Support NeoGAF

[News Bot]

and yet most of the great scientific discoveries across time were made by people who believed in a deity
go figure

Imagine how we could have done if only they didn't believe in anything!!!!

 

[k_trout]

Imagine how we could have done if only they didn't believe in anything!!!!

i do often try to imagine it
we would probably be colanising the solar system at this point without the retarding effects of organised religion

 

[SpoonyBard]

You mean this?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=649775&page=2

I don't think that study was as much about racism, as prioritizing your own interests above of what would be best for society. Wanting your children to have the best school possible is not exactly the highest offence in racism scale...

 

[Foffy]

i do often try to imagine it
we would probably be colanising the solar system at this point without the retarding effects of organised religion

We need to get shit in order here before we fuck up space.

 

[k_trout]

We need to get shit in order here before we fuck up space.

no argument here
and athiesim is where we start breaking down the old order
so we can sort the sh*t out

 

[V_Arnold]

I don't think that study was as much about racism, as prioritizing your own interests above of what would be best for society. Wanting your children to have the best school possible is not exactly the highest offence in racism scale...

Yeaaah. Our society is like this exactly because everyone is "prioritizing their own interests" above anyone elses, and wonders why everyone else is "such an asshole" in everyday life. The CEO's, the politicans, the lobbying corporate executives are only prioritizing their own interests above pretty much anything else. You see the result.

 

[k_trout]

Yeaaah. Our society is like this exactly because everyone is "prioritizing their own interests" above anyone elses, and wonders why everyone else is "such an asshole" in everyday life. The CEO's, the politicans, the lobbying corporate executives are only prioritizing their own interests above pretty much anything else. You see the result.

true

who coined the phrase "f*ck you i got mine"?

cause they got it spot on

 

[Z..]

and yet the point of the the thread is that smart people arent religious or are less likely to be
but............

Nobody's saying religious people are dumber than non religious people. Just that on average, smart people are less likely to embrace religion. Which usually comes down to the fact that smart people are alot more comfortable with uncertainty and their own insignificance in the grand scheme of things.

This is slightly off topic, but in my view of things, the whole point of religion is to instill moral values through alegory in easy to understand parables. The fact that the teachings are driven into people's hearts through "fear" (hell) instead of logic (smarter people understand why it's wrong to harm others, they don't need fear to motivate them to act a certain way) are what leads me to believe that no founder of any religion truly believed what he preached, but was mererly someone attempting to point society in the right direction... and smart enough to understand that some (at the time, most) people might need a little bit more persuasion than just a solid argument.

Sadly, things always spiral out of control when lesser minds who do not understand the alegorical nature of religion and truly believe the cautionary tales gain control of that same movement (which always happens) and decide to aggressively expand.

 

[k_trout]

Nobody's saying religious people are dumber than non religious people. Just that on average, smart people are less likely to embrace religion. Which usually comes down to the fact that smart people are alot more comfortable with uncertainty and their own insignificance in the grand scheme of things.

This is slightly off topic, but in my view of things, the whole point of religion is to instill moral values through alegory in easy to understand parables. The fact that the teachings are driven into people's hearts through "fear" (hell) instead of logic (smarter people understand why it's wrong to harm others, they don't need fear to motivate them to act a certain way) are what leads me to believe that no founder of any religion truly believed what he preached, but was mererly someone attempting to point society in the right direction... and smart enough to understand that some (at the time, most) people might need a little bit more persuasion than just a solid argument.

Sadly, things always spiral out of control when lesser minds who do not understand the alegorical nature of religion and truly believe the cautionary tales gain control of that same movement (which always happens) and decide to aggressively expand.

nice post
im not sure about the smart people are more comfortable with their own insignificance though
but i like the points you make
alot of truth there
in my opinion anyway

 

[jorma]

Not sure about homophobic, but I have met plenty of racist intelligent people. Not sure why its hard to believe.

