Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

[Grandiagod]

It's not discrimination Chardish, it's SCIENCE

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/religious_peopl.html

[Snowcrafta]

i could have told you that without an article to support it

[Specforces]

correlation does not equal causation

[Grandiagod]

correlation does not equal causation

Specific correlation definitely makes a strong circumstantial case.

[Specforces]

I'm just putting a thorn in your ass buddy. Plus, it's not really talking about all religious people but more so followers of monotheistic Abrahamic traditions. Verbal IQ is also a completely different story...

[devonin]

Coincidence is a bitch.

[Afrobean]

I'm so glad people are actually doing tests like this... it doesn't imply causation, that's true, but I know that if I was religious, I'd be more likely to stop and take a look at things after hearing about something like this.

Also: something else on that page: http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/10/nobel-prize-win.html

Please don't ban me for posting that rofl

ps what the **** is this site rofl

[User6773]

Interesting study. I ran some numbers using the same study and found that out of all the people in the so-called "most intelligent" bracket (WORDSUM(9-10)), 95% are white.

From a logical standpoint, if the argument supplied by the link is valid, then it is also a valid conclusion that white people are more intelligent than any other race. But, as others (like Spec) have said, correlation does not equal causation. If you want to make an argument like this, you need to provide a lot more causal data, including explanations for the existence of large numbers of intelligent religious people.

Also, I'm moving this to CT because I'm guessing you wanted an intelligent discussion about it, and it doesn't seem like the Bin is the place for it.

[Afrobean]

Also, I'm moving this to CT because I'm guessing you wanted an intelligent discussion about it, and it doesn't seem like the Bin is the place for it. Gee... Thanks. Now I'm dissatisfied with the caliber of my post and I simply don't have it in me to put a CT level of effort into an additional post so I'll just use this one bitching about how you moved it.

ps "From a logical standpoint, if the argument supplied by the link is valid, then it is also a valid conclusion that white people are more intelligent than any other race." Did you read the link I posted? You might be interested to read what it has to say. And honestly, I would say that any good sample of "intelligent people" should be made up with more white people than black people. Think about the numbers... 95% might be a little high, but if they're only testing among Jewish/Christian believers, it should be mostly White, with some Hispanic and Black, with a little pinch of Asian thrown in for good measure.

[Grandiagod]

Truthfully it was just supposed to be a jab at you but if you want to discuss it seriously here goes.

Now this is my hypothesis, I am going to see if I can back it up later but here goes. The reason why most intelligent people are white is not because whites are smarter but that due to certain circumstances (White people are traditionally more wealthy, thus going to college is easier. Inner city schools that serve low income black communities are often underfunded and the teachers are not qualified.)

As for religious people not being as smart I wouldn't say religion makes you dumb, I would say that people who are raised to use God to explain everything have less of an interest in learning how exactly the world works. If you can use faith to explain everything you have less reason to question the way the universe's mechanisms grind. Also, while there are some intelligent religious people, obviously intelligence is favored in non-religious people as pointed out by that study. I would guess that the intelligent theists were simply indoctrinated as children and are unable or unwilling to shed the superstitions they were raised with.

[User6773]

ps "From a logical standpoint, if the argument supplied by the link is valid, then it is also a valid conclusion that white people are more intelligent than any other race." Did you read the link I posted? You might be interested to read what it has to say. And honestly, I would say that any good sample of "intelligent people" should be made up with more white people than black people. Think about the numbers... 95% might be a little high, but if they're only testing among Jewish/Christian believers, it should be mostly White, with some Hispanic and Black, with a little pinch of Asian thrown in for good measure.

Well, I was making an argument by counterpoint: the survey data is quite complex and isn't just testing people who believe in God.

Argument by blog: "Out of people who are intelligent, the majority are atheists/agnostics." If you run other tests on the same data, it would have you believe "Out of people who are intelligent, the majority are white." 95%, according to the data.

Also, I ran some more tests: people who believe in God without a doubt and people who believe in God, but have doubts, are more likely to have sex at least once per week than atheists or agnostics. Go us! :)

[MixMasterLar]

As for religious people not being as smart I wouldn't say religion makes you dumb, I would say that people who are raised to use God to explain everything have less of an interest in learning how exactly the world works. If you can use faith to explain everything you have less reason to question the way the universe's mechanisms grind
Very true statment, but alot of famous people such as Isaac Newton were religious and still explained alot about how the world works.

But yeah your statment is pretty much true these days, I believe the reason people think Giudo is an atheist is that he gets upset at this fact in alot of threads.

Also, I ran some more tests: people who believe in God without a doubt and people who believe in God, but have doubts, are more likely to have sex at least once per week than atheists or agnostics. Go us!
Were they married? otherwise that shows that people who believe in God without a doubt sim more rofl

[fido123]

I can see this because I notice that so many Christians are incredibly ignorant. They (meaning the majority of...) just know what they've been taught from the Bible and simply stick to that and disregard everything else. It really gets me how so many people believe what they've grown up with. They grow up with a religion and don't even bother searching for any other possible answers and yet they feel like their religion is superior. Personally I have been searching a lot and think of myself as Agnostic until I am educated more. So I think the Old Testament is extremely plausible as it accurately portrays and lists events that have been proven to have existed...does this mean I'm leaning more to being Jewish because right now I'm not buying into the New Testament.

[GuidoHunter]

I can see this because I notice that so many Christians are incredibly ignorant. They (meaning the majority of...) just know what they've been taught from the Bible and simply stick to that and disregard everything else.

Pot to kettle: "You are black."

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[fido123]

Pot to kettle: "You are black."

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com


When do I ever criticize peoples religions because I think my own is correct?

[Engler]

I happen to be Catholic, and while I do believe in God and afterlife (Hell, Purgatory, Heaven), I keep an open mind, and am personally infatuated with science and how the world works.

[MixMasterLar]

There is keeping an open mind, and then there's being wishy-washy

2nd group is easier to fing IMO, tho not as easy as "IM RIGHT ALWAYS FOOL"

[GuidoHunter]

When do I ever criticize peoples religions because I think my own is correct?

I dunno, maybe when you fail to read what people quote.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[fido123]

I dunno, maybe when you fail to read what people quote.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

...I still can't see it...I'm not Christian so by me saying that many Christians are pretty blind to things around them because they assume the Bible is the only true answer wouldn't apply to Pot to Kettle...

[devonin]

No fido, he's saying that for you to say "They are ignorant and only believe what they are told" is hypocritical because clearly, since you provided no support for this, you appear to him to also be -saying- "They are ignorant and only believe what they are told" -because- you are yourself ignorant and only believing what you've been told.

Whether his point is valid or not is up for debate, but I hope that clears up his intent.

[fido123]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
A super correct way to put what I'm trying to say would be: Many Christians I know, therefore I assume there are many others like them, were taught the Bible as children and never looked for any other answers and simply answer everything with what they were first taught."

[MixMasterLar]

That's most every religion dude

[meno_rocks123]

I'm Christian. I believe in God, Jesus, Creation and all that stuff. it doesn't make me generally any less smart than anyone else. I personally love to figure out how the world works and how everything works out.

PS: took two IQ tests today and got 140+ on both. (fyi- I'm a genius)

[TC_=MaxXFreaK=]

i think anyone can be smart if they study and load their brains with books and things, i dont think it has anything to do with religion.

[devonin]

PS: took two IQ tests today and got 140+ on both. (fyi- I'm a genius)The surest sign that you aren't a genius is that you seem to think that scoring high on an IQ test makes you a genius. And further, 140 on an IQ test isn't actually that high, and while perhaps indicative of being "gifted" is a far cry from "Genius"

Depending on which official test you take, you need as high as a 148 to qualfiy to join MENSA, and their traditional cutoff is that you must be in the top 2% of the population.

[Afrobean]

The surest sign that you aren't a genius is that you seem to think that scoring high on an IQ test makes you a genius. And further, 140 on an IQ test isn't actually that high, and while perhaps indicative of being "gifted" is a far cry from "Genius"

Depending on which official test you take, you need as high as a 148 to qualfiy to join MENSA, and their traditional cutoff is that you must be in the top 2% of the population.
I'm not sure what sort of the shape the bell curve takes exactly, but I always heard that over 130 was considered genius.

But yeah, online tests aren't good representation of true intelligence. Then again, there isn't any really truly good way to test intelligence.

psi think anyone can be smart if they study and load their brains with books and things, i dont think it has anything to do with religion. This person doesn't understand the difference between intelligence and knowledge.

[devonin]

I'm not sure what sort of the shape the bell curve takes exactly, but I always heard that over 130 was considered genius.I've heard of IQs down below 60, and I've heard of IQs up into the 190s.

140 is generally the minimum for entry in MENSA, so if you consider all MENSA members to be geniuses, then I guess that isn't a terrible bar to set, but if I were going to assign "Genius" to any subset of the population, it would have to be smaller than the top 1.0% and since MENSA ~= 140 ~= top 2%, I have to set my bar higher than that.

[meno_rocks123]

i think anyone can be smart if they study and load their brains with books and things, i dont think it has anything to do with religion.
That's absolutely the point. Everyone can be smart, some just don't choose to learn things. I know at least 6 people who can't add or subtract. I'm just lucky. I don't work hard in school (I rarely take notes, do optional homework, and I never study. I get concepts really easily and absorb information and it doesn't go away. I know someone who gets straight A's every year (they're considered to be the smartest kid in the school) and they aren't actually all that smart. They work hard to get concepts, they study and it pays off.
I could see religious people generally being "less smart" than atheists because I even don't agree with some of the stuff I'm taught, but I still learn it. the problem comes in when people don't learn things because they're against their religion (I've seen it happen).

tl;dr version(although the longer one is better and I might leave something out here)- some people are naturally smarter, some aren't. The people who aren't naturally smart work hard and they can be smart. Religious people are just as smart as atheists but I could see there being a problem when someone refuses to learn something because it's against their religion.


