He had already blown off his legs when he weighed in on the ID debate...

I never saw that, what was his position?

Go back a month or two; he did a number of posts on it......

That's really helpful. I never would have thought to go look for it, if I wanted to, you know, go look for it.

This was it. Wasn't very impressive.

It wasn't very impressive, and he caught the ire of PZ Meyers which was an amusing spat.

Nope, it wasn't very impressive, but watching Scott Addams make mincemeat out of that tiny-brained moron Myers was definitely fun. Myers is one of those third-rate scientists who can't get anything actually important published, so he makes his bones by trashing anyone who has any question about anything in Neo-Darwinist thinking as a "creationist." I feel for his students, I really do.

As for the correlation between IQ and religiosity: I'm not surprised by it a bit. Highly successful people tend toward the arrogant. They also tend not to be moved by tradition as an explanation for things. I suspect, on the other hand, that you'll find a number of them grow more religious as the grave looms ever closer. I also suspect that you'll find physicists, especially cosmologists, are a bit more open to broad deistic concepts if not any religion in particular. Because when you start pondering how the universe got here, it's hard not to become awed with wonder.

I am quite non-religious myself, swinging between atheist and vaguely-deist agnosticism depending on what day you get me (although I usually say "atheist" by default).

I would suggest that scientists are generally very curious.
I was pretty curious and went to Catholic school from 1st grade to my first year of college.
I would ask questions of the nuns, brothers and priests. I would then question their answers. Almost invariably, we got to the point where the nun, brother or priest would say, "You have to have Faith."
I took it as saying, "Stop asking so many stupid questions and just Believe already."
Understand, I wasn't trying to be an icehole, I just wanted information to justify my belief.

Scientists don't really take things on faith.

Heh. I did the same thing. Poor nuns.

I would be curious to know what role social habits played in this. Are smart people more independent/less social in general?

My personal experience in my physics department (I'm a grad student) has been that while roughly a quarter of the grad students are religious, that quarter is quite devout. I myself spent about 9 years as an atheist before becoming a Christian again. Questions about the origin of physical law and existence helped lead me back. My belief that right and wrong existed also played a role.

Hmm. Dunno. I live in the Bible Belt and have some very successful and religious neighbors, but I don't know if that means they're smart.

I'll pray on it for a while -- maybe the answer will come.

There is a huge fallacy in the work on IQ and religion. There is a supposition that all high IQ's are working in scientific or related fields. That is not true. Some of us stayed home and raised extremely intelligent children. Some extremely intelligent people are working in a field of labor, blue collar, not even white collar, jobs. The work was apparently done by elitists with the belief that only highly paid or highly educated people could have a high IQ. As to how it correlates to religion I couldn't tell you. I could only tell you about my family of extremely intelligent people,I would say 50% are extremely religous, and the other 50% are so-so on it. The whole concept of that study is flawed.

There is a huge fallacy in the work on IQ and religion. There is a supposition that all high IQ's are working in scientific or related fields.

The excerpt that I publish has one portion that discusses the religious beliefs of those in academia, true, but is outnumbered by other citations that discuss the more general criteria of IQ, SAT scores and other measures of student intelligence.

That said, I would agree that plenty of brilliant people don't go into academia, so the assumption that all the smartest folks do is incorrect; that would be a fallacy.

People that are highly religious are ones that lack direction in life. That is why they are religious; they need God to tell them how to live their life because they don't know how to do it themselves. Intelligent people have already figured out what to do with themselves, so therefore, they are not beholden to some God. If you don't believe me, please visit the Middle East.

IQ and SAT scores are unreliable measures even of IQ and SAT tests let alone intelligence. I am not certain how religiosity can be quantified. This leaves me wondering what, if anything, is being measured by this stuff.

On a purely anecdotal note: Some of the cleverest people I have ever met were on my MA committee. They all had doctorates (anthropology) and were also monks (two Tibetans, a Franciscan and a Benedictine). Not that a doctorate is a reliable indicator of intellegence any more than IQ or SAT tests.

