Welcome Guest ( Log In  ·  Register)



7 Pages < 1 2 3 4 > »  
Reply to this topicStart Poll
Mensa Magazine article -higher IQ = less religious
[ Standard ] · Linear+
StarGazeR
post Sep 12 2007, 06:55 PM
Post #16


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,386

Submissions: None
Joined: 26-April 05

From: USA
Member No.: 16,150






QUOTE(Orion_Zorn @ Sep 12 2007, 02:17 PM)
Atheists btw, would not state there is NO god, just that it is extremely unlikely.  I can't prove God doesn't exist, and from what i have seen, no atheist claims to.  Richard Dawkins is the most well known Atheist, he would say there is no proof that god does not exist, and it is possible... just very, very, very, very, very improbable.
*




a·the·ist[ey-thee-ist] –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

atheist 1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

a·the·ism –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) n.
1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2.The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

atheism noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Orion_Zorn
post Sep 13 2007, 09:44 AM
Post #17


General
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 4,173

Submissions: None
Joined: 28-December 03

From: Upstate NY
Member No.: 2,212






@stargazer - I was going by Dawkin's definition, I am reading his book 'The God Delusion', never looked up the official dictionary definition. Then add me to whatever group he describes.

Basically: "I feel it is extremely unlikely that God exists, I will not assume he does, and will assume that he does not, as it is *so* improbable that he does exist, that it is a waste of my time to think otherwise. I would not say for certain that he does not exist, as I cannot prove it, no more than anyone can prove he does exist."

So essentially - i don't spend my time thinking Thor is real, when in reality is its just as like that Thor is real, as Jesus was real. I can't prove Thor doesn't exist, but it is so unlikely that he does... that I will assume he does not. But... maybe Thor does exist, I would say it *is* possible.

@Roark. Ok so I messed up how i phrased it, it was not intentional.

People with higher IQs are less likely to be religious. There are religious people that have high IQ's, but religious people get 'rarer' as you go up the 'IQ ladder' is that correct?

Thats what i meant, but I mis-spoke. Possibly I did it unconsciously to make the articles seem more damning than they were, if so, I was wrong.

Am I understanding you correctly then? You are saying the study shows that there are less religious people in the higher IQ brackets than there are at lower IQ brackets? I didnt feel being an Atheist makes you smarter, just that the there were more atheists in the higher IQ bracket, then there were at lower IQ levels. I am not sure what

"People with higher IQs are not "less religious," they are just more likely to be less religious"

that means. I know the two statements are technically different, but don't grasp the nuances, I guess.

This post has been edited by Orion_Zorn: Sep 13 2007, 09:50 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roark
post Sep 13 2007, 11:16 AM
Post #18


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 3,182

Submissions: None
Joined: 31-January 05

From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Member No.: 13,816






QUOTE
the study shows that there are less religious people in the higher IQ brackets than there are at lower IQ brackets?

Yes, and that's all it shows. Anything beyond that could not be proven. The main problem with your posts on the matter is that you have taken it as a defense of your value judgment, that it is some how a smarter proposition to be less religious.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Orion_Zorn
post Sep 13 2007, 11:22 AM
Post #19


General
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 4,173

Submissions: None
Joined: 28-December 03

From: Upstate NY
Member No.: 2,212






That's my opinion, sure. I guess I do think the poll supports that. I thought you meant 'the poll doesn't state that'. As you get to groups with higher IQ ranges, the concentration of religious followers declines. I guess it doesn't prove it, but it seems to be evidence that does back my opinion, i think. I am still not sure if I understand exactly what the difference is (really, not being sarcastic, etc.) I would agree that it doesn't prove anything though.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roark
post Sep 13 2007, 11:35 AM
Post #20


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 3,182

Submissions: None
Joined: 31-January 05

From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Member No.: 13,816






The problem is proving that intelligence has MORE of an effect than mere distribution. That is, proving people reject religion because they are smarter, and not just because there are more belief systems available to someone with greater intelligence.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Orion_Zorn
post Sep 13 2007, 11:59 AM
Post #21