My own observation is that highly intelligent people tend to be more extreme.

I was on a Mensa mailing list about a decade ago and we held an informal election to compare it with the (Swedish) general public, and in the Mensa vote the leftist party got around 30% (6-7% in the general election) while the rightmost party got about 50% in the Mensa elections (25% general election) . The Social Democrats would have been nearly eradicated had Swedish Mensa had their way

And yeah, there were racists there too.

 

[SpoonyBard]

Yeaaah. Our society is like this exactly because everyone is "prioritizing their own interests" above anyone elses, and wonders why everyone else is "such an asshole" in everyday life. The CEO's, the politicans, the lobbying corporate executives are only prioritizing their own interests above pretty much anything else. You see the result.

Yeah, true, but that's not exactly racism.

 

[Septimius]

i actually thought about not using a-priori then decided i would not treat GAF as stupid

i do like word salads though and as we know salad needs tossing sometimes
dont know what else to say to you as your replies are more of a comment on my personal inabilities than a discussion about the topic

These posts are some really bizarre attacks of a guy's posting style. Kind of ironic that you can so doggedly rag on a guy about not contributing to a thread and simultaneously be the one contributing the least.

P.S. Jung's theories of human religious tendencies aren't meant to prove the existence of God.

The whole time, I was asking for a restatement of an initially flawed argument. I don't think it makes for the basis of a good discussion, and instead of restating what was initially said, a lot of tangents on a nonsensical statement were made. As such, I was still pursuing a good foundation of a discussion, where "it is my opinion" was the response.

As such, I still tried to reel the discussion back from tangents on nonsense, and get a valid foundation of a good discussion. Jung's theories of religion weren't mentioned until it was said that it was what was being presented, and I said it was still coming from flaky ground, and as such came off as nonsensical and as abusing well-established theories to further a point, which presents itself overwhelmingly when you look at the disparity between the first argument and Jung's theories.

 

[teruterubozu]

Some days I believe, some days I don't. I fluctuate between intelligence and stupidity on a regular basis it seems.

 

[k_trout]

The whole time, I was asking for a restatement of an initially flawed argument. I don't think it makes for the basis of a good discussion, and instead of restating what was initially said, a lot of tangents on a nonsensical statement were made. As such, I was still pursuing a good foundation of a discussion, where "it is my opinion" was the response.

As such, I still tried to reel the discussion back from tangents on nonsense, and get a valid foundation of a good discussion. Jung's theories of religion weren't mentioned until it was said that it was what was being presented, and I said it was still coming from flaky ground, and as such came off as nonsensical and as abusing well-established theories to further a point, which presents itself overwhelmingly when you look at the disparity between the first argument and Jung's theories.

ok
i do not believe being religious and being intelligent are mutually exclusive in any way
or being religious and being less intelligent becasue of it
or being more intelligent makes for less religious......is that less nonsensical?
no matter how its spun thats the initial tone of the thread - maybe im wrong here - but thats the way i take it

i still dont know where i went off on a tangent, i stuck to the topic as well as can be expected when my post style was brought into question rather than its content - your opposition to my opinion does not make it nonsense in any way by the way

in my opinion - was in direct response to a reply - go see for yourself

you can not expect a good conversation if you say the other person is flaky and speaking nonsense
thats not how a good discussion goes no matter how much you oppose the opinions or the style those opinions are voiced

 

[dan2026]

Hasn't religion always been the traditional enemy of science and learning?

You dont want the common man too smart, lest he stop believing. Or worse believe in something else.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Hasn't religion always been the traditional enemy of science and learning?

No, historically religious orders like Monasteries have been centers of learning and science.

 

[Timedog]

i do not believe being religious and being intelligent are mutually exclusive in any way
or being religious and being less intelligent becasue of it or more intelligent makes for less religious
no matter how its spun thats the initial tone of the thread - maybe im wrong here - but thats the way i take it

This makes no sense. Maybe you should break it into several sentences, instead of one nonsensical and rambling one, and re-read each sentence for clarity. Punctuation and proper paragraph structure may help as well.

