Summary of studies: Religiousity and intelligence

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
More intelligent or educated people also tend to be commies, extreme libertarians, all sorts of crazy stuff. All it goes to show is that the standards for education and intelligence don't really ensure intelligent political beliefs. I'd say this applies equally to religion.

Intelligent people pose personal property as an absolute

[Berzerker]

You know what, this actually has been done many, many, many times.

By you? Or are you taking someone else's word for it?

The fact is that any belief in the supernatural *requires* faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence.

Depends on what "supernatural" means; if you mean "God", how do you know evidence is absent?

Personally I choose to minimize by belief in things that have no evidence for them.

Not a bad idea, but this absence of evidence you assert is based on what someone else said - the very reason atheists et al reject religion.

That is simply how it is. I've examined it for myself. I've read the works of others who have examined it. I've spent a lot of time thinking it over.

Keep looking, it's out there

I didn't reject faith because their arguments weren't good (rather, I rejected faith for the same reason that caused their arguements to be bad).

Got me with the difference without a distinction.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
German?

The online discussions have been in English and the people around me speak Swedish.

I thought you were at uni in Germany.

Anyway, I thought you were talking about discussion with people you know IRL.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Not necessarily. After all, God is a metaphysical abstraction of the scientific chain of causality, one whose ontological value is too high for the human mind.

There is a logical, correlative link between an uber-cause and material, knowable ones. Not that I believe in it, but in some cases Occam's razor does not get rid of God.

Occam's razor always gets rid of God, because god is not a valid explanation for anything as far as pure science/logic is concerned.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Originally posted by Drachasor
The fact is that any belief in the supernatural *requires* faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence.

Depends on what "supernatural" means; if you mean "God", how do you know evidence is absent?

I mean....

Su·per·nat·u·ral Audio pronunciation of "supernatural" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)
adj.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

as opposed to....

na·ture Audio pronunciation of "nature" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr)
n.

1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology. Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: “She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble” (Gertrude Stein).
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: “Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill” (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.

In particular note 1 and 2.

Everything observable is part of the natural world; ergo, anything supernatural can never be observed. God is a supernatural entity and can never be observed, and since he is outside of nature, he can never

Personally I choose to minimize by belief in things that have no evidence for them.

Not a bad idea, but this absence of evidence you assert is based on what someone else said - the very reason atheists et al reject religion.

You misunderstand atheism. While some might reject everything anyone else says, most are not irrational like that. I, for one, will listen to what others say, but I will not believe every claim they make without evidence. Hence, I might listen to a logical arguement and take it to heart.

As for the lack of evidence for god's existence, I don't see you proposing there exists any. You are merely saying that I am "wrong", and you somehow think that is sufficient to prove I am wrong. This is simply not so.

Proposing "god" as an explanation for anything inherently removes your explanation from the nature of cause and effect; you remove it from all observation inherently. As such it is simply not a valid explanation for anything as far as science is concerned. It is to reject actually looking for a natural explanation for things if you are to propose a god with any tangible connection to the real-world (which would make it a partially non-supernatural entity).

This actually brings us to a larger problem when one tries to give evidence for the existence of god. Any evidence you propose will be something observable in nature if it is to have validity (otherwise you are requiring faith). However, since it is observable, the simplist explanation would be something totally contained within nature, without any of the necessary fluff (such as omnipotence) that god requires. Of course, in practice there really isn't any evidence to worry about (and I challenge you to prove otherwise).

Of course, for the Christian God, his definition (all good, all knowing, all powerful) is more than enough to prove he doesn't exist when combined with everyday evidence from the natural world (such as earthquakes).

I didn't reject faith because their arguments weren't good (rather, I rejected faith for the same reason that caused their arguements to be bad).

Got me with the difference without a distinction.

There is a difference there of where the rejection originates. I am saying that I rejected having faith because the foundation upon which it lies is inherently logically poor, as opposed to rejecting it because no one had bothered to make an arguement for it that was logically sound.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Interesting to see the bias inherent in all of these IQ tests.

I wonder if someone could design an IQ test that would produce the opposite results that you see here with the theists scoring very high comparing to the atheists.

Secondly, the test shows that according to how that test gages intelligence, it favours atheists over theists. In order to advance the discussion, we would have to see the test, and the questions that they tested people on to see if the discreprency can be attributed to the types of questions asked.

Did you ever consider that you might have a larger bias?