General
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 4,173

Submissions: None
Joined: 28-December 03

From: Upstate NY
Member No.: 2,212






cant prove it, it implies it. you are right though.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roark
post Sep 13 2007, 12:16 PM
Post #22


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 3,182

Submissions: None
Joined: 31-January 05

From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Member No.: 13,816






No, it doesn't imply it that's the point we're trying to impress upon you lol. It says what it says. It doesn't imply any cause, because it doesn't factor anything out of those numbers. If we factored out distribution, wealth, country of origin, ETC., we might begin to find an IMPLICATION of the cause for the numbers (and trace atheism to intelligence like you want to do).

As it stands, we could conclude (incorrectly as you are doing) that wealth causes atheism (wealth and education are very positively correlated). Without a more inclusive study of all the factors involved, it's just a number that implies exactly what it says: an IQ/atheism correlation, and nothing showing a causative trend.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Orion_Zorn
post Sep 13 2007, 03:16 PM
Post #23


General
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 4,173

Submissions: None
Joined: 28-December 03

From: Upstate NY
Member No.: 2,212






hmm... no i would disagree, because it was 40 (?) studies, not just one.

I have to re-read it, I am also thinking of this other article i read that cited multiple studies done over 60+ years that said the same thing.

If it was one study, I would agree, as it is multiple studies, I disagree.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roark
post Sep 13 2007, 03:48 PM
Post #24


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 3,182

Submissions: None
Joined: 31-January 05

From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Member No.: 13,816






What does the number of studies have to do with anything?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LembasBread
post Sep 13 2007, 03:52 PM
Post #25


Major
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,181

Submissions: None
Joined: 3-January 06

Member No.: 29,051






Zorn, if you're enjoying "The God Delusion" you ought to check out "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. I've watched a fair amount of Dawkins interviews and read a fair amount of his work. The reoccuring example he uses is that while he is an agnostic, it must be taken in context. For example, he is an agnostic about faeries as well as an agnostic about God. He can disprove neither, but I think we can safely say that faeries do not exist. Using the term "agnostic" instead of atheist gives the wrong idea, however. I will usually use "atheist" since it gets my point across and should someone bother to inquire further, I will give the more in-depth explanation to the agnostic technicality. It isn't like every protestant adheres to the definition unshakeably.

This post has been edited by LembasBread: Sep 13 2007, 03:53 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sKiLLfrEE
post Sep 13 2007, 04:32 PM
Post #26


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 6,487

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-May 04

From: Germany
Member No.: 5,674






Zorn I´ve got an example for you to help you understand what Roark and I mean..

1st) The graph of the correlation you are referring to. The more religiosity the less IQ/education.

(IMG:http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6904/zo1kk4.jpg)

2nd) A similar correlation which states that the more muscles the less IQ.

(IMG:http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/7630/zo2gv1.jpg)



From the second image you could say that muscles are the reason for stupidity and it would be as unfair and most likely wrong as saying that religiosity causes stupidity.

I also recommend you to read this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_i...ical_fallacy%29

;)


To sum it up: correlation is not the same as as causality and its important to realize this difference.

This post has been edited by sKiLLfrEE: Sep 13 2007, 04:36 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Orion_Zorn
post Sep 13 2007, 10:55 PM
Post #27


General
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 4,173

Submissions: None
Joined: 28-December 03

From: Upstate NY
Member No.: 2,212






so raising the number of guns in a community happens to lower crime, it doesn't prove that it *caused* the lower crime, just that they correlate?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roark
post Sep 14 2007, 12:38 AM
Post #28


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 3,182

Submissions: None
Joined: 31-January 05

From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Member No.: 13,816






Such is the difficult field of regression analysis Zorn :) Welcome.