EDIT: 140 is generally the minimum for entry in MENSA, so if you consider all MENSA members to be geniuses, then I guess that isn't a terrible bar to set, but if I were going to assign "Genius" to any subset of the population, it would have to be smaller than the top 1.0% and since MENSA ~= 140 ~= top 2%, I have to set my bar higher than that.
I can see the logic there, and I'm ready to say I'm "gifted" instead of a genious, but the fact is, I'm 15 right now and my IQ has gone up ~15 in the past year-and-a-half

[windsurfer-sp]

Far to broad of a statement for me to ever consider being close to true. The group of people represented in "religous people" is far to broad and subjective to come close to being able to be analysed.

People chose religion half way through their life, were they always unintelligent or did the process of choosing religion transform them into unintelligence?

I understand there is some form of statistical correlation found. I am not in a postion to dispute its credibility. If all the argument has is some form of statistcal correlation then I dont see it as being a good one.

Grandia: Some people will ignore things because of their beliefs, this makes them ignorant not unintelligent.

[aperson]

I can see the logic there, and I'm ready to say I'm "gifted" instead of a genious, but the fact is, I'm 15 right now and my IQ has gone up ~15 in the past year-and-a-half

I scored 146 on a large, rigorous IQ test when I was in kindergarten and 144 on another one in 2nd grade. It doesn't matter if your IQ went up in the past year-and-a-half, that's variance. It also doesn't mean you're a genius if you have an IQ above 140. The truth is that lots of people that don't go anywhere with life have high IQs; just because you have pattern recognition skills doesn't mean you're set for life.



This topic is also incredibly stupid. I've met smart and dumb Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Buddhist, Baha'i, and others. Just because a large amount of undereducated people are brought up with strong, religious family doctrine doesn't mean all followers are that way. When people stress that correlation does not equal causation, they really can't stress it enough... Mainly because ignorant people don't understand the implications it has and like to leap over as close to causality as they can from any correlative study.

[devonin]

This, I think, is the main reason why Grandiagod was surprised to find this thread moved into CT. I'm pretty sure he didn't think these results were especially rigorous or accurate, it was just a chance to poke fun at Chardish.

[fido123]

That's most every religion dude

I was using Christianity as an example. I think in my original post it stated that.

[lord_carbo]

PS: took two IQ tests today and got 140+ on both. (fyi- I'm a genius)
Internet IQ tests are a bitch.

FYI, mine is I believe around 118 realistically, give or take.

Concerning IQ tests in general: there's definitely a noticeable correlation between just what I'd consider smart and one's IQ. I would not deny that. However, all they do is test most forms of cognitive thinking and are not good determinants as to how people apply it daily or even in situations which call for it. There are kids with higher IQs in my grade and it feels like not many kids in my school or people in general have the capacity to think critically and at least the attention span and rationale to skim through facts and make deductions from them before making uninformed conclusions. Additionally, Squeek has even accused me of cheating when he was posting lots of abstract brainteasers in TGB because I solved them faster than I probably should have. Yet my IQ is 118. Stunning. Is it accurate? As far as I'm concerned, yes.

Don't look at IQs as objective measurements of intelligence to oneself, rather, as decently reliable measurements of logical interpretation and pattern recognition. Just look at autistic savants.

Just for a bit of background, Internet IQ tests are completely, completely unreliable. Don't trust them at all. I just have a feeling that if you got 140's on two IQ tests in the same day, that they were taken on the Internet. Sorry bud.

[User6773]

This, I think, is the main reason why Grandiagod was surprised to find this thread moved into CT. I'm pretty sure he didn't think these results were especially rigorous or accurate, it was just a chance to poke fun at Chardish.

Well, if he wasn't looking for an actual discussion, he was trolling, which is bannable.

[Verruckter]

Not in the GBin...

[commander_toast]

I'm christian and I belive God created the heavan and the earths and thas what i stick with

[Verruckter]

I'm christian and I belive God created the heavan and the earths and thas what i stick with

This behavior is exactly what makes atheists beleive they are smarter (not trying to criticise you, just saying). It's the lack of open-mindedness, taking everything as it is and not questionning it.

Wether or not this is really a sign of lac of intelligence, I don't have the required information to say yet.

[Afrobean]

Well, if he wasn't looking for an actual discussion, he was trolling, which is bannable.99% of what goes on in TGB is bannable if you're going to be a doodiehead like that. Hell, even staff behavior in TGB is against the forum rules a lot of the time, some of them even breaking Gbin specific rules.

Also, did anyone find it funny that the thread about religion gets taken seriously and moved to a serious forum, while the similarly functioned thread about race was left in TGB and actually locked and moved into the Dead Zone?

[Verruckter]

99% of what goes on in TGB is bannable if you're going to be a doodiehead like that. Hell, even staff behavior in TGB is against the forum rules a lot of the time, some of them even breaking Gbin specific rules.

Also, did anyone find it funny that the thread about religion gets taken seriously and moved to a serious forum, while the similarly functioned thread about race was left in TGB and actually locked and moved into the Dead Zone?

riligiun is impurtan

[lord_carbo]

riligiun is impurtan
If you believe the notion that if nonbelievers receive eternal punishment while the opposite is true for believers, and that god is omnipotent and omniscient and by result is infallible, then yes, religion is very important.

99% of what goes on in TGB is bannable if you're going to be a doodiehead like that. Hell, even staff behavior in TGB is against the forum rules a lot of the time, some of them even breaking Gbin specific rules.
Not really.

[Verruckter]

If you believe the notion that if nonbelievers receive eternal punishment while the opposite is true for believers, and that god is omnipotent and omniscient and by result is infallible, then yes, religion is very important.

No, it was a sarcastic comment that meant to compare the importance of both threads mentionned by Afrobean.

[Izzy-chandess]

I don't think that it has anything to do with religion. I'm not religious and I have an I.Q. of 96. I look really stupid compared to geniuses with I.Q.'s of 140, honestly. Yet do I have religion? Not really. Atheists can be dumb, too. So why am I posting in CT...? >.>

[lord_carbo]

No, it was a sarcastic comment that meant to compare the importance of both threads mentionned by Afrobean.
Oh, whatever.

Anyway, thread is stupid, study has been debunked, let's move on, etc.

[Reach]

I've heard of IQs down below 60, and I've heard of IQs up into the 190s.

140 is generally the minimum for entry in MENSA, so if you consider all MENSA members to be geniuses, then I guess that isn't a terrible bar to set, but if I were going to assign "Genius" to any subset of the population, it would have to be smaller than the top 1.0% and since MENSA ~= 140 ~= top 2%, I have to set my bar higher than that.

140 is extremely high...which is probably why he took an invalid internet IQ test >__>. He took two tests in the same day, so it's pure bs. Real tests usually take awhile, and the most common ones usually cost a few hundred dollars to administer. You can try taking 'test the nation' (Canadian) online if you want a fairly valid IQ test.

Most test batteries aren't even capable of scores over 130-140. At least for adults. If you were tested under the age of 16 then the scale can go up to infinity, technically, and it's not the same. Michael Keanary has a 'childhood' ratio IQ of 330. But anyway, 140 is 99.6th percentile for adults, and 130 is the Mensa cutoff. Tests that can go over 140 include WAIS, Binet, Ravens APM, some Catell scales and a few others, and none of them have ceilings over 160. 190 is ridiculous... one in a billion, and there are only a few people on the planet with an IQ that high. For the record, since there are currently no psychometrically valid tests capable of going over 166, any scores higher than that are extrapolations (ex Chris Langan).

I like to think of IQ as analogous to pc specs. Just because you're running a smooth ride doesn't mean you have any good hardware on it or that you utilize it.


Anyway, these results aren't surprising. The white-black gap in IQ has been known for a long time. Since the early 1900s. As an FYI, asians average higher than whites. Well educated people tend to have higher IQ's...and there are less religous people in academia than in the general public. People tend to leave these types of faith based systems when they become more knowledgable.

As for the causes of this, some people have already pointed out a couple. IQ= genes + environment. From there it's pretty obvious.

[aperson]

Metaphysical numbery stuffery

Why are you so obsessed with IQ; you are intense about gauging your pattern recognition skills, man.

[Reach]

Why are you so obsessed with IQ; you are intense about gauging your pattern recognition skills, man.

I'm obsessed? >__> I'm just setting the record straight.

I am taking psychometrics and statistics though. I like stats.

Anyway uh, since you mentioned it, IQ tests are more than just pattern recognition skills. You might be thinking about Ravens APM or might have been generalizing, but I'd assume you took the Wechsler battery for children when you talked about formal testing. It has a lot of crystallized intelligence (application of knowledge) testing on it, as do most tests. A few tests only test fluid intelligence (you can call it pattern recognition, it's just problem solving independent of previous knowledge), and you can kind of get away with it as fluid reasoning is highly predictive of your knowledge base and working memory (in young adults anyway).

[zadovoljna]

In my opinion, I don't think it's good to go off labeling people just because they are religious or not. That sounds dumb to me. Everyone is their own individual and should be judged as just that.

Personally, I am religious I was raised religiously, but I don't follow everything by the book. I disagree with certain things. I like to study different religions on my own time. I keep an open mind about anything because everything is a possibility unless you can 100% prove it. If you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist then I don't think it's right to label people as less intelligent. A study is a study, it is a theory but it is not proven. This test sounds a bit biased to me for the fact that right off the bat they went about labeling people as "smart". As someone mentioned previously knowledge and intelligence are different and everyone has different experiences in life which would ultimately alter your knowledge. Anyhow back to my original point, I like to study other religions and see what they have to say. I listen to what science also has to offer, BUT! the first rule of science is that no miracles are allowed. So scientists have to go about proving things with hardcore fact. I understand science has proven a lot but the one thing science has yet to prove is how we all got here and how the universe functions as a whole and what is it's purpose. With religion that gives more of an explanation of what happen and how we all got here.

One thing I really do find interesting throughout my studies is that all over the world no matter what religion, one thing is in common with people who do believe in a higher power. That thing is that all the people of the world have very similar creation stories (think: adam and eve) now ask yourself how can that be possible that in a time of no boats, airplanes, transportation, can all these people have similar ideas about how the world started? Even more so, how could everyone get the same idea about the mythological creature such as the dragon to be included into these stories? All over the world they describe this creature with wings, fire breathing and of the dark side. There is also one other thing all these stories have in common and that is the creation of the earth and universe and how that came to be. I can name over like 20+ religions that have these similar types of stories. (Remember these stories were all created before any modern day transportation, so there was no way of knowing of what someone in africa and someone in the americas was thinking) If you can explain that and how we all came to be, scientifically, you win :)

this site has a lot of different creation stories- they mostly talk about the creation of the earth. Check it out if you are interested http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HP4O3K4cMH0J:www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html+creation+myths&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[MrRubix]

This is just another example of the classic correlation vs. causation argument.

[devonin]

In my opinion, I don't think it's good to go off labeling people just because they are religious or not. That sounds dumb to me. Everyone is their own individual and should be judged as just that. I think there's just as much to object to labelling everyone as belonging to categories as there is to labelling everyone as not belonging to categories.

Personally, I am religious I was raised religiously, but I don't follow everything by the book. I disagree with certain things. I like to study different religions on my own time. I keep an open mind about anything because everything is a possibility unless you can 100% prove it. If you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist then I don't think it's right to label people as less intelligent.Did you actually look at the information or did you jump to a conclusion because of the thread title? The study didn't say "Religious people are stupid because they are religious" it said "We asked all kinds of people questions about all kinds of things, and the majority of people citing religious beliefs had lower IQs than the majority of people citing non-religious beliefs.

A study is a study, it is a theory but it is not proven. This test sounds a bit biased to me for the fact that right off the bat they went about labeling people as "smart". As someone mentioned previously knowledge and intelligence are different and everyone has different experiences in life which would ultimately alter your knowledge.They drew a correlation between the test results they recieved (which are proven to have been recieved by them) and the IQ of the people submitting those results (which they are proven to have found and used) What you -can- do is say "I don't believe that IQ equals intelligence" or "I feel they should have used a larger/different sample size" However, since they used the actual results they found, and the actual IQs of the people involved, you cannot say that the test is faulty on the grounds of "labelling people smart" or anything of the sort.

They said "Given people's answers, and IQs, this is the result" If you grant that those were the answers, and those were the IQs, then you grant the results.

Anyhow back to my original point, I like to study other religions and see what they have to say. I listen to what science also has to offer, BUT! the first rule of science is that no miracles are allowed. So scientists have to go about proving things with hardcore fact. I understand science has proven a lot but the one thing science has yet to prove is how we all got here and how the universe functions as a whole and what is it's purpose. With religion that gives more of an explanation of what happen and how we all got here. But you've just admitted that religion provides answers with no evidence whatsoever to back up that answer. I can tell you that the universe was sneezed into existance by a being called the Greet Blue Arklesiezure, and that I know this because I have faith, and you would be obliged to treat that as just as likely as any other "miraculous" or "faith-bsaed" conclusion about the existance of the universe.

One thing I really do find interesting throughout my studies is that all over the world no matter what religion, one thing is in common with people who do believe in a higher power. That thing is that all the people of the world have very similar creation stories (think: adam and eve) now ask yourself how can that be possible that in a time of no boats, airplanes, transportation, can all these people have similar ideas about how the world started?I think if you actually look into it, almost no creation stories involve a seperate and distinct higher power, with no human characteristics, creating everything in sequence ending with man as the most important and central creation, with a fixed divine plan for all such people. Mostly you find creation stories that say "Such and such created this and that" in some orientation. This is because when you are asked "How did all this come to be" it doesn't matter where you live or who you are, your answer (since no God is in visible evidence, and no means of creating the world is obvious to you) is to say that some being that we can't see created everything long ago through means beyond us.

That doesn't make religious ideas somehow more likely to be true just because many peoples have appealed to the supernatural to explain creation.

Even more so, how could everyone get the same idea about the mythological creature such as the dragon to be included into these stories? All over the world they describe this creature with wings, fire breathing and of the dark side.Consider the possibility that the stories stem from such things actually existing and being seen by prehistoric humans.

There is also one other thing all these stories have in common and that is the creation of the earth and universe and how that came to be. I can name over like 20+ religions that have these similar types of stories. (Remember these stories were all created before any modern day transportation, so there was no way of knowing of what someone in africa and someone in the americas was thinking) If you can explain that and how we all came to be, scientifically, you win :) How about: "The species Homo Sapiens Sapiens originated in one place ages ago, and thus sharing a common ancestor and common root experience, developed similar attitudes and stories." Does that work at all well for you?

This is just another example of the classic correlation vs. causation argument. Um...I'm not aware of a "classic" correlation vs causation arguement. I'm aware of the fact that claiming correlation implies causation can be one of the informal logical fallacies, but as I pointed out above, they were making no such appeal.

They said simply "We asked these questions, got these results from this IQ of people, and here are the conclusions." I'm not sure they said "Therefore, all religious people are less intelligent than all non-religious people" or even "this implies that religious people have low IQs" Those were certainly implications you could take from the results, but the results simply said "From the sample, there was a trend towards religious thought from the less intelligent, and a trend towards non-religious thought from the more intelligent"

[TD_m0nster]

whatever happened to that stereotype where asians are for some reason proportionately smarter?

by the way i am not religious, nor do i deny it in full. agnostic is the way to go. i don't know why more people aren't agnostic...

[tsugomaru]

whatever happened to that stereotype where asians are for some reason proportionately smarter?

by the way i am not religious, nor do i deny it in full. agnostic is the way to go. i don't know why more people aren't agnostic...

Are you kidding me? Race has nothing to do with IQ. It has all to do with your family's social status. The reason a lot of Asians have the "Asians are smart" stereotype is because most of their families are rich and their parents have some kind of educational background. They are the select few who were smart enough to earn enough money or go to college in America where they ended up living and because most of them are doctors, they've gone through the entire school system and have their own understanding of the values of school and they hope that their children, by succeeding in school, will one day become doctors as well rather than some high school dropout flipping hamburgers.

That being said, it's understandable when Black people have the "black people are stupid" stereotype. After the end of slavery, most black families could never make it big in jobs. They embraced their right to learn and they excelled in it, but they weren't allowed to make big bucks because no job would let them do so. The families became poor and most kids had to dropout of high school and work for money as a necessity. When they grow older, they don't really see the importance of school because it couldn't get them anywhere and even if it did, they weren't allowed to.

White people have been the dominating "race" in America and they have better jobs. There is a higher concentration of middle class white families who do have the ability to put their children through high school and college and as such, they can get better paying jobs and are seen as "smarter" because they have the education to back it up.

I didn't click the link to watch or read whatever was in it, whether this is a joke or not, I don't find it very funny. The school I go to is located in a "rich-family" area which is dominated by an Asian population. I don't think the kids do well because they are Asian, they do well because their parents taught them the mindset of "do well in school, do well in life" and everyone just follows along. It's not just the Asians, it's every other ethnic group, the small populace of Native American, Alaskan, Whites, Pacific Islanders, Blacks, you name it, will more than likely follow with this mindset because of either the parents or their peers. I have black friends who say that their parents would beat them up if they scored any lower than a 3.6 as a GPA. Do you really think that's a race issue or a social issue?

~TsugomaruTo sum it up, race has nothing to do with your IQ. It's all in your social status and environment.

~Tsugomaru

[Reach]

Are you kidding me? Race has nothing to do with IQ. It has all to do with your family's social status. The reason a lot of Asians have the "Asians are smart" stereotype is because most of their families are rich and their parents have some kind of educational background. They are the select few who were smart enough to earn enough money or go to college in America where they ended up living and because most of them are doctors, they've gone through the entire school system and have their own understanding of the values of school and they hope that their children, by succeeding in school, will one day become doctors as well rather than some high school dropout flipping hamburgers.

That being said, it's understandable when Black people have the "black people are stupid" stereotype. After the end of slavery, most black families could never make it big in jobs. They embraced their right to learn and they excelled in it, but they weren't allowed to make big bucks because no job would let them do so. The families became poor and most kids had to dropout of high school and work for money as a necessity. When they grow older, they don't really see the importance of school because it couldn't get them anywhere and even if it did, they weren't allowed to.

White people have been the dominating "race" in America and they have better jobs. There is a higher concentration of middle class white families who do have the ability to put their children through high school and college and as such, they can get better paying jobs and are seen as "smarter" because they have the education to back it up.

I didn't click the link to watch or read whatever was in it, whether this is a joke or not, I don't find it very funny. The school I go to is located in a "rich-family" area which is dominated by an Asian population. I don't think the kids do well because they are Asian, they do well because their parents taught them the mindset of "do well in school, do well in life" and everyone just follows along. It's not just the Asians, it's every other ethnic group, the small populace of Native American, Alaskan, Whites, Pacific Islanders, Blacks, you name it, will more than likely follow with this mindset because of either the parents or their peers. I have black friends who say that their parents would beat them up if they scored any lower than a 3.6 as a GPA. Do you really think that's a race issue or a social issue?

