/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3380233]

Do you think that religious people are less intelligent than non religious people?

[Anonymous No.3380235]

no
and if you disagree with me then you're wrong

[Anonymous No.3380243]

statistically, this is probably true.

[Anonymous No.3380252]

Troll thread.

[Anonymous No.3380254]

Almost all the world leaders are religious.


Therefore, no.

[Anonymous No.3380258]

Seriously? The only people that think that are atheists and agnostics who say so in order to make themselves feel intelligent. Try to going to school and (actually talk to people and know about them) and you'll see that you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.3380262]

>>3380243
I've got a great issue to bring up with that fact.

It may be, and probably is, entirely true. However, there is a bias that should not be overlooked.

More intelligent people are more likely to examine, question, and thus, more likely to reject, mainstream norms and beliefs. This means that many groups which depart from mainstream voluntarily will have a greater-than-average number of people of higher general intelligence.

If the entire society were atheist as a rule, the only religious people would be fairly intelligent ones who examined and chose to depart from social norms.

So in the end, the statistic doesn't mean as much as atheist teens might like to believe. There's a deep self-selection bias.

[Anonymous No.3380264]

>>3380254
>implying world leaders are intelligent
>implying you don't have to pretend to be religious to be a leader in most nations because "OMG, GODLESS COMMUNIST!!111"

[Richard Feynman No.3380266]

>>3380233
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_I.Q

/thread

[Anonymous No.3380270]

>>3380262
(cont)
To be clear though, this only applies to voluntary departure from mainstream. People who are economically, racially, or otherwise socially disenfranchised or disadvantaged may form a counterculture that has nothing to do with intelligence or examination of beliefs. One key example is white-supremacist groups. They tend to be less educated, poorer, etc., and group together over their shared frustration and sense of alienation, rather than examining and voluntarily departing from mainstream beliefs and customs.

[Anonymous No.3380271]

>>3380262
>implying that intellect leads you to depart from social norms, and not attract you to the most logical answer

[Anonymous No.3380272]

>>3380262

This.

[Anonymous No.3380275]

>>3380266
Not so fast. There are confounding factors.
>>3380262

This can be accounted for and checked, but I don't think I've seen it addressed.

[Anonymous No.3380276]

>>3380254

yes, world leaders are the smartest people on Earth, that's why everyone is happy and there's never any war.

[Anonymous No.3380277]

Yes, if one cant think for themselves someone will think for them...

[Anonymous No.3380279]

>>3380271

correct implication, though.

[Anonymous No.3380282]

I think religious people are less open minded and less curious about how things actually work. Which results in them being less intelligent. But as far as the capabilities and potential of their minds. I think theyre just as smart, they just have a life philosophy of ignorance which holds them down.

[Your real Geoff Mangum No.3380285]

Oh /sci/.

You guys are quite intelligent.

[Richard Feynman No.3380288]

>implying people who believe that the world was created by magic and believe in suspension of natural order are of equal intelligence

[Anonymous No.3380290]

>>3380282
well if they don't use their potential it will just be potential and nothing else

[Anonymous No.3380289]

>>3380271
Don't deny the bias exists at all. Just try to check how much it changes your results when you control for comparison with local society.

[Anonymous No.3380292]

>>3380282
>I think religious people are less open minded and less curious about how things actually work.
This is true
> Which results in them being less intelligent.
it results in them being less knowledgeable, not less intelligent.

[Anonymous No.3380293]

>>3380282

I can agree with that.

[Your real Geoff Mangum No.3380300]

>>3380288

It's hard to unbelieve something after being forced to believe in it since you were born.

[Anonymous No.3380302]

>>3380282

perfect answer

/thread

[Anonymous No.3380317]

>>3380300
Yeah, that seems to go with this pretty well too:
>>3380262

[Your real Geoff Mangum No.3380321]

Good thing there's only one religion on /sci/ that we all respect.

[Anonymous No.3380346]

>>3380282
>I think religious people are less open minded and less curious about how things actually work.
What came before big bang??? Ok something came before it, and before it, ok and before it and before it.

[Anonymous No.3380364]

Finding religion is a serious experience; It can completely change motivations behind the sciences, or completely reinforce them. Most people who "Find God" are given a literal sense of protection. This isn't blissful ignorance, or anything of the sort; It is an /actual/ change in perspective that stands out as more than apparent daily. This protection allows for them to find joy in even trivial pleasure and in turn; gives them the "Rose-Colored Glasses" that seem to elude the agnostic.

It most certainly is a matter of what a person needs to satisfy their intellectual hunger rather than capacity. Think about it. Are you learning to learn? Or are you learning so that everyone else can see you learning. Theists do not question science; once they understand something, they are content with that understand, and it need not be flaunted or made public. There's nothing wrong with trying to be prolific in your work; but science in religion are the two opposite covers of the same book.

[Anonymous No.3380393]

>>3380364

>religion

>intellectual

[Anonymous No.3380386]

>>3380364

Having said that; I would like to note that this is the only post I read today, the only post I responded to, and by far one of the most pointlessly trivial. You kids should quit wasting your time and learn something, rather than arguing with others who've decided that insight gave them universal knowledge; and "know everything".

[Anonymous No.3380649]

>thisfuckingindie.jpg

[Anonymous No.3380665]

>>3380393
You never heard of St Augustine and Thomas of Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.3380688]

>>3380266
because IQ = intelligence, right?

[fizixfag !!lTr9yohV4eK No.3380890]

Uhm, person by person. Not really, if it's a "fair match."
Statistically speaking all theists vs all nontheists, yes.

This I will say. I remember once hearing (I have no idea how valid this claim is) that the mean black IQ is less than the mean white IQ but with a higher deviation. If this phenomenon were to seriously negatively impact mean religious IQ scores I would not be surprised (I'll go on to say I'd be surprised if it DIDN'T). I think that if you take a random pool of atheists and theists that had the same opportunities afforded them growing up (same caliber school, relatively same familial stability, income yadda yadda yadda) that there would be no statistically significant gap in IQ score.

That being said, I (myself an agnostic theist, inb4 flaming; this is an attempt at a real intellectual discussion and I thought including this facet of my life would show that this isn't just a biased argument made only by atheists) will admit that the odds of a religious person scoring EXTREMELY low on an IQ score are (probably) significantly higher than a theist scoring extremely high on an IQ test. I would also conjecture atheists have a smaller standard deviation.

*This will be a pretty long post which I will make in segments so if you are disagreeing at this point, I'd implore you to hear me out before derailing the discussion. That being said, feel free to comment/rebuttal etc between my posts if you think it is important to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.3380920]

the religion question has more to do with psychology than science.

i don't know about trends and averages but i've definitely met some stupid atheists and some very smart religious people.

[Anonymous No.3380934]

>>3380920
>implying psychology is a real science

[fizixfag !!lTr9yohV4eK No.3380937]

>>3380890

This is something I have long thought about and I have a few considerations that lead to my conjecture (high negative deviation in religious IQ) :

1) There is a negative correlation between religiosity and wealth. I do not consider this evidence that the religious are likely to fail financially, more that those who have failed financially are more likely to (want to?) believe in redemption, life after death etc.
1a) There is a negative correlation between IQ scores and wealth.

^ Once again, I believe that a comparably raised atheist and theist would have a high probability of having similar intelligence.

[sage No.3380957]

High iq = born w/silver spoon

[anonymous No.3380973]

Henry Eyring
Robert Millikan
Georges Lemaître

I wish I was as smart as what these dudes left in the shitter.

[Anonymous No.3381015]

>>3380282

This

[fizixfag !!lTr9yohV4eK No.3381021]

>>3380937

2) Atheism (nonreligion whatever the most encompassing term is for saying "No" when someone asks you if there is a god or gods. What is this term btw, that one could use to reference nonbelievers in general in the most encompassing and mutually respectful way?) is largely a reflection of someone's epistemological views (In my opinion, feel free to disagree). I believe that most atheists are like minded in their views (within reason of course) and their reasons for rejecting theism. I believe this strong philosophical unity and approach to knowledge would significantly lower nontheist deviations on an IQ test.

*Field too long*

[fizixfag !!lTr9yohV4eK No.3381026]

>>3381021

3) To parallel what I just said, the reasons one becomes religious are varied. The typical atheist argument boils down to wanting empirical evidence of a god's existence and often the impossibility of such evidence (this is basically point 2 in sentence form) ask a million atheists why they don't believe in a god and pretty much every answer will be consistent, I have yet to converse with an atheist who did not cite a lack of empirical proof of gods as the reason they are atheist. However, ask a million theists with the same religious label (Jewish, Christian etc) what they believe and why they believe it and you'll undoubtedly get a million answers. You'll get your fair share of me's who say "I dunno, just sort of think so," you'll (if even a small portion are answering truthfully) hear many "I was raised xxxx" and many other answers that do not attempt to justify or maybe even explain a religious view, weak arguments (weak meaning more agnostic, not "bad") but still theists. However you will get a percentage who give strong arguments (I use strong to indicate a gnostic theist argument, not a "good argument") ranging from the fact that the Bible is the verbatim word of God to having seen a puddle of spilled horseradish that looked like Vishnu or that tripfriend that got trolled for the bee sting conversion thing a few weeks back.


