Summary of studies: Religiousity and intelligence

[Elok]

Originally posted by Arrian
Of course. I, however, know Savita's M.O., and I assure you that this was a deliberate troll.

-Arrian

That doesn't work. I don't think even Sava understands Sava's M.O. entirely, so how could you?

And Occam's Razor is just an established principle of argument, not a law of physics. As far as I can tell, it's meant to settle on an operational definition of things for the purpose of scientific descriptions. Unless we're trying to invent the new science of quantum theology or something, I don't see how it's a relevant as "evidence" of the existence or nonexistence of God. It's just the rhetorical device, well or poorly quoted, of a man who's been dead for several centuries. Should I bring up Plato and the "cave" metaphor?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, that's not what it says.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

Which is precisely what I said it was.

Well, then, an equally true corollary to Ockham's Razor would be "entities should not be postulated unecessarily".

[Drachasor]

Elok, there are a number of issues being discussed here, which is why Occam's Razor comes up now and then.

1. There are the studies and what they mean.

2. What is it like being an atheist in America today.

3. Why am I an athiest (or more generally, reasons to be an atheist).

As part of this last thing, Occam's Razor has a point because it is part of my reasoning in not believing in god. I see no point in doing so, as it brings no benefit to describing how the universe works. By the principle of Occam's Razor, I do not want to needlessly complicate any internal theory with the concept of god.

Since I consider god to be impossible to prove (even if there was evidence of an extremely powerful entity, that doesn't mean it is god. To take a Star Trek analogy, it could be a Q-like entity that works a bit more discretely). Certainly the typical construction of a Christian God (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good) is incompatible with the world we are in (earthquakes and other natural disasters cause evil).

Anyhow, the burden of proof is on those that believe in god. I do not believe things without evidence for them. There is no evidence for god, and no one has proposed any. One does not go through life assuming everything is true until proven false (purple unicorns, invisible elves*, and the like are examples of such things).

Proposing that I accept that elevators and other technological innovations work, or that I have some 'faith' that other humans will act in a certain way is something wholly different. I have evidence on how society works from direct experience. I know how humans tend to act, what they tend to do, based on direct experience. Hence, if elevators tended not to work, then there would be complaints, etc, etc and I would eventually hear about them. This trust in how things work is based on my direct experience and knowledge, and hence is not truly faith in them. I know there are various controls and guidelines in place to make them work, I know that I would have heard about them if they broke down. Now, technically, I think this and I might be wrong, but the point is that these beliefs are based on direct evidence I have (and the more experience I have with such devices, the more evidence I get that the system works).

There is no similar experience one can have that is clearly about god. Religious experiences do have scientific explanations. Reason is the only valid tool to determine truth from falsehood to me. Faith is merely one of the words used to describe some situations where you are not using that tool and believing anyway. The religious might disagree with me here and say it is a valuable tool, but they have no way to prove that it is in a way I will accept; for they cannot do it using reason.

One might call me closed-minded for only trusting reason and not trusting faith, but I do not think I am unduly closed-minded. Certainly, you cannot be so open-minded as to believe anything you here (well, you can, but it isn't wise).

-Drachasor

*I think Kuciwalker mentioned this; he and I seem to have some similar reading material. : )

PS. I will respond to more of Kenobi's points later. I am a bit busy this weekend.

[Odin]

I think the reason behind those studies is that intelligent people tend to be more skeptical than a person of average intelligence.

BTW, the current trend of creating all these different kinds of intelligence is just political correctness BS.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Drachasor
*I think Kuciwalker mentioned this; he and I seem to have some similar reading material. : )/QUOTE]

Actually, the invisible, undetectable leprechauns dancing on the surfaces of electrons are an example I thought up during one of the countless religion debates and liked enough to keep using.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
i'd be scared to be religous in France... muslims and jews get lynched over there.

I have no idea how widespread and severe the persecution is. We will need to wait for Spiffor to come around and tell us.

Originally posted by Albert Speer
and muslims in China... god damn that's some ill treatment...

How so?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not necessarily so. Do you see most of the people in the US as religious people?

Yes. From the various surveys I saw, up to 80% of US citizens described themselves to be Christians.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There's the problem with your reasoning. Just because the majority of the culture believes something does not mean that all those who reject these ideals are going to more intelligent.

Sorry, this is not going to fly. The burden of proof lies with the proponents, not the distractors.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Also, if you have a smaller sample of people who call themselves Atheists, then you have to consider the sample. Is there a bell distribution in the intelligence? How large is the sample? Is the sample going to be representative, or is it too small, to sort into statistically relevant categories.

