From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:38:54 GMT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <1992Dec20.021251.1@acad2.alaska.edu> atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>
>Last year I taught seventh grade and at that age--twelve or
>thirteen or so--kids are developing abstract thinking skills and
>are questioning the cultural absolutes that have been handed down
>by their parents and by society in general.  This year I teach
>elementary kids, ranging in age from seven to twelve, and while
>their skills in abstract reasoning may not be as strong at those
>ages they are still quite willing to question that which has been
>foisted upon them.  Though I have only limited experience
>teaching so-called "average" kids, I taught one year in a poor
>inner-city neighborhood with a high percentage of resource
>students.  So, based on my experiences with gifted, average and
>below average kids, I've concluded that the more intelligent the
>child, the less superstitious and religious he will tend to be.

[BTW, what about putting some of this into the FAQ?]


>
>The effect in adults, as you've noted, is even more pronounced. 
>I spent a number of years working at various jobs among the "salt
>of the earth" working-class people in the Bible Belt, and I've
>spent the last three years working as part of a university
>faculty as an adjunct instructor.  There are few atheists among
>the former group and few fundamentalist Christians in the latter.

I have exactly same observations.

>
>It has been shown that there is a positive correlation between
>intelligence (as measured by such instruments as the
>Stanford-Binet IQ test) and level of education attained.  It has
>further been demonstrated that there is a correlation between
>level of education and degree of rejection of fundamentalist
>beliefs.  Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a
>correlation between intelligence and rejection of (at least)
>rigidly-fundamentalist religious belief.  From here, one does not
>have to go very far out on a limb to conclude that level of IQ
>is, indeed, positively correlated to atheistic belief systems. 

Some argue that IQ does not measure a person's intelligence properly,
which it doesn't. It measures only the logical/abstract thinking, which,
in my opinion, is 'real' intelligence. Actually, this type of intelligence
is required to be able to find loopholes in nowaday society structure and
habits.

>
>My circle of friends, like yours, ranges from highly-gifted to
>dumber than a stump.  The most intelligent--and some are Mensa

I thought some years ago about joining Mensa, but I just haven't
brought myself to do it. I once went to a low-level IQ test, and
my IQ went out of the chart (the chart top was IQ 170). No, I
don't wish to boast, just to substatiate on the context.

>members or could be if they were joiners--are atheists, almost to
>a man (or woman).  The not-so-brilliant ones, with a few notable
>exceptions, are religious to one degree or another.  I have only
>one fundamentalist friend, and she's that way more from emotional
>problems than from lack of intellect (she's a Ph.D.).  
>
>A caveat is in order here:  unless we test everyone we come
>across, we cannot accurately judge one's intelligence.  Indeed, I
>suspect we characterize as intelligent those who share our
>beliefs, and hang the label "stupid" on those with whom we
>disagree.  Part of my job involves teaching teachers how they can
>recognize high intelligence in their students (it's not as easy
>as it would seem) but even though I hold a master's in the area I
>still cannot judge intelligence with a great degree of accuracy
>based only on informal conversation.  However, with training and
>exposure we get better and better, so I feel pretty confident
>that I have more or less correctly ranked my friends and
>acquaintances along the intelligence continuum.
>
>Furthermore, there is some disagreement as to what intelligence
>actually is, and whether it can be measured and, if so, how.  I
>personally prefer Howard Gardner's definition(s) of intelligence. 
>In his watershed book, _Frames_of_Mind_, Gardner enumerates seven
>discrete yet interconnected intelligences:  verbal,
>logical/mathematical, spatial, musical, psychomotor,
>interpersonal and intrapersonal.  (Interestingly, you
>"coincidentally" noticed that your friends who seemed to be high
>in logical intelligence also rated high in mathematical ability. 
>Gardner sees the two as connected, too.)  Therefore, if we speak
>of someone as "intelligent," we must be prepared to define in
>exactly what area this person is "intelligent."  You've done this
>(I believe correctly) when you speak of a high
>logical/mathematical intelligence in your atheist friends, but we
>must also remember that many frothy-mouthed fundamentalist
>preachers are apparently very high in verbal intelligence, and
>almost assuredly in interpersonal intelligence as well.  (Of
>course, these are the very areas that the "genius" of Adolph
>Hitler manifested itself, but that's another track altogether.) 

As time passes by, technology improves and per-capita incomes and standards of
living rise, people are getting more and more intelligent. Ultimately, religion
will disappear altogether, and it will be laughed at just as we laugh at the
superstitions of the middle ages (witch ducking for example).

>
>One more item:  There is a positive correlation between
>socio-economic status and intelligence as measured by
>standardized instruments.  In other words, rich kids will test
>out as more intelligent than poor kids.  There are a number of
>possible explanations for this, but the fact is that the
>difference exists.  Who can dispute the fact that there is a
>correlation between socio-economic deprivation and religiosity? 
>That the poor tend to be more fundamentalist than the rich?  If
>this is true, then we have another avenue to show that
>non-religious people are smarter than religious people.

This is true. Richer people have higher education and more time to think about
different matters, among other things.

>
>Summary:   Rich or highly-educated people are more intelligent
>than poor or poorly-educated people.  Rich or highly-educated
>people tend to be less religious than poor or poorly-educated
>people.  Therefore the more intelligent people tend to be less
>religious than less intelligent people.  (Remember that a
>correlation does not necessarily demonstrate a cause-and-effect
>relationship--a correlation merely means that when one goes up,
>the other tends to go up, too.)  As an extension of this
>argument, we might fairly conclude that there are more atheists
>among the richer, more intelligent people than among the poorer,
>less educated people.

It would be nice to see some stats made from the population of USA or Europe,
for example, and see exactly how this correlates (it does correlate, that is
for sure).

>
>
>Don


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism