From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 00:14:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.223348.28953@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.203934.11931@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec25.163547.8805@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec24.222810.20420@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>
>>>>I'm not very impressed by all this anecdotal evidence flying around.
>>>>8 or so people aren't very good statistics.  Many of the most
>>>
>>>If you find an increasing number of atheists the higher you go in logical
>>>intelligence, I think that is much more proof than you can show.
>>
>>I would just like to see a larger sample (i. e., better statistics)
>>before making such a hasty generalization.  In other words, I would
>>like to see a study in support of the statement "there are an
>>increasing number of atheists the higher up you go in logical
>>intelligence."  
>
>That is not hard. Observe most scientists and high-rank university staff.
>Actually, nearly anybody who is a high-class scientist.
>And don't most of your rational friends belive in evolution?

Well, as long as we are assuming anecdotal evidence actually means
something, I observe that of the members of the Astronomy Department
that I happen to be a part of, I see people of many religious
persuasions--from hard-core atheist (me!) to some who are quite
religious.  I have a friend here who intends to go to a seminary after
getting his Master's degree, and I would hesitate to call him less
intelligent than myself.  

And yes, most of my friends here do accept evolution.  Guess what,
some are even religious.  Can we say "non sequitur" folks?

>>
>>I find it fascinating that the very same people who make such
>>statements would be up in arms if someone made the same sort of
>>arguments in favor of the notion that, say, Jews were more intelligent
>>than Gentiles on average.  "See, I have a few Jewish friends, and they
>>are all much more intelligent than most of the Gentiles I know. . ."
>
>And they would have a hard time reasoning that. In this case, I find it
>nearly effortless.

Well, like I said before, you may find it easy to reason so, but if
the *premise* is faulty. . .


>>>>influential people in Christian history (Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc.)
>>>>were *very* intelligent.  In fact, I would think that the intelligent
>>>
>>>Proof?
>>>How about aspects of personality such as courage, sacrifice and valour?
>>
>>Gee, don't you think that other aspects of personality might skew the
>>impressions you get based on a sample of 8 or so people?
>
>My sample does not consist of 8 people. It was purely an example.
>Yes, and answer my question also.

My initial objection was to the people whose sample *did* consist of 8
people.

I assume by your question, you mean that other aspects of one's
personality can have an effect upon one's religious beliefs, or lack
of.  You say this, and still cling to the notion that intelligence
necessarily correlates with lack of religious belief????  You make it
sound as though intelligence is the main factor, but then turn around
and say that other factors can also have a significant effect, to
explain away the intelligent believers that cause me to question this
premise of yours. . . 

>>
>>>>believer, internalizing the psychological ploys that biblical belief
>>>>boils down to, will suffer *more* than the rank and file believer, and
>>>>will be more firmly enmeshed in the biblical scheme.
>>>>
>>>>I have yet to see a satisfactory definition of intelligence, one that
>>>>doesn't boil down to how well one does on some arbitrary intelligence
>>>>test.  
>>>
>>>Nobody was talking about the whole definition of intelligence, just the
>>>logical and abstract thinking part, which is easy to measure.
>>
>>Then one should say, "There is an apparent correlation between
>>logical, abstract thinking skills, which we can measure via IQ tests,
>>and lack of religious belief."  And THEN it would be nice to see
>>something more than anecdotal evidence in support of such a statement.
>
>Yes, one should say so, and one did.
>Splitting hairs is mega-fun, isn't it?

I would scarcely characterize asking one to be as specific as
possible, when defining something, as "hair-splitting."  I would call
that striving for clarity.

>Don't base everything on what I said, try to find proof for yourself. This is
>not a bedtime story, and you are not (hopefully) a child.

You're making the assertions pal, it's up to you to provide something
more convincing than stories about your friends.

>>>>It isn't illogical to presuppose a supernatural realm, unperceived by
>>>>our senses, any more than it is illogical to suppose that the Many
>>>>Worlds Hypothesis is a reasonable interpretation of quantum mechanics;
>>>>it's just that such speculations are far-fetched.  They have the
>>>>virtue (from the believer's perpsective) of being non-disprovable.
>>>
>>>Illogical? In absence of evidence it seems more like fantasizing.
>>>Of course one believes what one has most rational (this is where logical
>>>intelligence comes in) proof of. In an environment where Christianity
>>>has a stranglehold, other proof is basically unavailable. Thus, he/she
>>>will most likely become a Christian (correlation applies).
>>
>>Well, that was kind of my point--we have no particular reason to
>>believe such things, because we have no information on them, other
>>than that they apparently are part of someone's fantasy.  However, we
>>don't have 100% certainty that they don't exist, because they are
>>transparent to our modes of inquiry.  In other words, they can't be
>>confirmed or disconformed for certain.  Using them as premises isn't
>>illogical, it's just that we have no particular reason to, unless it
>>is to participate in the mind-games of some Christian exegetes. . .
>
>So we can start believing in anything we want, because we will never have 100%
>certainity of their non-existance.

