like this, it really only gives the original content more confounding evidence: people have no good rebuttals. The best one I've seen was from xaqaria and I do not think he is of main line denomination at all.

I trust you will use your intellect and literacy skills in your next response rather than a sophomoric emotional response (eg. Attack of the ego arguments).

I should add; how is it a "theory" (what you intend to be hypothesis I think) if I have provided evidence? You are not speaking as though you read what I posted at all.

~

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

no.....you don't. And why would you know anything about it anyway, since it's all bullshit to you.

You didn't even know what pantheism WAS until i brought it up. I'm not even going to argue with you. I know you want the last word, so uhh, yea go ahead. Feel free to inflate your ego some more.

I've talked about pantheism here long before you were even a member of DV. And you would do well to know that spirituality isn't exclusive property of religion and new age.

But this is all irrelevant to the discussion...

I <3 that vid.

I should note that I thought about editing Hard_Wired's immature posting behaviour, but decided to leave it to picture his intellectual contributions. Hopefully a redeeming post will soon follow suit.

~

So.....when someone spends one half of their life religious, and the next half nonreligious, does that mean their intelligence goes up?

This is a little silly IMO, because so many people (and dare I say, a great chunk of nontheists) don't hold the exact same beliefs system (or lack thereof) throughout their entire lives.

I spent part of my life Christian, part, pagan, part agnostic, part atheist, and part deist. So what does that say about my intelligence? How do I fit into the equation? I am religious or nonreligious depending on what part of my life you happen to find me. Many others are just like me. People start out Christian and become atheists later, and vice-versa. Did those people who grew up atheist and suddenly found Jesus later in life have a lower or higher IQ?

I assume that the statistics are based on the person's present belief system. The entire argument only makes sense to me if people's belief systems remain static. While some do, others do not.

So how do these statistics account for this? Is there really any validity in a correlation between intelligence and a belief system?

I did read that most people gravitate toward their religion during their teen years. But even then, many people still change their beliefs later in life, sometimes more than once. It would be oversimplifying things to imply that one chooses or accepts their belief system during that period and just keeps it forever.

IMO, it's good to remember that correlation does not mean causation. IQ and atheism are rising. So is obesity. Are they connected? Maybe they are, loosely. But one thing does not necessarily directly cause another.

Originally Posted by Naiya

So.....when someone spends one half of their life religious, and the next half nonreligious, does that mean their intelligence goes up?

When someone goes half their life not knowing about Chemistry and then learns it, does their IQ go up?

Remember, the IQ tests are not arbitrary scores; they are based on reliable testing techniques. I have already provided evidence of the WAIS reliability.

This is a little silly IMO, because so many people (and dare I say, a great chunk of nontheists) don't hold the exact same beliefs system (or lack thereof) throughout their entire lives.

This is true. In fact, Atheism alone is not really a belief system at all but a constituent of another belief system (unless you are a fundamentalist, of course). However, this really does not say anything about the persons IQ score. I did not always know about Chemistry, but one day I did and, of course, my IQ would have gone up because of that. Also, I can learn a lot about Chemistry in just one lecture. This argument does not really hold any water.

I spent part of my life Christian, part, pagan, part agnostic, part atheist, and part deist. So what does that say about my intelligence? How do I fit into the equation? I am religious or nonreligious depending on what part of my life you happen to find me. Many others are just like me. People start out Christian and become atheists later, and vice-versa. Did those people who grew up atheist and suddenly found Jesus later in life have a lower or higher IQ?

Again, this is really insignificant because, analogously, I did not know about Chemistry till I was older and, because of that, my IQ went up.

You could not say that Atheism is not the same because the reason I brought this evidence up in the first place is because of the belief systems affect on their IQ scores. Also, it does not really matter how the person qualifies their belief system, the point is that they identify with it. Of course, the statistics do account for lying and manipulating their own scores. You can review the variables in my OP.

I assume that the statistics are based on the person's present belief system. The entire argument only makes sense to me if people's belief systems remain static. While some do, others do not.

Belief systems obviously do not remain static just as our plasticity is always changing. Did you actually review how the WAIS works..??

So how do these statistics account for this? Is there really any validity in a correlation between intelligence and a belief system?

See my OP - I already provided this.

I did read that most people gravitate toward their religion during their teen years. But even then, many people still change their beliefs later in life, sometimes more than once. It would be oversimplifying things to imply that one chooses or accepts their belief system during that period and just keeps it forever.

No one said this. You are digressing.

IMO, it's good to remember that correlation does not mean causation. IQ and atheism are rising. So is obesity. Are they connected? Maybe they are, loosely. But one thing does not necessarily directly cause another.

This is a good point, and I have acknowledged this. I never said that one causes the other, but that there is a statistical significant correlation. Although it does not necessitate causation, it most certainly indicates a relationship. That, is undisputed.

~

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Hahaha...

That could come in useful.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Pardon me, I am finding it difficult to understand your point. I will respond, but correct me if I am digressive;

You are saying that, society tries to teach us proper questioning and critical thinking methods to criticize authorities such as religion and parents? As a result, these people, who are taught properly, will do better on these IQ tests?

If that is the case, then it really reinforces my point; people who are taught and can learn turn out to be more intelligent and often Atheist. What other test ought we enforce that would be reliable? Spiritual IQ tests..? How could anyone, in their right mind, statistically justify such a test..?

Again, correct me if I mis-understand though.

