Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

Yet when someone is about to die or a loved one is about to die, they turn too religion not science. Science is very important, but too much science will bring too much questions and too much theories not proven yet. There is no comfort in atheism


[edit on 13-6-2008 by Fingon]

Originally posted by Quazga

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

www.telegraph.co.uk

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.

But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Actually, it seems to me that there is a higher correlation between arrogance and not believing in God. Most of the smartest people this planet has ever produced believed in God.

Originally posted by melatonin
That I disagree with. A reliable strong significant correlation is suggestive of some form of causation (could be a to b, b to a, unknown(s) to a & b). It does not prove a causes b (or b causes a), but it is certainly something that would say to me - time to get into this relationship in detail.

No, a simple correlation does not signify any sort of relationship. The number of sales by Apple Computer, Inc. per month and the number of domestic dogs in the United States per month has also gone up. Put it in SPSS and run a correlation, you'll find a surprisingly high value. Surely, this means we have causation!

Many things correlate and theres no causation going on.

Originally posted by melatonin
But if you think that only multiple regressions are appropriate, you have just discarded much very fine and robust research out there.

I think that extraordinary research claims require extraordinary research methods. If your going to make a grandiose claim and don't use a research technique that is most appropriate for what your doing, then it should be no big surprise you get rightly criticized for it and have the validity of your study be questioned.

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, but we are not talking about multiple regression in this study. I also never said impossible. I think I said 'fairly rare'. and for a bivariate it is. And in this case expecting R^2 of .65 to be, what was it you said, 'generous' is pretty laughable.

And your 'spurious correlations' blah was indicative of someone who just wants to dismiss this issue out of hand. I'm not, I raised my concerns earlier in the thread. But your approach is more troubling to me, especially so if you are a PhD student.

I've been a graduate student for a few years, and worked on research all that time. I come across high R squares all the time, especially when people are making grandiose claims. It is not the norm for your average paper, but it is expected when your making huge claims like this.

Spurious correlations are just matters of fact when dealing with this sort of research. Your eagerness to accept it and make it seem more than it is is very troubling to me, especially for someone who is throwing subliminal insults like this.

I agree. But if you go on to be an independent researcher, you'll learn to use what you have to hand.

As a independent researcher (I think publishing my own papers off my own original data makes me independent), I use what I have - and I know my limitations. I've went down possible research paths many times only to have to back up and reframe because I was going down a path that would lead to claims I could not back up. Must be all that humility and ethics I have getting in the way.

But it certainly isn't meaningless. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

Oh, trust me. If you ever find r = .6, it is more likely than not to be p < .05. Not certainly, but very likely.

But it is. And I've run across those scores many times and had them be not statistically significant at that level.

And again, I agree. Bad research does get published. Peer-review is a necessary but not sufficient degree of quality control. I take that bias comment as pretty much poor form. Peer-review generally involves much more than one individual, so you are taking pot-shots at probably 3 experts with differing views here. Indeed, implicitly at people you don't even know who reviewed this manuscript.

I take your comments of being so sure of the peer reviewed process as pretty poor form. Getting into some journals is a matter of politicking, knowing the editor, and making sure you throw in cites that are from the reviewer list. The "peer review" process has little meaning, except for a certain tier of journals and higher.

.65 for R^2 is much too high for some sort of barrier for acceptable relationships in behavioural science. I'll tell you a little story, I used to work in pharmaceutical research all those years ago, I would knock of assay calibrations of .99999999999999999 all the time. When I moved into a behavioural science as an UG, I did a study and found a correlation of something like .35, which I said was poor. And it is! For chemistry. But I was told it was actually a moderate relationship. It's just something you might have missed or overlooked. Around .3-.4 is moderate, .5+ is strong.

Since your displaying quite a level of subliminal arrogance here (or at least that is what it appears to be), I'm not sure how to respond. I'll just say I work with a expert in quantitative methodology in the social sciences on a daily basis. I will trust her PhD training from a top ranked program and 35 years of research experience in this area - which go completely against your claims.

Not spurious at all. That's the wrong approach. It shows a significant negative correlation between two variables, that is not random. And it is most likely not spurious. That's what the stats are for. If we are at p < .05, we are talking about less than 5% false positive.

Yet again: correlation does not equal causation. Just because its probably not a random correlation in terms of statistical significance does not mean there is any causation going on. It is most likely spurious.

So, you question the relationship between IQ and intelligence?
Or do you question the veracity of their measure of belief/non-belief.