My prejudice would nevertheless add another axis to this religiosity/intelligence chart. I would suspect there is a positive relationship between intelligence and mystical religious belief. I suspect the inverse ratio being posited is between intelligence and dogmatic religious belief.

IQ and SAT scores are unreliable measures even of IQ and SAT tests let alone intelligence. I am not certain how religiosity can be quantified. This leaves me wondering what, if anything, is being measured by this stuff.

I think that IQ and SAT tests are very reliable at measuring intelligence, specifically logical associations, reading comprehension and the like, which I've come to believe are some of the best marks of "intelligence," in the most general sense.

Sure, the tests lack a measure of critical thinking, I'd say, (though they probably measure most of the building blocks necessary for critical thinking), or a measure of "other" forms of intelligence, like artistic intelligence, creativity and situational awareness ... but I still come back to the fact that the ability to utilize logic quickly is a fairly standard mark of intelligence. It's required in most endeavors that we consider mentally difficult.

How well one reads, writes and does math are also pretty decent indicators, of course.

True, the test still leaves out alternate forms of IQ, but you'd have to believe that the positive associations between SAT/IQ/etc test results and unbelievers are underrepresenting religious folks because MOST of them have those harder to quantify forms of intelligence, rather than the measure just missing them at a rate roughly equal to the rate it undercounts them in the non-religious. Anything's possible, I guess.

My prejudice would nevertheless add another axis to this religiosity/intelligence chart. I would suspect there is a positive relationship between intelligence and mystical religious belief.

This is an interesting point. Or no/less inverse association. Though if you're basing your observation from Paris Hilton studying Kabbalah ...

I have to add that I am familiar with SAT scores, IQ tests, and those uppity college professors as I have been married to one who is now retired for one month shy of 48 years!! Umm...maybe I'm not so intelligent after all!

Heh.

At last, I'm an outlier. On any given day . . .

IQ... 144
SAT (1965)... 1595 (800 math)
Engineering degree... Cal Poly SLO
MBA... NH College (married & full time job)

Evangelical Christian.

mrb -

But being such a bright feller (or lady, as the case may be), do you have an impression of the implied averages, the trends over a population? And out of curiosity, have you been an evangelical all your days? Bounced back and forth?

And a 1595 SAT in 1965 is pretty damn impressive, I have to say.

Makes sense to me. I was a Christian until I went to college. I'm doing an engineering degree, which has improved my logical thinking significantly.
IMO, another reason it is fairly common to leave one's faith behind in college might be that while students are becoming more independent living away from their homes, they no longer feel compelled to cling to things they were dependent on earlier, like religion.

If intelligence were consistently and strongly correlated with all character traits that we universally regard as positive (e.g., compassion, humility, courage, kindness, patience, contentment, charity, loyalty, etc. etc.), then I think I'd be more inclined to lend this argument more importance than I do now.

But the fact is that, in my estimation, intelligent people do not have the monopoly on such qualities, even in the aggregate. So even if a resistance to religiosity were a positive character trait, it doesn't immediately suggest that possessing it is a sign of intelligence.

Furthermore, the great metaphysical questions of this world have yet to be answered in any definitive way by anyone of any level of intelligence. Surely if intelligence were sufficient, we'd have some better answers by now. Given that we do not, perhaps intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be.

But if we do finally come across someone with the intelligence to tackle such issues, then I hope we can delay him (or her) long enough to figure out a way to explain women to men. That seems like the far more important task than to get to the bottom of this whole God thing.

Interesting discussion. I find it actually rather humorous to assume that people of "higher" intelligence tend to eschew religion. As a Latter-day Saint I need only look to our modern apostles to find examples of highly intelligent men who have dedicated their lives to spiritual pursuits. Among the twelve we find one nuclear engineer, one cardiovascular surgeon, two or three lawyers (ok... intelligence there can be questioned, but their hearts are pure), several educators (including two past presidents of Brigham Young University), and an airline pilot who went on to become a senior vice president of Lufthansa. The rest have been successful businessmen in various industries.

It always seems to surprise some folks that many scientists are able to "find God" as a result (or even in spite) of the research they do. Does this make them any less effective as scientists? Of course not. Likewise, do all lawyers have their hands in someone else's pockets, or can some of them actually believe in and willingly serve a higher being? Without charging by the minute, even?