What are you trying to say?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Finally, how does the test determine someone to be religious, or irreligious? The answers to all of these questions can have a profound effect on the final results.

That seems easy enough. Something like "Do you have a religion?" or "Do you believe in a deity or a number of deities?"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Reason has limitations. It can only take you so far, and cannot solve everything.

How would resorting to Unresaon help?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Spock would say that the evidence is insufficient to establish a conclusion. He would not be able to justify the atheists who reject belief in God. If there is no evidence of God, then there is no evidence that there is no God.

That is rather much a misrepresentation.

Spock would only say the evidence is insufficient to establish a conclusion if your question is Is there a god. It is quite clear that this is not the issue in question.

Surely, Spock can certainly justifying atheists who reject beliefs in gods by stating the simple principle that it is up to
the claimants to make their case.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That would never sell, UR.

How would one know the unicorn is purple?

The same way that Christians know YHWH is omnipotent, omniscient, merciful, perfect, etc.

[DinoDoc]

I'm more concerned how you know the unicorn has polka dots.

[Al B. Sure!]

To: Urban and Ben
Re: Purple Unicorn with Pink Polka Dots

There is much debate over the fagicorn and the use of his... horn. nevertheless, i contend that if i deem that the fagicorn exists, he shall exist as far as i am concerned. now of course such post-modernity has the problem of, well then there is no objectivity... well yeah. so both of you are wrong and right at the same time unlike the fagicorn who can go both ways true enough, just only one way at a time, threesomes aside.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. From the various surveys I saw, up to 80% of US citizens described themselves to be Christians.

Go read Kontiki's post. Just because someone says they believe in God, doesn't make them a Christian.

There should be some desire to practice in some way shape or form, otherwise it is a mystery to me what they believe in.

Sorry, this is not going to fly. The burden of proof lies with the proponents, not the distractors.

Are you good with your hands, UR? Can you shape wood or metal with reasonable precision?

That takes a certain intelligence, which may not show up in the standard IQ tests.

What are you trying to say?

Small sample size will distort the distribution of atheists.

That seems easy enough. Something like "Do you have a religion?" or "Do you believe in a deity or a number of deities?"

Ask whether they practice, and you'll see some very different results.

I've done statistics work along these lines and it's amazing the difference asking questions about religious practice does to the survey results.

[Ben Kenobi]

The same way that Christians know YHWH is omnipotent, omniscient, merciful, perfect,

All of these are substantial characteristics and not accidents like colour.

So no go on the analogy.

[Ben Kenobi]

How would resorting to Unresaon help?

The same way that it does for many other things. It helps us do things without requiring all the information at this time.

That is rather much a misrepresentation.

Spock would only say the evidence is insufficient to establish a conclusion if your question is Is there a god. It is quite clear that this is not the issue in question.

Surely, Spock can certainly justifying atheists who reject beliefs in gods by stating the simple principle that it is up to the claimants to make their case.

If the burden is put on the theists, Spock would have to conclude that the atheists have no logical basis for their disbelief in God.

If they had a basis, then surely, they would postulate their evidence disproving God.

Secondly, Spock would also conclude if the theists do offer some evidence in favour of God, that it is more probable to believe in God rather than rejecting him. One should always believe that the testimony is true, unless given evidence to the contrary. Arguments from silence cannot disparage a source.

[Drachasor]

Kenobi, you are not getting off that easy.

There is no evidence for god, and if you think otherwise then PRESENT it. You continued hinting that it exists does not convince.

And it is on the burden of proof of the theist to prove god. The default is to not believe something exists, and the more extraordinary or unusual the claim, them more evidence is require to convincingly prove its existence. Spock would require a great deal of evidence to prove the existence of an omnipotent, omnicient, and all-good deity. Indeed, Spock would probably point out that the existence of unnecessary evils (such as earthquakes and disease) is evidence to the contrary.

And the burden is on the theist for the same reason the burden of proving invisible, intangible elves is on the elf-believer. Proposing that something exists is something one must necessarily prove. The theist proposes god exists, the elf-believer proposes elves exist; both must prove their claim.

Oh, and educated guessing is not the same as using unreason to solve problems. Educated guessing is based on reason and logic.

As for the surveys, I work on digging up a study. Many of them are a bit old, as you can tell, and are hard to dig up on the net. I have seen the results before and typically they show a greater correlation when the extend of religious practice (how often services are attended, prayer, etc) are taken into account. In other words, the more religious someone is, the more likely they are to be in a lower section of the I.Q. distribution. Some of the studies cited do claim this, if you read them, but I'll see if I can find the exact methodology used on them. (Clearly you are more interested in bashing potential problems in the studies than looking them up yourself though).

-Drachasor