Hasn't religion always been the traditional enemy of science and learning?

You dont want the common man too smart, lest he stop believing. Or worse believe in something else.

It seems to me that this happened once people realized, with scores upon scores of scientific evidence, that god's word was incredibly fallible.

 

[archnemesis]

Hasn't religion always been the traditional enemy of science and learning?

No, there are several examples where religion has embraced both learning and exploration of the realities. I wouldn't really call it science though since the scientific method is a fairly recent concept.

 

[Septimius]

ok
i do not believe being religious and being intelligent are mutually exclusive in any way
or being religious and being less intelligent becasue of it or more intelligent makes for less religious
no matter how its spun thats the initial tone of the thread - maybe im wrong here - but thats the way i take it

i still dont know where i went off on a tangent, i stuck to the topic as well as can be expected when my post style was brought into question rather than its content - your opposition to my opinion does not make it nonsense in any way by the way

in my opinion - was in direct response to a reply - go see for yourself

you can not expect a good conversation if you say the other person is flaky and speaking nonsense
thats not how a good discussion goes no matter how much you oppose the opinions or the style those opinions are voiced

I don't mean to make this into a chase-down of your style or anything. I reacted to your initial point, and I said it was based on some fallacies that rendered the statement moot. Then I heard that was "your opinion", and I said it was hard to discuss something if the first point was rendered moot, to which you continued explaining in the same lane that you started, and it didn't come off as coherent to me.

As such, I merely wished to reel in the tangents, and wished for us to have a good foundation for a discussion. As such, I said the things about flaky foundation to present you with the fact that you came across as having an agenda, and abusing well-established theories to make them come across. I have no intention of attacking you, I wished merely to state how you came across. I hope you aren't doing what you come across as doing, but initially, you were called a troll. I wished to show you why.

I really have no intention of attacking you for anything, and I'm sorry if it's seen as if I did, but that was really merely what I wished to help. And from there take a step back and start fresh on a foundation that was worth discussing from.

I'll just step away from this thread, but please see that I see this meta-discussion as a digression the thread should be without. No matter how it arose, I think we've come as far as we can.

 

[k_trout]

This makes no sense. Maybe you should break it into several sentences, instead of one nonsensical and rambling one, and re-read each sentence for clarity. Punctuation and proper paragraph structure may help as well.



It seems to me that this happened once people realized, with scores upon scores of scientific evidence, that god's word was incredibly fallible.

altered by your request
do you get it now?

 

[Timedog]

altered by your request
do you get it now?

Are you replying solely to me in the middle of a sentence? No one reading that is going to know what you're talking about once they get to that point in the thread.

But nevermind, please do not pay me any further mind and feel free to go on discussing the topic with others. I don't have the energy.

 

[Partial Gamification]

The study doesn't say being religious and being analytically intelligent are mutually exclusive. Its not that the more religious one is, the less analytically intelligent that they are; the meta-analysis suggests that given an [analytically] intelligent person, they would likely not be religious. One must ask what these categories are, how they are defined. What measures intelligence, is there a bias (some of the studies used were criticized but that was the point of examining 62 of them)?

The Scopes Trial was in 1925. I wonder if that motivated the first studies. It seems to me that the more one learns, the more unknown presents itself. Religion can be a mental box, defining a Universe versus examining it is more constrictive. Religion can also be inspirational and beneficial to a group that engages in [positive] shared experiences to foster their community. "Intelligence" has come a long way too, even if it has much father to go, there are a variety of Theories of Intelligence.

This meta-analysis only targets analytic intelligence, which surely is not the full measure of human intelligence despite the ongoing debate about how to define the rest of it. Also, although the review encompasses all studies conducted from 1928 to 2012, it only does so for studies written in the English language (two foreign language studies were considered only because a translation was available). The authors believe there are similar studies conducted in Japan and Latin America, but they did not have the time or resources to include them.