Guns up + crime down does NOT prove that the extra guns caused the drop in crime. What made the Lott studies so fascinating (and why I cited so many of them) was that he controlled for EVERY other conceivable crime-causing variable. His regressions included not just crime and guns, but income, education, family structure, etc etc etc etc. Basically EVERYTHING that could possibly cause crime was controlled for in his regressions, so he was actually able to narrow down the causative effect of allowing more guns on the crime rate.

This is the only way to attempt to prove causation through statistics, by controlling for every independent variable that you don't want corrupting the effect in your regression. These studies are just IQ+religion. You just can't draw the same conclusions from them as you can from Lott's regressions. Like I said previously, if you have a study that attempts to sort out the individual effect of intelligence on religious beliefs, controlling for things like statistical distribution, income, education, etc. etc. etc. then you can start to prove causation.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Orion_Zorn
post Sep 14 2007, 07:26 AM
Post #29


General
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 4,173

Submissions: None
Joined: 28-December 03

From: Upstate NY
Member No.: 2,212






thats why i said the number of studies made the inference more likely - they tested different groups each time.

on the guns study - did he study if the increase in guns made the communities happier? ;) did he test to see what happens if you educate your society better? just being a schmuck, the gun thing irks me. lol

my last point is that I disagree with the wiki entry. I agree that you say the gun studies, and these studies do not prove anything. It DOES infer it. They wouldnt print it, talk about it on tv, etc if it didnt. 'This study *suggests*...'

They talk about how a 'study suggests that tomatoes could increase cancer rates in men' when there was ONE study, because they found a correlation, right?

So 40 studies shows a stronger correlation.

How many studies actually prove anything then? i remember reading that Splenda was only tested on 43 humans, over a period of 3 days.

I wonder - does our government like to use the idea that correlation implies (and not point out that it does not prove anything) cause, when it suits their needs?

I'll concede your point that nothing is proven, I'd say there is evidence *suggesting* that higher IQ's promote less religious-ness(?). I'd also say, after learning about these concepts, that I don't want to hear about one study 'suggesting' anything anymore. I know in one study, they had ONE case of cancer higher than the control group, and published it. Did they control all other factors? No way. How can you, when it is cancer? The person could have been exposed to asbestos 20 years ago, and not even known it...

i learned something from this thread. Will the religious people admit though, that the studies *suggest* that IQ 'could' lead to more atheism? Strong correlations are something, are they not? I read recently that a Cornell professor mapped out the rates of autism in teh US over the past 30 years, and then mapped out where cable TV had been introduced over the years - the results were extremely similar, when cable tv was introduced, autism went up. In rainy areas like Seattle- rates were even higher. In Amish communities, where they do not watch TV - almost 0% autism rates.

These are just correlations, yet they published this study as 'suggesting' cable TV *could cause* autism.

crap i gotta run, interesting though. learned something here. ( i just wish the religious people would also say 'hey, that is a STRONG correlation there! and not dismiss the studies out of hand.)

This post has been edited by Orion_Zorn: Sep 14 2007, 07:31 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Roark
post Sep 14 2007, 07:47 AM
Post #30


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 3,182

Submissions: None
Joined: 31-January 05

From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Member No.: 13,816






If companies, newspapers, and our government are inclined to imply causation based on studies of correlation, that doesn't make it right. The abuse of statistics is the primary weapon of the shock media of the last 20 years.

To use the famous analogy: ice cream consumption goes up in the summer, more people drown in their swimming pools in summer. I'm not proving, just "suggesting" :P

The number of studies just lowers the standard error by increasing the sample size. It doesn't make a "stronger" suggestion or implication, and has no bearing on causation, it just makes for a surer correlation. You still can't infer anything beyond what the correlation says without a more controlled study.

I already gave you an alternative explanation for the IQ/religiosity link (an explanation I would guess at before even reading the results of such a study). It is a logical result. If you would like to give your account on why gun control is unlinked with crime rates because of an uncontrolled variable (maybe wearing red hats causes crime?) then be my guest.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicTopic Options
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 




Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 12:10 PM
About Us  ·   Advertising  ·   Contact Us  ·   Terms of Use  ·   Privacy Policy