6 ms·

>> Show me the statistical argument for one vs the other The research shows a correlation between intelligence(/education) and not being religious. 30 seconds

by berntb 10y ago

>> Show me the statistical argument for one vs the other The research shows a correlation between intelligence(/education) and not being religious. 30 seconds with Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#S... >> 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 I already discussed the problems with arguing single data points for statistical correlations. See my comment on the brother comment of yours. Again: There seem to be less correlation between intelligence and rationality than we usually think. (At least, as I thought when I was young enough to still have hair. :-) ) (So I am not going to touch the personal arguments. Let me just note that your examples are flawed. Einstein called himself "agnostic": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Eins... Newton was, well, quite crazy. :-) Also, he was hardly modern, he lived long before evolution was known. Before that, you really needed some form of designer to explain life. C S Lewis' analytical self reflection don't impress. A bunch of years ago, I read part of a biography and how he chose religion in WWI. His motivation was flawed. Literature insight is something else than rationality. That said, some of my intellectual idols are religious. E.g. Knuth and Larry Wall.)

sturgill 10y ago
Reading the link you provided (and admittedly not doing any other research on the subject while on the company's time), this struck me as relevant: > Controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants. So... American Protestants. Okay. In the scope of living people, that's... quite specific. >> I already discussed the problems with arguing single data points for statistical correlations. My use of these examples was not to counteract a statistical argument, but the opening sentence: >>> I always hear about the mythical intelligent religious person but somehow, they remain elusive. The rest of your rebuttal also appears to misunderstand my use of the specific examples. It was a simple exercise in showing that religious intellectuals are not a mythical creature.
- berntb 10y ago
  Re intelligence -- most examinations are done in the Western Protestant world, for obvious reasons. (I.e. in the Muslim world it can be all the time ay up to suicide to admit to atheism...) >> The rest of your rebuttal also appears to misunderstand my use of the specific examples. I discussed that and referenced it with "See my comment on the brother comment of yours."
  - berntb 10y ago
    As an addendum to my comment: I think I wasn't clear, so sturgill missed my trivial point -- I meant that it was not rational to believe in supernatural phenomena without good support. And intelligence is probably less correlated with rationality than you'd naively think, so of course you'll find highly intelligent people that believe in anything. For instance, I've talked to a guy with mental issues that believed in lots of conspiracy theories. And so on. (And many hundreds of years old books are not good support; there is better support and more witnesses that Elvis lives. And so on. This is a really old discussion.)

by berntb 10y ago

sturgill 10y ago

Reading the link you provided (and admittedly not doing any other research on the subject while on the company's time), this struck me as relevant: > Controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants. So... American Protestants. Okay. In the scope of living people, that's... quite specific. >> I already discussed the problems with arguing single data points for statistical correlations. My use of these examples was not to counteract a statistical argument, but the opening sentence: >>> I always hear about the mythical intelligent religious person but somehow, they remain elusive. The rest of your rebuttal also appears to misunderstand my use of the specific examples. It was a simple exercise in showing that religious intellectuals are not a mythical creature.

berntb 10y ago
Re intelligence -- most examinations are done in the Western Protestant world, for obvious reasons. (I.e. in the Muslim world it can be all the time ay up to suicide to admit to atheism...) >> The rest of your rebuttal also appears to misunderstand my use of the specific examples. I discussed that and referenced it with "See my comment on the brother comment of yours."
- berntb 10y ago
  As an addendum to my comment: I think I wasn't clear, so sturgill missed my trivial point -- I meant that it was not rational to believe in supernatural phenomena without good support. And intelligence is probably less correlated with rationality than you'd naively think, so of course you'll find highly intelligent people that believe in anything. For instance, I've talked to a guy with mental issues that believed in lots of conspiracy theories. And so on. (And many hundreds of years old books are not good support; there is better support and more witnesses that Elvis lives. And so on. This is a really old discussion.)