IQ tests are typically based on a few types of logical/reasoning capability. So, if you want, it implies that the better someone is at reasoning/logic, the more likely they are to be an atheist.

Again, this doesn't mean that atheists are inherently smarter than theists. The causation would be the other way; if you are smarter *then* you tend to be an atheist. This, of course, assumes there isn't some third factor that influences both.

Anyhow, these tests make sense since people with high reasoning capabilities tend to question the world and what is accepting more. This would inherently tend to make more of them atheists than than average population.

I would note again, however, that it doesn't mean "all atheists are smarter than theists" or any drivel like that. Any decent intelligence test is going to find the same thing, I am sure, because the result is exactly what you'd expect.

-Drachasor

[Ben Kenobi]

Occam's razor always gets rid of God, because god is not a valid explanation for anything as far as pure science/logic is concerned.

Ockham, or Occam, was a theist, so that conclusion does not make sense to me.

Occam's razor is used to narrow between one God or many, not to prove or disprove the existance of God.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you ever consider that you might have a larger bias?

Yes, but my assessment of IQ tests, is not based on my own findings, but on what others have shown me.

IQ can be used to determine what a society values as intelligent. It cannot establish any meaningful 'intrinsic' intelligence.

IQ tests are typically based on a few types of logical/reasoning capability. So, if you want, it implies that the better someone is at reasoning/logic, the more likely they are to be an atheist.

Until someone posts the content of these tests in particular, it is impossible to draw such conclusions.

Again, this doesn't mean that atheists are inherently smarter than theists. The causation would be the other way; if you are smarter *then* you tend to be an atheist. This, of course, assumes there isn't some third factor that influences both.

Which is my point. These tests are moderated by a third factor afflicting the results. Which is why they show a discreprency between theists and atheists.

I would think, that since religiousity does not affect intrinsic intelligence, that any difference can only be attributed to bias in the test.

Anyhow, these tests make sense since people with high reasoning capabilities tend to question the world and what is accepting more. This would inherently tend to make more of them atheists than than average population.

Why is this? Why is skepticism considered 'intelligent?' Sure, I agree with you that most skeptics are agnostic and atheist. However, just because they are skeptical, does not make them more intelligent than the theists.

Any decent intelligence test is going to find the same thing, I am sure, because the result is exactly what you'd expect.

IQ tests are quite malleable, depending on the questions they ask.

[Elok]

As a counterpoint, I seem to remember hearing about numerous studies showing that the religious are more satisfied with their lives than the nonreligious...which, if there were no God, would be the only thing that matters by my reckoning. I could have misheard it, but my mom's in pastoral counseling and she's remarked on the correlation several times.

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok:

But that is a very good point. If the religious are more satisfied with their lives than the irreligious, then does that mean intelligence is bad for us?

[Al B. Sure!]

those who do not have a firm faith in god suffer from that existentialist agony that results from unbelief, disbelief, and uncertain belief in god or some other thing to cling unto (such as ideology, etc. note to the communists). it is comforting of course to have no doubt that there is a God because that implies order and certainty in the universe, gives purpose to your life, and ensures something is there after your death. obviously people who are convinced that such things exist will live happier lives.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ockham, or Occam, was a theist, so that conclusion does not make sense to me.

Occam's razor is used to narrow between one God or many, not to prove or disprove the existance of God.

It doesn't matter wether he was a theist or not. Just because he wouldn't of liked a conclusion drawn using the principle doesn't invalidate the principle.

The principle of Occam's razor in science or logic is used to throw out the parts of a theory/hypothesis/explanation that are not needed; that explain nothing.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
those who do not have a firm faith in god suffer from that existentialist agony that results from unbelief, disbelief, and uncertain belief in god or some other thing to cling unto (such as ideology, etc. note to the communists). it is comforting of course to have no doubt that there is a God because that implies order and certainty in the universe, gives purpose to your life, and ensures something is there after your death. obviously people who are convinced that such things exist will live happier lives.

Or maybe it is just that they are somewhat alienated from society because many people view them as second-class citizens or otherwise look down upon them.

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

Wow, Sava. Your best troll in quite some time.

5/10.

-Arrian (Agnostic, for the record)

[Ben Kenobi]

The principle of Occam's razor in science or logic is used to throw out the parts of a theory/hypothesis/explanation that are not needed; that explain nothing.

How does this disprove God?

And you are wrong about Ockham's razor. It simply states that the simpler theory is more likely to be correct.