|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 20, 2024 23:40:40 GMT
Are religious people really less smart, on average, than atheists?
Various studies have found that, on average, belief in God is associated with lower scores on IQ tests.
It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence,” note Richard Daws and Adam Hampshire at Imperial College London, in a new paper published in Frontiers in Psychology, which seeks to explore why.
It’s a question with some urgency – the proportion of people with a religious belief is growing: by 2050, if current trends continue, people who say they are not religious will make up only 13 per cent of the global population. Based on the low-IQ-religiosity link, it could be argued that humanity is on course to become collectively less smart. One suggestion is that perhaps religious people tend to rely more on intuition. So, rather than having impaired general intelligence, they might be comparatively poor only on tasks in which intuition and logic come into conflict – and this might explain the lower overall IQ test results. To investigate, Daws and Hampshire surveyed more than 63,000 people online, and had them complete a 30-minute set of 12 cognitive tasks that measured planning, reasoning, attention and working memory. The participants also indicated whether they were religious, agnostic or atheist. As predicted, the atheists performed better overall than the religious participants, even after controlling for demographic factors like age and education. Agnostics tended to place between atheists and believers on all tasks. In fact, strength of religious conviction correlated with poorer cognitive performance. However, while the religious respondents performed worse overall on tasks that required reasoning, there were only very small differences in working memory. Also, some of the reasoning tasks, such as an extra-hard version of the Stroop Task known as “colour-word remapping”, had been designed to create maximum conflict between an intuitive response and a logical one, and the biggest group differences emerged on these tasks, consistent with the idea that religious people rely more on their intuition. In contrast, for a complex reasoning task – “deductive reasoning” – for which there were no obviously intuitive answers, there was much less of a group difference. Daws and Hampshire concluded: “These findings provide evidence in support of the hypothesis that the religiosity effect relates to conflict [between reasoning and intuition] as opposed to reasoning ability or intelligence more generally.” If, as this work suggests, religious belief predisposes people to rely more heavily on intuition in decision-making – and the stronger their belief, the more pronounced the impact – how much of a difference does this make to actual achievement in the real world? At the moment, there’s no data on this. But in theory, perhaps cognitive training could allow religious people to maintain their beliefs without over-relying on intuition when it conflicts with logic in day to day decision-making. If lumberjacks gave the intelligence tests, lumberjacks would score highest on them. Why would you think that? The lumberjacks that wrote the actual test I'm sure would score higher (because they know the answers), other than that there's no reason to think lumberjacks would score higher, unless the test was about lumberjacking, but then that wouldn't really be an "intelligence" test.
|
|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Jun 20, 2024 23:48:50 GMT
Do the atheists who are sufficiently dogmatic, inflexible, and fanatical to turn their atheism into a religion, count as atheists or religious people? I have been told before about how Europeans struggle with the concept of a society that is largely secular. Meaning that church is there for the people who want to participate in that but religion is not forced on anyone who doesn't want to take part in it. That is how it used to be before 1978 and a secular society with secular holidays is how it should be. Especially in light of what the supreme court is now attempting to do. For that there needs to be both term limits and ethics rules for the supreme court, along with some kind of oversight.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jun 21, 2024 1:06:21 GMT
Are religious people really less smart, on average, than atheists?
Various studies have found that, on average, belief in God is associated with lower scores on IQ tests.
It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence,” note Richard Daws and Adam Hampshire at Imperial College London, in a new paper published in Frontiers in Psychology, which seeks to explore why.
