Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

by **Ivan** Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:37 pm

First topic message reminder :

Bertrand Russell once said that “the immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion”, and research appears to support that remark. Michael Shermer, in ‘How We Believe: The Search For God In An Age Of Science’, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many results was the discovery that religiosity is negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Paul Bell, writing in ‘Mensa Magazine’ in 2002 told us: “Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.”

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science, suggests that more intelligent people are more likely to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values. He said: "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists.”

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (NLSAH) supports Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who identify themselves as 'not at all religious' have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very religious' have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

Shermer says that religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science and strongly with political liberalism. And the NLSAH data suggests that young adults who subjectively identify themselves as 'very liberal' have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very conservative' have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Does this mean that people with left-wing views are more intelligent than those on the right? I’ve long thought that those with the independence of mind to be unaffected by the constant brainwashing attempts of the right-wing media must have a critical faculty which those who succumb to Tory and Republican propaganda clearly lack. It also appears to be the conclusion of experts at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, who studied research comparing childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood in 15,000 people. They found that intelligence, rather than education, wealth or social status, decides whether people are narrow-minded or bigoted in later life. Their report has been published in a journal called ‘Psychological Science’ and states: “Those with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. That is because it provides a sense of order". The authors found a strong link between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.

Sources used, and for further details:-

Richard Dawkins, ‘The God Delusion’, Bantam Press, 2006, p.102-3

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/02/04/labour-supporters-are-cleverer-than-tories-canadian-study-claims-115875-23734718/

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:56 pm

polyglide wrote:Yep, when you try to consider the extent of the universe you are in deep trouble, has it got an extent as we think of an extent?.

It is beyond our understanding, how on earth [pardon the pun] can something not have an end as we understand things? and if it has no end it must be travelling through something and if so what and where does that which it is travelling through end etc; etc;

So we must conclude that there is much that is beyond our limited means to understand and therefore anything is a possibility.

The obvious vastness of the universe opens up the possibility that there are far more superior beings than ourselves with powers far beyond our imagination

If you take the giant strides made in nearly every field in which we humans indulge, during the last less than a hundred years and think of the possibility of other beings having far superior abilities then creation becomes far less of a debate than a firm probability.

But it does take a little less arrogance and self importance on behalf of the human race to realise ttis.

Sorry but you're just making grandiose assumptions, with no evidence. The way you leap from a possibility to a probability without evidence is almost funny, strictly speaking it's possible that pink unicorns exist somewhere in the universe, or mermaids in the vast depths of the ocean, but most intelligent people would rule out such claims as absurd until some compelling evidence presents itself.

Interesting last sentence, how arrogant would it be to assume a being with both omniscience and omnipotence created the entire universe with us in mind, and with the earth at its centre, and that the same deity requires our worship and adoration, and get's angry if we don't give it? Talk about delusions of grandeur.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:00 pm

polyglide wrote:I could not agree more, I too think the evolutionists are mad.

Well you're entitled to an opinion of course, fortunately we don't need to rely on subjective opinion as evolution has been validated by a weight of empirical evidence as much as any scientific theory ever, and it's also probably the most scrutinised scientific theory ever. It yields massive knowledge in the field of medical research every year, helping cure disease and develop medicines. Though as I say, you're entitled to deny the truth if you want in favour of ancient superstitions.

by snowyflake Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:07 pm

I forgot to tell you, Sheldon, that polyglide is deluded in the worst possible sense of the word. What did Isaac Asimov say about democracy and intelligence? Something about how one's ignorance has equal voice to facts in a democracy? Or something of that nature. That should never be true.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:12 pm

snowyflake wrote:I forgot to tell you, Sheldon, that polyglide is deluded in the worst possible sense of the word. What did Isaac Asimov say about democracy and intelligence? Something about how one's ignorance has equal voice to facts in a democracy? Or something of that nature. That should never be true.

Anyone in this day and age who's had even a cursory education yet tries to deny a scientific fact as solidly established as evolution, and in favour of ancient superstition at that, is so blinkered they can believe just about anything. What's hilarious is the way they always make assertions about evolution that give away the fact that they are entirely ignorant of it. As both Polyglide and JP Cusick have done. Astonishing to me that anyone would choose to remain wilfully ignorant just to support a belief.

by polyglide Sat May 16, 2015 3:18 pm

snowyflake,
I have never denied that evolution takes place,. not once.