~

People who question what their parents and teachers tell them can keep looking and find the answers they are looking for. Often times teachers show a very simplistic version of scientific phenomena, and if some young critical thinker who is capable of hypothetical reasoning decides that the teacher isn't quite right, they can search and find a more detailed and accurate version of the truth.

Religion, however has been pushed aside in our modern culture. The information available in schools is presented as mythological, and although many people claim to be religious, the ideas and modes of thinking involved in religion and spirituality aren't really utilized by most of these people. This sort of environment leaves a void for those that might question religion. They may recognize that the outmoded judeo-christian model doesn't live up to rigor, but anything more specific is hard to come by. There are more accurate models available in the world that do a better job of explaining phenomena but they are difficult to find, hard to understand and since religion has become so unnessecary in most people's minds; it is hardly worth the effort to study it. Therefore, instead of searching for the religious and spiritual paradigms that have merit, many people simply claim agnostic or atheist, and the hardline atheists that really have come to the conclusion that there is no god use these numbers to bolster their claims that materialism is the answer.

I am also suggesting that I.Q. tests are designed to judge people on the type of thought that might lend oneself to a more scientific outlook; i.e. logical rational reasoning. Most esoteric 'spiritual sciences' first attempt to silence thought so that one can open up atrophied and dormant senses beyond the recognized physical ones. This type of awareness is diametrically opposed to rational thought and therefore can not be judged by I.Q. tests. The better someone is at reasoning their way through an I.Q. test, the less likely it will be that they are also adept in achieving the 'no mind' type of awareness associated with esoteric spiritual practices. There is little balance in the world, after all.

O'nus, your analogy doesn't seem to fit here. Can you explain it more to me? I'm having trouble understanding exactly where you are going with it.

When someone goes half their life not knowing about Chemistry and then learns it, does their IQ go up?

Again, this is really insignificant because, analogously, I did not know about Chemistry till I was older and, because of that, my IQ went up.

So are you saying that when one becomes an atheist, their IQ score will be higher? I don't get it. This is why analogies are not very good for debating--it reframes everything and we're in danger of arguing over apples and oranges.

I'm still very confused about how exactly a belief system on its own has any effect on one's IQ. I am more interested in finding out exactly how these two are related, and why I should care. I mean, really, there are a lot of things which are correlated in modern society. In my opinion, you cannot ignore all the other factors involved here. For example, one of your sources notes that wealthier people scored higher on IQ tests as well. I think it has far more to do with our society which is wealthier and gives more people a chance at an education, among many other things. In other words, I think we should be looking at the big picture here.

Belief systems obviously do not remain static just as our plasticity is always changing. Did you actually review how the WAIS works..??

No, I didn't...I've been looking for it in your OP. Mind showing me a link or something? Thanks. Again, not really sure what you are trying to say here. Does intelligence really change with one's belief system throughout their life? If I become an atheist tomorrow, will I get smarter? Will I score higher on an IQ test? Why or why not? If my high IQ makes it really more likely for me to become an atheist later, what does it say if I become an atheist and then later find JAYSUS? I just don't see how that is explained in your statistics.

It would help me if you could explain it to me without using an analogy.

Doesn't the crystallized intelligence stay the same throughout adulthood? Fluid intelligence peaks in then 20s, the declines regardless of religious beliefs. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.

No one said this. You are digressing.

Here's where I got it from. Recognize it?

"Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...cc5bec9#secx11

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

People who question what their parents and teachers tell them can keep looking and find the answers they are looking for. Often times teachers show a very simplistic version of scientific phenomena, and if some young critical thinker who is capable of hypothetical reasoning decides that the teacher isn't quite right, they can search and find a more detailed and accurate version of the truth.

Religion, however has been pushed aside in our modern culture. The information available in schools is presented as mythological, and although many people claim to be religious, the ideas and modes of thinking involved in religion and spirituality aren't really utilized by most of these people. This sort of environment leaves a void for those that might question religion. They may recognize that the outmoded judeo-christian model doesn't live up to rigor, but anything more specific is hard to come by. There are more accurate models available in the world that do a better job of explaining phenomena but they are difficult to find, hard to understand and since religion has become so unnessecary in most people's minds; it is hardly worth the effort to study it. Therefore, instead of searching for the religious and spiritual paradigms that have merit, many people simply claim agnostic or atheist, and the hardline atheists that really have come to the conclusion that there is no god use these numbers to bolster their claims that materialism is the answer.

I am also suggesting that I.Q. tests are designed to judge people on the type of thought that might lend oneself to a more scientific outlook; i.e. logical rational reasoning. Most esoteric 'spiritual sciences' first attempt to silence thought so that one can open up atrophied and dormant senses beyond the recognized physical ones. This type of awareness is diametrically opposed to rational thought and therefore can not be judged by I.Q. tests. The better someone is at reasoning their way through an I.Q. test, the less likely it will be that they are also adept in achieving the 'no mind' type of awareness associated with esoteric spiritual practices. There is little balance in the world, after all.

I want others to note this above post, as it is a good argument and sets forth good rebuttals. The idea is that you are debating exactly how we judge intelligence and how other religions may fit in.

Of course, we can compare all religions on IQ comparisons (and I already have) but these are based on the IQ tests variables which may not be spiritually inclined.

So, I must ask though, how can we form any means to measure intelligence from a spiritual point of view? Obviously it is likely that we ought not to, but, in our society, we do rely on IQ scores a lot and it significantly helps with education.