 

[k_trout]

The study doesn't say being religious and being analytically intelligent are mutually exclusive. Its not that the more religious one is, the less analytically intelligent that they are; the meta-analysis suggests that given an [analytically] intelligent person, they would likely not be religious. One must ask what these categories are, how they are defined. What measures intelligence, is there a bias (some of the studies used were criticized but that was the point of examining 62 of them)?

The Scopes Trial was in 1925. I wonder if that motivated the first studies. It seems to me that the more one learns, the more unknown presents itself. Religion can be a mental box, defining a Universe versus examining it is more constrictive. Religion can also be inspirational and beneficial to a group that engages in [positive] shared experiences to foster their community. "Intelligence" has come a long way too, even if it has much father to go, there are a variety of Theories of Intelligence.

great post and thanks for the link
i was at a talk by Jesse schell at the weekend and he mentioned Howard Gardner and his intelligence types
and i had forgotten the guys (Howard Gardner) name lol

 

[HunkyDory]

This is an interesting study, although it's important to point out that we're only looking at a modest relationship (average r = .24) between intelligence and religiosity here. If there is an effect of intelligence on religious belief - which seems to be the direction of cause the authors are hinting at - then it's hardly a large one.

From the effect sizes reported in the individual papers it also looks as though there's a lot of variation in the effect sizes reported in individual studies, which I guess is a function of methodological and sampling differences. I've never done a meta-analysis before so I really don't understand how you pool the effect sizes together to arrive at a weighted average - can anybody give a quick dummies' guide?

 

[Partial Gamification]

This is an interesting study, although it's important to point out that we're only looking at a modest relationship (average r = .24) between intelligence and religiosity here. If there is an effect of intelligence on religious belief - which seems to be the direction of cause the authors are hinting at - then it's hardly a large one.

From the effect sizes reported in the individual papers it also looks as though there's a lot of variation in the effect sizes reported in individual studies, which I guess is a function of methodological and sampling differences. I've never done a meta-analysis before so I really don't understand how you pool the effect sizes together to arrive at a weighted average - can anybody give a quick dummies' guide?

It comes down to the guidelines for funding the research and even guidelines within different fields.

There are many issues and controversies in the analysis of meta-analytic data. First, let's define some important terms:

Homogeneity and heterogeneity describe the degree of between-study variability in a group of studies. It is probably appropriate to combine the results from a homogenous set of studies, but many would argue that results from heterogeneous studies should not be combined. The Q statistic, interpreted using a chi-square distribution, is often used as a test of homogeneity.

Fixed effects models consider only within-study variability. The assumption is that studies use identical methods, patients, and measurements; that they should produce identical results; and that differences are only due to within-study variation. By using a fixed effects model, the researcher answers the question: "Did the treatment produce benefit on average in the studies at hand?" The Peto and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios are both based on a fixed effects model.

Random effects models consider both between-study and within-study variability. The assumption is that studies are a random sample from the universe of all possible studies. With a random effects model, the researcher answers the question: "Will the treatment produce benefit ‘on average’?" The DerSimonian Laird statistic is based on a random effects model.

Fixed and random effects models can give very different answers, and you can create examples where either model gives counterintuitive results (see Petitti, page 92). Usually, though, the answers provided by these different modeling assumptions are similar. Differences only arise when studies are not homogenous. In a comparison of 22 meta-analyses, fixed and random effects models gave the same answer in 19 out of 22. In 3 cases, fixed effects models were significant while random effects models were not (Berlin, 1989 in Petitti textbook, pg 94).

When there is significant heterogeneity, the between-study variance becomes much larger than the within, and studies of different sample size receive relatively similar weight. When there is homogeneity, sample size dominates, and both models give similar results. Random effects models are therefore more "conservative" and generate a wider confidence interval. Put another way, a random effects model is less likely to show a significant treatment effect than a fixed effects model.