As for losing one's faith in college... it's really not all that surprising, considering that the larger part of the academic community has as their goal the replacement of modern religion with humanist arrogance. How else can you explain Berkeley? Or Harvard, for that matter?

Me? I'm not smart enough to offer an opinion one way or another. Not that that's ever stopped me. I've finally written Scott Adams off as a bitter old young man whose cynicism has finally worn thin. I'm sticking with FoxTrot these days.

If intelligence were consistently and strongly correlated with all character traits that we universally regard as positive (e.g., compassion, humility, courage, kindness, patience, contentment, charity, loyalty, etc. etc.), then I think I'd be more inclined to lend this argument more importance than I do now.

We aren't assigning the argument contextual validity within the spectrum of positive human character traits, we're discussing a specific correlation between measured intelligence and faith. Thus the discussion's importance should probably stand on its own, for its own sake.

That said, if we were to look at a correlation between happiness and faith, I'd be unsurprised to find them more positively related than happiness and atheism, for example.

But the fact is that, in my estimation, intelligent people do not have the monopoly on such qualities, even in the aggregate. So even if a resistance to religiosity were a positive character trait, it doesn't immediately suggest that possessing it is a sign of intelligence.

One would have to ignore how averages and statistical associations work to make such an illogical argument in the first place ("no faith automatically = smart") - which to my knowledge, no one has made here (nor in Dilbert's post).

Furthermore, the great metaphysical questions of this world have yet to be answered in any definitive way by anyone of any level of intelligence. Surely if intelligence were sufficient, we'd have some better answers by now. Given that we do not, perhaps intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be.

This made me chuckle out loud. Intelligence is a trait that, employed by humans, has roughly the same limits that any human trait has (possibly less). Try this one, utilizing your earlier point above:

"Furthermore, the great wars, poverty and violence of this world have yet to be answered in any definitive way by any level of compassion. Surely if compassion were sufficient, we'd have some better answers by now. Given that we do not, perhaps compassion isn't all it's cracked up to be."

Might as well ditch those religions espousing compassion, eh?

As it is, the answers human intelligence has given humanity in what essentially amounts to one-one-billionth of a blink of an eye in terms of cosmic history, I happen to find relatively impressive. Of course, it's all relative. Humans are much like dogs that way - unable to contextualize, mostly concerned with and able to grasp the now, shallow past or immediately impending future. You know, the kibble in front of our face.

The existence of Mensa is strong evidence in my mind that IQ tests are not quite that tight a correlation with intelligence. That said, one of the key attibutes measured in most of the intelligence tests is logic (and probably the willingness to use that logic). Looked at through the prism of logic, religion (by definition) falls apart. It has to otherwise faith is not needed. Paul Tillich discusses this central issue in "The Dynamics of Faith". (An interesting off topic, Tillich's central thesis is that if there is no doubt, there is no need for faith, meaning many so-called religious people have no faith because they believe without questioning).
If we consider higher IQ correlating with an increased dependence on logic, then there should be an inverse relationship with religion (I have no study at hand to back up the assertion that IQ correlates with a dependence on logic, just a tossed out idea).
One thing muddying the discussion here (and Bill is valiantly fighting the tendancy) is that anecdotal information does not disprove the general trend. Knowing someone who is an off the chart genius and a deeply religious individual does not disprove the basic observation. It merely demonstrates the correlation is not 1.

We aren't assigning the argument contextual validity within the spectrum of positive human character traits, we're discussing a specific correlation between measured intelligence and faith. Thus the discussion's importance should probably stand on its own, for its own sake.

Perhaps I should assign to you more credit than I do Scott Adams, then. His distaste for religion is palpable, and has been consumnig much of his blog of late. I don't believe for a minute that it simply "just" a discussion of the correlation between intelligence and faith, and his snarky multiple-choice test makes that clear.

One would have to ignore how averages and statistical associations work to make such an illogical argument in the first place ("no faith automatically = smart") - which to my knowledge, no one has made here (nor in Dilbert's post).