Thus, ought we really be debating then on what education we ought to be teaching children? If we are testing IQ based on verbal skills, math, writing, visual-spatial, etc. but spiritualists/other beliefs systems do not value these, then how do we measure intelligence to be fair and compromising to all belief systems?

Originally Posted by Naiya

O'nus, analogy is the weakest form of argument, 'yknow. I wouldn't rely on it too much. Yours doesn't seem to fit here. Can you explain it more to me? I'm having trouble understanding exactly where you are going with it.

Analogies are never my argument but my best way of representing what my argument is in the easiest format. I am not sure which one you are speaking of either.

There are skills we learn that are used in the IQ test and I could specifically talk about them too. For example, math skills. You once did not know math, and then you did. Your IQ went up because of that. You can learn a lot of math in just one day. You can also forget a lot of math in one day.

So are you saying that when one becomes an atheist, their IQ score will be higher? I don't get it. This is why analogies are not very good for debating--it reframes everything and we're in danger of arguing over apples and oranges.

Well now we are looking for causation here. I cannot really say what it is that immediately switches in someone to cause a higher IQ or the embrace of Atheism. I can tell you that those with higher ACH skills are more likely to be Atheist. That is all I am saying.

Note that Atheism is still a constituent belief of other systems and I believe most of the scores also include non-religious and agnostic.

I'm still very confused about how exactly a belief system on its own has any effect on one's IQ. I am more interested in finding out exactly how these two are related, and why I should care. I mean, really, there are a lot of things which are correlated in modern society. In my opinion, you cannot ignore all the other factors involved here. For example, one of your sources notes that wealthier people scored higher on IQ tests as well. I think it has far more to do with our society which is wealthier and gives more people a chance at an education, among many other things. In other words, I think we should be looking at the big picture here.

Right. Perhaps you are ignoring your own point here; the education one has, the more non-religious they are.

The underlying argument that a lot of scientists are nervous to make is that religion deters intellectual and critical thinking. Now there is evidence for it; religious thinking deters ACH thinking.

With ACH thinking, you are more likely to critically analyze those things presented to you. Do I need to elaborate..?

No, I didn't...I've been looking for it in your OP. Mind showing me a link or something? Thanks. Again, not really sure what you are trying to say here. Does intelligence really change with one's belief system throughout their life? If I become an atheist tomorrow, will I get smarter? Will I score higher on an IQ test? Why or why not?

The reason is why you become an Atheist. It is not so much an arbitrary decision but the means of reasoning executed to come to the conclusion. That type of thinking is associated with critical thinking/ACH thinking.

If you are curious about the reliability of the WAIS, the evidence of overwhelming:

"Test-Retest: Done for two age groups 25-34 and 45-54. Given in a 2 to 7 week interval. Reliability coefficient ranges from a low of .67 (Object Assembly 45-54) to a high of .94 (Information 45-54). VIQ = .94 (25-34) and .97 (45-54). PIQ = .89 (25-34) and .90 (45-54). FIQ = .95 (25-34) and .96 (45-54)

Split-Half: Spearman-Brown for all subtests except for Digit Span and Digit Symbol for age ranges from 16-17 to 70-74. Reliability coefficient ranges from a low of .52 (Object Assembly 16-17) to a high of .96 (Vocabulary across many of the age ranges). VIQ = .97. PIQ = .93. FIQ = .97.

Alternate-Form: none given

Interitem Consistency: not done. However, correlations between subtests (intrasubtest) and VIQ, PIQ, and FIQ are given but a Cronbach Alpha was not done.

Inter-Rater: not applicable

Standard Error of Measurement: each subtest has a SEM a low of .49 (Vocabulary 16-17) and high of 1.91 (Object Assembly 16-17). Average SEM were VIQ 2.74, PIQ 4.14, and FIQ 2.53"
+ http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...e=367&expand=1


"Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...cc5bec9#secx11[/QUOTE]

"Reliability of the WAIS-III for 100 male patients with substance abuse disorders was determined. Means for age and education were 46.06 years (SD = 8.81 years) and 12.70 years (SD = 1.51 years). There were 63 Caucasians and 37 African Americans. Split-half coefficients for the 11 subtests (Digit Symbol-Coding, Symbol Search, and Object Assembly were omitted) ranged from .92 for Vocabulary and Digit Span to .77 for Picture Arrangement. The median subtest reliability coefficient was .86. Composite reliabilities were excellent for the Indexes (.94 to .95) and IQs (.94 to .97), with all coefficients? .94. Using the Fisher z test to compare correlation coefficients from independent samples, none of the reliability estimates differed significantly from those reported for the WAIS-III standardization sample. Similar findings emerged when reliabilities were determined separately for Caucasian and African American participants."
+ http://asm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/2/151

"In general, the reliability and stability of all three tests were acceptable and approximately equivalent. "
+ http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...TOKEN=92795211

"WAIS-R subtest and composite scale reliabilities, standard errors of measurement, and standard errors of estimate were determined for a sample of psychiatric inpatients (N = 100). For Digit Span and Digit Symbol, test- retest stability coefficients were obtained; split-half reliability coefficients were calculated for all other subtests. With the exception of Object Assembly (rxx =.38), all subtest and composite scale reliability coefficients were large and acceptable. Based on the standard error of measure, the most reliable WAIS-R subtests were Digit Symbol (.77), Information (1.04), and Picture Completion (1.07). Reliability coefficients for the psychiatric inpatient sample were, in general, comparable to those values reported for the standardization group (Wechsler, 1981). Significant differences were obtained only on the Object Assembly and Vocabulary subtests."
+ http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

Doesn't the crystallized intelligence stay the same throughout adulthood? Fluid intelligence peaks in the 20s, the declines regardless of religious beliefs. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.

