Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

To better represent this, we can see the highly educated peoples beliefs in God rise over time.

Your hand may have slipped up somewhere!

And as for this:



Why is the belief for immortality dropping? The human lifespan increases as time
progresses and new breakthroughs are made, I was under the impression that it was rather
popularly believed that we would eventually overcome natural death.

Originally Posted by ClouD

One could debate that IQ is based on scientific understanding?

Our IQ tests require basic reasoning skills, and not so much the understanding of
scientific concepts. There's a section that measure's one's capacity for visual/spatial
problems, for example.


@Black_Eagle

You was to be using the forward slash ( / ) in the end of your tag.

In order to examine the validity of your assessment, we need to examine the validity of the variables you've examined and the perceived correlation between them.

Intelligence quotent is determined through standardized tests that typically measure spatial awareness, linear and verbal reasoning and rational problem solving. They do this with various visual, linguistic and arithmetical puzzles. The tests are designed by scientists and are inherently scientific in nature. For the most part, they measure the so called "left brain" rational and linear brain functions.

Basically what you are saying is that there is a correllation between Scientific, or materialistic minded people and their ability to score highly on a test that is meant to test rational and linear thought processes.

Religious beliefs usually coincide with the more non-linear intuitive thought processes, so it would seem to make sense that someone who leans more in the direction of religious belief would be less likely to score highly on a test of reasoning.

It seems that all you've managed to show is that the average human tends to lean either towards reason or intuition, and that most people do not have a balance between the two.

I'd also like to point out that all of the correllative studies you cited have been done by scientists who more than likely are not particularly religious. I'm sure with the proper bias someone could come up with some good looking graphs showing a correllation between some perceived measure of intelligence and religious belief.

Edit: Is your source the article in Skeptic? Don't you think a magazine dedicated to not believing in anything is a just a bit too biased for a balanced judgement of beliefs in general?

I also thought of a few more holes in the theory. The available religions in the global society are stereotypically dogmatic and unyielding which is by definition opposed to critical thinking which is what you are comparing here. There are many people who believe that there is or may be something more than what materialism has to offer but do not believe in any of the established Religions. These people tend to associate more with Atheism especially since many people seem to believe that agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

Originally Posted by Invader

Your hand may have slipped up somewhere!

Oh you are right, I made a typo lol.

Why is the belief for immortality dropping? The human lifespan increases as time
progresses and new breakthroughs are made, I was under the impression that it was rather
popularly believed that we would eventually overcome natural death.

I am not sure. Although it is not really pertinent to the point, I did not really look into what "immortality" they are speaking of.

Our IQ tests require basic reasoning skills, and not so much the understanding of
scientific concepts. There's a section that measure's one's capacity for visual/spatial
problems, for example.

I will address this simultaneously with Xaqaria's.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Intelligence quotent is determined through standardized tests that typically measure spatial awareness, linear and verbal reasoning and rational problem solving. They do this with various visual, linguistic and arithmetical puzzles. The tests are designed by scientists and are inherently scientific in nature. For the most part, they measure the so called "left brain" rational and linear brain functions.

The IQ tests were utilizing the Raven's similarities tests and Wechsler IQ tests (WAIS).

In regards to the WAIS:

"Verbal Scales
Information: Range of knowledge
Comprehension: Judgement
Arithmetic: Concentration
Similarities: Abstract thinking
Digit Span: memory, anxiety
Vocabulary: Vocabulary level
Letter-Number-
Sequencing

Performance Scales
Digit Symbol: Visual-motor functioning
Picture Completion: Attention to detail
Picture Arrangement: Planning ability
Block Design: Nonverbal reasoning
Object Assembly: Analysis of part-whole relationships
Matrix Reasoning
Symbol Search

Each subtest has a scaled score of 10 with a SD of 3.






Reliability Information:

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


Validity Information:

Face Validity: has face validity

Content Validity: has content validity

Criterion-Related Validity: with academic success, tests of achievement, and formal education

Construct Validity: convergence with similar IQ measures, no divergence given

Standardization:

Size and Composition of the Standardized Sample: 2,450 people comprised the standardization sample reflecting ages 16-89
Describe the Sampling Procedures: Stratified Random Sampling based on the most current census data.

Administration Procedures: individual administration procedure, should be done by a trained evaluator.

Scoring: is done by hand by the evaluator

Interpretation: guidelines for interpreting each interval of scores is given: very superior - mentally retarded.

Comments:

Appropriate Client Use: people for whom the test was standardized. It is a test of intelligence so caution should be used when interpreting it for occupations, education, and training.

Appropriate for Which Groups of People with Disabilities: generally those people who would not fall into the categories below.

