Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 5:11 PM
417 online now:
DrJones*, frako, Larni, PaulK (4 members, 413 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,904 Year: 27,510/21,208 Month: 1,423/1,714 Week: 266/365 Day: 35/73 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 31 of 60 (810645)
05-31-2017 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
05-31-2017 11:47 AM


Awesome ringo, you composed more than a one liner...

Good on ya, maybe you are getting more intelligence and listening to the Lord.


Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.

Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 05-31-2017 11:47 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 05-31-2017 12:21 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13885
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 32 of 60 (810648)
05-31-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Davidjay
05-31-2017 12:10 PM


Davidjay writes:

Awesome ringo, you composed more than a one liner...


You should try it some time. Instead of just blathering the same nonsense in every post, try to actually respond ntelligently.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Davidjay, posted 05-31-2017 12:10 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1349
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 33 of 60 (810666)
05-31-2017 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tangle
05-29-2017 7:52 PM


All the studies had some form of measurement of intelligence and some form of measurement of religiosity. Of course they're not all the same but that's not an argument to dismiss them, simply a limitation to note. It could just as easily be a strength - different methods producing similar results can indicate robustness.

Unless some of these correlates are not actually measuring what they're purported to be. If your religiosity measure is not actually a genuine correlate of religious belief, but is measuring something else negatively correlated with intelligence for a different reason; then it's not an independent support for the correlation. It's spuriously making the correlation look stronger than it really it.

Oh come on! None of us have time to read and analyse the source material for every article we come across in our musings - most here don't even have access to the base papers. I lost my access 12 months ago when my last period of study ended. The best we can often do is point to an article that has made it into the general media and leave it at that. Of course if it becomes contentious, then we look further.

I have so far only skim read the paper that you found but it has all the hallmarks of being pretty thorough and it's published in a decent enough publication. The researchers found "a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity". I'm not seeing any reason to throw away the overall conclusions.

I'm not suggesting we throw anything away - I'm suggesting we proceed with caution. This means considering alternative explanations for the results. I already suggested the one that I consider most likely (that people with higher IQ are more likely to differ from convention - whatever convention happens to be). Given that the metastudy is dominated by studies of Americans; this idea is not tested.

Another explanation for the correlation (the one favoured by the authors of a review on the literature on this topic which I found whilst searching for the original metastudy) is that it is simply explained by education; mediated by the fact the religious fundamentalists are likely to receive less formal education than the general population. The metastudy does try to test this idea and their findings are not supportive. However, it's no longer an impressive metastudy, since only 6 of the included studies* have the necessary data.

*4, really, but they count separate data sets within the same study as independent studies

ABE: What I am trying to say is not that this study is nonsense. Rather, I'm saying that jumping from this to "Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people" is doing the same as news editors do when they tell us that grapes cause and/or cure cancer due to a suggestive study that establishes no such thing.

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 05-29-2017 7:52 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 05-31-2017 9:03 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5164
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 34 of 60 (810695)
05-31-2017 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
05-31-2017 11:47 AM


ringo writes:


That doesn't answer the question. If all of the "various ways" assume that they can measure intelligence, why wouldn't they all agree?

84% of the studies found that intelligence is negatively correlated with religiosity. As for why some didn't, I can't tell you because I haven't read them all. But it would be a rare outcome in the social sciences if every outcome was the same - methods differ, analysis differ.

What intelligence tests actually measure is the ability to take tests. That may be useful in choosing candidates for employment or further education, but I don't see how it's useful in determining whether one group is "smarter" than another.

The intelligence tests in the studies are a mixture

quote:
Studies included in the present meta-analysis used a variety of intelligence and religiosity measures. Most of the intelligence tests are widely used (e.g., Wechsler tests, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, etc.). A subgroup of studies used university entrance exams (UEEs; e.g., SAT, GRE), which are highly correlated with standard IQ measures (correlations in the .60-.80 range are typical for college students). Indeed, these tests are often viewed as measures of general intelli- gence (Frey & Detterman, 2004; Koenig, Frey, & Detterman, 2008). We also included studies that administered tests of cognitive abilities (e.g., synonym tests, working memory tests) that could reasonably serve as proxies for IQ measures.