In general, if the studies are homogenous, the researchers should use a fixed effects model. If the studies are heterogeneous, the researchers (and you, the reader) should first ask why! While it may be appropriate to do a random effects analysis on all of the studies, it may be better to identify an important subgroup difference (i.e. studies using one dose showed significant effect, while lower dose did not) and then do a fixed effects analysis of each and report all of the results.

A term you will encounter in many meta-analyses is "sensitivity analysis". A sensitivity analysis is a way of looking at only certain studies, certain groups of patients, or certain interventions. For example, a meta-analysis of aspirin in prevention of acute MI might first analyze all studies, but then also look separately at only studies of men and studies of women.

The article by Hasselblad is an excellent starting point for budding meta-analysts, with lots of examples and formulae. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests is another area of growing interest - how do you combine sensitivities, specificities, and so on. However, details of calculations for homogeneity, fixed effects models, and random effects models are beyond the scope of this course.
source

Here is course syllabus on how-to conduct the studies from University of Rochester (author's school).

Here is a Harvard resource-guide.

the wiki page too.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Okay, but are less religious people more intelligent?

Hah, gotcha science!

 

[CorporateClown]

This news make me....euphoric.

Bravo. I tip my fedora to you.

 

[k_trout]

"Hey, your argument sucks, it's pure semantics! Let me prove my point with the latin root of this word."

Brilliant move. So fun.

lol
good spot
i missed that completely

 

[Foffy]

no argument here
and athiesim is where we start breaking down the old order
so we can sort the sh*t out

The major issues of our society only have religion in some of them. The disastrous effects and ways of a global capitalistic economy is not the fault of religion, but those in the top causing problems for everybody else, where short term gains of currency are the goals, not the well being of human life and value. I think that's a far bigger cancer on the world than anything else.

 

[Z..]

Why did he get banned? What did I miss? oO

 

[Aquamarine]

One would think intelligence is a nebulous, hopelessly complicated matter that cannot be measured with any precision, accuracy, or confidence. And that it means very many things and very many different types for different people. Why then are people trusting in this study?

They seem to be using IQ as the metric here...which can be very inadequate in determining whether someone is intelligent. It may point at someone who can problem-solve with incredible speeds and have wonderful memory retention, but that doesn't present us with a very holistic view of what it means to be an intelligent person in today's world (that definition includes factors such as common sense, wisdom that comes from life experience, etc.)

However, I will side with the article in that because it's extracting a perceived correlation from a meta-analysis of many different studies...it's not designed to be "trusted." There is simply not enough conclusive evidence out there to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a worldwide correlation between intelligence and apathy towards religion.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I have so little faith in this type of "excel science" that this might as well have been published by the Onion.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

"beyond reasonable doubt"?

This isn't a court of law, you don't need to prove things beyond reasonable doubt, just p<0.05
I haven't taken a look at the study, but if it is IQ they looked at, then a more accurate thread title would be "People with higher IQ are less religious".

IQ=/=Intelligence (mostly because the latter is such a nebulous concept).

 

[jorma]

Why did he get banned? What did I miss? oO

I tried to figure it out by looking at the post history but i really can't. I guess i missed it too.

 

[twobear]

Hasn't religion always been the traditional enemy of science and learning?

You might want to read up about who was laying the foundations for the European Renaissance while the Europeans were in the Dark Ages. The term 'Islamic Golden Age' would be a good, and possibly surprising, place to start.

 

[Protein]

Anecdotal, but 90% of the intelligent people I know are some form of agnostic or atheist.

 

[OttomanScribe]

A long standing conflict between religion and scientific endeavor is an ahistorical fantasy.


'GPA (grade point average), UEE (university entrance exams), Mensa membership, and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests, among others.'


are the ways intelligence were measured in the studies. Intelligence is rarely easily reliably measured, and I could see no reliable indication that socio-economics were accounted for. Though I skim read so I may have missed it. Confirmation bias n all dat.