If you're still reading, thank you. I think my last post should tie this up but bear in mind I'm explaining my own thoughts here that as far as I know only make sense to me and am trying to get them out as clearly as possible.

[Your real Geoff Mangum No.3381065]

>>3380649

[fizixfag !!lTr9yohV4eK No.3381066]

>>3381026
last post= next post whoops.

3a) Anyway. I don't think that *believing* in a god is any detriment to your intelligence. The theists giving the weak arguments--which I assume to be in the majority, at least in America where I live-- aren't going to base much of their epistemology and therefor desire for knowledge on the presumed existence of gods. Yes I believe there's a god but at the same time I never thought "Fuck physics, the universe was made 6,000 years ago and galaxies 7,000 light years away are the devil having a bonfire in space." I, like my theist and atheist colleagues, thought science was cool and I like lasers so now I'm in grad school for physics. People in this group, I think would get average scores on IQ tests, comparable to what a nontheist in a "fair match" as I described before would likely achieve. Some in both groups will be a little above and some a little below, but in the end of the day if you add the scores up and divide by the total number of people tested, I firmly believe you'll get comparable results.

That being said, I think the mindset that allows one to "know" there's a god is likely to seriously harm ones IQ scores. Let's face it; if you claim the existence of an undetectable man in another dimension is as demonstrably valid as 2+2=4, you are not as likely to do well in school as someone who understands the idea of proof (by this I mean both agnostic theists and atheists) to make a completely undeniable claim. It's these people--that convert to Islam after Allah talks to them one day or after seeing toast that looks like Mary--that, in my opinion would cause the national theist test scores to be below those of national atheist test scores.

Thanks for reading, I'd be thrilled to know in what ways people agree/disagree with me.

[fizixfag !!lTr9yohV4eK No.3381132]

>>3381066
Oh, also. I'll reply to any comments when I'm back tonight. Anything that isn't an ad hominen attack on me (I know mentioning you're a theist here is bad but I thought it was a significant point in my discussion. That being said I hate talking about religion with anyone so consider that to be the limit I'm going to talk about it here- the whole board is best off that way imo)

[Anonymous No.3382673]

no, not at all

[Anonymous No.3383313]

no real way to know honestly

[Anonymous No.3383353]

Looks like I have to post this again, then watch the "look at me I am religious but accepting of evidence" people suddenly turn into evidence-rejecting fundies.

STUDIES OF STUDENTS

Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward atheism."

Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

A. R. Gilliland, 1940
Contrary to all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

[Anonymous No.3383360]

Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly anti-religious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly anti-religious (1108), and religious (1022).

[Anonymous No.3383369]

Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS

Rose Goldsen, 1952
Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; North Carolina 68.

National Review Study, 1970
Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.

Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.

Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26 percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS

Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

[Anonymous No.3383381]

Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.

STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS

William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less religious] are… far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous." Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists. Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.

Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]

[Anonymous No.3383386]

Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend… All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives… A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

Francis Bello, 1954
Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative men… significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16 percent for the most eminent chemists.

Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.

[Anonymous No.3383413]

Common objections:

"But IQ tests are meaningless." These studies use a wide variety of different metrics of intelligence.

"Must be a narrow sample size" Actually these studies sampled from all walks of life, the only common factor being some sort of achievement most associate with high intellect.

"I found one study that has questionable wording or methodology, therefore the entire list is invalid." No, you're free to dismiss that one study, but the rest of the list remains.

"Some of these show inconclusive results!" Yes, that's because in the interest of honesty I included every study on the topic from the 1920s to the 1970s.

"These studies are from like the 1920s, and therefore invalid." See above, they continue into the late 1970s. Here are some more recent studies:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14765500/Average-intelligence-predicts-atheism-rates-across-137-nations-Ly
nn-et-al

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-atheists-are-more-intel
ligent-the-religious

[Anonymous No.3383461]

>>3381066
>I don't think that *believing* in a god is any detriment to your intelligence
I WANT TO BELIEVE
... but poll statistics show that frequency of church attendance is inversely correlated with belief in evolution (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx).). Just because you're capable of turning a blind eye towards a relatively small god doesn't mean that every theist is.

[Anonymous No.3383512]

>>3380262
>the only religious people would be fairly intelligent ones who examined and chose to depart from social norms

This is stupid. Most people don't climb into the bathtub with a toaster in their hands, but the people who do certainly aren't smarter. If everyone was an atheist except for a few people who insisted that there is an ageless, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being capable of intervening in our day-to-day affairs but undetectable, we would lock those people up in a madhouse. That's not a conclusion that can be arrived at using logic or reason.