No we have no rational reason to conclude that they do exist,
therefore we presume they don't.  That's not the same as saying you
have a 100% ironclad disproof of such entities.  If you think you do,
I'm sure there are many here who would like to see it. . .

>>>>I become very uneasy when I see people say "Oh the religious are
>>>>dumber (or smarter) than others on average."  It can too easily 
>>>>degenerate into an ad hominem attack, in which one dismisses beliefs
>>>>one disagrees with because one believes one's opponent lacks
>>>>intelligence.  Being intelligent is no guarantee that one is right.
>>>
>>>Then what is? And what is intelligence then?
>>>When you talk of these kinds of things, try to be indifferent. You seem so
>>>emotionally attached (see message you replied to) to Christianity.
>>
>>There is no guarantee that being able to follow premises to their
>>logical conclusions will protect you from using the wrong premises.  
>
>But the chance of failure drops by the rise of the level of intelligence.

Tell that to Ptolemy.  Undoubtedly he would have ranked in the top
tenth percent of his day, and yet his heliocentric theory was
incorrect.

Chances of failure may *drop* with higher intelligence, but don't
get *eliminated* by attaining some arbitrarily chosen level of
intelligence.      


>>I think it is up to those seeking to establish a correlation between
>>intelligence and lack of religiousness to provide satisfactory
>>definitions of said concepts.
>
>You do not find it even remotely possible? You think that logical intelligence
>has no definition? Your denial is a little far-fetched.

If you're going to find a correlation, is it too much to ask to have
you define what it is that you are correlating?

I'm not denying a damn thing.  *You* claim to find such a correlation?
Fine.  Tell us what *you* are correlating, and give us evidence in
favor of your supposed correlation.


>>For your information, I happen to be an atheist.  In fact I happen to
>>think that Christianity, in its conservative, fundamentalist form, has
>>the potential for great psychological damage, and that in its liberal
>>form, boils down to using the Bible to ratify whatever passes for the
>>conventional wisdom of the day.  So do not speak to me of my
>>"emotional attachment" to Christianity--my only emotional attachment
>>is to decent intellectual standards, which I happen to think was
>>severely lacking in this discussion.  Your "emotional attachment"
>>argument savors of the very sort of ad hominem attack I was voicing
>>concern over.
>
>Only emotions can make a person defend a point to the death, no matter what it
>is. You yourself just said that your emotional attachment is to decent
>intellectual standards instead of Christianity. This already contributes much
>to my statement of correlation. I'll add this to my notes.

Ah, so commitment to decent intellectual standards correlates with
lack of intelligence?  So asking for something more convincing than
"me and my 8 mates are smart atheists, therefore *all* atheists are
smart" contributes much to your statement of correlation?  Eh, no
wonder the social sciences have fallen into such disrepute.

I wonder if you can tell me, with a straight face, that you have no
emotional commitment to the concept that "atheists are in general more
intelligent than theists."  The stench of ad hominem is getting
overwhelming.

So only emotion causes one to defend a point to the death?  But what
happens if one happens to be right?

>Just because trying to prove that their is even a remote chance that something
>is stupider/uglier etc. that something else would narrow mindedly seem like
>primitive names-calling, it doesn't meen that you have to lock yourself
>completely out. First, try to exemplify the statement yourself, then say what
>you think, without locking out possibilities. Think of Communism and how hard
>it was to remove it from the ex-USSR.

Let me spell it out in simple terms for you.  I am an atheist.  I
think I am right.  I would like to think that theistic belief is a
result of lower intelligence.  *Because* of this emotional bias, I
would like to see something more convincing than the "me and my 8
mates" style of argument.  So far, the only attempt at something more
rigorous is "look around you at all the scientists who are atheists."
Well, I know many scientists who are religious.  Therefore I would
like something more rigorous than that.  Perhaps you could stop being
condescending for a moment, and cite a study or two in support of your
position, so that us poor benighted emotional sorts can go confirm
your position for ourselves.

Of course, if you can't provide a more rigorous argument in support of
your position, then it goes without saying that you can take your
attitude and shove it up your nose.

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism