Are Atheists More Intelligent than Theists?

[turtle]

Shadowcat, dodge will now need to verify your information for his self, however there is another issue involved here. Dodge believes his source to be fact and there may even be progranda surrending these men or the leaders that disproved his crediability. So now you got to odds. Only reasonible solution would redo the research for today. In other words a new survey. However even so who benefits from a survey. Education is like faith in reguards it is individual what you put into it is what comes out unless you just bad at a subject.


I went and look at your Indian thing. Interesting dude. However there should be alist of freedom fighters for indians online somewhere. Something to do research on and perhaps study of why Indians are still confined to some degree to the reservation, but not all. Why do a people still feel entraped after all these years.

[shadowcat]

I don't think there is too much left to question here concerning the sources. Some have very close ties to white supremacist organizations and write for white supremacist journals and speak at their conventions. It's pretty cut and dry. A few are are being reprimanded for their shoddy and sloppy research "methods" and some have lost their jobs because of their shenanigans.

There's more about the infantile Kanazawa who is so strongly opposed to feminism that he now says all women are in reality prostitutes and numerous other uterly ridiculous claims.

As for the Native Americans still feeling disenfranchised. There sure are advocates out there and many studies have been done.

[turtle]

Shadowcat, I dont argue there a problem with the original article, what I argue with is it is not so cut and dry for dodge. He seems to be takening opposing view. It is simple cut and draw with some simple facts. Okay example you know as well as I do I have gone around in circles on shepherd chapel thread. However it seems here you were talk not about white supremacied but black supremacist groups. Now don't get me wrong or started. I will pick it apart if you have not editted it. However I really hate doing that. Extremist of any kind have markers on them. Despite race.

[dodge]

Hi Shadowcat. You missed The relationship between intelligence and multiple domains of religious belief: Evidence from a large adult US sample, by Gary J. Lewis, Stuart J. Ritchie, and Timothy C. Bates, that I pointed out demonstrated that “lower intelligence is most strongly associated with higher levels of fundamentalism.” The authors’ study reported “on the links of intelligence to religion” in 2307 individuals assessed for religiosity, and cognitive ability/intelligence.

http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1197.pdf

This study indicates that “intelligence was significantly and negatively associated with five of the six religion measures, with the largest coefficient on fundamentalism.”

The authors say that their work confirmed Nyborg’s previous work, and that the indication is that “those with greater cognitive skill are able to form more individualistic and open-minded (anti-authoritarian) attitudes than those of lesser cognitive ability. What was interesting in this study is that the authors talk about the possibility that “individuals with higher intelligence may come into intellectual conflict with the arguments made by religious scripture and leaders, thus explaining our finding of a negative association between intelligence and religious belief.”

What you’re doing is attacking these authors personally instead of examining what it is they’re saying and what they do. Yes, Nyborg is a controversial man with some unpopular opinions and research; but his ideas concerning religiosity and intelligence are confirmed by Lewis, Ritchie, and Bates above.

Is it true that there is an intellectual difference between races, between sexes, and between those who embrace religious beliefs and atheists? Look at the research and the results of studies instead of trying to find mud to toss at the authors personally. This is the beauty of science, peer review; where the work of scientists are examined and picked apart by qualified members of the scientific community. I would suggest that you find what credible peers of Nyborg have to say about his research into intelligence as it relates to religious beliefs (like the authors of the paper mentioned above) instead of scouring the internet to find mud to sling at him, Kanazawa, and any source that I might bring up.

“No one loves the messenger who brings bad news.” (Sophocles)

[dodge]

There was a piece published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology September of last year called Divine Intuition: Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God, by Amitai Shenhav, David G. Rand, and Joshua D. Greene of Harvard University. The authors talk about how those who believe in God are intuitive rather than reflective. What they mean by “intuitive” are judgments made with little effort based on automatic processes; and “reflective” judgments are those that critically examine intuitive judgments. Reflection is more rational and requires more effort than intuition.

The study controlled for age, gender, education, each parent’s education, current income, and family income during childhood; and controlling for economic and social conservatism. Intuitive responses were positively correlated with self-reported belief in immortal souls, and with reports of experiences that convinced the participant of God’s existence.

The result was that less reflective people are more likely to believe in God, and to believe in God with greater confidence. The reasons for this, according to the study, have to do with tendencies toward dualism, anthropomorphism, and seeing design in nature. Belief in God through easily accessible explanations allow people to make sense of otherwise mysterious phenomena.