~Tsugomaru

To say that IQ is entirely influenced by social status is bunk. You would be able to correlate it nearly perfectly with IQ then, and that is simply not the case. Social status correlates with IQ at about r=0.5 or less according to studies, meaning it accounts for less than 25% of the variance. You can account for more of the IQ with an F MRI calculation of cortex tissue area.

On that same note, the same goes for schooling and performance there. You talk about ones intelligence quite strongly in the context of how educated you are, but more often than not higher education (college and beyond) has absolutely no effect on an individuals intelligence. IQ and school achievement are only mildly correlated (less than r=0.5). At this point you're gaining knowledge, not aptitude.

If anything you were getting closer to the point near the end. The more important thing that has shown to be strongly correlate with the child's IQ is upbringing and exposure during the first few years of life, before going to school. The key is really an optimal environment for the child to develop in, which explains the IQ gap fairly well...however, you don't need to have a high income to bring a child up properly. You just need to be a responsible, loving and willing parent...but at the same time, you can't breed geniuses. Genes and the environment interact together to make you who you are. It's never just one or the other.


I should make clear that I'm not saying race is influences IQ. It probably does, to a degree, but it shouldn't matter statistically. Assuming race differences exist (they do, but barely), they are diluted by the fact that there is often more variance between individuals of the same race than across races genetically. It's fairly evident that the IQ gap between races is caused by much more than genetics...though trying to narrow it down to a single environmental factor certainly doesn't achieve anything.

[devonin]

Rubix, if you don't care enough to support what you say, then you ought not to post at all.

[tsugomaru]

Reach, I agree with you. The post I wrote was quoted from a different thread and my response was tailored specifically to address the issue I did.

I was trying to make a point that stereotypes aren't the auto-decider of who's "smarter"; a lot of it has to do with the environment they grew up in. I'm also not trying to say that school automatically makes you "smart", it doesn't.

~Tsugomaru

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Mod Edit: This has been a pretty calm and rational discussion so far, and this remark was needlessly dismissive and inflammatory.

[TD_m0nster]

To sum it up, race has nothing to do with your IQ. It's all in your social status and environment.

~Tsugomaru

there's still a reason behind it all... and i'm not sure what it is. there are plenty of rich people, and paying for education means nothing when you're an idiot.

i personally think the reason there is the asian stereotype of them being smarter is because of their customs and traditions. most asian people value education tremendously, whereas some other people who hold other cultures and traditional values at a lower standard, thus resulting in education not being as important as other things in life.

[zadovoljna]

I think there's just as much to object to labelling everyone as belonging to categories as there is to labelling everyone as not belonging to categories.

Okay, that is your opinion vs. mine.

Did you actually look at the information or did you jump to a conclusion because of the thread title? The study didn't say "Religious people are stupid because they are religious" it said "We asked all kinds of people questions about all kinds of things, and the majority of people citing religious beliefs had lower IQs than the majority of people citing non-religious beliefs.

No, I actually read the whole thread and read the stuff on the link. Just to be politically correct, I never implied that anyone said anyone was stupid :) Can you clarify what exactly this means- "We asked all kinds of people questions about all kinds of things, and the majority of people citing religious beliefs had lower IQs than the majority of people citing non-religious beliefs."

Would you know if these people citing religious beliefs as a response are doing it to all kinds of questions or only to the religious questions?

They drew a correlation between the test results they recieved (which are proven to have been recieved by them) and the IQ of the people submitting those results (which they are proven to have found and used) What you -can- do is say "I don't believe that IQ equals intelligence" or "I feel they should have used a larger/different sample size" However, since they used the actual results they found, and the actual IQs of the people involved, you cannot say that the test is faulty on the grounds of "labelling people smart" or anything of the sort.

They said "Given people's answers, and IQs, this is the result" If you grant that those were the answers, and those were the IQs, then you grant the results.

Perhaps "I don't believe that IQ equals intelligence" was the words I was looking for (thanks).
I think that there are different types of intelligence levels and that simply cannot confine people to one standard of intelligence (this has long been a debate amongst what is the standard for measuring intelligence). For example there is emotional intelligence, artistic intelligence, musical intelligence, logic intelligence. There are all these different types of categories, that it isn't fair to say if one person has emotional intelligence is smarter than a person who is more musically intelligent. Maybe the test was flawed in the way that it only had a certain type of questions that applied to only one type of these categories. I don't think it is possible to have an overall method to indicate and measure intelligence because everyone is born and raised in a different environment and therefore exposed to different things that is needed for survival in their environment. If you were to take a person who graduated with a PHD in writing and compare them to a tribal person from Africa, clearly in our society the person with the PHD would be considered far more intelligent. Now take the same 2 people and put them in Africa to survive. The tribal guy is going to be intelligent in the way that he will know his botany, how to farm, build a house, how to travel using the sun and moon and different types of knowledge than this person with a PHD in writing has.
(Just for a thought what if you gave this PHD guy an intelligence, test but with the Africa tribal guys society standards) Therefore you can't compare the two and simply say that this guy with a PHD is smarter. However, I am assuming that this test was taken within people of our society, but you also have to consider that maybe some of them were immigrants from other countries and also different parts of the U.S.A have different mentalities on certain things. My parents are from a foreign country and they know things that I never could have learned in college, simply because of the different societies we were raised in. I don't think that any society is superior or inferior to one another, it's just different exposures to different things.

But you've just admitted that religion provides answers with no evidence whatsoever to back up that answer. I can tell you that the universe was sneezed into existance by a being called the Greet Blue Arklesiezure, and that I know this because I have faith, and you would be obliged to treat that as just as likely as any other "miraculous" or "faith-bsaed" conclusion about the existance of the universe.

I didn't admit anything, I am just theorizing on what could be. If you told me that the universe was sneezed into existence what proof do I have against you to prove you are wrong? I don't, so I would hear you out until I saw a flaw in your theory. If there was no flaw then for all I know you could be correct and end up having some hardcore fans out there. My personal belief is until it is 100% proven how the universe and people came to be, I will believe in a higher power. (Personally, I hope there is something more out there) It is uncertain how we got here, why we are here, and what role the universe plays. Science has yet to go and explore other more distant planets. There could be more out there. I think science will have a difficult time proving the functions of the universe unless they can perfect the big bang theory or some other science based theory.

I think if you actually look into it, almost no creation stories involve a seperate and distinct higher power, with no human characteristics, creating everything in sequence ending with man as the most important and central creation, with a fixed divine plan for all such people. Mostly you find creation stories that say "Such and such created this and that" in some orientation. This is because when you are asked "How did all this come to be" it doesn't matter where you live or who you are, your answer (since no God is in visible evidence, and no means of creating the world is obvious to you) is to say that some being that we can't see created everything long ago through means beyond us.That doesn't make religious ideas somehow more likely to be true just because many peoples have appealed to the supernatural to explain creation.

I did look into it which is why I proved a link to a site- http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us To be honest I have throughly examined this site just yet but here is some of the things I was taking about. I made it in Excel but it doesn't come out good here since I can't or don't know how to insert a table here.

Origin of creation myth higher power adam and eve story- days of creation
Zulu Unkulunkulu no yes
Bantu tribe Bumba Yoko Lima yes
Nigeria Abasi Yes- no names no
Southern Nigeria Obassi Osaw yes- no names yes
Ainu Kamui Aoina and Ainu yes
Apache Creator yes yes
Australian Aboriginal no Ungambikula yes
Aztec Coatlique Coyolxauhqui no
Chelan Creator yes- no names no


these places are not all right next to each other. Some are, some aren't but this was my original point in how can people who don't live near each other in a time of no transportation be able to get the same/ similar message across? The website also provides more information if you are interested. You are also right in the way that it doesn't make it more true just because supernatural appeals to more people, but with the information I provided you can't rule out this fact 100% because I just provided some proof that maybe it could be possible since everyone has a similar idea.


Consider the possibility that the stories stem from such things actually existing and being seen by prehistoric humans.

If you believe in the evolution theory "prehistoric humans" couldn't talk because their vocal cords were not developed fully yet until they "evolved" into homo-sapiens. Therefore no prehistoric human can speak to pass on these stories. Also there are no animals now or around the time of the first homo-sapien that looked like a dragon. The only type of dragon that exists in modern day times is the Komodo Dragon but they only inhabit the island of Komodo in Indonesia so that isn't even possible that they evolved and then all moved to Indonesia.

How about: "The species Homo Sapiens Sapiens originated in one place ages ago, and thus sharing a common ancestor and common root experience, developed similar attitudes and stories." Does that work at all well for you?

Could be, but according to science, people started to spread around the world and settling elsewhere. I'm not sure how old these stories are. You might have something there though.

In conclusion, if it's a study based on trend alone, this test is probably not the most accurate thing. This is the point I am trying to make with the information above. I am not completely disagreeing/ agreeing I am just suggesting things that could be possible.

[devonin]

No, I actually read the whole thread and read the stuff on the link. Just to be politically correct, I never implied that anyone said anyone was stupid :) Can you clarify what exactly this means- "We asked all kinds of people questions about all kinds of things, and the majority of people citing religious beliefs had lower IQs than the majority of people citing non-religious beliefs." It means:
A) We asked many people questions
B) We measured the IQ of those same people
C) The people who answered the questions in a way that suggested they were religious corresponded generally to the people with low IQs
D) The people who answered the questions in a way that suggested they were not religious corresponded generally to the people with high IQs
E) Therefore, we draw the inductive conclusion from this, that religious people are apt to be less intelligent than non-religious people
or
F) We draw the inductive conclusion that less intelligent people are apt to be more religious than more intelligent people

Would you know if these people citing religious beliefs as a response are doing it to all kinds of questions or only to the religious questions?They pointed specifically to the questions about reigion in the article. Questions about belief in a higher power, etc. The people who said "Yes I believe in such religious things" also seemed to be the people with the lower IQ.