Both. IQ is not the best measure of intelligence, and it could be combined with other variables if there was no agenda going on. Also, measuring belief is complex. Measuring belief as a dichotomous variable not only has lots of validity problems but I would bet there was no logit regression to make up for it if it was measured that way. Given the simplistic methodology I would be surprised if they used any sort of index to measure belief appropriately by asking different questions about belief in god, religious practices, etc.

This has become circular. Your going to claim I'm dismissing it, and I'm going to claim your making more out of it than it really is. We agree measuring IQ is probably not the best way to do it, and the methods are probably too simple, and some others things. I would leave it at that until something new comes up.

Originally posted by Quazga


Well duh!

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Now it's time to duck as those with "I love God" tattooed on their forehead get all agitated.

“It seems as though someone has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.” Paul Davies; famous cosmologist, quantum physicist & materialistic naturalist

There are those no more violently apposed to light then those willfully in the dark.

“The Fundamentalist (fundamental Bible believers) are closing in fast.” The Death of Science

This sort of info has actually been out for a long time.

Doesn't surprise me, but the religious ones will deny it anyway... much like science and logic...

*Cough*

Righto I'm out.

reply to post by Fingon


To show you that there is a diffrent opinion here is a quote from Malice, 1993. It is a sickening thought but here it is.

"I have an M.D. from Harvard. I am board certified in cardiothoracic medicine and trauma surgery. I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you: When someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry, or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death, or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trauma from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to?
Now, go ahead and read your Bible, Dennis! And you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November seventeenth, and he doesn't like to be second guessed.

You ask me if I have a God complex? Let me tell you something -- I am God."

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
No, a simple correlation does not signify any sort of relationship. The number of sales by Apple Computer, Inc. per month and the number of domestic dogs in the United States per month has also gone up. Put it in SPSS and run a correlation, you'll find a surprisingly high value. Surely, this means we have causation!

Many things correlate and theres no causation going on.

Yes, of course. However, is there a logical reason why we might expect sales by apple computers to be related to the number of dogs? If not, I would suggest it was most likely spurious finding.

However, you are taking the 'correlation does not imply causation' mantra incorrectly. It really means correlation is not sufficient to claim cause. It is often suggestive of one, it is certainly necessary for one, no? A tentative and suggestive first step.

Is there a logical reason to suggest that intelligence and belief/non-belief might be related. Why, yes, I think there is. I'm sure the introduction to the article will attempt to justify such a claim. Should be an interesting read.

Cum hoc ego propter hoc applies is you want to logically claim the correlation necessarily means a causes b is true. I'm not, I'm saying it is suggestive. A hint. A tentative indication

And there is absolutely now't wrong with that.

I think that extraordinary research claims require extraordinary research methods. If your going to make a grandiose claim and don't use a research technique that is most appropriate for what your doing, then it should be no big surprise you get rightly criticized for it and have the validity of your study be questioned.

I'm not sure it is so 'extraordinary'. The research technique of bivariate correlation is actually fine, there are just more thorough and expansive techniques available.

I've been a graduate student for a few years, and worked on research all that time. I come across high R squares all the time, especially when people are making grandiose claims. It is not the norm for your average paper, but it is expected when your making huge claims like this.

They are not making 'huge' claims. They are saying that belief/non-belief can predict intelligence (or more correctly, IQ). We can quibble over the IQ = intelligence point, but it is actually fairly well accepted in their field.

Spurious correlations are just matters of fact when dealing with this sort of research. Your eagerness to accept it and make it seem more than it is is very troubling to me, especially for someone who is throwing subliminal insults like this.

Touchy!

Heh, I not that willing to accept it. My first post in this thread was pointing out some relevant weaknesses and issues.

I really just want to read it in detail, then I'll make my mind up what I really think about it.

As a independent researcher (I think publishing my own papers off my own original data makes me independent)

Hmmm, not in my mind if you have a PI, but whatever. Not really that relevant, wasn't meant to be another touchy subject.

Just meant to illustrate that you sometimes have to use what you can get your grubby mitts on.

I use what I have - and I know my limitations. I've went down possible research paths many times only to have to back up and reframe because I was going down a path that would lead to claims I could not back up. Must be all that humility and ethics I have getting in the way.

Of course! No research is perfect. We use what we have available, in the time available, with the funds available, and do the best we can in those circumstances.

They can back up their claims though. They did a study, somehow measured belief/non-belief and IQ, performed appropriate stats, and found a strong and significant relationship. They claim that one variable appears to predict the other.