This explains how the way people think (or fail to think) lead to convictions concerning the metaphysical order of the universe.

https://mcl.wjh.harvard.edu/mcl/pubs...ene-JEPG11.pdf

The authors:

Amitai Shenhav (Harvard University Department of Psychology) focuses on cognitive and affective/emotional psychological processes and their underlying neural architecture in terms of behavior.

David G. Rand (Harvard University Department of Psychology, Lecurer in Harvard’s Human Evolutionary Biology Department) focuses on understanding human cooperation.

Joshua D. Greene (Harvard University Department of Psychology, professor of social sciences) focuses on the study of moral judgment and decision-making.

[turtle]

Dodge I disagree. There many on police force as well as doctors, and lawyers and such that use reflective judgment though this is intutive response. Moral judgments are different then information processsed by facts. I think the issue is the problem those who believe not in God have is they do not feel there is enough evidence to support God. Yet there is. Not just based on Biblical evidence. Or even practical knowledge. Some would call it is instinctive but no not really. If you meet God you will know the difference. If God speaks to your heart you will know the difference. God is not rational item you can turn on and off, or wave a wand. God is not some person in the physical sense that you can just go knock on the door and say hi how are you doing. In the spiritual sense you can. However it not a fanatasy. It is not a psychotic episode either.

It almost like the unconcious state of unbelief says I can not believe in God but if he exist I would like to believe. That a starting point I think for a none believer. It admitting you don't have all the rational or reflective answers you need to say I accept God at this point in my life. However dodge I personally do have all I need to believe in God.

God is rational, however the rational you need might be different then the rational I need. Do believers have doubt sure, scripture has doubting Thomas as well as woman at the time of right before the resurrection. However reflectively the words seemed unconceivable the proof unbelievable from the manger to the resurrection to the ascension of Christ into heaven. Most want to find the magic trick.

Magic trick of how an event occurred. almost like ghost hunters seeking out explanation for events that cause paranormal experience. Some things can be proven to have a rational explanation from world events. For example mold causing paranormal episode, to human trickery. Example someone laying there hand on a person forehead with the right pressure will cause a person to pass out. So will certain toxin. Those are explainable. The rational begins harder if someone never experience a dizzy spell hits the floor. Was there a diabetic, or other illness to cause the effect at the moment, like heart disease and anxiety or trauma. All rational thinking, or even a drug causing euphoria. Is there a ratioanl explanation, beyond what is seen by the naked eye.


For another example what about a minister coming in an preaching the exact same lesson as just taught by the teacher no books, and no communication. God or hearing device of some sort. That easily disproved or proven. Strip the guy that made the second speech for listening device, no that does not work. However it would give a reasonable explanation if wire or earphone is found. However the slightest of hand to an amateur sleuth can not be necessarily detected.

Is there a reflective proof of God and not just coincidence of events. possibly odds and chances of stumbling in the old west on to someone in the middle of a blizzard and can not see a hand in front of you is what one in a billion odds. Yet stories have been told of events that make no sense but an act of chance.

Reflectively proof of God or chance. God real because there is man inside my heart, do surgery and I sure you find just a normal heart or one needing repair. Reflectively to say there is a man inside the heart makes no sense to non believer, it sound like a religious response or dogma, until you experience the power of the Holy Spirit yourself, upon faith in Jesus Christ. It is not rational. No one tells a person what it feels like why because no one would believe until they too experience Jesus being received into their heart.

Many go the altar never receiving because what they expect is not what they feel or think. Anyone can get high off of a moment of excitment, no one expects to get high off of having a load of guilt removed from their soul. I do not remember be told as a child to feel Christ or to feel emotion of any kind when I receive Christ but I did. However any one can be made to feel guilty.

Many people say many things non christian and christian alike that are true and untrue. Facts and words are not always so easily defined. You take scripture why beleive something written down over thousands of years ago with no physical proof today. Perhaps the knowledge of that time was impossible to prove not even with centuries and years gone by of life experience would of gasp as much as scripture. The clearing of the soul, much like the clearing after a hail storm or a flood, getting rid of the rubbish is practice by many cultures. What is different about Jesus, proof of his existence, proof of his death and proof of his resurrection. Testimony alone enough for some it is. For some it is not. A vision would help a non believer perhaps but I think it will take more then a simple vision of sight, but vision in the since of instructions like Noah had to build an ark, or Saul had to go to Damacus and he would see again.