I agree that my statement was poorly worded. In fact it must have been late because I don't remember writing it like that. What I meant to suggest was that some anti-religon types are taking the correlation to a conclusion that intelligent people are for good reason less religious. I didn't mean to say that a distaste for religion is a guaranteed sign of intelligence.

"Furthermore, the great wars, poverty and violence of this world have yet to be answered in any definitive way by any level of compassion. Surely if compassion were sufficient, we'd have some better answers by now. Given that we do not, perhaps compassion isn't all it's cracked up to be."

Bill, this is a very poor parallel. There is a big difference between my statement and this one. I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that world peace can be acheived if only a single person, or a small group of people, demonstrate sufficient compassion. That's the fallacy of at least some strains of pacifism; that if we would just lay down our arms, that everyone would.

What I am speaking about---the ability to achieve a full understanding about the metaphysical world---is not something that requires near-unanimous cooperation of the populace. Rather, it seems to me something that ought to be achievable by only a small subset of the populace, as long as that subset were sufficiently intelligent: that is, if intelligence were all that were required to accomplish it. I'm just not convinced that is the case.

I certainly agree with you that mankind has made great strides in knowledge in the naturalistic sciences through the application of our collective intelligence and the individual contributions of great minds. I am not convinced, however, of the efficacy that this same power has had on more transcendent questions. Seems we remain considerably less unified on that score.

I'll steal from Adams again:

Excellent Reasons
----------------------

1. I’m hedging my bets just in case it’s real.
2. Belief gives me immediate real-world benefits, socially, health-wise, and happiness-wise. And if it turns out to be true, that’s a bonus.
3. I have studied the historical and scientific evidence and concluded that there is plenty of reason to believe in God.

The whole post>/a> is entertaining, esp the "Dumb Reasons."

Link again.

OK, I think I got it right this time.

This whole discussion reminds me of a favorite George Carlin quote:

"Faith is the last refuge of a failed mind."

It seems likely to me that the results of the study are accurate, but not for the reasons one might think. I rather doubt the same conclusions would result if the studies were repeated among Hindus, for example. The difficulty is simply the silly theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that require an admixture of theology and history. These ancient narrations are so absurd from a rational if not cultural point of view that it isn't surprizing that the more intelligent would not tend to give them credence. But this is separate from the problem of the existence or non-existence of god, albeit not necessarily as a creator-god. I suspect the opinions on this would be distributed more smoothly in a population.

(rambling, disjointed, almost badly poetic, pseudophilosophical rot to follow...)

I wonder how many accountants are religious?
Or how many lawyers?
How many artists?
How many authors?
How many philosophers?

Are the hash slingers the only religious ones? Or do they sling hash due to their metaphysical contentedness, knowing that this life is just the waiting room for the next? Does the irreligious mind seek out achievement in science and mathematics to fill the hole in the soul? Or does that hole develop because mathematical certitude leaves so little space for metaphysical mystery?

Your skepticism theory is certainly part of the equation. An increased need for solace and need to believe in an eventual social justice kind of reckoning could also be higher among the groups that are more religious.

You can't be 11685 serious?!?

Look, my IQ is 140 something and my GRE combined Q/V score was 1420. Yet I'm a pretty staunch (you might say fanatical, if you wanted to put it uncharitably) Catholic.

My intellect gets in the way of my faith all the time, I won't deny it. But the intellectual reasons for and satisfactions of the Faith easily compensate, and in balance support my belief.

It's called faith for a reason. You have to be humble to believe. The simple who inhabit their simplicity have a marked advantage over the intelligent who arrogantly refuse to inhabit doubt, see contradiction where there is in fact only paradox, and deny the inherent mystery in things.

Positivism has really wrecked the contemporary mind. Fundamentalism is textual and ideological positivism, in essence a form of pride insisting our own understanding of things is absolute.

Richard Dawkins is as much a fundamentalist as Oral Roberts. And just a ridiculous, whatever his IQ.

ionolsen21 Your site is very cognitive. I think you will have good future.:)

ionolsen23 I am really impressed!

ionolsen40 So interesting site, thanks!

96176841bf04 Good work