 

[Toppot]

I thought this was common knowledge by now, like prayer not working and star signs being nonsense.

 

[Air]

Saw this on reddit a couple of days ago. There were a few arguments for and against the meta analysis approach and the subject of iq. I'm too lazy to find that particular thread though.

Im just getting at the point that maybe this shouldn't be taken as gospel, as I know a lot of people who just skim through these threads are likely to do.

 

[HalfBakedProphet]

Well the more you know, the more aware you are of your own ignorance, so maybe there's a correlation.

Wouldn't doubt that is part of it. Religion is also an easier way to inject some purpose and meaning into an otherwise aimless life. It's black and white, good vs evil. Its simple and comforting. Id be lying if I said I wasn't envious of that sometimes.

And what are they ignoring pray tell?

extra-dimensional beings from the 4th plane of existence. Sometimes confused with ghosts and djinn. You think people built the pyramids? lol, noob. Open your eyes, Log.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

A long standing conflict between religion and scientific endeavor is an ahistorical fantasy.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the current political aims of "religious" groups (or people) are not to do away with our current understanding of the world, or at least some, if not a lot, of the consequences such statements have on the foundations of faith.

edit: edit.

 

[Platy]

The bigger problem is that most religions don't believe in science
So it is only fair that most scientist don't believe in religion.

If religions stop being so creationists and start acepting scientific discoveries in a lesser time than thousands of years later, than the relationship between both will be more friendly

That said, you don't need to have a religion to believe in supernatural deitys

 

[riskVSreward]

"Hey, your argument sucks, it's pure semantics! Let me prove my point with the latin root of this word."

Brilliant move. So fun.

J. M. Romeo
Still the man

 

[The Lamp]

Yeah, I believe this was common knowledge.
When people are more intelligent, they are commonly taught to be skeptical. When you become more skeptical, you are less likely to believe in dieties.

Hmm I dunno about this. I'm a Christian and being a Christian doesn't mean you don't have doubts or skepticism about your faith, as plenty of people in the Bible did.

On another note, plenty of intelligent people are ignorant of a lot of different religions or their fundamental ideas. It's interesting to me how many people know so little about Christianity, for example. So, even if they are very intelligent, if you don't have the interest to look into those sorts of things deeply, you would never know. You can be a neurosurgeon and never have considered the Islam faith, for example. Which doesn't necessarily mean you were skeptical, you just never cared to investigate.

 

[Kabouter]

Why did he get banned? What did I miss? oO

Requested it.

 

[V_Arnold]

You think people built the pyramids? lol, noob. Open your eyes, Log.

No need to bring any type of spirituality or superstition into the mix when discussing whether atheists can be ignorant towards anything. They can be. Other people's sufferings, state of beings, their own affairs, pretty much anything. Ignorance is not exclusive to religious discussions.

 

[BossLackey]

All I know is, if it weren't for hundreds of years of religion stunting the growth of science, we'd have a lot of awesome shit right now (not that we don't now, but more of it I guess)

 

[HalfBakedProphet]

No need to bring any type of spirituality or superstition into the mix when discussing whether atheists can be ignorant towards anything. They can be. Other people's sufferings, state of beings, their own affairs, pretty much anything. Ignorance is not exclusive to religious discussions.

...ok. Not sure what this has to do with my post, which was plainly in jest

 

[Ghostmate]

I think religion was necessarily created in a time when wide spread communication wasn't possible. It allowed dissemination of information to the masses. Unfortunately the truth of what was spread may have been controlled by a group trying to remain in power in society. In this day and age of information, I think religion is more of a choice than it was in the dark ages. I don't think it means intelligent people can't be religious, but it's less of a necessity to belong to an individual group than it was in past history.

 

[Drencrom]

I'm not shocked.

That is all.