Having bred at least 40 animals per year for the past 70 years I am perfectly aware that evolution takes place within a species but never actually changes the species.

So there is no reason to claim I do not undetstand evolution.

Nothing in his works explains the origin of life, only that which occurs under certain circumstances to that which has been created.

So I hope you can understand this simple explanation, if not, get someone who can explain it to you.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat May 16, 2015 11:11 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake, I have never denied that evolution takes place,. not once. Having bred at least 40 animals per year for the past 70 years I am perfectly aware that evolution takes place within a species but never actually changes the species. So there is no reason to claim I do not undetstand evolution.

Species change occurs over vast time-scales, the idea you can test for it by selective breeding during a single human lifetime is ample evidence you don't understand even the basics about evolution. Species change in Darwinian evolution is driven by natural selection and environmental factors, neither of which would of course be involved in your breeding of birds, so again there is every reason to point out you do not understand evolution. We can add your repeated attempts to confuse evolution with abiogenesis as indicating some flaw in the scientific theory of Darwinian evolution, when anyone with even the most basic grasp of the subject would know evolution makes no claims about the origin of life at all, and never has. So again Mrs S is perfectly correct to point out that you really don't understand evolution.

Then of course there is your repeated and absurdly silly claim that evolution is just a theory, or that scientists have falsified it and that the evidence is on the internet for all to see, both these claims speak for themselves and indicate an astonishing ignorance of both evolution and science in general. Though the fact that you have repeated these claims ad nauseam whilst ignoring the many posts that point out that evolution has not been falsified, as the result of such a paradigm shift in thinking would be world news, and those responsible household names receiving world acclaim and Nobel prizes has not happened. This can only be rank dishonesty or an astonishing ignorance of the basics of the scientific method, I'll leave it to others to read your repetitions of those claims and decide if ignorance alone can explain them.

Polyglide wrote:Nothing in his works explains the origin of life,

Well there we are, this claim shows you don't in fact understand evolution at all. As this claim is utterly meaningless, it's like claiming that nothing in calculus explains the origin of life, whilst the statement is broadly speaking correct, "so what?" It doesn't alter the fact that both calculus and evolution are established scientific facts, or that your denials are predicated on your superstitious beliefs and the inability of those beliefs to evidence the biblical claims touted as the immutable world of an omniscient and omnipotent being that evolution has so completely disproved.

Polyglide wrote:only that which occurs under certain circumstances to that which has been created. So I hope you can understand this simple explanation, if not, get someone who can explain it to you.

Ah I see having made a fool of yourself again you finish with a supercilious derogation. Mrs S works in and has expertise in the science of genetics, whereas you've just used several of the dumbest creationist clichés AGAIN, that any child in a science class should be embarrassed to be unaware of. Species change is a proven scientific fact, explained elegantly and comprehensively by the scientific theory of Darwinian evolution, the fact you are unaware of how stupid it is to claim it's wrong because of a bronze age superstition may be hilarious but it's entirely irrelevant.

by Norm Deplume Sun May 17, 2015 9:28 am

polyglide wrote:
Nothing in his works explains the origin of life, only that which occurs under certain circumstances to that which has been created.

By the same token nothing in the Bible explains the origin of life. It merely says that terrestrial life was "created" by something or someone already living. Both works can be rejected on the same grounds.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon May 18, 2015 1:29 pm

Ah but polyglide thinks it does. He regards a bare claim to be an explanation if it supports his beliefs. He has stated on here he is 100% certain of his beliefs, what use then has he for evidence, explanations, reason or logic, or anything outside of his own subjective and of course 100% certain interpretation of biblical Christianity?

Indeed he doesn't discuss or debate in his posts, as can be evidenced in all the threads he's involved himself in, but doggedly preaches as if in a pulpit. His demeanour never changes in his posts until someone offers objections and evidenced refutations, and if they continue to reject his beliefs and claims he ignores them completely just as he has ignored all their posts up to that point.

It's actually not a unique technique amongst the more entrenched dogged apologists.

by polyglide Mon May 18, 2015 2:09 pm

Norm Deplume,
When a person cannot understand basic logic it is no use attempting to discuss any matter with them, the continual, if it has not been subject to a hypothesis and registered in a cetrtain manner then it is irrelevant and has no foundation is the answer a child would keep repeating.