Well yes, our intelligence does not significantly raise through adulthood. It can also be argued that certain chromosomes are directly related to IQ performance.

However, this does not really relate to the point, unless you are asking if Atheists have a neurological advantage to Theists? The point is that, through child to adulthood, Atheists score higher. Of course, this still does not ignore the high probability that people will gain more intelligence as they get older. It is not as though once you hit 20 you cannot learn anymore. It is just likely that you cannot learn much more.

I think we, in a round about way, agree on this..?

Onus, you don't read your own sources? That's where I got it from.

Oh well, pardon me, I was not arguing over IQ scores and their adaptation to religion. However, it is a good point. It is not likely that someone with lower IQ would befriend those with higher IQ - they would likely have difficulties communicating.

What of it? I do not really understand your point, if you have one..?

You are just wondering what it is about Atheists that makes them score higher. The evidence I have provided shows that it is that Atheists tend to value critical thinking more.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh well, pardon me, I was not arguing over IQ scores and their adaptation to religion. However, it is a good point. It is not likely that someone with lower IQ would befriend those with higher IQ - they would likely have difficulties communicating.

What of it? I do not really understand your point, if you have one..?

You are just wondering what it is about Atheists that makes them score higher. The evidence I have provided shows that it is that Atheists tend to value critical thinking more.

~

Whoa there. Where did I say anything about people with different IQs not talking to each other? Where'd you get that idea? o_O

All I said was that one of your sources pointed out that people tend to gravitate toward their current belief system in their teen years. My point was that this, to me, implied that people would keep to the same belief system for the rest of their lives.

Thanks for posting the stuff. In a sense, yes I do agree with you. I agree that atheism is less of a choice than it is a conclusion reached through a lot of thinking, experiencing, and critically analyzing their belief system. Or for me, a realization at the end of all those things.

I also do agree that religious organizations are anti-intellectual, anti-critical thinking. So yes, they may raise their children in a way that suppresses those things. On the other hand, as one of your sources said, more liberal denominations scored higher than conservative ones. So if religion itself evolves in a way that encourages intellectualism (let's just leave that as a hypothetical situation), these statistics would likely change. In my opinion, it's more about the culture itself, of which religion is an extension.

But, like I said, it would not really account for those atheists who have a sudden 180 later on. What happened to those people when they suddenly got Jaysus? did their IQ drop before, or after? Was it just always low, because if it were high they would have remained an atheist (that to me would be the biggest cop-out and smacks of the not-a-true-scotsman thing)? What gives? What happened to all those great thinking skills they had which led them to atheism in the first place? That's my main point, really. I feel that there are still some things missing in these studies, that's all. Studies and statistics in general can be very limiting.

Basically my point is, you have to be careful not to single out religion as the only culprit here.

Another point you brought up is that your IQ goes up after learning math. I think that right there is where I was getting confused. I was under the impression that you were equating IQ with intelligence (because of the name of the thread).

My other issue with all this stuff as a whole is, like I said, it oversimplifies things. There are too many other factors involved. Yes, there is a relationship/correlation. But that's all it is. I could just as easily throw in statistics on obesity and show that fat rich people are "smarter" than skinny poor people.

Originally Posted by Naiya

Whoa there. Where did I say anything about people with different IQs not talking to each other? Where'd you get that idea? o_O

All I said was that one of your sources pointed out that people tend to gravitate toward their current belief system in their teen years. My point was that this, to me, implied that people would keep to the same belief system for the rest of their lives.

Well yes, it is generally true. I just do not see the relevance.

I also do agree that religious organizations are anti-intellectual, anti-critical thinking. So yes, they may raise their children in a way that suppresses those things. On the other hand, as one of your sources said, more liberal denominations scored higher than conservative ones. So if religion itself evolves in a way that encourages intellectualism (let's just leave that as a hypothetical situation), these statistics would likely change. In my opinion, it's more about the culture itself, of which religion is an extension.

Of course. It would be encouraged for liberal religions to educate critical thinking.

But, like I said, it would not really account for those atheists who have a sudden 180 later on. What happened to those people when they suddenly got Jaysus? did their IQ drop before, or after? Was it just always low, because if it were high they would have remained an atheist (that to me would be the biggest cop-out and smacks of the not-a-true-scotsman thing)? What gives? What happened to all those great thinking skills they had which led them to atheism in the first place? That's my main point, really. I feel that there are still some things missing in these studies, that's all. Studies and statistics in general can be very limiting.

Why are you ignoring the very basic rule of statistics; they are general trends. Statistics always allow for outliers and information to lie outside the found statistical distribution. Z scores.

Basically my point is, you have to be careful not to single out religion as the only culprit here.

I am not. Of course there are still Atheists that score lower in IQ, but this is taking the averages and representative distributions.

Another point you brought up is that your IQ goes up after learning math. I think that right there is where I was getting confused. I was under the impression that you were equating IQ with intelligence (because of the name of the thread).

Well.. that is where you would better find an argument. IQ does stand for Intelligence Quotient for a reason. It scores verbal skills, written abilities, visual-spatial, etc. etc. etc. So, what ought IQ tests use to measure intelligence if not these things..?