Is there peace in unconcious or blackout state yes of course. Most do not remember peace of that kind because of traumatic blow to the physical body including surgery. So what proof of God is there? His handiwork, His creation. Life from what we can not grasp, where did the gas come from to cause the big bang theory. However atheist say well then where did God come from and Christians say we do not know but we know He exist. You want a reflective, reasonable rational proof of God, well if Christ returns before you die in the physical sense you will have it. However will you have it before then, maybe if you will allow yourself to say first of all I can not believe in something I can not gasp, but if it were so I would like to know. The realization that you don't have all the answers or proof in the reflective concious is okay. If God then reveals himself to you then you have to be willing to accept God for to utterly reject God leads to a place of everlasting torment. Let God reveal Himself to you, seek only in the concious of desiring to know truth and God will do the rest. Coming to that point of saying my assumations or proof of or not of is not enough.

However I for one know God exist and know He exist in three person, Father, Son and HOly Spirit. Was it a reflective decision not tell later years. For at some point we want and need to put away childish beliefs and have adult beliefs, yet scripture says we have to come like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven. Truth we do, but I serve a God bigger then that, who understands human reasoning and events that can be duplicated by man. That How I know.

[ba2]

Hi Dodge
These are fascinating studies. I do believe that prehistoric man needed to develop a sense of intuition (right or wrong) for survival sake. The intuition could have been learned and developed from experiences, such as, be wary of strangers, they might want to harm you. That intuitive nature is evident today, a stranger walks through your neighborhood and maybe you take police action, without real cause. These have become what we would now consider biases or prejudices. Often they are harmless and might be considered street smart, like observing a crowd ahead and maybe crossing the street to avoid walking past potential trouble or, avoiding a dark street when walking alone at night because your intuition tells you there may be danger. But making judgments about people because of the ethnic look about them, is just plain dumb. My fundamentalist friends seem to be very black & white on this. They make judgments intuitively, like Obama has to be Muslim because of this name. Or, you can name a regional or ethnic group and they can quickly come up with a descriptive response. Some of them seem very intelligent, yet not very smart.

The question regarding the IQ studies is, “Does a strong belief in God steer one away from solid science, causing a decline in IQ scores?” or does the lower IQ allow one to more easily become a believer? I tend to think that a strong fundamentalist belief discourages one from searching out scientific truth and encourages a mistrust of mainstream education. Therefore, an IQ score might be lowered, which really does not mean that “real” intelligence is less.

[shadowcat]

Hi Shadowcat. You missed The relationship between intelligence and multiple domains of religious belief: Evidence from a large adult US sample, by Gary J. Lewis, Stuart J. Ritchie, and Timothy C. Bates, that I pointed out demonstrated that “lower intelligence is most strongly associated with higher levels of fundamentalism.” The authors’ study reported “on the links of intelligence to religion” in 2307 individuals assessed for religiosity, and cognitive ability/intelligence.

http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1197.pdf

This study indicates that “intelligence was significantly and negatively associated with five of the six religion measures, with the largest coefficient on fundamentalism.”

The authors say that their work confirmed Nyborg’s previous work, and that the indication is that “those with greater cognitive skill are able to form more individualistic and open-minded (anti-authoritarian) attitudes than those of lesser cognitive ability. What was interesting in this study is that the authors talk about the possibility that “individuals with higher intelligence may come into intellectual conflict with the arguments made by religious scripture and leaders, thus explaining our finding of a negative association between intelligence and religious belief.”

What you’re doing is attacking these authors personally instead of examining what it is they’re saying and what they do. Yes, Nyborg is a controversial man with some unpopular opinions and research; but his ideas concerning religiosity and intelligence are confirmed by Lewis, Ritchie, and Bates above.

Is it true that there is an intellectual difference between races, between sexes, and between those who embrace religious beliefs and atheists? Look at the research and the results of studies instead of trying to find mud to toss at the authors personally. This is the beauty of science, peer review; where the work of scientists are examined and picked apart by qualified members of the scientific community. I would suggest that you find what credible peers of Nyborg have to say about his research into intelligence as it relates to religious beliefs (like the authors of the paper mentioned above) instead of scouring the internet to find mud to sling at him, Kanazawa, and any source that I might bring up.

“No one loves the messenger who brings bad news.” (Sophocles)

Dodge, it has nothing to do with attacking the authors personally. It has to do with checking their credibility. Men that call themselves scientists that are doing scholarly articles and research studies and passing these studies off as "science" need to be checked out. They are promoters of Eugenics, write for white supremacist journals, and do studies on the difference in intelligence between races, sex, and religious beliefs. You have to evaluate the source and the studies, what are the bias of the researchers? This is important.

I do not think anyone is going to trust someone like Kanazawa as a reliable source dodge. He believes that all women are prostitutes and that black women are less attractive than white women and he tries to pass this off as scientific fact due to evolution and genetics. Seriously....