I have never said Darwin's theory has no relevance, what I have said it is just common sense.

I have explained previously that if a certain species comes up against a problem that wipes out certain dominant genes entirely from the species and in particular if the species is in a unsuitable environment you will have evolution taking place depending on the circumstances., there is nothing special or needing any hypothesis because you can to a certain extent artificially, by selective breeding, prove the fact.

So I have no doubt that Darwin to a certain extent is correct in his assumptions but they do not explain the relevance of life nor are anything other than what could be expected under certain circumstances.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon May 18, 2015 3:37 pm

Same silly nonsense. "Darwin was right in parts but you disagree in favour of bronze age superstition." It's hardly a compelling reason for anyone to deny the scientific fact of species evolution. You also seem intent to rehash the same silly errors about scientific terms and their definitions. One is reminded of a sulking child stamping it's foot and covering it's ears. Again it hardly represents intelligent cogent or compelling argument. Best of all if your attempt to derogate the logic of others while for the umpteenth time reusing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam with your evolution doesn't explain the origin of life so I'm going to insert my god superstition in there polemic. Quite funny that fair play.

by polyglide Mon May 18, 2015 3:41 pm

Stu,
Just read Jerry Fodor regarding Darwin and you may be enlightened.

regards.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon May 18, 2015 3:46 pm

Polyglide wrote: I have never said Darwin's theory has no relevance, what I have said it is just common sense.

Norm didn't say you had claimed this, he pointed out that your claim that evolution didn't explain the origin of life was logically inconsistent as neither does the bible. What's more this new claim is demonstrably false as your own bible gives an account of creation that entirely omits evolution, which would be an odd thing for an omniscient being to do especially if it was simple common sense. Unlike talking snakes and magic apples which are quite obviously nonsense by any standard.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 12:10 am

polyglide wrote:Stu,
Just read Jerry Fodor regarding Darwin and you may be enlightened.

regards.

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne describes this book as "a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection"

The London Review of Books published eleven letters (including two from Fodor himself) over the following three months. They included negative responses from Simon Blackburn, Tim Lewens, Jerry Coyne and Philip Kitcher, and Daniel Dennett and a mixed response from Steven Rose. Coyne and Kitcher dispute Fodor's "striking claim that evolutionary biologists are abandoning natural selection as the principal, or even an important, cause of evolutionary change" and state that "this is news to us, and, we believe, will be news to most knowledgeable people as well." They go on to criticise his conceptual and empirical issues, and state that "the rival mechanisms Fodor cites are supplements to natural selection, not replacements", and that "Evo-devo is not an alternative to adaptation; rather, it is a way to explain how the genes mechanistically produce adaptations." Evolutionary developmental biologist PZ Myers has expressed a similar criticism of this characterisation of evolutionary developmental biology.

For someone who sententiously claims to study all viewpoints you seem happy to remain woefully ill-informed of all viewpoints except the one you favour when it suits, I shan't even feign surprise.

by **Ivan** Tue May 19, 2015 12:13 am

Just a gentle reminder of the thread title.....

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent? Neutral

by oftenwrong Tue May 19, 2015 9:03 am

There may be a case for "Atheists and left-wingers" to abstain from the debate, because they ought to declare a personal interest in the outcome.

by polyglide Tue May 19, 2015 10:53 am

oftenwrong,
You may be wrong sometimes but have hit the nail on the head.

The obvious silly and often unrelated remarks from some would indicate that the "Atheists and left wingers" are not only less intelligent but lacking in many of the desirable qualities relative to mankind as a whole, they are unable to appreciate the most basic principles regarding the belief of others and just jog along doing their own thing often to the detriment of mankind as a whole.

by polyglide Tue May 19, 2015 10:57 am

Stu,
Of course I have seen the respopse to the matter I asked you to look at and it is no suprise that others disagree with what Jerry Folder's opinions are, it would be more suprising if there were not distractors, this in no way invalidates what he says, it is just contrary opinions.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 12:10 pm

I don't think we can fairly judge the thread question based on the theistic contributions of the apologists on here. That would be too unfair, almost cruel, like kicking a puppy. A very stupid puppy at that, that simply doesn't grasp it's being kicked repeatedly.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 12:14 pm

polyglide wrote:Stu,
Of course I have seen the respopse to the matter I asked you to look at and it is no suprise that others disagree with what Jerry Folder's opinions are, it would be more suprising if there were not distractors, this in no way invalidates what he says, it is just contrary opinions.