It’s a question with some urgency – the proportion of people with a religious belief is growing: by 2050, if current trends continue, people who say they are not religious will make up only 13 per cent of the global population. Based on the low-IQ-religiosity link, it could be argued that humanity is on course to become collectively less smart. One suggestion is that perhaps religious people tend to rely more on intuition. So, rather than having impaired general intelligence, they might be comparatively poor only on tasks in which intuition and logic come into conflict – and this might explain the lower overall IQ test results. To investigate, Daws and Hampshire surveyed more than 63,000 people online, and had them complete a 30-minute set of 12 cognitive tasks that measured planning, reasoning, attention and working memory. The participants also indicated whether they were religious, agnostic or atheist. As predicted, the atheists performed better overall than the religious participants, even after controlling for demographic factors like age and education. Agnostics tended to place between atheists and believers on all tasks. In fact, strength of religious conviction correlated with poorer cognitive performance. However, while the religious respondents performed worse overall on tasks that required reasoning, there were only very small differences in working memory. Also, some of the reasoning tasks, such as an extra-hard version of the Stroop Task known as “colour-word remapping”, had been designed to create maximum conflict between an intuitive response and a logical one, and the biggest group differences emerged on these tasks, consistent with the idea that religious people rely more on their intuition. In contrast, for a complex reasoning task – “deductive reasoning” – for which there were no obviously intuitive answers, there was much less of a group difference. Daws and Hampshire concluded: “These findings provide evidence in support of the hypothesis that the religiosity effect relates to conflict [between reasoning and intuition] as opposed to reasoning ability or intelligence more generally.” If, as this work suggests, religious belief predisposes people to rely more heavily on intuition in decision-making – and the stronger their belief, the more pronounced the impact – how much of a difference does this make to actual achievement in the real world? At the moment, there’s no data on this. But in theory, perhaps cognitive training could allow religious people to maintain their beliefs without over-relying on intuition when it conflicts with logic in day to day decision-making. If lumberjacks gave the intelligence tests, lumberjacks would score highest on them. So you must be the typical brainless religious person.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jun 21, 2024 2:35:12 GMT
Religious people are definitely absolute lunatics.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Jun 21, 2024 3:01:36 GMT
If lumberjacks gave the intelligence tests, lumberjacks would score highest on them. Why would you think that? The lumberjacks that wrote the actual test I'm sure would score higher (because they know the answers), other than that there's no reason to think lumberjacks would score higher, unless the test was about lumberjacking, but then that wouldn't really be an "intelligence" test. Was that supposed to show how intelligent you are? Jesus Aloysius Christ, you missed the point. That is typical of atheists by the way to miss the point. They take things too literally. They read at a fifth year elementary level. Of course there are those rare "Christians" who have the same problem. They take scriptures too literally because they can't read anything at the level of scriptures. Maybe not all of them, but the typical atheist believes "science" has all the learning people can use. That is because science is always literal and they can't read anything that isn't. Science is totally incapable of addressing moral issues. Did you know that? Did you know most issues in politics cannot begin to be addressed by any science? It's true. Just before and about the time of the Civil War a very primitive science began to speculate on how animalcules might have come into being. People speculated they could assemble by some sort of haphazard procedure. They then speculated all the other life forms came into being by means known more or less well for millennia whereby plants and animals could be bred to obtain more remarkable forms. The breeding part was not the problem. People already knew how to do that. The problem was that there were no animalcules popping up haphazardly. At first even people of moderate intelligence took the primitive science seriously. However with every passing year that no animalcules popped up, the more intelligent speculators gave up. Now there is no one left in that speculator crowd but the most incredibly stupid idiots. Since no animalcules had shown up in 150 years, the stupid idiots had to speculate that the process might take a million years. That's how stupid they are. They were taken to laboratories where it was attempted to explain to them that what they saw happening there is all that is ever going to happen. That is just what lifeless nature does now and ever will do. Some of them still don't believe that because that is how stupid they are.
Now you come along with "are religious people really less smart than atheists." Sure, let's wonder about that.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Jun 21, 2024 3:05:29 GMT
Religious people are definitely absolute lunatics.