These tests are used across the Western world to obtain entry into higher education and jobs, you can throw them away as useless if you wish, but they appear to have value in practice.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 05-31-2017 11:47 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 06-01-2017 11:37 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5164
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 35 of 60 (810699)
05-31-2017 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by caffeine
05-31-2017 3:37 PM


caffeine writes:

Unless some of these correlates are not actually measuring what they're purported to be. If your religiosity measure is not actually a genuine correlate of religious belief, but is measuring something else negatively correlated with intelligence for a different reason; then it's not an independent support for the correlation. It's spuriously making the correlation look stronger than it really it.

Well of course, it's a correlation - it doesn't measure cause. They tested for third variables of gender, age and education but concluded that there was no evidence to support them. They also did a time gap study by measuring intelligence prior to children acquiring religious knowledge. This was more restricted but they comment "...it is remarkable that intelligence can predict religiosity scores that are obtained years later."

I already suggested the one that I consider most likely (that people with higher IQ are more likely to differ from convention - whatever convention happens to be). Given that the metastudy is dominated by studies of Americans; this idea is not tested.

Sure, and the researchers point that out themselves. They provided several references indicating that intelligent people are more likely to also be 'non-conformers'. Intelligence leads to becoming more critical of argument and claims, which would make intelligent people less likely to be succeptable to 'the prevailing dogma'.

What I am trying to say is not that this study is nonsense. Rather, I'm saying that jumping from this to "Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people" is doing the same as news editors do when they tell us that grapes cause and/or cure cancer due to a suggestive study that establishes no such thing.

You have to admit that it's an pretty impressive piece of work that uses all the knowledge we've collected over time and the conclusion is quite robust - intelligence and religiosity are are negatively correlated.

Other variables that might be causal have been discussed and some tested for but they found no support for them and, in the case of education and conformity, they may be indirect measures of intelligence anyway.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 05-31-2017 3:37 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13885
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 36 of 60 (810752)
06-01-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
05-31-2017 8:17 PM


Tangle writes:

These tests are used across the Western world to obtain entry into higher education and jobs...


That's what I said.

Tangle writes:

... you can throw them away as useless if you wish, but they appear to have value in practice.


I'm not throwing anything away. I have acknowledged their usefulness. You quoted me . What I'm saying is that their usefulness has limits. The fact that a shovel is useful for digging holes doesn't mean you can stand on it to touch the sky.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 05-31-2017 8:17 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 06-01-2017 7:39 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5164
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 37 of 60 (810808)
06-01-2017 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ringo
06-01-2017 11:37 AM


ringo writes:

What I'm saying is that their usefulness has limits.

Well of course. But to make any reasonable point out of that generalisation you have to show why in these studies the use of intelligence tests is inappropriate or misleading.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 06-01-2017 11:37 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 06-02-2017 11:59 AM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13885
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 38 of 60 (810870)
06-02-2017 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tangle
06-01-2017 7:39 PM


Tangle writes:

But to make any reasonable point out of that generalisation you have to show why in these studies the use of intelligence tests is inappropriate or misleading.


On the contrary, the onus is on you to show that the generalization IS appropriate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 06-01-2017 7:39 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 06-02-2017 6:07 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5164
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 39 of 60 (810889)
06-02-2017 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ringo
06-02-2017 11:59 AM


ringo writes:

On the contrary, the onus is on you to show that the generalization IS appropriate.

IQ tests and their equivalents have been used successfully for around 100 years as an effective tool for measuring relative intelligence. They have some known biases caused by cultural differences. You seem to be making the claim that the studies are fatally flawed because of this.

You therefore have to show why any such bias would affect the result of each test.

Or are you saying that religiosity is disproportionately culturally distributed or what?

At the moment you're just waving around a vague generalisation.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 06-02-2017 11:59 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 06-03-2017 11:43 AM Tangle has responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 40 of 60 (810909)
06-03-2017 5:15 AM


Atheists and evolutionists get dumber and dumber
Atheism aka evolutionism... is just a rejection of God and His laws, and hence is just a religion..just like evolution.

The belief in nothing as is the doctrine of atheism, is just as brainless as the doctrine of evolution which teaches luck and chance created everything and made everything viable.

These sister religions can not improve anyones mind or intelligence, but makes them weak by their very lack of principles and focus. Why, because they have to deny anything that goers against their religion, and their very closed minded minds, can not grasp the connections in science and the design patterns of life, history, or fats HEREON EARTH or eslewhere. They limit themselves because of their lack of intelligence which makes them even less intelligence.