Well you offered no actual evidence, and his credentials seem a little tarnished by the accusation of child abuse hanging over him. Though I'd still happily read any peer reviewed papers he's had published.

Ah wait a minute you haven't linked any. Surprise surprise.

WTF are distractors?

Hilarious as ever poly.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 12:19 pm

polyglide wrote:Stu,
Of course I have seen the respopse to the matter I asked you to look at and it is no suprise that others disagree with what Jerry Folder's opinions are, it would be more suprising if there were not distractors, this in no way invalidates what he says, it is just contrary opinions.

Poly dear, evolution by natural selection is not just opinion as it has achieved what your new "scientist" pal clearly has not, and got masses of evidence validated by the scientific process including peer review. Your new chum's book is just his opinion. No amount of repetitions of this lie will fool anyone.Anymore than your childish ad hominem will hide the facts or validate your false and asinine claims for creationism being scientifically evidenced.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 1:25 pm

Ivan wrote:Just a gentle reminder of the thread title.....

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

I'm not sure research validates the claim that atheists are more intelligent per se, but there has been research, and evidence from it suggests that as education increases and in particular higher education then so does the ability to think critically, and with this secularism and atheism increases.

If I get a chance I'll try and find some of the research into this. Unless someone already has a link? As I'm in work until at least 16:00 then out visiting family. Thanks in advance for any helpful poster who gets a link to salient research.

by **Ivan** Tue May 19, 2015 2:00 pm

Dr Sheldon. I suggest you use the Dawkins, Shermer and Kanazawa sources from the opening post as your starting point, particularly this one:-

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

by polyglide Tue May 19, 2015 3:34 pm

Ivan,
Have read the above.

The result of which is not based on any realistic data.

How many people were involved, from which class of people,
had they been selected from all classes and of all denominations? I think not.

You can come up with all manner of theories based on very thin lines.

You will find that among the most people accepted as being intelligent, there are just as many who believe in God as those that do not, not taking into account those who sit on the fence.

There is one thing for certain, life did not come about without intelligence being involved.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 8:16 pm

Ivan wrote:Dr Sheldon. I suggest you use the Dawkins, Shermer and Kanazawa sources from the opening post as your starting point, particularly this one:-

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

Interesting quote ""So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists," he says. Young adults who identify themselves as 'not at all religious' have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very religious' have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence." I'll dig around and see what else I can find.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 8:22 pm

Polyglide wrote:You can come up with all manner of theories based on very thin lines.

Well that would seem from your posts to be your area of expertise, just take a look at this gem.

Polyglide wrote: There is one thing for certain, life did not come about without intelligence being involved.

I'll bet the irony of you denying research you don't like as improperly evidenced in the same post you make an absolute claim without any attempt to evidence it whatsoever is lost on your "superior intellect" again isn't it? If you want to help your argument for theistic intelligence with your posts on here then I'd suggest less is very definitely more.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 8:33 pm

Ivan wrote:Dr Sheldon. I suggest you use the Dawkins, Shermer and Kanazawa sources from the opening post as your starting point, particularly this one:-

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

More here: http://spq.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/02/16/0190272510361602.abstract

The origin of values and preferences is an unresolved theoretical question in behavioral and social sciences. The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, suggests that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and preferences (such as liberalism and atheism and, for men, sexual exclusivity) than less intelligent individuals, but that general intelligence may have no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar values (for children, marriage, family, and friends). The analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence significantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and men’s (but not women’s) value on sexual exclusivity.

and here:

According to a new study in Social Psychology Quarterly, the higher your IQ the more likely you are to be a liberal and an atheist. The author says this is because more intelligent people exhibit social values and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history--mainly, liberalism and atheism.

The study advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."

"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."

"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

In addition, humans have always been mildly polygamous in evolutionary history. Men in polygamous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were.

In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygamous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.

One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.

Read more: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/atheists_and_liberals_more_intelligent_says_atheist_liberal_psychologist-65065#ixzz3ac9koXvA

Then this:

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study. Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics. The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe. Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.