Groups of People with Disabilities not Appropriate: people who were institutionalized for mental illness, people with traumatic brain injuries, people with severe behavioral or emotional problems, people with physical impairments which restrict responses to test items, people whose primary language is other than English."
+ http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...Nh4ENB42OVHgcE

As for the Raven's similarities test:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's...ssive_Matrices
+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...558f47dc222ade

These tests utilize more than what you have limited the frame to. Do not be so quick to ignore the full dynamic of these tests.

Basically what you are saying is that there is a correllation between Scientific, or materialistic minded people and their ability to score highly on a test that is meant to test rational and linear thought processes.

Religious beliefs usually coincide with the more non-linear intuitive thought processes, so it would seem to make sense that someone who leans more in the direction of religious belief would be less likely to score highly on a test of reasoning.

No. You did not read what I said. ACH thinking is not rational and linear thought processes and this is where we find the significance that I am focusing upon.

It seems that all you've managed to show is that the average human tends to lean either towards reason or intuition, and that most people do not have a balance between the two.

You are making prejudice remarks on these IQ tests; they test a lot more than this. Please consider the above to elaborate on the depths of ACH thinking.

I'd also like to point out that all of the correllative studies you cited have been done by scientists who more than likely are not particularly religious. I'm sure with the proper bias someone could come up with some good looking graphs showing a correllation between some perceived measure of intelligence and religious belief.

That is simply speculation. You have not provided any grounds for bias.

Furthermore, most of these cited articles are peer-reviewed and confounding.

Edit: Is your source the article in Skeptic? Don't you think a magazine dedicated to not believing in anything is a just a bit too biased for a balanced judgement of beliefs in general?

I already said, at the very beginning of my post, that I read an article by Dr. James Allan Cheyne. You cannot possibly argue that it is a bias because that just shows your ignorance to the magazine. The magazine has reverends writing and several people of faith. Furthermore, the last months magazine focused entirely on Christian origins conspiracy theories (that being the defense of Christianity against Atheists bombardment of conspiracies regarding religious conjuration.)
+ http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/.../vol15n01.html

I also thought of a few more holes in the theory. The available religions in the global society are stereotypically dogmatic and unyielding which is by definition opposed to critical thinking which is what you are comparing here. There are many people who believe that there is or may be something more than what materialism has to offer but do not believe in any of the established Religions. These people tend to associate more with Atheism especially since many people seem to believe that agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

So, in your first point, it just demonstrates that you are ignoring ACH thinking, which is not specifically critical thinking.

Also, it is a good point to say that Atheism is a implied by other beliefs. I mean, I do not explicitly consider my self Atheist but Humanist Existential. Thus, it is a bit misleading to even say that Atheism itself, alone, is a religious or belief doctrine itself. I think the idea is that, those doctrines that imply or include Atheism, are correlated with higher IQ (as those all encompassing beliefs integrate ACH thinking as opposed to direct dogmatic beliefs).

What do you think..?

~

It is already known that being religious or spiritual is the work of the right brain. IQ tests on the other hand, is the product of the left brain.

Don't you think that an argument that atheists are more intelligent, is an argument that religious or spiritual individuals are inferior?

Did you think the need to feel superior above others is something unique? Haven't we seen these kinds of arguments in the past, about who is and who isn't superior? Haven't these arguments been backed up by so called "logical" information? .......................Haven't they always led to the suffering of another human being?

I'll give you small hint. left brain intelligence.

right brain........................wisdom

What do we get with super high intelligence without wisdom??? We get imperialism, dictatorship, communism, racism, genocides, unspeakable experiments, global warming, mass extinction, weapons of mass destruction, and millions of dollars poured into science for the sake of science instead of the sake of humanity

I'd rather be a whole brain than half brain

But if I had to be half a brain, then I'd gladly choose to be a retard who still understood that the worth and measure of a human being can not be measured with numbers and graphs

Juroara, you did not read my post then. Firs of all, left/right brain psycholgy is a myth propogated by laymen - not academics.

Second of all, I included the type of broad abstract categorical and hypthetical thinking; ACH thinking is where the significant difference is and atheists score higher.

Furthermore, you use the word wisdom but don't define it. I suppose wisdom, to you, is being faithful. Considering you have no other substance I. Your argumet, that is the only presumption that can be made.

From your demonstration of ignorance to the WAIS IQ tests and conjecture of wisdom, I can tell that what you have said was said out of desperation rather than contemplative thought.

Ironic that your post actually supports the main point and proves yourself e
wrong.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Juroara, you did not read my post then. Firs of all, left/right brain psycholgy is a myth propogated by laymen - not academics.