That's a fair inference in normal science.

But it is. And I've run across those scores many times and had them be not statistically significant at that level.

OK.

I take your comments of being so sure of the peer reviewed process as pretty poor form. Getting into some journals is a matter of politicking, knowing the editor, and making sure you throw in cites that are from the reviewer list. The "peer review" process has little meaning, except for a certain tier of journals and higher.

Oh my.

Since your displaying quite a level of subliminal arrogance here (or at least that is what it appears to be), I'm not sure how to respond. I'll just say I work with a expert in quantitative methodology in the social sciences on a daily basis. I will trust her PhD training from a top ranked program and 35 years of research experience in this area - which go completely against your claims.

Well, what do you want me to say? I know that is the general situation. It's certainly the one I've worked to since whenever. Moderate correlations are viewed around .3-.4 and stronger ones above .5. You appear to think this needs a conference or something, just general stuff.

Sorry for knowing that.

ABE: Here, here's another academic who knows that:

Two main factors make Dr. Cartman more or less willing to conclude that there is a non-zero correlation between SAT and GPA in the entire Freshman student body. One factor affecting his confidence is the size of the correlation in his sample. In his sample’s data, Dr. Cartman found a correlation of r = .40, which represents a positive correlation of moderate size.

....

But what if Dr. Cartman had found that the correlation in sample was very strong, say r = .80? A correlation of r = .80 is very far from zero – it expresses a very strong association between two variables.

www.wfu.edu...

Pass it around, it's a useful rule of thumb.

Yet again: correlation does not equal causation. Just because its probably not a random correlation in terms of statistical significance does not mean there is any causation going on. It is most likely spurious.

And I never said that correlation does equal causation. See earlier.

Both. IQ is not the best measure of intelligence, and it could be combined with other variables if there was no agenda going on. Also, measuring belief is complex. Measuring belief as a dichotomous variable not only has lots of validity problems but I would bet there was no logit regression to make up for it if it was measured that way. Given the simplistic methodology I would be surprised if they used any sort of index to measure belief appropriately by asking different questions about belief in god, religious practices, etc.

OK. Until I bother getting the study (I'll U2U you it if you want it), we can only really guess. I have an idea what they did (knowing previous work from these dudes), and it wouldn't be the best approach, IMHO.

This has become circular. Your going to claim I'm dismissing it, and I'm going to claim your making more out of it than it really is. We agree measuring IQ is probably not the best way to do it, and the methods are probably too simple, and some others things. I would leave it at that until something new comes up.

I do agree somewhat. I suppose the problem is just how do we measure intelligence? People in that field are generally happy to use IQ as some sort of index, it does have predictive validity. So it is probably the best we do have. But like you, I'm not so sure it equivalent to Intelligence (TM).

I'm not actually making that much out of it, IMO. At most, I've said, if methodologically robust, it could well be suggestive of some form of causal association.

But I'm not exactly running around calling theists dopes or anything.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by melatonin]

I don't belong to any religion and am not a religious person. However I feel compelled to state that correlation (such as the correlation between intelligence and the belief in a deity) does not prove causal relationship, and that those who do maintain religious beliefs are not automatically less intelligent than anyone else as a result of these conclusions.

I fully respect people's individual right to believe whatever they wish, and have been fortunate to have friends over the years who are both religious and, in my opinion, highly intelligent. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I’d also like to offer my opinion that tolerance is a sign of intelligence and compassion.

reply to post by acewilliams


Having BEEN there when many men died - having almost died myself several times - let me offer my observations for consideration:
1. Non Christians NEVER call on Budda, Mohammed, or any of the other numerous would be gods when their dieing; they either scream for Jesus or their mother - STRANGELY, this even holds so for the formally professed atheist.

2. Several died screaming NOT to let them die because they were BURNING AND/OR GOING TO HELL... One I am thinking of in particular, a highly educated atheist who enjoyed nothing more than flaming the "Christian idots" of his company - I wonder if he believes in God now?



[edit on 6/13/2008 by SGTChas]

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness

I think that extraordinary research claims require extraordinary research methods. If your going to make a grandiose claim and don't use a research technique that is most appropriate for what your doing, then it should be no big surprise you get rightly criticized for it and have the validity of your study be questioned.

I am always deeply supsicious of that "extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof" stance. It is often stated by those who just plain do not want to believe in the results of a claim because it conflicts with the very core of their fundamental beliefs. NB not just God far from it. The area of physics is full of it.