Perhaps "I don't believe that IQ equals intelligence" was the words I was looking for (thanks).No problem.

I think that there are different types of intelligence levels and that simply cannot confine people to one standard of intelligence (this has long been a debate amongst what is the standard for measuring intelligence). For example there is emotional intelligence, artistic intelligence, musical intelligence, logic intelligence. There are all these different types of categories, that it isn't fair to say if one person has emotional intelligence is smarter than a person who is more musically intelligent.
Nor did they say such a person was. They said "Based on IQ" and "Higher IQ versus lower IQ" You are allowed to criticise the study for not taking into account other measures of intelligence, but since they didn't draw conclusions outside the bounds of their study, you can't fault the conclusions. They said "We checked IQ, and found this correspondance between IQ and Religion" The correspondance is there, they proved it. It is up to you to decide whether you find the conclusions -meaningful- or -useful- not whether you find the conclusions accurate.

My personal belief is until it is 100% proven how the universe and people came to be, I will believe in a higher power. If your burden of proof to believe something is that it be 100% proven, how can you justify believing -anything- in the interim?


these places are not all right next to each other. Some are, some aren't but this was my original point in how can people who don't live near each other in a time of no transportation be able to get the same/ similar message across?The world was not always shaped the way that it is shaped now. Given the theory of the North American population emigrating from Asia via the Land bridge, clearly these pre-historic peoples got around over not a small amount of land.

but with the information I provided you can't rule out this fact 100% because I just provided some proof that maybe it could be possible since everyone has a similar idea. While it is the case that you can not conclude something is false simply because it hasn't been proven correct, you also cannot conclude something is true simply because it hasn't been proven wrong.

If you believe in the evolution theory "prehistoric humans" couldn't talk because their vocal cords were not developed fully yet until they "evolved" into homo-sapiens. Therefore no prehistoric human can speak to pass on these stories.And there are no methods besides speech to communicate anything...Also Homo Sapiens have existed theoretically for about 200,000 years So that's plenty of time to be "modern humans" to be communicating.

In conclusion, if it's a study based on trend alone, this test is probably not the most accurate thing. This is the point I am trying to make with the information above. I am not completely disagreeing/ agreeing I am just suggesting things that could be possible.Well like I said. It is pretty easy to take issue with the methods they used and thus find their conclusions not very useful, but they are at least valid within the parameters of the study.

[zadovoljna]

Well like I said. It is pretty easy to take issue with the methods they used and thus find their conclusions not very useful, but they are at least valid within the parameters of the study.

Good argument, I just have the tendency to question the validity of studies such as this. Whenever I watch the news it like, oh if you eat this you might not get cancer according to our new study, if your child plays with this it will be really smart, according to our new study, ect.
After a while I just begin to sit there and be like well you have all these studies but how true can they all possibly be? Sometimes those science people are wrong, sometimes they are right. I just don't like to immediately believe everything I hear without analyzing it myself.

[devonin]

The point of these studies is that the average single person on their own simply lacks the ability to conduct that analysis themselves. You don't have the ability to go out and poll a suitable geographic and demographic cross-section of the nation yourself, and possibly lack the education and training in statistical analysis to draw the same kinds of conclusion from the data.

When you're told that a study indicates something, if the organization doing the study is worth the name, they've accounted for potential biases in results, and the margin of error should be clearly stated.

Once again, while it is up to the individual viewing the results to decide how important these results are to their life, unless there is a really major bias hidden in the parameters, I suspect very few of the studies draw outright -wrong- conclusions from the data.

[mcdiddy]

This study is wack. Though, as shown in the past (the enlightenment), religion does reject common facts and substitutes there own so they can't be proven wrong. It is smarter if u aren't in religion so your thoughts and points of view aren't obscured by an overwhelming presence called the church.

[devonin]

Er...if you'd paid any attention to the discussion as it developed, you'd see exactly why saying something like "This study is wack" makes very little sense.

Further, a large percentage, a majority even, of the great scientific minds of the enlightenment were quite devoutly religious. In some instances, actively supported by the church.

[jewpinthethird]

Er...if you'd paid any attention to the discussion as it developed, you'd see exactly why saying something like "This study is wack" makes very little sense.

Further, a large percentage, a majority even, of the great scientific minds of the enlightenment were quite devoutly religious. In some instances, actively supported by the church.

Let us not forget that science was originally the study of God's creations.

[g4z33b0]

You should know better than that. -Dev

[Dark Ronin]

I dont see how IQ and religious affiliation could have anything to do with one another. Religous views are primarily caused by the way in which one is raised. Of course there are instances where people will continue their education and learn so much that they stop beliving in a god, but then there are also some people who learn so much that they have decided that there must be a god, or something with greater power than us anyway. I believe that god can deffinitly limit ones ability to learn, by causeing one to dismiss some things based entirely on the fact that "it goes against the Bible" or any other religous text for that matter. I just dont see how being religious could affect ones IQ, when there are incredibly smart people who are athiest and others equally as smart from nearly every religion. I saw the peice about the survey, but a survey by deffinition is random. It doesnt take into account every person, and could very possibly be inaccurate. Even if it is accurate and it does show that athiests are smarter, it still doesnt mean that they have higher IQs because they are athiest, it could be a coincidence. Now if it were a published study that showed a huge change in IQ between the two groups then I might give it more credit, but I have yet to see such a study.

[devonin]

There's a difference between pointing to a correlation and saying "We found a correlation" and pointing to a correlation and saying "We found that one necessarily causes the other"

Certainly they leave that conclusion strongly implied, as shown by the OP jumping immidiately to that claim, but if the people surveyed demonstrated a tendency towards being intelligent and non-religious, and unintelligent and religious, the correlation is there.

My question is this Dark Ronin: Given your statement that people who are raised religious and remain devout can be limited in what they learn, because they are prone to reject things on the grounds that it is rejected by the bible...how can such an ignorant behavior -not- effect your overall intelligence?

Your ability to analyze, to critically evaluate, comes with use and practice. If you are never critically evaluating as important a thing as your religion, and rejecting anything that opposed your belief without analyzing it, I can't see how it would -not- negatively effect your potential overall intelligence.

[Dark Ronin]

My only problem with your statement is that there are essentially two types of intelligence. There is a person’s total accumulated knowledge, as well as their ability and capacity to learn. (Ex: A fifty year old college professor would certainly know a lot about things in his field, he would be a very “intelligent” person. Then you could also have a seven year old prodigy who is a junior in high school, and can pick up nearly any book and quickly learn and understand every bit of it, also incredibly “intelligent”.) When you look at it that way, it would be impossible for religion to affect it.

Let’s say a college student who worked hard for his knowledge could choose to discontinue his learning because it somehow offended his religious views. This would end his ability to accumulate knowledge, but he could still be intelligent in the sense that he might have the ability to learn things far more quickly and efficiently than other people.

The only type of intelligence that should be viewed as true intelligence would be ones personal capacity for learning. Your total knowledge will eventually reach a plateau, a point where it can no longer grow. True intelligence could make ones plateau much higher than someone else’s, but when religion is introduced it might possibly cause a persons total amount of knowledge to level out much more quickly than it should have. And so with or without religion one would still have that ability to learn, religion could only affect the total amount of knowledge you have. I only wish I knew how to put a simple graph up here instead of having to go through such a lengthy explanation.

On a final note even atheism is a sort of religion. Atheists completely dismiss the possibility that there might in fact be some sort of higher being. We can’t prove that there is nothing supernatural, and on that same note we can’t prove that there is either. All the information we know or think we know could be completely worthless. There could be a major breakthrough on any given day. And so the ones who would be most intelligent in the first sense I mentioned would have to be agnostics, or just anyone who has a really open mind. You can’t dismiss anything. I mean we all KNOW the earth is flat, right?

I hope that answers your question. To sum it all up there could be no correlation between the two. If there were to be one it would be that anyone with an open mind would in theory win out in the end. Both atheists and religious people have limits that they choose to set for themselves whereas agnostics have no such limit.

[sjoecool1991]

Considering all the smartest people I know are religious.
In fact, the least intelligent person I have ever met is atheist.

[GuidoHunter]

Considering all the smartest people I know are religious.
In fact, the least intelligent person I have ever met is atheist.

Anecdotes are rull good evidence.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Dark Ronin]

Considering all the smartest people I know are religious.
In fact, the least intelligent person I have ever met is atheist.

It would be completely asinine to base your opinion of an entire people on the actions of the few that you come in contact with everyday. One of my best friends in school was Asian, he was an idiot, so by your statement all Asians must be idots, right? If A=B and A=C then B=C logic doesnt apply very often in the real world.

[kylehaas]

Hmmm...
That may be true for the whole amount of people on our planet, since I would agree that an upper-class or educated person is much more likely to be atheist in the first place.

However, that gives no man any rights to go around and proclaim that atheism will make you smarter.... It sure as hell won't.

I go to a catholic high school which is the most expensive in America.
It also has some of the smartest students... We are all catholic.
It is only due to the masses of people whom are religious...

If you think about it: Would voodoo worshipers in Africa count as religious people?

If so, this survey is complete bogus.

[ARMSBot101]

It makes sense, I guess. Atheists are more open to different ideologies that religious people and they take in more information.

[Sir_Thomas]

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/11/07/droughtpray_1108.html

Quote:
With no rain in sight, Gov. Sonny Perdue is looking for a little spiritual help to get North Georgia out of its drought.

Perdue's office has begun sending out invitations to a prayer service for rain at the Capitol next week.

The service is scheduled for Tuesday at 11:45 a.m. on the Washington Street side of the statehouse.