Second of all, I included the type of broad abstract categorical and hypthetical thinking; ACH thinking is where the significant difference is and atheists score higher.

Furthermore, you use the word wisdom but don't define it. I suppose wisdom, to you, is being faithful. Considering you have no other substance I. Your argumet, that is the only presumption that can be made.

From your demonstration of ignorance to the WAIS IQ tests and conjecture of wisdom, I can tell that what you have said was said out of desperation rather than contemplative thought.

Ironic that your post actually supports the main point and proves yourself e
wrong.

~

thank you


you have proven my point as well

My post clealry illustrates your complete misunderstanding of the point and content and you think I have proven left/right brain pseudo-science? Ok, how?

I think responses like juroara ought to be referenced for the inability to commit ACH thinking as juroara is utterly stubborn to the idea.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

My post clealry illustrates your complete misunderstanding of the point and content and you think I have proven left/right brain pseudo-science? Ok, how?

I think responses like juroara ought to be referenced for the inability to commit ACH thinking as juroara is utterly stubborn to the idea.

~

I'm ignorant and stubborn! please tell me what else I am o'nus?

go ahead..judge me

O'nus, can you give more info on ACH thinking? I can't seem to find any reason why you might think that this is a good judge of intelligence. In fact, I can't really find anything about it, since all that comes up in internet searches is this thread, and a thread on another forum (the atheist's toolbox) called "Atheism Rising".

I feel like you ignored a lot of what I was trying to say in my post. IQ tests judge people on the kind of analytical thinking that is valued in our society that has made it illegal to teach religion in schools. People who do well on this sort of test are more likely to question the things that authorities are telling them, both academic and religious. There is information made available for people who would question academia and science, but virtually no information available for those that would question their parent's religion. In my mind, this is most likely to lead people to be "atheists" only because they don't really see that validity in what they have been taught and yet have no access to alternatives.

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.

Seems fairly questionable to me for a few reason. First the short term 1982-2007, the chart shows no real change. Secondly the person said Australia is the most religious country, while the chart says the average Australian has an IQ of 98, 2 points below average, and far from the bottom. Which is very conflicting to what they said.

Third the red orange yellow map is being used out of context. As it is a rating of races and native people in a country, and not a reflection of modern day average population. No the average austrialian isn't mentally retarded, which you can double check on the other chart, which says they are not. Fourth the first poll is asking about belief in a personal god, and doesn't address any other form of religion, that believes other things.

Also, I have no clue what a "Greater" scientist is supposed to mean, so that chart has no meaning. Also Austria has a above average IQ yet, appears to be on the lower side of the chart for believing in evoultion, also conflicting what the person said.

Overall, there is a lot of questionable data, as well as data that does not match from one chart to the next, and some are taken out of context.

It almost seems as if people who are more religious/spiritual have a tendency to be somewhat anti-intellectual. Perhaps that has something to do with all this...I mean, look:

it came out of a scientific journal so it must be right.....

I'd gladly choose to be a retard who still understood that the worth and measure of a human being can not be measured with numbers and graphs and science oh my!

What do we get with super high intelligence without wisdom??? We get imperialism, dictatorship, communism, racism, genocides, unspeakable experiments, global warming, mass extinction, weapons of mass destruction, and millions of dollars poured into science for the sake of science instead of the sake of humanity

I don't think that religious/spiritual people are born with less intelligence (on average), it has more to do with being raised to think a certain way, which often leads to misplaced skepticism.

Originally Posted by Invader

Our IQ tests require basic reasoning skills, and not so much the understanding of
scientific concepts. There's a section that measure's one's capacity for visual/spatial
problems, for example.

Where would the lines be drawn between science, reasoning, and religion?

Originally Posted by ClouD

Where would the lines be drawn between science, reasoning, and religion?

I'm not sure how they can be confused? The scientific process is a method.
Religion is a system of beliefs and practices that often involves a supernatural
element that cannot be objectively observed or proven. Science is built upon
basic reasoning skills in order to achieve consistent, reliable results. Religion,
too, utilizes a form of reasoning (however accurate that reasoning may or may
not be) in order to reach its own conclusions. Reasoning is not proof. The
scientific method requires the use of reason in order to create observable
proof. Religion uses a form of reason in order to assert the validity of its claims.

Reason, by itself, is only a matter of discerning correct from incorrect. Truth
from non-truth.

If I am wrong about any of this, someone, please correct me.



juroara, I don't know if it was intended, but under the context of my post
your deadhorse icon suggests that you often argue by changing the subject
and attacking the person in the argument. I'm not aware of what other
meaning its use could have had in light of what I said..