As for a couple of these other guys, if they are supporters of Eugenics and if they want to write for white supremacist journals and speak at their conferences that is their perogative and right to do so, if these are their beliefs so be it, but I do not know how serious they will be taken either. They are trying to prove their own beliefs by doing these studies. Can they be objective? And why are they under investigation for poor methology and being asked to step down from their positions? One must remember these guys aren't just spouting off their beliefs and opinions, they are trying to pass their so-called research studies off as scientific fact. If they are being reprimanded for poor methods and faulty studies then you know there is a problem.

I'm going to go back and read the other study when I get the chance, but at the same time I will check the credibility of the source.

And just to be fair you should have posted this study done by Nyborg

Nyborg, Helmuth (2008). The intelligence-religiosity nexus: a representative study of white adolescent Americans. Intelligence, 37(1), 81-93.

[shadowcat]

Shadowcat, I dont argue there a problem with the original article, what I argue with is it is not so cut and dry for dodge. He seems to be takening opposing view. It is simple cut and draw with some simple facts. Okay example you know as well as I do I have gone around in circles on shepherd chapel thread. However it seems here you were talk not about white supremacied but black supremacist groups. Now don't get me wrong or started. I will pick it apart if you have not editted it. However I really hate doing that. Extremist of any kind have markers on them. Despite race.

What black supremacist groups? I wasn't talking about any black supremacist group. I was talking about the researchers being connected to white supremacist groups, one of which (Richard Lynn) is the editor of a vulgarly racist white supremacist journal titled "Mankind Quarterly".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly

Mankind Quarterly From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not to be confused with the Australian anthropological journal The Australian Journal of Anthropology formerly known as "Mankind".

The Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to physical and cultural anthropology and is currently published by the Council for Social and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C. It contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, linguistics, mythology, archaeology, etc. The journal aims to unify anthropology with biology.

It has been called a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment" and a "white supremacist journal",^[1] "scientific racism's keepers of the flame",^[2] a journal with a "racist orientation" and a "infamous racist journal",^[3] and "journal of 'scientific racism'".^[4]

Its foundation in 1960 may in part have been a response to the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education which ordered the desegregation of schools in the United States.^[5][6] It was originally published in Edinburgh, Scotland, by the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics.
The founders were Robert Gayre, Henry Garrett, Roger Pearson, Corrado Gini, Ottmar von Verschuer and Reginald Ruggles Gates.

Editors
The current editors-in-chief are Peter Boev (Sofia, Bulgaria), Brunetto Chiarelli (Florence, Italy), Richard Lynn (Bristol, England), and Gerhard Meisenberg.

Criticism

Many of those who constitute the publication's contributors, Board of Directors, and publishers are connected to the academic hereditarian tradition. The journal has been criticized by some as being political and strongly right-leaning.^[7] The publisher counters that much of Anthropology is 'politicised' in the opposite way and that those who count amongst the most vocal critics of the journal often identify with the Radical tradition in Anthropology.^[8]

During the "Bell Curve wars" of the 1990s, the journal received attention when opponents of The Bell Curve publicized the fact that some of the works cited by Bell Curve authors Herrnstein and Murray had first been published in Mankind Quarterly.^[9] In the New York Review of Books, Charles Lane referred to The Bell Curve's "tainted sources," noting that seventeen researchers cited in the book's bibliography had contributed articles to, and ten of these seventeen had also been editors of, Mankind Quarterly, "a notorious journal of 'racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race."^[10] The journal stands by its tradition of publishing hereditarian perspective articles to this day, stating that "...this science has stood the test of time, and MQ is still prepared to publish controversial findings and theories".^[11] Pearson received over a million dollars in grants from the Pioneer Fund in the eighties and the nineties.^[9][12]

[dodge]

Hi Shadowcat. Thank you for all of that information concerning the Mankind Quarterly, Richard Lynn, and the Pioneer Fund. I will delete Richard Lynn as a credible source.

[dodge]

I forgot to mention Kanazawa and Nyborg, both of which I will now delete from my reputable scientist list; thanks to your excellent research into their characters. I checked on what you said, and found it to be valid criticism, Shadowcat.

I will be more careful about who I link to in the future. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I may have to revise my opinions regarding religiosity and intelligence.

[turtle]

dodge was your only source wikipeg encyclopedia if so do you not even realize I could write on it or even someone that just in disagreement as someone else, concider using wikipeg only as a stopping point for research into names that it provides not has a factual base.

[dodge]

Hi Turtle. I guess you haven’t been following the discussion. I titled this thread with a question, “Are Atheists More Intelligent Than Theists,” and linked to some scientific studies, books, and scholarly papers…not much from Wikipedia.

