4 ms·

I guess that you are smarter than to use anecdotal data points to argue against a statistical argument yourself? At least, for any other subject..? (What does

by berntb 10y ago

I guess that you are smarter than to use anecdotal data points to argue against a statistical argument yourself? At least, for any other subject..? (What does it say about a position that intelligent adherents can't reason about it?)

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
The GP said such people were mythical, that's not a statistical claim it's an absolute claim. One counter-example destroys such a position. Inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence may be true, just not sure what it tells us. A statistical appeal to authority?? Many more people are theistic or spiritual than are religious -- I doubt any statistics exist for that, but again proving a truth that tells us nothing about the basic proposition seems pretty worthless. You appear to think reasoning about a position requires someone to come to your conclusion. Re the anecdotal nature of the data-points, are you disputing that the mentioned people are intelligent. What in particular is questionable about those data-points, they don't disprove the aforesaid conjecture but they do cast doubt on the implied conclusion being drawn.
- berntb 10y ago
  >> The GP said such people were mythical An absolute value would mean rationality was totally correlated with intelligence. It isn't. I posted this in another comment -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/the-difference-between-rationality-and-intelligence.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/the-differe... I doubt that was meant, either. There have been studies, most show that intelligent people are less likely to be religious. The more education, the less religion. Etc. It is, of course, a statistical thing. (I grew up in Sweden and can tell you that to get a large fraction of (mentally healthy) people to be religious, they need to grow up in a religious environment -- without anyone really contradicting that world view. It was a bit of a shock for me the first time I went to Ireland for vacation, since I knew that a large part of the locals were really religious, but they were sane.)
sturgill 10y ago
I'll copy the points of interest from the original post verbatim and reply in kind. > I always hear about the mythical intelligent religious person but somehow, they remain elusive. I offered myself as a simple example. I'm neither the smartest guy nor the best Christian, but I consider myself reasonably intelligent and I try hard to live by my beliefs. I also offered several other historical counterexamples. I don't see a statistical argument here. But it could be my religion showing. Many of the founders of modern philosophy believed in some form of a Supreme Being. I would venture to say that this is true of most of human history up until the last 20-30 years. Whether from cultural influences, expectations, or otherwise, many of the smartest people in history have had some religious belief. That religious belief may not have been mainstream or consistent with the dominant theology of the era (see America's founding fathers and the prevalence of Deism), but there is a conspicuous absence of outright atheism. Even in more modern times you see very intelligent people with some form of religious belief. From Newton, to Einstein, to Godel, to C S Lewis: these were very smart people who also had belief in some form of God. You don't have to agree with everything they thought or said, but you would be wrong to say they were not intelligent. In short, intelligent religious people certainly aren't "mythical." > As a general rule, religiosity goes down as intelligence goes up. The thesis that there is an inverse relationship between religion and intelligence is not evident when you look at the arc of human history. And if you take the most charitable view: "Of people who are alive today, there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence" there is no proof of causation. For the sake of argument, I'll consent that there is a growing divide between "religious" and "intelligent." Given that the preponderance of evidence suggests that intelligence is largely hereditary, what would explain this shift? One could argue that expanding our understanding of the universe is responsible for this divide. That as people know more they believe less. But that doesn't appear to pan out when you look at a longer view of human history. Did the Newton's of the past become less religious as their knowledge increased? I don't see it. It seems more likely that this divide is unique (or at least more sharply pronounced) in today's society. It could be that this is because it is more acceptable in today's world to be harshly critical of belief in general. That is, while there have always been fighting between sects it was not socially acceptable to be hostile towards belief in general. This is an interesting argument, but is not dismissable nor provable. It could just as easily be that the growing availability of universities and colleges (that are widely more liberal than the general population) impacts impressionable 18-22 years olds who are branching out on their own for the first time. That a growing proportion of intelligent people are being exposed to anti-religious zealots in the form of their mentors at a very impressionable time. Show me the statistical argument for one vs the other and we can have a debate centered around numbers. Flaming me for providing counterexamples to an offensive and hyperbolic comment hardly seems like a rational counterpoint. To point your question back to you: what does it say about your position that you can't reason about it?