Heather Teilhet, his spokeswoman, said the governor began talking about wanting to host a service to pray for rain on his way back from Washington D.C. last week. He was in D.C. meeting with federal officials and the governors of Alabama and Florida to discuss the region's water crisis.

Perdue, whose son is a Baptist preacher, has had similar prayer services in the past.

"Georgia needs rain. The issue at the heart of our drought problems is a lack of rain," Teilhet said. "And there is nothing the government can do to make that happen.

"The governor recognizes that the request has got to be made to a higher power."

Teilhet said the governor's office has invited spiritual leaders from several faiths and dominations to participate in the service.

[devonin]

When you look at it that way, it would be impossible for religion to affect it. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am claiming the possibility that being religious effects your intelligence. That is utterly backwards.

The implication I got from the data was that being an intelligent person makes you less inclined to be religious, not the other way around.

The people who have high IQs, and thus are generally more well educated, more prone to question, and analyze are then less likely to strongly support belief systems that are centred around faith.

-Obviously- this is not a universal case. I can point to several religious people on this forum that I consider quite highly intelligent (Chardish leaps to mind as a good example) and I know plenty of people on this forum who jump into religious discussions as an OMG ATHEIST who are, frankly, morons.

But what the data of this study suggested, to me anyway, was that the more prone you are to thinking critically, questioning, and analyzing the world around you, the less likely you are to be a strongly devout member of a faith-based religion.

[Dark Ronin]

But what the data of this study suggested, to me anyway, was that the more prone you are to thinking critically, questioning, and analyzing the world around you, the less likely you are to be a strongly devout member of a faith-based religion.

I just don’t think atheists do this very well. Any atheist I have ever head of completely refuses to believe that there could possibly be some higher power, but what if there is a god? What if the billions of people who aren’t atheist are right?

If, as you said, being intelligent means you think critically, question things, and analyze the word around you without bias then atheists are on the same level as religious people in that respect. They completely refuse to believe in the possibility of a god, the same way a religious person might refuse to believe the big bang theory. Neither can be proven or disproven with the technology we have now. So both are equally good explanations. The problem is when you say God DID it, no doubt about it that’s how it happened and I don’t care what anyone else says. But that view can be shared equally with atheists who might say the universe was DEFFINTLY caused by a few random clouds of gasses coming together and reacting in such a way as to create everything in existence. A truly intelligent person would be open to all the possibilities until it is scenically proven, and even then he wouldn’t base everything on that fact.

Other than that argument I really have nothing. It’s true that many people who continue their education do give up religion. So it is entirely possible that at this point in time atheists could be smarter than religous people. I wish I could redo this same survey, but focus more on agnostics. I agree with your definition of intelligence, Devonin, and I really think agnostic people portray this attitude the best.

[Relambrien]

Dark Ronin, you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of atheism.

"Atheism" refers to the lack of belief in a god or gods. It comes from the word "theism," roughly meaning "religion," and the prefix "a-" meaning "not."

"Strong atheism" is a subset of atheism which asserts the total nonexistence of divine beings.
"Weak atheism" is a subset of atheism which asserts the nonexistence of divine beings until evidence is shown to the contrary.

Agnosticism also falls into the category of atheism, as does things like apatheism. Coming from "apathy" and "theism," an apatheist is someone who generally doesn't care about the question of a higher power.

I believe you'll find that you're grouping all atheists into the "strong atheist" category when strong atheism is only one of many parts of atheism as a whole.

[Dark Ronin]

Dark Ronin, you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of atheism.

First off athiesm falls into the very broad catagory of secular humanism. Here is a brief summary of an essay I did on the topic for a religion class. As you should see I fully understand what atheism is.

The Faith of Secular Humanism

Secular Humanism is a faith-based system (i.e., a religion) whose adherents believe, among other things, that the material world is all that exists. Secular humanists believe that the highest being that exists is mankind. They do not believe in a supernatural God.

Since secular humanists do not believe in God, obviously they do not believe in a Creator. They hypothesize that life simply sprang into existence, through a process of chance events. Higher life forms came into existence, they believe through the process of biological evolution. They believe these things on the basis of faith, as many of the more honest scientists who are evolutionists have admitted. Many scientists who are evolutionists have explained that to believe in a supernatural God is not “scientific”. Therefore they hypothesize evolution to explain the existence of life. They hope to find evidence to support their hypothesis.

Since, to secular humanists, God does not exist, any appeal to His authority would be considered to be foolish. The only authority that secular humanists appeal to is the authority of men who are perceived to be highly educated, brilliant and wise.

Secular humanists believe the Bible to be simply a book of human traditions and ideas. To them, it has no authority. The only writings that have authority for them would be the writing of men and women whom they perceive to be especially brilliant and wise.

Secular humanists generally reject the concepts of moral absolutes and of “sin.” In a situation in which Christians might see a need for repentance and forgiveness and forsaking sinful behavior, secular humanists would more likely see a need for every person to decide for himself what is right or wrong, and to try to build personal self-esteem regardless of an individual’s behavior.

While a Christian’s goals are determined by God and are influenced by the reality of an eternity after this life has passed, the secular humanist goals are entirely focused on this present physical existence.

[devonin]

Well, while your excerpt certainly suggests that you've done a deal of research into secular humanist tradition, your definitions still seem to be rather prone to the hasty generalisation. Relambrien was pretty much spot on making the distinction between Strong and Weak Atheists and Agnosticism (Though as he seems to keep doing, left out the distinction between Strong and Weak Agnosticism)

The problem comes in when you try to affix the label of a religion to secular beliefs. While you can make the argument (And I enjoy that argument) that science meets many of the same requirements as a religion, the key difference as it pertains to this discussion is this (Or at least as it pertains to my post in the discussion)

"Religion" especially western religion, most especially Christianity is "faith-based" Many of the questions don't have answers, or their answer contains no evidence, and followers are told to simply accept and believe.

"Science" especially western science, is "Proof-based" Many of the questions don't have answers, but the ones that do have answers contain evidence: visible, testable, reproducable evidence that can allow you to understand and accept.

So even if Science has some of the trappings of religion, and even if your average non-religious person may accept the "proofs" of science in the same way they accept the "faiths" of religion, that doesn't change the integral difference that science -has- that proof that you can confirm yourself.

And that is why I can perfectly understand the claim that people who are more intelligent, more critical in their analysis and evaluation of things, will be less prone to be religious.

[Relambrien]

Well, while your excerpt certainly suggests that you've done a deal of research into secular humanist tradition, your definitions still seem to be rather prone to the hasty generalisation. Relambrien was pretty much spot on making the distinction between Strong and Weak Atheists and Agnosticism (Though as he seems to keep doing, left out the distinction between Strong and Weak Agnosticism)

Well, the reason for this is that I don't particularly understand the difference myself. I think it has something to do with strong agnosticism stating it's not possible to know about the existence of divine beings, and weak agnosticism stating that it could be possible, but the person doesn't know it at the moment. I'm not even entirely sure if that's correct, and I don't know any further differences.


As you should see I fully understand what atheism is.


And it appears you do, except that the following excerpt from one of your posts points to an extremely hasty generalization:


Any atheist I have ever head of completely refuses to believe that there could possibly be some higher power, but what if there is a god?


This implies that you believe all atheists are strong atheists, since every atheist you have ever heard of completely refuses to admit to the possibility of a divine being.

[devonin]

Just for clarification's sake.

Atheist - "A" meaning "Not" and "Theos" meaning "Religion" - Not Religious
Agnostic - "A" meaning "Not" and "Gnostos" meaning "Knowing" - Not Knowing (Not Knowable)

Weak Agnosticism is largely analagous to weak Atheism. A Weak Agnostic says "Having reviewed all the evidence on both sides, I'm still unable to make a choice, so I'll continute to withhold judgement until more evidence presents itself"

Strong Agnosticism is not at all analagous to strong Atheism. A Strong Agnostic says "Asking questions about this at all is a total waste of time, because whether there is evidence or not, that evidence is necessarily beyond human comprehension"

I should really make a sticky defining a lot of these commonly used terms.

[ZanasoBayncuh]

Doesn't this entire conversation really mostly boil down to the fact that both, the completely religion and completely non-religious, are completely without mind to accept the other?

Shouldn't it have been pointed out to anyone referring to "IQ" that an intelligence quotiant refers to one's ability to learn and not what they know?

Admittantly, I'm Christian and I don't believe in evolution, at least to the extent that modern scientific research claims it. I have studied the subject and am not ignorant of the information, just my opinion.

Also admittantly, I only read about 50% of what is in this thread, hope I'm not retreading already made observations.

[devonin]

I would agree with the sentiment that the completely devoutly religious are prone to be unwilling to accept alternatives to that religion. I say so because many western faiths anyway, have as part of their doctrine that they have access to divine and universal truth and that in order to be called completely devout, you would have to believe that your religion does in fact have access to divine and universal truth, thus making you understandably close-minded when it comes to contrary claims.

I would also say, however, that one of the "articles of the faith" if you want to call them that, of science is that a scientist has to be willing to go wherever the evidence leads them. I think most "devout scientists" would tell you that if evidence was revealed to "prove" the existance of God that they would absolutely believe in God.

Therein lies the key difference, and why science is usually viewed by the average person as "more prone to be correct, in the long run" than relgion, because science never says "Okay, we understand it perfectly, lets never question it again"

[ZanasoBayncuh]

Whereas at the same time, left with no one to look over their shoulder, anyone with a finite amount of funding that is nearing its end will claim they've found whatever miraculous evidence that - "PROVES God DOES or DOES NOT exist." Which is probably the biggest annoyance to me on the topic of science, so many are so incredibly faithful (yeah, using that term to describe it) that they are somehow being fed 100% truth, even though a lot of the textual accuracy is hopeful on the accuracy of the original studies the information came from. People in general usually accept that 99% of everything that you hear/read is totally bull**** and that half of what you see is just as reliable (in other words, not reliable).