My other issue with all this stuff as a whole is, like I said, it oversimplifies things. There are too many other factors involved. Yes, there is a relationship/correlation. But that's all it is. I could just as easily throw in statistics on obesity and show that fat rich people are "smarter" than skinny poor people.

See, you are actually debating from analogy here now, not me. What are you saying? All this evidence I have provided clearly shows a strong correlation. You focus too hard on the 'correlation =/= causation' but completely ignore that correlation still indicates a relationship! Furthermore, the IQ tests have pretty strict statistics.

I think I ought to counter you by asking, if religions correlation is not the causation of the significant difference, then what could be?

~

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I am also suggesting that I.Q. tests are designed to judge people on the type of thought that might lend oneself to a more scientific outlook; i.e. logical rational reasoning. Most esoteric 'spiritual sciences' first attempt to silence thought so that one can open up atrophied and dormant senses beyond the recognized physical ones. This type of awareness is diametrically opposed to rational thought and therefore can not be judged by I.Q. tests. The better someone is at reasoning their way through an I.Q. test, the less likely it will be that they are also adept in achieving the 'no mind' type of awareness associated with esoteric spiritual practices. There is little balance in the world, after all.

Originally Posted by O'nus

So, I must ask though, how can we form any means to measure intelligence from a spiritual point of view? Obviously it is likely that we ought not to, but, in our society, we do rely on IQ scores a lot and it significantly helps with education.
~

My answer to your question, O'nus, is based off of the point Xaqaria already
made about the nature of spirituality and how it utilizes this "lack of thought"
practice in order to grasp otherwise dormant faculties of the mind. I do not
believe spirituality is based on a form of intelligence that is applicable to
reasoning or critical thought at all (consider kinesthetic intelligence), but
rather an intuitive grasp of one's feelings and/or modes of perception.

Kinesthetic intelligence can more or less be measured though, to a degree,
so I understand that it is not fully relatable to spirituality in that one can be
observed and the other cannot.

Originally Posted by Invader

My answer to your question, O'nus, is based off of the point Xaqaria already made about the nature of spirituality and how it utilizes this "lack of thought" practice in order to grasp otherwise dormant faculties of the mind. I do not believe spirituality is based on a form of intelligence that is applicable to reasoning or critical thought at all (consider kinesthetic intelligence), but rather an intuitive grasp of one's feelings and/or modes of perception.

Points made;
+ Other forms of religion/spirituality value lack of thought
+ Other forms do not value those things tested on the WAIS
+ Spirituality does not fundamentally rely on critical thought
+ Spirituality does rely on intuition and modes of perception

Firstly, this is saying that these religions do not value a lot of things; writing, math, verbalization, abstract thinking, visual-spatial thinking, etc. There are so many things then being ignored by these other religions.. so what exactly are they valuing then?

If spirituality does not rely on critical thought, ought that not be a point against it? In order to embrace these other doctrines you ought to not critically question nor think about their content..?

Also, the WAIS and other IQ tests can and do test intuition and different modes of perception. For example, ACH thinking itself utilizes abstract perceptual problem solving.

Kinesthetic intelligence can more or less be measured though, to a degree,
so I understand that it is not fully relatable to spirituality in that one can be
observed and the other cannot.

Yes, Gardner did a lot of work on the variations of intelligence, including kinesthetic.

+ http://www.k12connections.iptv.org/d...ellegences.pdf

However, those can still be tested. When we talk about kinesthetic, then the spiritual is really in a moot spot because neurology can explain much more depths of muscle and kinetic control than spiritual vagaries can.

Let us not forget that spirituality is still a presumption and how can you study or inquire something that assumes it's proposition is already true?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Points made;
+ Other forms of religion/spirituality value lack of thought
+ Other forms do not value those things tested on the WAIS
+ Spirituality does not fundamentally rely on critical thought
+ Spirituality does rely on intuition and modes of perception

Firstly, this is saying that these religions do not value a lot of things; writing, math, verbalization, abstract thinking, visual-spatial thinking, etc. There are so many things then being ignored by these other religions.. so what exactly are they valuing then?

If spirituality does not rely on critical thought, ought that not be a point against it? In order to embrace these other doctrines you ought to not critically question nor think about their content..?

Also, the WAIS and other IQ tests can and do test intuition and different modes of perception. For example, ACH thinking itself utilizes abstract perceptual problem solving.



Yes, Gardner did a lot of work on the variations of intelligence, including kinesthetic.

+ http://www.k12connections.iptv.org/d...ellegences.pdf

However, those can still be tested. When we talk about kinesthetic, then the spiritual is really in a moot spot because neurology can explain much more depths of muscle and kinetic control than spiritual vagaries can.

Let us not forget that spirituality is still a presumption and how can you study or inquire something that assumes it's proposition is already true?

~

Nobody said that religous people do not value language, math, etc. or even that religions don't. Remember that the first historians, scientists, etc. were all members of the clergy. What is being claimed is that 'spiritual science', or that which would lead one to a sense of spirituality and religious awe does not involve the same types of thought or even the same frames of awareness as what is used to study the physical world and what is tested in an I.Q. test.

You seem to have the tendency to reduce issues to the point of meaninglessness. A well rounded individual would have a strong ability for critical thought, and intuitive awareness. Religion or spirituality is just one aspect of a potentially healthy human being, and there is no need to define one's life by just one mode of thought.

