Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

Of interest, maybe: Religious belief among American scientists

I found this part most revealing:

"...Religious belief among scientists varies somewhat by sex, age and scientific specialty. Younger scientists are substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God. In addition, more chemists than those in other specialties say they believe in God..."

This is only regarding Americans however, so...I don't know. I just thought it was interesting.


p.s. - sheesh, this thread has gotten really nasty since i looked at it last. passion for something is one thing, but being downright insulting to one another is quite another. i happen to believe in God, but by all means, don't "be gentle with [your] closed-minded, dim-witted, inane, religious brethren."

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

p.s. - sheesh, this thread has gotten really nasty since i looked at it last. passion for something is one thing, but being downright insulting to one another is quite another. i happen to believe in God, but by all means, don't "be gentle with [your] closed-minded, dim-witted, inane, religious brethren."

There are fundamentalists in every ideology. These are whom I referring to and those are unknowingly oppress the scientific endeavor. I just wanted to clarify that it is the people that say, "God did not want us to do this" etc. that I am very upset with.

Religion has always been the biggest obstacle for science. Well, aside from lacking technology.

Originally Posted by ethen

OK, I'm not sure why you brought this up but I agree nonetheless.

I think you will find that mostly agree. I was just building on what you said.

It would have been more accurate (and scientific) to title this thread "The nonreligious score higher on ACH testing"...since that would be a purely objective conclusion to draw off of the findings. In short, his word choice and the overall way he formulated this finding seems to make the implication of causation on his behalf. This is a just nice way of being able to say what you want to say without making yourself vulnerable to counter criticism.

It is not just ACH testing that they score higher. On average, it is, but not always. This is the thing with statistics, you ought to know this. I cannot just say, "They score higher on ACH" because that is not necessarily true. It warrants further investigation but it is the proposed hypothesis, or explanation, of the results as it mostly spikes there.

I never argued the facts presented, I just questioned the implied causation created by the way the facts were assembled and portrayed.

That's your perception. Maybe I ought to have added a "?" in the title, but even that is not accurate either. There's no perfect title. Deal with it.

This more or less the sort of thing I am talking about. It's not that the topic itself is controversial, but rather the way you relish and perpetuate the controversy. Every time you say something like "perhaps we should only discuss teddy bears..." it gives a glimpse of where you are truly coming from. Thats all I'm saying...

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.

To me it's clear that you have some sort of grudge against religion...

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 don't know what relevance this has to what you had quoted of my post, or why you assert that I was ignoring the fact that most acclaimed scientists are nonreligious. All I was doing is pointing out that data does not always suggest what it seems to suggest on the surface.

In fact, I actually proposed that one of the reasons I felt atheism was growing was because of the progression of science (and its increasing ability to account for phenomena that otherwise would normally fall under the realm of religion). This seems to fall right in line with "...the mass majority of acclaimed scientists are always non-religious", wouldn't you say?

Of course. You ought to find that I never disagreed with this. The data includes non-religious, atheist, and agnostics all together for the most part.

Implied causation, obviously. You didn't attempt to explore why religious people score less on ACH tests, possibly because that was beyond the point of posting this finding in the first place.

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. Wouldn't you say?

You seem like a bright guy, and I am sure you are very familiar with how people (especially politicians) can "misuse" statistics to suggest things that otherwise may not be entirely true. When you post sets of data that correlate with one another, people are automatically going to attempt to determine causation. In this case, without going why religious people score lower on ACH tests, people have no choice but to assume that there is a direct correlation between being unintelligent and being religious...as if one lends to the other.

There is no specific reason why there's a difference on ACH scores; you're asking of the impossible. There's a plethora of reasons why one persons scores higher than another on an IQ test. It is suddenly science's responsibility to explain every detail to make them feel better about getting a C instead of a B on a test? Come on.

Also, it is not my fault if people are so sensitive that they are prejudice on the title and not read the post.

If I had to guess, this is most likely the overall point of the posting this finding....eventhough, as I am sure you already know given your background, stats do not suggest anything, people do. The reality of the situation is that a direct correlation is not justified by the data present, which you seem to agree with. And yet, I feel that a direct correlation is implicit in your thesis, given your tone, word choice, etc.

I don't expect you to admit to it (nor will denying it change my opinion), but to me it's the elephant in the room. Its like this:

Person 1: "Look at these stats, they show a spike in being African American and the number of times, on average, people eat at KFC a month as compared to other Ethnicities."

Person 2: "I see. So what are you getting at?"

Person 1: "Who me? nothing."

Person 2: "You're not trying to imply that African Americans like KFC?"

Person 1: "Whoa whoa whoa, hold on a second, I didn't say that!"

Person 2: "..."

Person 1: "Just Sayin"

Your impartiality is transparent and your point is clear, let's stop acting so coy, shall we?

Your prepositioning is irritating.

+ I have already admitted my hatred towards religious oppression.
+ I have no problem with working with religious people, nor socializing with them
+ I fully admit, and know, that there are many intelligent theists. My data even supports this.
+ I do think that there is worthy reason to believe that the religious are not as intelligent, on average, as the non-religious.

Why do I have to keep defending my personal stance on this? I swear you people need to learn how to debate if your best hope is attacking the proposition maker.

"I think X"
"You're just an asshole!"
"Uhm"

Originally Posted by really

Are you impying that the majority of acclaimed scientists are intelligent? I've heard of many scientific explanations that are simply shallow and fallacious, etc.

Firstly, according to the data, yes, they are intelligent. This is intelligence defined as the WAIS. I understand you would likely define it otherwise, but I define it as writing ability, verbal skills, mathematics, abstract thinking, etc. In this case, they typically score higher.

Of course they are still able to post fallacious data and conclusions. This is why science has peer-reviewed journals. I do not think anything goes through more scrutiny than a science journal entry.

What have you to say about those intelligent people who believe in God?

They exist. I never denied this. Ken Jennings was a mormon and did the best on Jeaporday. There are still many theists working in science and do a good job. I never denied this.

~