In light of these facts, after realizing that history books have been acknowledgely altered time and time again to make one thing look better, one thing look worse, completely remove information about a huge event, or even make up a small to medium size event here and there... along with many other types of informational reference, including by the normal logic, the Bible, as any debator will say / point out / refer to (trying to phrase as non bias as possible)... and yet somehow science is beyond reproach, and nothing in that field of study is, was, or will ever be falsified in any way shape or form. Then we come up with huge arguments and excuses to why science is so invulnerable to such a folly.

So, my simple point is that everything is prone to be falsified. I'm not going to be so foolish as to say that everything that implies something I don't believe is crap. But you are never going to get total and confirmed truths beyond witnessing such truths for yourself. Yes that might be a little extreme, but unfortunately, it's also reality.

[devonin]

So...you seem to be saying "All scientists will lie outright about discovery in order to maintain funding, and all scientists believe that they are 100% correct, and therefore everyone defends science as always and only coming up with correct answers, so science is stupid and not worth considering" Correct me if I've missed something there,

What you've described is bad science that leads to invalid conclusions, and is done far more rarely than you seem to say. In fact, commercial research is actually not all that common at all anymore, and that is where your "Have to conclude the right thing" mentality was actually a problem.

My issue is your claim that science is constantly "concluding" that God does or does not exist. I think that is ridiculous. I think there is not a scientist around whose experiment's thesis is "Does God exist or not" I think very strongly that if good evidence suggested the existance of God, that good scientists would believe in God. I think the main reason most scientists don't believe in God is that none of the evidence they've come across suggests such to them.

Science is invulnerable to the folly of "Concluding I'm right no matter what" because the Scientific Method doesn't allow for such an absolute conclusion. Religion not only allows for such a conclusion, in many cases it demands it. That is the weakness of religion.

[ZanasoBayncuh]

So...you seem to be saying "All scientists will lie outright about discovery in order to maintain funding, and all scientists believe that they are 100% correct, and therefore everyone defends science as always and only coming up with correct answers, so science is stupid and not worth considering" Correct me if I've missed something there,

What I'm saying is that people act as if ALL of it is completely pure and without infidelity.

What you've described is bad science that leads to invalid conclusions, and is done far more rarely than you seem to say. In fact, commercial research is actually not all that common at all anymore, and that is where your "Have to conclude the right thing" mentality was actually a problem.

I'm not saying that it always happens, what I'm trying to point out is that as it does happen more than we would like to think, and more often than the scientific body would like to portray.

My issue is your claim that science is constantly "concluding" that God does or does not exist. I think that is ridiculous.

I must apologize, the phrasology that I was using was very influenced by past debates where people who are desparate to make a point will turn to anything that they can, be it relevant or not. Saying that "It has been scientifically proven that certain paint compounds can be toxic, which is proof for evolution, and this means God does not exist." (actual argument, I kid you not) And I was writing partly in angst to this mentality. You know, the type that will somehow find a way to excerpt blasphemy from the existance of gravity, and ONLY gravity.

I think there is not a scientist around whose experiment's thesis is "Does God exist or not" I think very strongly that if good evidence suggested the existance of God, that good scientists would believe in God. I think the main reason most scientists don't believe in God is that none of the evidence they've come across suggests such to them.

It's true that the majority of scientists are atheistic, I have no evidence that the poll I've seen is true, but it stated that the atheistic population in the scientific community is 53%... which leaves the remaining 47% to be whatever religious preference that believes in a higher power. But why does not the 47% that believes not a concern at all? Because to be told truthfully, this argument means little to nothing, a lot of people, or hell, EVERYONE can believe something and be completely wrong. And in any testiment to human capacity, we are probably all wrong, the standard theists and the everyday atheists could both be wrong. There could be higher powers out there, giggling at the very idea of being called things like "God" or "omniprescent", and even more entertained at the idea that we are trying to talk to them like they care.

Science is invulnerable to the folly of "Concluding I'm right no matter what" because the Scientific Method doesn't allow for such an absolute conclusion. Religion not only allows for such a conclusion, in many cases it demands it. That is the weakness of religion.

You seem to have the idea that I'm speaking partisanly, by that last sentence. But as for the rest of it, yes there is Scientific Method, by which no one... or at least no science textbook that I've seen can even agree to how many steps there are or what they are past the first two. The fact is anyone could test something get some results then say they got other results and get several to attest to it. Not every other group has the time to spend testing every little result out there especially when they agree with the findings naturally and biasly. It isn't necessarily a big conspiracy... if someone walked up to you and asked a question based on opinion, offering you a possible answer, if that answers sounds good to you then you might not bother looking into it. All it takes from time to time is liar #1.

[devonin]

What I'm saying is that people act as if ALL of it is completely pure and without infidelity. Some people, I suppose, just don't have a proper understanding of how science works. Those people, who simply accept everything scientists say as the equivalent of holy writ, are in my opinion an exception not a rule.


I must apologize, the phrasology that I was using was very influenced by past debates where people who are desparate to make a point will turn to anything that they can, be it relevant or not. Saying that "It has been scientifically proven that certain paint compounds can be toxic, which is proof for evolution, and this means God does not exist." (actual argument, I kid you not) And I was writing partly in angst to this mentality. You know, the type that will somehow find a way to excerpt blasphemy from the existance of gravity, and ONLY gravity. Once again, some experience with people who don't understand what they are talking about should not be used to draw conclusions about the whole of the people. Religious people who consider themselves to be reasonable and intelligent -hate it- (and rightly so!) when people point to the few pure fundamentalists who insist on a ludicrous position on things like transubstantiation, the literal interpretation of the bible etc. So why should it be okay in turn, to point to the pure fundamentalists of science who claim that all science is correct and infallible as being indicative of the scientific community as a whole?

You seem to have the idea that I'm speaking partisanly, by that last sentence. But as for the rest of it, yes there is Scientific Method, by which no one... or at least no science textbook that I've seen can even agree to how many steps there are or what they are past the first two. My point had nothing to do with the particular mechanics of the scientific method. I was pointing to the fact that one existed at all to be a strength of science, because the Scientific method, whichever iteration you prefer, is based on testing, experimentation, and requires you to have provably, verifiable, testable, repeatable processes to justify your conclusions. And once those conclusions are made, anyone is allowed if not encouraged to challenge the evidence, the basis for the test and any other aspect of the process. Religion lacks such an encouragement which is why I said that it is the weakness of religion. Once religion has drawn a conclusion, you are to simply accept it. Once science has drawn a conclusion, you are simply to continue challenging it to the best of your ability.

The fact is anyone could test something get some results then say they got other results and get several to attest to it. Not every other group has the time to spend testing every little result out there especially when they agree with the findings naturally and biasly. But the -real- fact is (That is, the fact that is relevant) is that anone who -wants- to spend the time testing the results is freely able to do so, and if they test the results and find them wanting, and say so, the scientific community will analyze both sets of information and make the decision as to which seems to bear the closest resemblance to reality. As opposed to declaring the dissenting view heresy and burning some books.

It isn't necessarily a big conspiracy... if someone walked up to you and asked a question based on opinion, offering you a possible answer, if that answers sounds good to you then you might not bother looking into it. All it takes from time to time is liar #1.So because some people can lie, and some people don't care to fact-check, the entire scientific process is called into question? If you don't bother checking that what you've been told is actually the case, that is a failing of you, individually. That is not a failing of science or of analysis.

[ZanasoBayncuh]

So because some people can lie, and some people don't care to fact-check, the entire scientific process is called into question? If you don't bother checking that what you've been told is actually the case, that is a failing of you, individually. That is not a failing of science or of analysis.

Because I am experiencing a bit of my food poisoning symptoms coming back, and they are quite painful and I'm getting foggy headed, I will only attempt to embarass myself by responding to this part without my full mental capacity as it is rather difficult to think at absolute clarity with what may as well be a cloud of pins and needles in the center of my forehead.

For the most part, I'm saying what I'm saying in the area of things that the average person, and quite possibly very few scientific institutions can actually test. Then there are "scientific conclusions" that really, in their original thought, are nothing but individual assumption that eventually gets agreed with. An untestable aspect that is accepted because it makes sense to another scientist who happens to believe the same ideology/theology (whatever you'd like to call it). What I'm mostly saying, is not that all science is bogus, and not that most of it is, not even that half of it is. But what I can easily say is... here I'll put it like this. If you have a huge math problem, countless variables, sure you can put it into a computer and get the right answer... but if part of your information is falsified, even one part of it... then the rest of your equation is moot, completely destroyed, because you are now moving in the wrong direction. It's really a bad metaphor, I know, I'm operating at partial capacity. But probably a better metaphor would be, if I were to give you a hundred 'facts' and I simply told you "one of these is an outright lie and I know it for a fact." Assuming that I'm not lying that there's a falsehood within the list... how do you, the common man, know which one in the list is the fallacy? Common sense and firsthand knowledge can only eliminate so many of them.

...please be gentle with me for right now, I'm certain that after I sleep or if I give it a couple of hours, I'll probably look at this post I'm writing right now and slap the headache right back into my head... but maybe if we can get a lighthearted chuckle out of the next post I won't be too bad off.

For the most part, I think we both agree on one thing, there's a lot of bull****. Truth is, there's a lot of bull**** on both sides, LOTS OF IT. And that should always lead to Dasken's view of "If the atheists are right, it doesn't matter what I believe."

[Xx{Midnight}xX]

You can't judge IQ based on if a person is religous or not. It doen't work that studies full of lies. My friends who are religous are acually doing better in school than me. There is no way to prove without an invalid result that religous people are dumber.