How about this extraordinary claim : the whole universe and everything in it was created by God.......now please provide the extraordinary proof. In fact I'll be generous provide ANY proof. You know, the sort required for scientific studies.

I know God does not exist because there is no evidence and there is a fundamental flaw in the claim anyway.

There maybe no God. There also maybe no scientific truths. Who cares. Old debate. Atheists can be just as absurd as Creationists.

There is an analogy; the ant farm. All the ants work in the ant farm and know the ants in the farm and they serve a queen and each has their own role and go about their lives sometimes meeting ants from other ant farms and fighting over terrain and then they proceed with their duties.

Those ants can't possibly fathom through their basic senses what the reality outside of the life of an ant is like. There is a much bigger world and there is much larger knowledge that they have not attained, and they haven't begun to dig at the root of it.

Is humanity, possibly, a lot like that ant farm?

It's just the Telegraph trying to stir up controversy to sell more newspapers. Who cares that most intellectuals don't believe in a God or follow a rigid belief structure? As I say, without deviation, progress is not possible, and will only be possible once we stop arguing about whether or not there is a Godhead, because we'll never know. In my opinion, it's useless talking about something that may or may not exist. If He's someone's imaginary friend, so what? If He is real, so what? Why praise Him for it?

reply to post by acewilliams

Originally posted by acewilliams
Albert Einstien actually ran himself ragged trying to prove the fact that there was a god, but it so happens that he was never able to make that proof. To the contrary, he many times over showed that the original idea of a creator was propostorous. And therefor we see that he saw a difference in faith and fact even though he wished to deny it. To believe and to blindly believe are very different. "knowledge is power and hope is the fuel"

In what terms did he try to express the existence of God? Mathematical? Physical? Can't be done.

The idea of a Creator is not preposterous. I won't go so far as to say that it is the only idea that makes sense, since that would reveal my mere humanity, but I also wouldn't be so
bold as to call it preposterous. That just reveals your humanity.

reply to post by jsobecky


For once we agree on something

It is equally as arrogant to claim god doesn't exist, using "proof" as it is to claim god does exist by using the bible.

All the two different sides of the argument really do is expose intractibility of belief and perhaps of mind.



[edit on 13/6/2008 by budski]

Jews are very religious and have some of the most intelligent people in the world.

I think the psychologist went abit over the top with the 'intellectual elite thing'.

reply to post by Quazga


Great post!!! I think this is becoming more and more the norm for younger people these days. I can really only speak for myself and my brothers as we care nothing for religion and see the hypocrisy in all religion. But it does seem that more and more people are becoming disenfranchised with religion and the BS that goes with it!

All the different religions of the world falling over each other for control and domination over the other, fueling endless wars....all based on some something they BELIEVE to be true!! I have no problem with people believing in what they want, that's what makes us free souls on this planet. And, there are those, like me, that believe life exists all over the universe, ET's, UFO's, all that good stuff. In my opinion, this type of thinking trumps our primitive belief in religion here on earth and I think more people are looking to the stars for answers and not the bible!! My reason for thinking like this is the simple fact that life does exist on other planets all over the universe so how could our way of thinking, namely "god" and religion, be the only way they ALL think?!?!? NOT LIKELY....but the world will go on and we'll believe in all sorts of things until we venture into the universe for good and learn the truth!

Purduegrad05

Originally posted by jsobecky

In what terms did he try to express the existence of God? Mathematical? Physical? Can't be done.

From what I've read of Einstein, he never tried to 'prove' God's existence, but rather explain how God did things. The assumption that God existed was always there to him, but not in any religious way.

Quote: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

I am not an atheist myself, however I will fight tooth and nail with those who claim they can prove without a doubt that God exists, or that the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah/Ghita/Vedas are the true word of God. I accept that there are things that I cannot know, and that I may find out after my time here is at an end.

I 'feel' that there is something more, but can't explain it. I find organized religion to be a crutch for those who have this same feeling but can't accept it as an unknown. I find atheism to be a similar crutch, but in rather than accepting the unknown as unknown, they accept the unknown as unreal. It's just as silly in my opinion.

Originally posted by Quazga

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

www.telegraph.co.uk

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.

But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This article says "intellectual elite" like it's a good thing. The truth is that any group that consideres themselves "elite" - as in better than everyone else in some fashion - is a terrible thing. Because with elitism comes arrogance. They're only setting themselves up in their ivory tower waiting for the next group that's even more "elite" to come around and knock them back down to the rank of mere mortals.

really

[edit on 6/13/2008 by centurion1211]