Real scientists look for principles rather than luck and chance. real scientists look for cause and effect, rather than theory on theory on theory.

Real scientists do not deny an unseen world of reality, just because they in their limited vision and mionds can not see one because they refuse to see one.

http://www.davidjayjordan.com/FamousChristianScientists.html

Atheists and evolutionists help them together to become dumber and dumber......


Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.

Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,


    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13885
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 41 of 60 (810967)
06-03-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tangle
06-02-2017 6:07 PM


Tangle writes:

IQ tests and their equivalents have been used successfully for around 100 years as an effective tool for measuring relative intelligence.


IQ tests and their equivalents have been used successfully for around 100 years as an effective tool for measuring the ability to take IQ tests and their equivalents.

Tangle writes:

They have some known biases caused by cultural differences. You seem to be making the claim that the studies are fatally flawed because of this.


No. I'm asking you to show that it's reasonable to extrapolate beyond the ability to take the tests.

If applicant A scores 10 points higher on an IQ test than applicant B, does that mean applicant A will be a better employee? Maybe, if the job involves taking IQ test but otherwise, why would it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 06-02-2017 6:07 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 06-03-2017 4:00 PM ringo has responded
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 06-03-2017 4:25 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10079
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 42 of 60 (810984)
06-03-2017 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ringo
06-03-2017 11:43 AM


ringo writes:

If applicant A scores 10 points higher on an IQ test than applicant B, does that mean applicant A will be a better employee? Maybe, if the job involves taking IQ test but otherwise, why would it?

Measuring an intelligence quotient is usually job specific. A mechanic is not going to be asked to take a test on Illamas. If he takes a test relating to automobiles, engines, and the tools of a mechanic, he should do fine if qualified.

I'll grant that trying to determine a candidate's perfect fit for a job can be difficult to measure through IQ tests alone.

As for religiously inclined people, it is well known---even told in the Bible---that

1 Cor 1:18-28 writes:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. (NIV)

Religiously (belief minded) people are not as enamored of evidence and critical thought as are practical verifiable evidential people. That being said, I would agree that an IQ test cannot determine much more than a persons character traits.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 06-03-2017 11:43 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 06-04-2017 2:17 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5164
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 43 of 60 (810986)
06-03-2017 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ringo
06-03-2017 11:43 AM


ringo writes:

If applicant A scores 10 points higher on an IQ test than applicant B, does that mean applicant A will be a better employee?

If you want to start a topic on IQ tests and employment go ahead - here it's irrelevant. Here you job is to show why IQ is not negatively related to religiosity - if that is your claim.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Je suis Mancunian.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 06-03-2017 11:43 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 06-04-2017 2:24 PM Tangle has responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 44 of 60 (811025)
06-04-2017 9:44 AM


Athesist are less intelligent than 'spiritual' people
Atheists and evolutionists are soul mates or should I say non soul mates as they join together in ignorance whether intentional or unintentional to deny their souls, of the inspiration of KNOWING truths. They lack wisdom and UNDERstanding simply because they deny deny deny the maker of WISDOM and UNDERSTANDING.

They hate that anything or anyone knows more than them as it destroys their bravado and attempts to say that they are 'intelligent'. They pretend to be scientists but are not, they pretend to be intelligent but are not. They pretend to be persecuted but lack of wisdom and intelligence and morality always eventually brings them down to despair, and attempts at censoring their opposition.

Its very sad, but thsats the lives and lack of intelligence they have chosen.


Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.

Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,


Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 06-04-2017 9:52 AM Davidjay has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29622
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 45 of 60 (811026)
06-04-2017 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Davidjay
06-04-2017 9:44 AM


Davidjay simply cannot ever stop misrepresenting reality' people
Davidjay writes:

Atheists and evolutionists are soul mates or should I say non soul mates as they join together in ignorance whether intentional or unintentional to deny their souls, of the inspiration of KNOWING truths.

Yet another totally false and obviously demonstrably false assertion from you. Since Christians have stood in opposition to Creationism and in support of both the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution you are simply once again and still posting falsehoods, lies.

Davidjay writes:

They pretend to be persecuted but lack of wisdom and intelligence and morality always eventually brings them down to despair, and attempts at censoring their opposition.

And you continue to lie since so far not a single person who acknowledges the fact of evolution has made any claim of being persecuted.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Davidjay, posted 06-04-2017 9:44 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Davidjay, posted 06-04-2017 9:59 AM jar has responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017