by berntb 10y ago

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

The GP said such people were mythical, that's not a statistical claim it's an absolute claim. One counter-example destroys such a position. Inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence may be true, just not sure what it tells us. A statistical appeal to authority?? Many more people are theistic or spiritual than are religious -- I doubt any statistics exist for that, but again proving a truth that tells us nothing about the basic proposition seems pretty worthless. You appear to think reasoning about a position requires someone to come to your conclusion. Re the anecdotal nature of the data-points, are you disputing that the mentioned people are intelligent. What in particular is questionable about those data-points, they don't disprove the aforesaid conjecture but they do cast doubt on the implied conclusion being drawn.

berntb 10y ago
>> The GP said such people were mythical An absolute value would mean rationality was totally correlated with intelligence. It isn't. I posted this in another comment -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/the-difference-between-rationality-and-intelligence.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/the-differe... I doubt that was meant, either. There have been studies, most show that intelligent people are less likely to be religious. The more education, the less religion. Etc. It is, of course, a statistical thing. (I grew up in Sweden and can tell you that to get a large fraction of (mentally healthy) people to be religious, they need to grow up in a religious environment -- without anyone really contradicting that world view. It was a bit of a shock for me the first time I went to Ireland for vacation, since I knew that a large part of the locals were really religious, but they were sane.)

sturgill 10y ago

I'll copy the points of interest from the original post verbatim and reply in kind. > I always hear about the mythical intelligent religious person but somehow, they remain elusive. I offered myself as a simple example. I'm neither the smartest guy nor the best Christian, but I consider myself reasonably intelligent and I try hard to live by my beliefs. I also offered several other historical counterexamples. I don't see a statistical argument here. But it could be my religion showing. Many of the founders of modern philosophy believed in some form of a Supreme Being. I would venture to say that this is true of most of human history up until the last 20-30 years. Whether from cultural influences, expectations, or otherwise, many of the smartest people in history have had some religious belief. That religious belief may not have been mainstream or consistent with the dominant theology of the era (see America's founding fathers and the prevalence of Deism), but there is a conspicuous absence of outright atheism. Even in more modern times you see very intelligent people with some form of religious belief. From Newton, to Einstein, to Godel, to C S Lewis: these were very smart people who also had belief in some form of God. You don't have to agree with everything they thought or said, but you would be wrong to say they were not intelligent. In short, intelligent religious people certainly aren't "mythical." > As a general rule, religiosity goes down as intelligence goes up. The thesis that there is an inverse relationship between religion and intelligence is not evident when you look at the arc of human history. And if you take the most charitable view: "Of people who are alive today, there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence" there is no proof of causation. For the sake of argument, I'll consent that there is a growing divide between "religious" and "intelligent." Given that the preponderance of evidence suggests that intelligence is largely hereditary, what would explain this shift? One could argue that expanding our understanding of the universe is responsible for this divide. That as people know more they believe less. But that doesn't appear to pan out when you look at a longer view of human history. Did the Newton's of the past become less religious as their knowledge increased? I don't see it. It seems more likely that this divide is unique (or at least more sharply pronounced) in today's society. It could be that this is because it is more acceptable in today's world to be harshly critical of belief in general. That is, while there have always been fighting between sects it was not socially acceptable to be hostile towards belief in general. This is an interesting argument, but is not dismissable nor provable. It could just as easily be that the growing availability of universities and colleges (that are widely more liberal than the general population) impacts impressionable 18-22 years olds who are branching out on their own for the first time. That a growing proportion of intelligent people are being exposed to anti-religious zealots in the form of their mentors at a very impressionable time. Show me the statistical argument for one vs the other and we can have a debate centered around numbers. Flaming me for providing counterexamples to an offensive and hyperbolic comment hardly seems like a rational counterpoint. To point your question back to you: what does it say about your position that you can't reason about it?