More bad news for Polyglide, a test group of 15000 is pretty large, I look forward to more histrionics and general derogations of science.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 8:37 pm

polyglide wrote:Ivan, Have read the above. The result of which is not based on any realistic data.

We could have predicted this response, after all you seem unable to understand that capitalising a word in the middle of a sentence is bad grammar, this tells a tale really.

Meanwhile it appears the test group was 15000, and the data was analysed by Canadian scientists as well, who reached the following conclusions:

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people. The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.

by polyglide Wed May 20, 2015 2:26 pm

Ivan,
The only mannner in which the theory you put forward could be considered as realistic is if it was subject to null hypothesis.

This would involve people from all nations, of all religions, all ages and also cross sections of society.

To try to come to any conclusion on such a matter using only 15,000 people gives only an example of 15,000 people, take anopther 15,000 people and you would get a diffrent answer.

It defies belief that a person can dismiss the findings of scientists throughout the world who have all come to the same conclusion regarding the possibility of spirit life, using the same method thousands upon thousands of times all independant of each and spread throughout the world and yet be adamant about the findings based on 15,000 people.

by polyglide Wed May 20, 2015 2:39 pm

Ivan,
Intelligence as defined by the IQ method has it's draw backs.

It is the one area in which I believe in a quantum leap, this from personall experience.

My elder brother took up engineering as an apprentice at his work place.

It involved attending colledge one day a week.

He was not very good at math and often asked me for help, which I did in a limited fashion.

At his first examination he walked out because he could not deal with the questions.

Had he been subjected to the IQ method at that time his IQ would have been very low.

Within a year something went click and he was on his way to earning his HNC and a degree in engineering.

There are thousands of intelligent people who would not solve some of the puzzles etc; in the method of testing intelligence.

When I did my stint in the army I came across many officers who would pass the Mensa test with flying colours test but did not have one iota of common sense, the most desirable quality of all.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 20, 2015 8:04 pm

Polyglide wrote:It defies belief that a person can dismiss the findings of scientists throughout the world who have all come to the same conclusion regarding the possibility of spirit life, using the same method thousands upon thousands of times all independant of each and spread throughout the world and yet be adamant about the findings based on 15,000 people.

These will be the scientists who haven't even made the news with this paradigm shifting discovery, and whose conclusions and research you have simply refused to provide any links to, I think we can all make an educated guess as to why given your propensity to make things up on here, and for which you can not supply one single peer reviewed piece of evidence. Laughable claims like that don't really help your denial of this researches conclusions, if anything ti rather reinforces them, as I warned you earlier your posts will do if you don't rein in your more ludicrous assertions.

Do behave poly...No one has claimed to be adamant about this research either, why do you insist on making up lies? This research is not conclusive but it is evidence and is compelling, and by any standards 15000 is a very large test group, you either appear to not know this, or your strident claims are just more of the empty bombast you love to post when you are told something you don't like, or that doesn't support your beliefs yet have no credible answer for.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 20, 2015 8:10 pm

polyglide wrote:When I did my stint in the army I came across many officers who would pass the Mensa test with flying colours test but did not have one iota of common sense, the most desirable quality of all.

I doubt this, but then again your posts indicate you think that common sense would compel belief in bronze age superstitions and denial of scientific facts. How is it common sense to blindly believe a bronze age text over 21st century science. So judging from your posts on here your derogation of these individuals common sense is more likely to be evidence of your shortcomings than theirs. More evidence of the Dunning Kruger effect at work I suspect.

It's hardly a coincidence that religion thrives best and is growing fastest in parts of the world where the poorest most deprived people live who have little or no access to education.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 20, 2015 8:48 pm

polyglide wrote:Ivan, The only mannner in which the theory you put forward could be considered as realistic is if it was subject to null hypothesis. This would involve people from all nations, of all religions, all ages and also cross sections of society. To try to come to any conclusion on such a matter using only 15,000 people gives only an example of 15,000 people, take anopther 15,000 people and you would get a diffrent answer.

Think again...http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-250727

A review of scientific studies finds that people who hold a more naturalistic view of the world are generally smarter than those who believe in god. In an analysis of 63 studies conducted since 1928, a researcher at the University of Rochester found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 of the studies. While 10 of the studies showed a positive correlation, only two of them showed a significant link. Thirty-five of the studies, however, showed a significantly negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, according to researcher Miron Zuckerman.