During the course of this debate Shadowcat pointed out that some of my sources were questionable, and I agreed. Some of them were, though; but as it is right now, after giving the question serious consideration, I would have to say no, atheists are not more intelligent than theists. That would be an inaccurate and prejudiced statement.

[turtle]

Dodge you missed my original post on the first page, you usually do talk back, however don't worry about it, you came to a right conclusion, but not necessarily the right reasoning. See Christians do believe their intelligents come from God. However there are people with low IQs that are Christians is God at fault, no, yet does God give these low IQ people a type of intelligents sure he does. However how we use the knowledge is essential. Actually where do atheist get their intelligents, and how do they achieve more intelligents? After all let say you know half of everything in the world how will you learn the other half.

[stage director]

2007 random nationwide phone poll of approx 4000 by the Barna Group:

•“No-Faith” individuals are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%)

•They are less likely than active-faith Americans to describe themselves as “active in the community” (41% versus 68%)

•They are less likely than active-faith Americans to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%).

•They are less likely than active-faith Americans to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%)

•The typical no-faith American donated just $200 to charitable causes in 2006, more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the typical active-faith adult ($1500).

•Even subtracting church-based giving, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars to charitable causes last year than atheists and agnostics.

•22% of “no-faith” adults failed to contribute any personal funds to charitable causes in 2006, compared to only 7% of active-faith adults.

•Atheists and agnostics were more likely to be focused on acquiring wealth than Christians (10% versus 2%)

•No-Faith adults embrace the description or perception of being “at peace,” less than Christians (67% versus 90%)

•Atheists and agnostics are more likely to feel stressed out (37% versus 26%).

•56% of atheists and agnostics agree with the idea that radical Christianity is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam, while 63% of active Christians perceive that the nation is becoming more hostile and negative toward Christianity.

barna.org

[dodge]

Hi SD. I hadn’t heard of the Barna Research Group before, so I looked it up.

In an article published by Christianity Today, the founder, George Barna, is described as being “to evangelicals what George Gallup is to the larger culture.” Pastors cited his statistical findings in sermons, and his books about church ministry sell consistently.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...ust5/1.32.html

Barna is said, in this Christianity Today article, to believe God had called him “to serve as a catalyst for moral and spiritual revolution in America,” He and his wife joined a fundamentalist church, and George got a job working with televangelists Rex Humbard and Oral Roberts. In 1984, he launched Barna Research as a service to Christian ministry.

As David Kinnaman (president and majority owner of Barna Group) said, the Barna Research Group’s primary goal is to “enhance people’s spiritual lives.”

http://davidkinnaman.com/about-barna-group/

USA Today calls the Barna Research Group “the Gallup of the faith world,” and Kinnaman delivers speeches “devoted to addressing the challenges in translating, teaching and marketing Scripture in modern times.”

Conservaedia describes the Barna Group as a “Christian polling organization set up to ask questions that would interest the Christian community by showing beliefs or trends within the United States.”

Wikipedia doesn’t list the Barna Group under notable polling organizations in the U.S., but Gallup, Harris, Nielsen, Pew, Rasmussen, and several others are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion..._organizations

It seems that the question of bias could be an issue. At any rate, I believe that one should compare the statistics you copied and pasted with Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen, and other polling and survey groups in order to get an accurate understanding of where atheists stand in relationship to voting, community activity, volunteer work, donations and overall stress levels. Just an observation.

[stage director]

Hi, Dodge. The Barna Group is considered a respected/unbiased research org. And if you examine their findings on multiple subjects you will find that many are just not all that flattering to Christians. It goes without saying that the results reported by any organization are going to be questioned by somebody.

[dodge]

So, SD, do you think it’s true that atheists are less likely to vote, less active in their communities, less likely to help the homeless, less charitable, less likely to be interested in acquiring wealth, less at peace, and more stressed than Christians? Isn’t that as bad as saying that atheists are more intelligent that theists?

[shadowcat]

I think the study said atheists are more likey to want to aquire wealth than those of faith.

See this is where statistics come into play as being slanted. It all depends on who is doing the study, what bias may be involved, what factors were used, controls, variables, etc.. Of course the person doing the study is going to try to slant the outcome as much as possible. Let's say you have 50 atheists in your study and you test their IQ, they can very easily use the smartest 20 out of the group and not even bother using the other 30. Then at the same time have 50 Christians and use the lowest scoring out of the group to put on the chart.

[dodge]

Hi Shadowcat. Your’re right, the Barna study said that atheists were more likely to have a desire to acquire wealth than Christians. I misread what SD posted. Do you think that’s true? Wouldn’t that mean that atheists are more prosperous than Christians…if you believed what the Barna Research says?