I'm surprised you would question the study of spirituality based on the fact that one must assume it is already true before they can begin studying it. This is exactly the same for lucid dreaming. Perhaps we can see some sort of outward signs of awareness during sleep (ex. Laberge's eye movement experiments) but the only way to control one's dreams is to first take it on faith that it is indeed possible. What do you tell someone who questions whether it is possible to control one's dreams? Keep at it whole heartedly and eventually you will see for yourself.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Nobody said that religous people do not value language, math, etc. or even that religions don't. Remember that the first historians, scientists, etc. were all members of the clergy. What is being claimed is that 'spiritual science', or that which would lead one to a sense of spirituality and religious awe does not involve the same types of thought or even the same frames of awareness as what is used to study the physical world and what is tested in an I.Q. test.

You seem to have the tendency to reduce issues to the point of meaninglessness. A well rounded individual would have a strong ability for critical thought, and intuitive awareness. Religion or spirituality is just one aspect of a potentially healthy human being, and there is no need to define one's life by just one mode of thought.

That is unfortunate. I like to think I try to simplify things and then pursue their integrity.

I'm surprised you would question the study of spirituality based on the fact that one must assume it is already true before they can begin studying it. This is exactly the same for lucid dreaming. Perhaps we can see some sort of outward signs of awareness during sleep (ex. Laberge's eye movement experiments) but the only way to control one's dreams is to first take it on faith that it is indeed possible. What do you tell someone who questions whether it is possible to control one's dreams? Keep at it whole heartedly and eventually you will see for yourself.

Spirituality is not a known fact. The best we can argue is that known facts are based on dogmatic reasoning. But what other reasoning could we enforce to pursue the truth of the world around us? We must remove the illogical and uncertain things in order to pursue the rational.

Really, this is opening the doors to the debate about intelligence which does not really interest me at this time. The point is that, with what the WAIS does test, Atheists score higher. Whether or not that is of value to you, is up to you.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think I ought to counter you by asking, if religions correlation is not the causation of the significant difference, then what could be?

~

Like I've said several times, religion is one part of a culture. Any culture will have many, many things which contribute to whether or not their kids grow up with a higher intelligence. Religion is one of those factors, but you cannot prove that it is contributing any more or less than wealth, education, political view, physical health, nutrition, and genetic predisposition toward higher intelligence. My bringing up these other contributing factors and other things correlated with higher intelligence has everything to do with the subject, because when you have more than one variable in something you are studying, you should be considering them all, not just looking at one of them as the cause of higher intelligence.

You can single out certain factors for the sake of finding a relationship or correlation, but for a problem as complex as intelligence, you also can't afford to ignore all of the other contributing factors.

For example, I know a person who never finished his IQ test because he had ADHD and couldn't sit still long enough to finish it. So the IQ test was a poor measurement of his intelligence--he got a much lower score than was really possible just because he didn't finish. The IQ score did not reflect his true intelligence, therefore an IQ score could not possibly be equated with one's actual intelligence.

IQ is a measurement of intelligence, not intelligence itself. Intelligence itself is the capacity to learn. IMO, it would be naive to believe that our current way of measuring intelligence is the definition of intelligence. Of course we try our best to keep it as accurate as possible, and it is very accurate, but it isn't so accurate as to be equated with intelligence itself.

Keeping in mind that we still have a lot to learn about ourselves allows for more growth in the scientific community.

Anyway, no one is disputing the relationship, however, you've yet to give any solid evidence that it is anything beyond that. In your OP you don't, so there's no reason for me to feel obligated to agree to stretch the correlation to have any more meaning that just that. You seem to want to push that now, and I'm not really sure why. I essentially agree with you here--I'm just not willing to stretch the facts to any conclusions which I don't believe they support, and I'm looking at them through a larger picture.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Firstly, this is saying that these religions do not value a lot of things; writing, math, verbalization, abstract thinking, visual-spatial thinking, etc. There are so many things then being ignored by these other religions.. so what exactly are they valuing then?

I never said they did not value these things. "Lack of thought" is in quotes,
followed by the word 'practice'. I am attempting to describe what goes on
when in the appropriate mindset for exercising one's spirituality, or for
experiencing something beyond what typical awareness allows. Could I not
also describe the act of meditation similarly? One who meditates does not
devalue critical thought, though it's typical to let go of such thoughts while
in the meditative state.

If spirituality does not rely on critical thought, ought that not be a point against it? In order to embrace these other doctrines you ought to not critically question nor think about their content..?

Any system of belief does not need to rely on critical thought in and of itself
in order for one to critically question it. What happens when you critically
question another's beliefs and end up agreeing? Can you not embrace those
beliefs?

Yes, Gardner did a lot of work on the variations of intelligence, including kinesthetic.

Right, I agree because I said that kinesthetic attributes can be observed and
therefor measured. Thank you for the link in any case, will be reading.

Let us not forget that spirituality is still a presumption and how can you study or inquire something that assumes it's proposition is already true?
~

What does it matter if it claims that it's already true? The assumption could
be based on any number of things, from some phenomenon that can be
objectively observed or by an individual experience. I'm not sure I understand
what your asking, but what a doctrine assumes about itself should not deter
study into it's potential truths or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by O'nus

That is unfortunate. I like to think I try to simplify things and then pursue their integrity.



Spirituality is not a known fact. The best we can argue is that known facts are based on dogmatic reasoning. But what other reasoning could we enforce to pursue the truth of the world around us? We must remove the illogical and uncertain things in order to pursue the rational.

Really, this is opening the doors to the debate about intelligence which does not really interest me at this time. The point is that, with what the WAIS does test, Atheists score higher. Whether or not that is of value to you, is up to you.

~

That may have been your point, but you have proven nothing. You have shown a correllation between statistical scores and statistical religious affiliation. The exact same correllation exists between just about a gazillion other factors that you have completely ignored, any number of which could be affecting or affected by the scores, the religious affliation, both or neither independantly or in concert. Like I said before, you use a reductionist argument to prove your point but end up in meaningless self aggrandizement since you completely disregard the intrinsically holistic nature of reality. You feel yourself to be intelligent, and you are an atheist; so naturally you would like to find a connection between the two. You found one between the pages of Skeptic magazine and so you believe they are a purveyor of truth and now preach their sermon here.

Undoutedly, when someone finds so much opposition, they either have a very good point or completely idotic.

I ought to note that many of the things I have quoted were before the skeptic article and only ACH thinking being trut pertinent to that. I have obviously cited spires older than it.

On the othe note, I am not really trying to argue anything. There's a correlation and I simply wanted to stir debate over what the relationship.

Now I am on my iPhone right now so I will have to save a more appropriate reply for later.

~

I'm going to try and reconcile this now.

Originally Posted by Naiya

Like I've said several times, religion is one part of a culture. Any culture will have many, many things which contribute to whether or not their kids grow up with a higher intelligence. Religion is one of those factors, but you cannot prove that it is contributing any more or less than wealth, education, political view, physical health, nutrition, and genetic predisposition toward higher intelligence. My bringing up these other contributing factors and other things correlated with higher intelligence has everything to do with the subject, because when you have more than one variable in something you are studying, you should be considering them all, not just looking at one of them as the cause of higher intelligence.

You are right - I cannot prove religions direct causation to intelligence. I can, however, prove the relationship, and I have. That is all. What we make of it is entirely speculation really.

You can single out certain factors for the sake of finding a relationship or correlation, but for a problem as complex as intelligence, you also can't afford to ignore all of the other contributing factors.

For example, I know a person who never finished his IQ test because he had ADHD and couldn't sit still long enough to finish it. So the IQ test was a poor measurement of his intelligence--he got a much lower score than was really possible just because he didn't finish. The IQ score did not reflect his true intelligence, therefore an IQ score could not possibly be equated with one's actual intelligence.

This is what reliability scores are for. They account for incidents like this.

IQ is a measurement of intelligence, not intelligence itself. Intelligence itself is the capacity to learn. IMO, it would be naive to believe that our current way of measuring intelligence is the definition of intelligence. Of course we try our best to keep it as accurate as possible, and it is very accurate, but it isn't so accurate as to be equated with intelligence itself.

Right, but we have little, if any, alternatives.

Anyway, no one is disputing the relationship, however, you've yet to give any solid evidence that it is anything beyond that. In your OP you don't, so there's no reason for me to feel obligated to agree to stretch the correlation to have any more meaning that just that. You seem to want to push that now, and I'm not really sure why. I essentially agree with you here--I'm just not willing to stretch the facts to any conclusions which I don't believe they support, and I'm looking at them through a larger picture.

No, you're right. I am not trying to prove a causation just speculating it. Personally, I think that ACH thinking is what leads to it. Critical thinking is the very foundation of questioning knowledge and that is what, I think, leads to question religion and then losing faith. Sound reasonable?

Originally Posted by Invader

I never said they did not value these things. "Lack of thought" is in quotes,
followed by the word 'practice'. I am attempting to describe what goes on
when in the appropriate mindset for exercising one's spirituality, or for
experiencing something beyond what typical awareness allows. Could I not
also describe the act of meditation similarly? One who meditates does not
devalue critical thought, though it's typical to let go of such thoughts while
in the meditative state.

Well, true. Although, how do these people describe intelligence? Does it really have nothing that entails in the WAIS test? What sorts of things do they recognize as 'intelligence'? Of course, it is likely to argue that they value intelligence as being free of categories and labels, etc. and all that proverbial nonsense. However, those things which they so disagree with have enabled us to build cities, civilizations, sky-scrapers, art, and all that we have around us. So really, what is "spiritual" intelligence? A vague ill-defined definition that ought to hold precedence over scientific intelligence?

Any system of belief does not need to rely on critical thought in and of itself
in order for one to critically question it. What happens when you critically
question another's beliefs and end up agreeing? Can you not embrace those
beliefs?

Well of course, that is what lead to my beliefs! I am arguing for this. We agree here.

What does it matter if it claims that it's already true? The assumption could
be based on any number of things, from some phenomenon that can be
objectively observed or by an individual experience. I'm not sure I understand
what your asking, but what a doctrine assumes about itself should not deter
study into it's potential truths or lack thereof.

Well let me put it this way. I see several arguments against the scientific definition of intelligence and yet the alternatives have almost nothing to offer but an "intuitive" and "spiritual" plane of self-transcendence that has little definitions and, in fact, thrives on the very fact that is has no definitions. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

That may have been your point, but you have proven nothing. You have shown a correllation between statistical scores and statistical religious affiliation. The exact same correllation exists between just about a gazillion other factors that you have completely ignored, any number of which could be affecting or affected by the scores, the religious affliation, both or neither independantly or in concert. Like I said before, you use a reductionist argument to prove your point but end up in meaningless self aggrandizement since you completely disregard the intrinsically holistic nature of reality. You feel yourself to be intelligent, and you are an atheist; so naturally you would like to find a connection between the two. You found one between the pages of Skeptic magazine and so you believe they are a purveyor of truth and now preach their sermon here.