[Tokzic]

What I'm mostly saying, is not that all science is bogus, and not that most of it is, not even that half of it is. But what I can easily say is... here I'll put it like this. If you have a huge math problem, countless variables, sure you can put it into a computer and get the right answer... but if part of your information is falsified, even one part of it... then the rest of your equation is moot, completely destroyed, because you are now moving in the wrong direction. It's really a bad metaphor, I know, I'm operating at partial capacity. But probably a better metaphor would be, if I were to give you a hundred 'facts' and I simply told you "one of these is an outright lie and I know it for a fact." Assuming that I'm not lying that there's a falsehood within the list... how do you, the common man, know which one in the list is the fallacy? Common sense and firsthand knowledge can only eliminate so many of them.

...please be gentle with me for right now, I'm certain that after I sleep or if I give it a couple of hours, I'll probably look at this post I'm writing right now and slap the headache right back into my head... but maybe if we can get a lighthearted chuckle out of the next post I won't be too bad off.

For the most part, I think we both agree on one thing, there's a lot of bull****. Truth is, there's a lot of bull**** on both sides, LOTS OF IT. And that should always lead to Dasken's view of "If the atheists are right, it doesn't matter what I believe."

You don't seem to have a very keen grasp on science or sociology. Science is not a conspiracy out to kill us all. Science is based on logical conclusions, and your metaphors are completely uncomparable to what it's really like.

For one, you act as though every single scientific claim is based on the scientific claim before it. Science isn't a series. Making a false claim that drinking coffee every day gives you huge muscles doesn't mean that the guy after him who claims that people have skin is automatically wrong.

The bigger problem, however, is that people aren't sheep - when one scientist makes a claim, it is going to be subject to double-checking and criticism from the entire scientific community. It's not like when someone says "HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW THAT I JUST DID A STUDY AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE'S A CABBAGE FACTORY IN THE MOON'S CORE IT'S SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN" every single scientist goes "oh okay well if it's scientifically proven then i have no problems with it". Theories are constantly checked against one another and further delved into, and usually flaws get found out pretty quickly.

In any case, none of what you're arguing has any context with the topic at hand. There is no scientific evidence being hidden from us that proves that your religion is right. Theories that contradict your religion weren't made by evil fake scientists out to ruin your day. None of this has anything to do with intelligence in relation to belief in or rejection of a god.

[ZanasoBayncuh]

You don't seem to have a very keen grasp on science or sociology. Science is not a conspiracy out to kill us all. Science is based on logical conclusions, and your metaphors are completely uncomparable to what it's really like.

Headache at the time, I said in the post that I felt poorly and wasn't going to be incredibly lucid.

For one, you act as though every single scientific claim is based on the scientific claim before it. Science isn't a series. Making a false claim that drinking coffee every day gives you huge muscles doesn't mean that the guy after him who claims that people have skin is automatically wrong.

Actually that's not what I'm doing at all. What I'm implying is that when you get a bad answer to one question, you are led to ask wrong questions of the next problem, the original fallacy can be either of a mistake or a lie and we can no longer tell the difference because by then we have gotten that much further into wrong questions. Or they could all be right altogether, I am not necessarily debating what has been right or what has been wrong, or what is currently now. But my prodding was more in the line of, (exaggerated, I know) "I have determined sky is green. But if sky is green. Why do I see blue?"

The bigger problem, however, is that people aren't sheep - when one scientist makes a claim, it is going to be subject to double-checking and criticism from the entire scientific community. It's not like when someone says "HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW THAT I JUST DID A STUDY AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE'S A CABBAGE FACTORY IN THE MOON'S CORE IT'S SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN" every single scientist goes "oh okay well if it's scientifically proven then i have no problems with it". Theories are constantly checked against one another and further delved into, and usually flaws get found out pretty quickly.

This seems to have been written without having noticed what we mentioned earlier. It is logical, once you think about it, as many "scientists" as there are moving about and everyone on their own types of tasks and such that not every small claim or finding is necessarily likely to be given the time of double checking by multiple groups. It isn't that most aren't, but no one could possibly say with full clarity that nothing slips through the cracks, it's human error and it is everywhere regardless of our efforts to minimize it.

In any case, none of what you're arguing has any context with the topic at hand.

I agree... however I'm pretty sure that it was easily enough established that IQ and a person's choice of belief or theology are not relevant factors in the first place. So devonin and I (I assume he/she was aware) took it in a different direction. It is likely that this is largely due to the fact that he/she and I were the only two posting at the time. No biggie, I'll just let it get back to the topic and stop posting here after this since there's really nothing left to say on the topic past the fact of the two key factors of the topic being absolutely irrelevant to each other.

There is no scientific evidence being hidden from us that proves that your religion is right. Theories that contradict your religion weren't made by evil fake scientists out to ruin your day.

That isn't what I was saying. Though, no offense, this is very cliche of a response and goes along with what I was saying earlier about people placing science in this "magical, can never do wrong" pedistal.

None of this has anything to do with intelligence in relation to belief in or rejection of a god.

Agreed, I'm gonna go quietly now, having enjoyed this conversation. Hope I haven't particularly gotten on anyone's nerves, just came and spoke for one reason really: I like debate, it makes me think.

"We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking." ~Steven Hawking

[devonin]

You can't judge IQ based on if a person is religous or not. It doen't work that studies full of lies. My friends who are religous are acually doing better in school than me. There is no way to prove without an invalid result that religous people are dumber.

Rather than simply delete your post, I'll give you a first warning: I'll even do it all in red so it looks official:

Read the thread before you post in the thread or you risk looking incredibly stupid and unobservant.

At no point in the study, or the discussion of the study did anyone try to claim that someone's IQ was based in any way on whether they were religious or not.

Please understand the topic at hand before you comment on it.

[Tokzic]

This seems to have been written without having noticed what we mentioned earlier. It is logical, once you think about it, as many "scientists" as there are moving about and everyone on their own types of tasks and such that not every small claim or finding is necessarily likely to be given the time of double checking by multiple groups. It isn't that most aren't, but no one could possibly say with full clarity that nothing slips through the cracks, it's human error and it is everywhere regardless of our efforts to minimize it.An excellent example of how this isn't nearly on the scale that you're making it out to be is Wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone. Obviously not every single bit of science is sound, but when you have millions of people with different specialities viewing the same facts, there is bound to be someone who notices error and feels the need to correct it. Some are glaring errors, and others are minor, poorly worded or slightly shaky, and some people have their interpretation of the facts skewed by it, but all of the errors tend to be weeded out in the end.

[devonin]

Further, "People are prone to error, sometimes by accident and sometimes on purpose" is a horrible reason to try arguing that you ought not to believe anything you hear.

Some people are prone to hijack a plane, should we ban all plane flights?

[ZanasoBayncuh]

Further, "People are prone to error, sometimes by accident and sometimes on purpose" is a horrible reason to try arguing that you ought not to believe anything you hear.

Some people are prone to hijack a plane, should we ban all plane flights?

I guess I can leave with your misunderstanding that I meant it to that extreme. But the correct phrase is "Don't believe everything you hear." But in this case, I meant read, and you're still overlooking the fact that EVERYTHING doesn't get doublechecked, but I'm done, I just need to get this thing unsubscribed.

[devonin]

If you don't mean your statement in the extreme, don't use language that indicates you mean it in the extreme. Your posts indicated a fairly scathing indictment of science as a whole, based it seemed, on the fact that the average layman elects to not individually fact-check every scientific concept they are exposed to.

[Dark Ronin]

What I'm saying is that people act as if ALL of it is completely pure and without infidelity.

I'm not saying that it always happens, what I'm trying to point out is that as it does happen more than we would like to think, and more often than the scientific body would like to portray.

You seem to have the idea that I'm speaking partisanly, by that last sentence. But as for the rest of it, yes there is Scientific Method, by which no one... or at least no science textbook that I've seen can even agree to how many steps there are or what they are past the first two. The fact is anyone could test something get some results then say they got other results and get several to attest to it. Not every other group has the time to spend testing every little result out there especially when they agree with the findings naturally and biasly. It isn't necessarily a big conspiracy... if someone walked up to you and asked a question based on opinion, offering you a possible answer, if that answers sounds good to you then you might not bother looking into it. All it takes from time to time is liar #1.

I may be wrong here but what I think your trying to get across is that we hear all the crap about how this is has been scientifically proven and so it must be completely true, and 90% of the people out there seeing it on TV completely suck up every bit of it. It really goes along with what I was saying earlier about how everything we think we know could be wrong. You make a good point (I say this mostly because I tried to make the same one), but there is a flaw.

The scientific community does not simply accept facts. The people who do the major studies do them in hopes of becoming famous or helping humanity. They want to make sure all their bases are covered and most spend a good part of their lives working on them. Once completed the studies are peer reviewed then published. Then they are reviewed some more, And after hundreds of people do the exact same study and get the exact same results it is accepted as fact. The true scientific community is extremely thorough.

I think what you’re referring to is more of the mass media. If that’s what you mean then you’re right on spot. You can’t trust anything you hear on TV. I've even caught the news lying outright several times. 80% of it is propaganda. But people think, “Wow that guy looks smart he must be know what he’s talking about”, or “I saw it on the news so it must be true”. Sadly Devonin caught me in one of those moments after a conference I went to, a man at the conference clamed to be important and had a 15 minuet reading of his achievements, so I just completely accepted everything he said. It can happen to the best of us. But it’s not some big conspiracy. We have the internet now so you can research pretty much anything, and we can always do research on our own. If you find a flaw in an article in a scientific journal, report it! You could become famous, that’s what the journals are for. I personally have never seen a mistake in any scientific study, I look for them, I just can’t find one...