Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

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..?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

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.

It may be that one with abstract critical thinking and reasoning skills is going
to be more able to see the logical shortcomings of modern theistic
doctrine than a person that is lacking in those areas. I don't think there's a
factor that makes atheists more intelligent, but rather that high
intelligence ends up making more atheists!

Of course that's not always the case, since both intellectualism and
retardation exist on both sides of the fence, but it looks like that's the
common trend.

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.

Yes, that they can. The point was to make sure we were on the same level
with our definition of the word, but we are having a good discussion
too.

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

I'm sure this changes from one religion to the next, but I believe the viewer
is the one that finds meaning in the religion (or just gets indoctrinated).
Following the instruction manual requires no critical reasoning ability, but one
can always find the rhyme and reason in the pages (or lack thereof). All I'm
saying is that such reasoning ability is not a requirement.

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..?

That depends on where technology goes. It may become possible if a means
of communicating mind-to-mind is developed, or upon the discovery of some
new field that is effected by human intention, if such a thing exists. We may
have no variables, but we do have some reason to believe that spiritual
experience is a legitimate phenomenon, the same way relativity was
before we had the ability to conduct the appropriate experiments.

Originally Posted by Invader

It may be that one with abstract critical thinking and reasoning skills is going
to be more able to see the logical shortcomings of modern theistic
doctrine than a person that is lacking in those areas. I don't think there's a
factor that makes atheists more intelligent, but rather that high
intelligence ends up making more atheists!

Yup. I think you're right.

That depends on where technology goes. It may become possible if a means
of communicating mind-to-mind is developed, or upon the discovery of some
new field that is effected by human intention, if such a thing exists. We may
have no variables, but we do have some reason to believe that spiritual
experience is a legitimate phenomenon, the same way relativity was
before we had the ability to conduct the appropriate experiments.

Actually, as far as I know in my academic endeavor, we have more reason to believe that "spiritual phenomenon" is nothing but glorified emotional experiences. How can we explore something, like the spirit, when we do not even know it exists in the first place? Ought we not first prove that it does?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Actually, as far as I know in my academic endeavor, we have more reason to believe that "spiritual phenomenon" is nothing but glorified emotional experiences. How can we explore something, like the spirit, when we do not even know it exists in the first place? Ought we not first prove that it does?

In order to better know where you stand on the issue, perhaps you can share
some of these reasons? As I understand it, we have been able to artificially
stimulate anger, happiness, sorrow and what have you, but not so with other
extreme moments of 'insight'. My knowledge of the subject is not sufficient
enough to say for certain.

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

I don't remember any of your charts matching specific test scores to individual's religious affiliation. Like I said before, you showed a correllation between two different statistics. You showed that countries and time periods in which test scores are higher, fewer people identify with a religion. This means that statistically speaking, the fewer religious people in countries with high I.Q.'s also scored higher.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Actually, as far as I know in my academic endeavor, we have more reason to believe that "spiritual phenomenon" is nothing but glorified emotional experiences. How can we explore something, like the spirit, when we do not even know it exists in the first place? Ought we not first prove that it does?

~

It sounds like you've never had a glorious emotional experience. You may not know if it exists, and maybe that is why you don't explore it. those of us who do explore it know.


The human spirit cannot be found in academia. It can only be found in humans. The easiest place to start is with yourself. Do you read a book in order to learn what its like to see, or do you simply open your eyes?

Atheists calling superiority of intelligence over religious people just makes you look like an assclown.

Has atheism really came to the point that they need to spread propaganda or faulty correlations? Reminiscent of the church telling us to abandon our other religions for Heaven, now we must abandon religion for intelligence I assume? After all his study shows us.... lol

This is a disservice to the atheist movement.

You talk about atheism as if it's a single institution.

It isn't. Atheists are individuals and most of those individuals don't see any point in arguing about the correlation between intelligence and faith.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Atheists calling superiority of intelligence over religious people just makes you look like an assclown.

Has atheism really came to the point that they need to spread propaganda or faulty correlations? Reminiscent of the church telling us to abandon our other religions for Heaven, now we must abandon religion for intelligence I assume? After all his study shows us.... lol

This is a disservice to the atheist movement.

*facepalms*

Really, I don't think I need to say anything; you basically just proved O'nus's point. Had you actually read his post, you would know that Atheists aren't calling themselves superior in intelligence, and that this is NOT propaganda. What studies are showing, time and again, is that atheists and the non-religious in general tend to be stronger in a certain way of thinking known as abstract categorical and hypothetical (ACH) thinking.

ACH Thinking

Abstract Categorical and Hypothetical (ACH) thinking is assessed in the Raven's and Weschler Similarities tests (segments of the primary IQ tests). Now while our ancestors and elders are obviously not complete Neanderthals, they were actually lacking in their scores for ACH thinking. Instead of focusing on developing independent ACH thinking, there was more focus on fundamental learning for immediate pertinent use (ie. writing, arithmetic, and reading - the three "R"'s).

In our later generations, though, we have developed this thinking and learned to become more engrossed in our creative venture. It was because of people like Dewey who encouraged pragmatic learning that encourage this ACH thinking.

Also note which conclusions O'nus draws:

Conclusions

Abstract categorical and hypothetical (ACH) thinking is rising. Atheism is rising. Intelligence is rising. Evolutionary acceptance and knowledge is rising.

It is really just that simple.

What do you think...?

Next time, I recommend you actually read the post before commenting.