I was not trying to prove anything.

You are not providing anything to work on by saying this like, "...a gazillion other factors". You realize that many of those factors are being accounted for in psychology (ie. Socio-economical status, education, income, etc.). So how can you retort against me with conjecture?

Furthermore, you denigrate my points by trying to explain what lead to my inspiration to posting it? Yes, I found an article. However, you are completely ignoring that I have come across this information far before it and, fortunately, learned about these things years ago.

So I learned about these factors from studies. How come you do not consider that this is really a reason why I am encouraged to continue thinking the way I am and see if anyone has anything better to offer? I am not trying to preach or convert anyone; I want to be proven wrong. However, you have done nothing but try and denigrate my position by explaining it away and offering no support for your meager points.

What alternatives are there if all we say is, "You're wrong" ok, well then what? "Nothing. Deal with it."

But I am the one reducing things to meaninglessness..??

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Well, true. Although, how do these people describe intelligence? Does it really have nothing that entails in the WAIS test? What sorts of things do they recognize as 'intelligence'? Of course, it is likely to argue that they value intelligence as being free of categories and labels, etc. and all that proverbial nonsense. However, those things which they so disagree with have enabled us to build cities, civilizations, sky-scrapers, art, and all that we have around us. So really, what is "spiritual" intelligence? A vague ill-defined definition that ought to hold precedence over scientific intelligence?

I don't see why they wouldn't classify intelligence the same way we do. A
quick look into ancient architecture demonstrates a healthy knowledge of
applied methematics and practical construction tricks that have had the lot
of us puzzled for years even in the modern day! The spiritual mindset
coexisted quite well with philosophy/mathematics/writing in the past.

In order to define spiritual intelligence we should first define that which is
considered spiritual. If we are speaking strictly about those things that we
experience subjectively (the idea of self trascendence, or of being one with
something far beyond oneself), then to be spiritually intelligent is to possess
the ability to effectively grasp the experience and develope some intuitive
understanding of what those experiences mean (with respect to the person
or the world around them).

It is, in this case, different but not opposite from any other form of
intelligence (mathematical, musical, linguistic, kinesthetic, and so on). All
forms of intelligence do not necessarily oppose any other.

If your definition of the spiritual is at all different, please say so. I am not
equating spirituality to religious doctrine, as I believe religion by itself is
independant of intelligence, much the same way a novel or instruction
manual is.

Well let me put it this way. I see several arguments against the scientific definition of intelligence and yet the alternatives have almost nothing to offer but an "intuitive" and "spiritual" plane of self-transcendence that has little definitions and, in fact, thrives on the very fact that is has no definitions. Am I wrong?

I agree that it's poorly defined, sure. What I don't understand is why there
would be an argument at all for alternatives to the scientific definition of
intelligence so far, being that the nature of "spiritual intelligence" lies beyond
the scope of measurement at this moment. Perhaps in the future as our
understanding of consciousness developes that will change.

Originally Posted by Invader

I don't see why they wouldn't classify intelligence the same way we do. A
quick look into ancient architecture demonstrates a healthy knowledge of
applied methematics and practical construction tricks that have had the lot
of us puzzled for years even in the modern day! The spiritual mindset
coexisted quite well with philosophy/mathematics/writing in the past.

Okay so, in this case, we can then still look at the evidence and wonder why it is then that Atheists score higher than Theists. Emphasis on the wonder and perhaps encourage to hypothesize.

In order to define spiritual intelligence we should first define that which is
considered spiritual. If we are speaking strictly about those things that we
experience subjectively (the idea of self trascendence, or of being one with
something far beyond oneself), then to be spiritually intelligent is to possess
the ability to effectively grasp the experience and develope some intuitive
understanding of what those experiences mean (with respect to the person
or the world around them).

Right, and Atheists can still do this. I am not quite sure I know if there is a point here or if we're just having a good discussion. I am siding with the latter.

It is, in this case, different but not opposite from any other form of
intelligence (mathematical, musical, linguistic, kinesthetic, and so on). All
forms of intelligence do not necessarily oppose any other.

Quite true, I profoundly agree. I simply wonder then where we could pursue to find the causation or if there are other variables that are worth investigating. When we look at education, the majority of those educated are Atheist. This is also the same with income levels and socio-economic. However, the majority of people on the planet are Theist, but also impoverished.

If your definition of the spiritual is at all different, please say so. I am not
equating spirituality to religious doctrine, as I believe religion by itself is
independant of intelligence, much the same way a novel or instruction
manual is.

You may not be, but there certainly many Theists who could call themselves spiritual.

On that note, though, if religion is independent of intelligence, then what is that person exercising, cognitively, that justifies believing in their religion..?

I agree that it's poorly defined, sure. What I don't understand is why anyone
would be arguing for alternatives to the scientific definition of intelligence so
far, being that the nature of "spiritual intelligence" lies beyond the scope of
measurement at this moment. Perhaps in the future as our understanding of
consciousness developes that will change.

I would hope so. However, when you refer to our developing understanding and our ability to categorize spiritual intelligence, then what is it that we are really hoping for..? How exactly can we pursue it if we have no variables to work with from the get-go..?

~