"Most extant explanations [of a negative relation] share one central theme —the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who 'know better,’” Zuckerman wrote in a paper published this month. Zuckerman and two other psychologists reviewing the literature defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn experience.” Religiosity is defined by psychologists as participation in some facets of worship, which might range from passive attendance at weekly services to the sort of messianic fervor depicted in Robert Duvall’s 1997 film The Apostle.

Other factors such as sex or education made no difference in the correlation between intelligence and religiosity, although some variance was seen with age. The association of lower intelligence with religiousness was weakest among teenagers in the “pre-college population,” however.

Yet, a lifelong association between higher intelligence and atheism, or naturalistic worldview, remains constant in a continuing study — begun in 1928 — of 1,500 gifted children with intelligence quotients (IQs) over 135. Even in extreme old age and closer to death (and some would say God), these children remained steady in their beliefs, or non-belief.

The higher intelligence of non-believers was attributed by researchers to a greater propensity to seek education and higher employment, when available, thus assuming more personal control over their direction in life. "Intelligent people typically spend more time in school — a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits," Zuckerman wrote. "More intelligent people get higher level jobs and better employment may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs."

by stuart torr Wed May 20, 2015 9:53 pm

I have been reading a lot of posts today Sheldon,and also checking up certain names ETC, so what you are saying basically is that atheists,would spend more time studying at school/college than theists who would spend more time studying god instead?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu May 21, 2015 1:29 pm

Not quite stu. The research I was talking about indicated that further or higher education enabled or increased the recipient's capacity for critical thought. That's to say they'd be far more inclined to question anything someone claimed than people with less education. The consequences for religious claims then would be that instead of blindly accepting its claims and dogma with faith such people would question them and of course be enabled to research the veracity of such claims against contrary claims. Consequently atheism in that demographic is higher than in less educated people.

by stuart torr Thu May 21, 2015 2:04 pm

Oh right, takes some reading,better when there is just one post to concentrate on. Laughing

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon May 25, 2015 11:34 am

stuart torr wrote:Oh right, takes some reading,better when there is just one post to concentrate on.

There were two seperate pieces of research being referred to stu, the one that Ivan linked and that I have quoted shows a direct link between adolescent intelligence and atheism and left wing political views, and is based on "an analysis of 63 studies conducted since 1928" with a study group of 15 thousand test cases. By any standards that's a very large test group, though Polyglide has laughably claimed otherwise.

Whereas the research I was referring to showed an increased propensity for critical thinking in those entering higher education that had a corresponding decrease in religiosity, and religious beliefs, and an increase in secularism and atheism. There are also studies that show that secularism and atheism increases disproportionately among top scientists just as religious beliefs diminish. Many of these studies were conducted among the top scientific organisations and academies in the USA where religious belief among the general population is already disproportionately higher than in any other post industrialised developed western democracy.

by stuart torr Mon May 25, 2015 2:10 pm

Exactly Sheldon,but with that critical thinking,theists automatically take it that you are arguing with them,instead of questioning their thinking.

by polyglide Tue May 26, 2015 11:01 am

Stu,
You will find that in the countries with the so called educated populations there are far more diverse anti social behaviour than in the poor contries where the people in most cases look after each other and share what little they have.

I hold my views on experience, not on a scientists or anyone elses views and I think this is the soundest manner in which one can make a clear and logical observation

I have visited poor countries and so called rich contries, in the main the former are riddled with all that is wrong with the world and the latter are attempting to do what is right.

by polyglide Tue May 26, 2015 11:33 am

Stu,
Sorry for getting the countries the wrong way round, apologies.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 26, 2015 11:46 am

Polyglide wrote: You will find that in the countries with the so called educated populations there are far more diverse anti social behaviour than in the poor contries

No there aren't.

Since you're determined to invoke Hitchen's razor.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 26, 2015 11:54 am

Polyglide wrote: I have visited poor countries and so called rich contries, in the main the former are riddled with all that is wrong with the world and the latter are attempting to do what is right.

I disagree, and since you offer neither evidence nor context that's all I can offer. Is this relevant to the thread btw? I'm also unclear what your point is here? Perhaps you could for once elucidate.

by Sponsored content