IQ vs. Religiosity

[xpanterx]

Is this discussion still going on? lol
None of you can seriously think beliving in a god or another makes you stupid, if you do, you are the fanatic!

[Artois]

3. You're avoiding the crux of the complaint--those guys, like their contemporaries, believed a lot of things that'd seem crazy by today's standards and yet that didn't seem to limit their mathematical abilities.  Theism does not make someone less intelligent or less capable--that's just an atheist bias.

I agree with you.  Theism does not make someone less intelligent or more.

However, the crux, as it were, is that a mind capable of advanced logical process is less likely to be found in a someone who illogically makes a leap of faith without logical proof.

Maybe this topic should not be debating intelligence as there are many intelligent people who happen to be religious.  Some are even on this forum 

Is it possible that a more succint point is that religiously inclined people are less able to view the world objectively?  As the crux of the atheistic views on this forum seems to revolve around an objective (or rational?) view of the world and religion, yet the religious responses are, dare I say, blinkered by blind faith, no offence intended.

[acelink]

His money was safe, because a mind capable of accepting illogical and unsubstantiated 'truths' would not be very successful in advanced mathematics.

This is ill-informed, mean-spirited and offensive.  I you were only trying for the latter 2.

For you reference, I've included a short list of some of the many religious people who happened to be "very successful in advanced mathematics," you may have heard of a few of them.  Some of them even invented new types of math:

Blaise Pascal (mathemetician, Catholic philosopher)
Rene Descartes (mathemetician, Roman Catholic)
Isaac Newton (mathemetician, physicist, theologian)
Nicolaus Copernicus (mathemetician, Catholic cleric)
Johannes Kepler (astonomer, mathemetician, used religious reasoning in his works)

Thank you for pointing out the religious people.  There are countless more.  I believe the last 3 are also considered avid astronomers. 

But the question is how do they label themselves...  Would they consider religion to be a very important part in their life?  That is what the whole religion survey was about... How important is religion in your life? A. Very Important.  B. Somewhat Important. C. Not Very Important.  D. Not Important at All.

I'm fairly sure that Newton/Copernicus/Kepler all started their studies in astronomy by translating the Bible.

[Artois]

I'm fairly sure that Newton/Copernicus/Kepler all started their studies in astronomy by translating the Bible.

Really?  Well I never knew that!

Does anyone know if religion is considered important to contemporary astronomers?

Or whether religious rates are high amongst living Doctors of Science/Mathematics/Physics?

[acelink]

I'm fairly sure that Newton/Copernicus/Kepler all started their studies in astronomy by translating the Bible.

Really?  Well I never knew that!

Does anyone know if religion is considered important to contemporary astronomers?

Or whether religious rates are high amongst living Doctors of Science/Mathematics/Physics?

That is what my Astronomy teacher said but in a better way.  He seemed to be very well rounded in the history of astronomy.  He always brought up stories about astronomers and what they did or previous views about stars/planets.  Planets were considered to be "wandering stars" since they moved in the background of space.

A lot of the class despised the stories.  I really liked the stories...   i'll have to keep in touch and see if he teaches any other astronomy classes.

I figure a lot of scientist/mathematicians/physicists would say religion is very important despite not being very religious themselves.  They can easily claim that countries and nations have their government/policies based upon religious beliefs. 

It is really an iffy subject when it comes to 'who is very religious'.  Someone could claim to say religion is very important but not be religious themselves.  I mean you could try to rate people from very religious to not religious but that scale is ordinal and debatable.

[SeddyRocky]

While I probably, in my mostly atheistic brain, see extremly religious people as lacking something in intelligence, my conscious mind says that the real reason for this chart showing these results would be:
Main high-IQ people come from Industrial countries. (I'm not saying that industrial country inhabitants are more intelligent, lemme finish .
In industrial countries, education tends to be better than in developing ones, at all levels. While IQ is partly a genetic trait, it i also something that can be trained, increased (or if not stimulated at all, decreased) by stimulation, education, and emotional stability. If you have to fight to support your family with food, you probably don't have as big of an IQ as a french student at a private school with academical parents in a safe home where his mind can develop freely. Regardless if those parents be devout catholics or secular humanists.

[ddevans96]

This study is actually closely related to the debate between evolutionism vs. creationism. Evolution is taught in schools, an institution of education (intelligence), while creationism is taught in church, an institution of religion. I don't know many people who are really smart and are religious at the same time.

[Innominate]

On a tangent....

I read a story a while back regarding one of the top poker players, who was willing to wager his own money ($100,000 I believe) to any fundamental christian who could beat him in an advanced mathematical test.

His money was safe, because a mind capable of accepting illogical and unsubstantiated 'truths' would not be very successful in advanced mathematics.

Yes. That's why I'm (currently) valedictorian of my class (one of the top high schools in Missouri) with an H (97% or above) in +Algebra 2 Trig, +Chemistry, and +Biology. And I plan on going to a college like Duke, Michigan, or Stanford. I'm not sure what you consider advanced mathematics, but if you mean Calculus I'm going to get at least an A in AP Calculus BC when I take it.

AKA, I'm really good at math and science. And I'm religious. Go figure.

(Re-reading it, I see you said fundamentalist. Which I'm not, but the point still stands. You can be both smart and religious.)

People certainly can be both intelligent and religious, but statistically people who are irreligious are more intelligent. It isn't a huge difference in developed countries (in developing ones the difference is pretty staggering, as non-religiousness is correlated with wealth and education as well), but it still exists.

It's important to note that statistics is descriptive, not prescriptive. Just because it is rare to have a lesbian trans-sexual fundamentalist Christian with an IQ of 150 doesn't mean that the right set of circumstances couldn't produce such a person, only that the circumstances which would produce them are rare. Similarly, to be both intelligent and religious requires a more restrictive set of circumstances than to be intelligent and non-religious. Specifically (and this is anecdotal), people who are intelligent and religious usually need to be more diligent with their religion than their less intelligent peers, as they are exposed to opposing viewpoints more often and are capable of greater self-assessment. It isn't an indictment of religion; the same is true of intelligence and vegetarianism, intelligence and liberalism, intelligence and a preference for classical music, etc.

Take pride in being a statistical minority (not that the effect is really that large, but still)! As a person who was raised Christian and is one no longer, I'm an oddity as well.

[Italy2]

This is how I analyze the chart.  Those that use religion in everyday life feel that they do not need knowledge in things that they think are pointless.  However, there is atil room for skepticism...

Those who do not use religion are attempyting to find answers as to where they came from and what happens after death.  Therefore, they look for answers.

[ratcharmer]

There's a HUGE flaw in this argument.

IQ is defined as a comparison of a persons intelligence (determined via written test) to the average. The "average" score is DEFINED AS 100.

Therefore, any difference in the mean IQ score from 100 demonstrates not the intelligence of people in that area, but a bias in the testing.

Furthermore, IQ testing is not standardized across the globe.

[Italy2]

You certainly make a good point...

[Innominate]

There's a HUGE flaw in this argument.

IQ is defined as a comparison of a persons intelligence (determined via written test) to the average. The "average" score is DEFINED AS 100.

Therefore, any difference in the mean IQ score from 100 demonstrates not the intelligence of people in that area, but a bias in the testing.

Furthermore, IQ testing is not standardized across the globe.

The average mean IQ score for a given test is 100. So if you give people in multiple countries the same (translated) test, you can measure them anyway.

Really, what makes you think that researchers try to compare different countries using tests calibrated with those countries as the mean? Do you actually think that academics are retarded?