QuoteA new study has proposed an explanation for the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Researchers from the UK and the Netherlands suggest that religion might be an instinct and rejection of instinct, being able to "rise above it", is linked to higher intelligence.
In their paper, published in Evolutionary Psychology Science, the researchers put forward the Intelligence-Mismatch Association model. They argued that religion is a so-called "evolved domain", what we would refer to as an instinct.
"If religion is an evolved domain then it is an instinct, and intelligence – in rationally solving problems – can be understood as involving overcoming instinct and being intellectually curious, and thus open to non-instinctive possibilities," co-author Edward Dutton, of the Ulster Institute for Social Research in the UK, said in a statement.
Continues... (http://www.iflscience.com/brain/study-suggests-atheists-are-more-intelligent-because-they-can-override-religious-instinct-/)
Full paper here (PDF) (https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s40806-017-0101-0?shared_access_token=JfDJohRRCP5qr5oUZClFsve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4gWpvuCd8x8Uca9OKmNJgmckZMTRao2qZJGO_fPgxEQuTgnn685yIiW-4nMKPwpR9TmqcUMIdExTfwzXX2IWoivlsgKvpc5YDeTg4e1YEsEd4FCW3Lyjelu7yjPhF-XcQ=)
This made me laugh because it puts me above those who put me beneath them. Oh the irony.
I'll go with that, xSP!
It seems in keeping with responses to danger - the instinctive, often mindless, panic of the average person and the more considered approach of the trained, experienced or simply more pragmatic person. This is not to say that believers in the supernatural cannot also have those positive qualities but their attribution of "cause abd effect" may be different and that may modify their behaviour.
Is the priest or believer who saves the life of another going against his or her god's intended fate for that person?
I'm a little skeptical.... I'm not a researcher or a scientist, but there's so much that goes into religious belief. And there are so many levels of adherence to any religion.
I see the angle that they're coming from, but an article like this just bolsters the arrogance of Atheists, and further puts religious people on the defensive, neither of which is helpful. (Which is why commenters on the article are encouraged to be kind)
One redeeming sentence from this very short article:
QuoteTrust us, you can have incredibly bright religious people as well as not very clever atheists
Quote from: Dragonia on May 24, 2017, 12:37:27 PM
I'm a little skeptical.... I'm not a researcher or a scientist, but there's so much that goes into religious belief. And there are so many levels of adherence to any religion.
I see the angle that they're coming from, but an article like this just bolsters the arrogance of Atheists, and further puts religious people on the defensive, neither of which is helpful. (Which is why commenters on the article are encouraged to be kind)
One redeeming sentence from this very short article:
QuoteTrust us, you can have incredibly bright religious people as well as not very clever atheists
It's like they say in the article:
QuoteA meta-analysis of 63 studies showed that there's a significant negative association between how religious people are and their intelligence. Let's state clearly that this is a trend. This means that while on average, atheists are more intelligent than religious people, this is not an indictment of the ability of any single individual. Trust us, you can have incredibly bright religious people as well as not very clever atheists.
Intelligence is normally distributed (Bell Curve), which means that the graph looks something like this:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.engageeducation.org.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F04%2F68-95-997.png&hash=ae3b6a9e5708de13cfd91fe8d3479ca6206dc9bb)
The average IQ is set at 100, and roughly 68% of people fall within one standard deviation to either side (IQs 90 to 110). If you have one Bell Curve for theists and another for atheists, the averages might not coincide. If what the article and papers are saying is true, then the Bell Curve for atheists would be shifted to the right, with a higher average IQ.
I made a comparative bell curve to illustrate what I mean (this isn't an accurate representation, especially the bottom of the curves):
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2F1yviv5.png&hash=b13906ef7819cdb588ced31cc104430283c1fffc)
The
averages (IQ 100 + and - one standard deviation) are different. And, since we're talking averages, of course this doesn't mean that
all atheists are smarter than
all theists.
But you're right, there are different levels of religiosity and some people can compartmentalise better than others in order to think rationally.
Quote from: Gloucester on May 24, 2017, 08:21:38 AM
Is the priest or believer who saves the life of another going against his or her god's intended fate for that person?
Free will and fate, how on Earth do those two go together? :scratch:
Human stupidity Silver, human stupidity.
Quote from: Dragonia on May 24, 2017, 12:37:27 PM
I'm a little skeptical.... I'm not a researcher or a scientist, but there's so much that goes into religious belief. And there are so many levels of adherence to any religion.
I see the angle that they're coming from, but an article like this just bolsters the arrogance of Atheists, and further puts religious people on the defensive, neither of which is helpful. (Which is why commenters on the article are encouraged to be kind)
One redeeming sentence from this very short article:
QuoteTrust us, you can have incredibly bright religious people as well as not very clever atheists
This.
I'm skeptical of any "proof" that any group is superior or inferior. Especially because you an find such "proof" for just about any quality of any given group.
Science has been twisted and used to justify too many -isms.
:shrug: Results are results, and when many studies (assuming they do not have methodological flaws and biases) replicate the same results there just might be something there. You might not like them for whatever moral reason, and that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that those are the results. They just need to be interpreted carefully, so as not to twist them to whatever agenda, as you mentioned.
As for other -isms, especially when it comes to IQ differences, be it between sexes, ethnic groups, nationalities and so on, I don't dispute the results, but the underlying causes for those results. For instance, when the likely causes for IQ gaps are social, instead of genetic, you can't say that the basis for IQ gaps are biological/physiological/genetic.