Originally Posted by Mario92

*facepalms*

Really, I don't think I need to say anything; you basically just proved O'nus's point. Had you actually read his post, you would know that Atheists aren't calling themselves superior in intelligence, and that this is NOT propaganda. What studies are showing, time and again, is that atheists and the non-religious in general tend to be stronger in a certain way of thinking known as abstract categorical and hypothetical (ACH) thinking.

The studies are propaganda. Nothing but.
Thinly veiled correlations, used in conjunction with a specific objective.


You can't just assume these two things are related without evidence.

Next time, I recommend you actually read the post before commenting.

Next time, I recommend you actually understand the post before commenting. And perhaps stepping back and looking at this terrible use of data.

I'm not quite sure who you think you are mario, but perhaps you should go back to the pipe you climbed out of.

You talk about atheism as if it's a single institution.

It isn't. Atheists are individuals and most of those individuals don't see any point in arguing about the correlation between intelligence and faith.

I quite understand that, but atheism as a whole is being dis-serviced by movements like this. And regardless of it being a very individual path, it's not necessarily viewed at that by the rest of the population. Just like people group all groups of Christians together... not necessarily fair, but reality.

The last thing this topic and others like it will do is convince people to become an atheist, so if your goal is to alienate yourself from the rest of society and attain no new members continue on this path.

I will respond this last time but I otherwise have lost my motivation to continue posting.

Originally Posted by O'nus

That's your perception.

Yes, it is my perception. It's also my opinion that you can express an idea or thought without necessarily spelling it out word-for-word. In this circumstance, I don't think I need to quote specific instances of animosity to make my case. It seems pretty clear to me that what I am saying is more or less accurate based on was already in the thread.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh give me a break. You are prepositioning me. How could I possibly reply without you not thinking this of me? This is like a Freudian circle. Next you will accuse me of denying it.

Again, this is your perception of me, and it is prepositional. Of course, when you do this, there is nothing I can really say to prove you otherwise. Open your mind and realize that, although I do hate religious oppression to science (notice my humility in admitting this for a good reason), I still work with religion a lot and learn from it a lot. I am able to distinguish perceptions, you know.

I did quote passages of your's that reinforced why I had that opinion, perhaps it would be beneficial to go back and read what I had quoted to better understand why I made the accusation. It seems you are looking for me to make a stronger case for my opinion. I suppose I could go back through the entire thread an quote every time you said something similar, but I don’t see a good enough reason to justify the effort it would take. If I am wrong, I am wrong. However (and though you are well spoken) it’s my opinion that you have some animosity towards religion by the way you speak of it repressing science, AND by the way you (occasionally) flat out attack it with insults.

Originally Posted by O'nus

How could I explore why? I only offered this data for discussion and to show how difficult it actually is to fund a study of this sort. Do I want to scientifically explore it? Yes. But I cannot. The next best thing is to at leas discuss it.

Hypothesize, like I did. I gave some possible examples of why this correlation may exist (and how the correlation in question could plausibly be indirect). All I needed to do from there is look up the corresponding "hard numbers" to see if they are consistent with my proposal. That’s how.

But again, what else (aside from causal implications) would there be to discuss if you were just pointing out facts? I mean, was the purpose really so that people could debate method of measuring intelligence? Was really it so that people could question the specific method of gathering facts in this circumstance? Those are clearly possible reasons, however I personally just don’t think those things were the actual reason. I’m sorry. And I have already explained why I feel this way.

I do see that you are trying to be objective here, and you did provide a good deal of evidence for your case, but I don’t think I am being unreasonable here either. If one just steps back and considers this thread in a more holistic way, I think my point of view makes sense.

Can we still be friends?

Originally Posted by ethen

Yes, it is my perception. It's also my opinion that you can express an idea or thought without necessarily spelling it out word-for-word. In this circumstance, I don't think I need to quote specific instances of animosity to make my case. It seems pretty clear to me that what I am saying is more or less accurate based on was already in the thread.

I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is why there is so much focus on my behaviour whereas I am being personally attacked as well.

It is completely aside from the point and severe digression encouraged just from the matter of the debate.

I did quote passages of your's that reinforced why I had that opinion, perhaps it would be beneficial to go back and read what I had quoted to better understand why I made the accusation. It seems you are looking for me to make a stronger case for my opinion. I suppose I could go back through the entire thread an quote every time you said something similar, but I don’t see a good enough reason to justify the effort it would take. If I am wrong, I am wrong. However (and though you are well spoken) it’s my opinion that you have some animosity towards religion by the way you speak of it repressing science, AND by the way you (occasionally) flat out attack it with insults.

How many times do you want me to admit that I hate religion?

I hate religion.

Is that clear?

I think religion is the greatest detriment to the human race.

Am I clear?

I do think there are capable and intelligent religious people.

Is it reasonable that, although I hate religion, I can at least respect it?

But again, what else (aside from causal implications) would there be to discuss if you were just pointing out facts? I mean, was the purpose really so that people could debate method of measuring intelligence? Was really it so that people could question the specific method of gathering facts in this circumstance? Those are clearly possible reasons, however I personally just don’t think those things were the actual reason. I’m sorry. And I have already explained why I feel this way.

I do see that you are trying to be objective here, and you did provide a good deal of evidence for your case, but I don’t think I am being unreasonable here either. If one just steps back and considers this thread in a more holistic way, I think my point of view makes sense.

Can we still be friends?

Well of course.

I really agree with you already. I think the only thing we're clearing up here is the ambiguity of intent over the internet. I do hate religions, but I still respect the people.

I proposed this topic for discussion. Perhaps DV is not the best grounds for controversial debate. I usually take it to skepticforum.com. I understand if I ought to cease and be more sensitive to the other readers of the people here.

~