If you had any idea at all how either science or religion works your opinion might have more value. Since you have no idea, it really doesn't matter what you think or say at this point.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 21, 2024 3:06:42 GMT
Why would you think that? The lumberjacks that wrote the actual test I'm sure would score higher (because they know the answers), other than that there's no reason to think lumberjacks would score higher, unless the test was about lumberjacking, but then that wouldn't really be an "intelligence" test. Was that supposed to show how intelligent you are? Jesus Aloysius Christ, you missed the point. That is typical of atheists by the way to miss the point. They take things too literally. They read at a fifth year elementary level. Of course there are those rare "Christians" who have the same problem. They take scriptures too literally because they can't read anything at the level of scriptures. Maybe not all of them, but the typical atheist believes "science" has all the learning people can use. That is because science is always literal and they can't read anything that isn't. Science is totally incapable of addressing moral issues. Did you know that? Did you know most issues in politics cannot begin to be addressed by any science? It's true. Just before and about the time of the Civil War a very primitive science began to speculate on how animalcules might have come into being. People speculated they could assemble by some sort of haphazard procedure. They then speculated all the other life forms came into being by means known more or less well for millennia whereby plants and animals could be bred to obtain more remarkable forms. The breeding part was not the problem. People already knew how to do that. The problem was that there were no animalcules popping up haphazardly. At first even people of moderate intelligence took the primitive science seriously. However with every passing year that no animalcules popped up, the more intelligent speculators gave up. Now there is no one left in that speculator crowd but the most incredibly stupid idiots. Since no animalcules had shown up in 150 years, the stupid idiots had to speculate that the process might take a million years. That's how stupid they are. They were taken to laboratories where it was attempted to explain to them that what they saw happening there is all that is ever going to happen. That is just what lifeless nature does now and ever will do. Some of them still don't believe that because that is how stupid they are.
Now you come along with "are religious people really less smart than atheists." Sure, let's wonder about that.
"Was that supposed to show how intelligent you are? Jesus Aloysius Christ, you missed the point." That because you didn't actually make a "point", there was nothing to "miss" "They take things too literally." Translation: "I said something stupid, so I'm just gonna pretend I was speaking in figurative language even though there's no reason to assume I was" The rest is just inane gibberish that has nothing to do with what I said. So are you backing off your riddiculous lumberjack argument?
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Jun 21, 2024 3:13:26 GMT
Nowadays? Maybe. But remember that most great scientists, writers, philosophers and artists in human history have been religious.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 21, 2024 3:18:50 GMT
Nowadays? Maybe. But remember that most great scientists, writers, philosophers and artists in human history have been religious. Yeah but that's only because people in general back then were more religious (you would be hard presesed to find an atheist before the 1900s or so). And even then there were varying degrees of how religious they actually were (many great thinkers/scientists/artists were deists/non demoninational theists that rejected organized religion and dogma)
|
|
|
Post by cinemachinery on Jun 21, 2024 3:26:58 GMT
Not sure. Facile attempts to broadly categorize groups as more or less intelligent on average don’t usually underline the sharpest knives in the drawer, though.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jun 21, 2024 3:27:54 GMT
Only dozens? Most scientists I know have written dozens of treaties the size of books and read several hundred.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Jun 21, 2024 3:33:17 GMT
<pretended to having authority> You did miss the point because I said you did. It's my point and I will let you know when you get it.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jun 21, 2024 3:34:27 GMT
Religious people are definitely absolute lunatics.
If you had any idea at all how either science or religion works your opinion might have more value. Since you have no idea, it really doesn't matter what you think or say at this point.
Since you are a rabid religious lunatic and ignoramus your opinions have ZERO value.
Everything you say is pure garbage and absolutely irrelevant.
Now go back to your Church duties.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jun 21, 2024 3:35:03 GMT
Nowadays? Maybe. But remember that most great scientists, writers, philosophers and artists in human history have been religious. No, not at all.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jun 21, 2024 3:36:09 GMT
Not sure. Facile attempts to broadly categorize groups as more or less intelligent on average don’t usually underline the sharpest knives in the drawer, though. Which proves you aren't very bright.
|
|