NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24363

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 8.3 KB | 176 lines

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!lynx!nmsu.edu!charon!sdoe
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: New Mexico State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:38:45 GMT
Lines: 163

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>Last year I taught seventh grade and at that age--twelve or
>>thirteen or so--kids are developing abstract thinking skills and
>>are questioning the cultural absolutes that have been handed down
>>by their parents and by society in general.  This year I teach
>>elementary kids, ranging in age from seven to twelve, and while
>>their skills in abstract reasoning may not be as strong at those
>>ages they are still quite willing to question that which has been
>>foisted upon them.  Though I have only limited experience
>>teaching so-called "average" kids, I taught one year in a poor
>>inner-city neighborhood with a high percentage of resource
>>students.  So, based on my experiences with gifted, average and
>>below average kids, I've concluded that the more intelligent the
>>child, the less superstitious and religious he will tend to be.
>
>[BTW, what about putting some of this into the FAQ?]

Ask mathew about that; he's the keeper of the FAQ.  I'm willing to lay
10 to 1 odds though that he'll find the same objections to this I do.
. .

>
>>
>>The effect in adults, as you've noted, is even more pronounced.
>>I spent a number of years working at various jobs among the "salt
>>of the earth" working-class people in the Bible Belt, and I've
>>spent the last three years working as part of a university
>>faculty as an adjunct instructor.  There are few atheists among
>>the former group and few fundamentalist Christians in the latter.
>
>I have exactly same observations.

And what of those of us who don't?  Do we cancel out your
observations, or do you find a way to explain away our observations.

>>
>>It has been shown that there is a positive correlation between
>>intelligence (as measured by such instruments as the
>>Stanford-Binet IQ test) and level of education attained.  It has
>>further been demonstrated that there is a correlation between
>>level of education and degree of rejection of fundamentalist
>>beliefs.  Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a
>>correlation between intelligence and rejection of (at least)
>>rigidly-fundamentalist religious belief.  From here, one does not
>>have to go very far out on a limb to conclude that level of IQ
>>is, indeed, positively correlated to atheistic belief systems.
>
>Some argue that IQ does not measure a person's intelligence properly,
>which it doesn't. It measures only the logical/abstract thinking, which,
>in my opinion, is 'real' intelligence. Actually, this type of intelligence
>is required to be able to find loopholes in nowaday society structure and
>habits.

Let me see, IQ doesn't measure intelligence properly, but it does
measure the "real" part.  Huh.

>>
>>My circle of friends, like yours, ranges from highly-gifted to
>>dumber than a stump.  The most intelligent--and some are Mensa
>
>I thought some years ago about joining Mensa, but I just haven't
>brought myself to do it. I once went to a low-level IQ test, and
>my IQ went out of the chart (the chart top was IQ 170). No, I
>don't wish to boast, just to substatiate on the context.

OOOOOh!  AAAAAAH!

Actually I don't know what my IQ is exactly.  I took the test in
school, but never saw the results.  Must have been pretty good,
because I was always at the top of my class.

Does IQ serve any purpose other than placement in such an environment,
and as an ego boost to such as yourself?

>>members or could be if they were joiners--are atheists, almost to
>>a man (or woman).  The not-so-brilliant ones, with a few notable
>>exceptions, are religious to one degree or another.  I have only
>>one fundamentalist friend, and she's that way more from emotional
>>problems than from lack of intellect (she's a Ph.D.).
>>
>>A caveat is in order here:  unless we test everyone we come
>>across, we cannot accurately judge one's intelligence.  Indeed, I
>>suspect we characterize as intelligent those who share our
>>beliefs, and hang the label "stupid" on those with whom we
>>disagree.  Part of my job involves teaching teachers how they can
>>recognize high intelligence in their students (it's not as easy
>>as it would seem) but even though I hold a master's in the area I
>>still cannot judge intelligence with a great degree of accuracy
>>based only on informal conversation.  However, with training and
>>exposure we get better and better, so I feel pretty confident
>>that I have more or less correctly ranked my friends and
>>acquaintances along the intelligence continuum.
>>
>>Furthermore, there is some disagreement as to what intelligence
>>actually is, and whether it can be measured and, if so, how.  I
>>personally prefer Howard Gardner's definition(s) of intelligence.
>>In his watershed book, _Frames_of_Mind_, Gardner enumerates seven
>>discrete yet interconnected intelligences:  verbal,
>>logical/mathematical, spatial, musical, psychomotor,
>>interpersonal and intrapersonal.  (Interestingly, you
>>"coincidentally" noticed that your friends who seemed to be high
>>in logical intelligence also rated high in mathematical ability.
>>Gardner sees the two as connected, too.)  Therefore, if we speak
>>of someone as "intelligent," we must be prepared to define in
>>exactly what area this person is "intelligent."  You've done this
>>(I believe correctly) when you speak of a high
>>logical/mathematical intelligence in your atheist friends, but we
>>must also remember that many frothy-mouthed fundamentalist
>>preachers are apparently very high in verbal intelligence, and
>>almost assuredly in interpersonal intelligence as well.  (Of
>>course, these are the very areas that the "genius" of Adolph
>>Hitler manifested itself, but that's another track altogether.)
>
>As time passes by, technology improves and per-capita incomes and standards of
>living rise, people are getting more and more intelligent. Ultimately, religion
>will disappear altogether, and it will be laughed at just as we laugh at the
>superstitions of the middle ages (witch ducking for example).

People get *more* intelligent with higher technology?  Or does the new
environment just force us to utilize the intelligence that's already
present?



>>
>>One more item:  There is a positive correlation between
>>socio-economic status and intelligence as measured by
>>standardized instruments.  In other words, rich kids will test
>>out as more intelligent than poor kids.  There are a number of
>>possible explanations for this, but the fact is that the
>>difference exists.  Who can dispute the fact that there is a
>>correlation between socio-economic deprivation and religiosity?
>>That the poor tend to be more fundamentalist than the rich?  If
>>this is true, then we have another avenue to show that
>>non-religious people are smarter than religious people.
>
>This is true. Richer people have higher education and more time to think about
>different matters, among other things.

Or IQ is culturally biased, as some have claimed.

>>
>>Summary:   Rich or highly-educated people are more intelligent
>>than poor or poorly-educated people.  Rich or highly-educated
>>people tend to be less religious than poor or poorly-educated
>>people.  Therefore the more intelligent people tend to be less
>>religious than less intelligent people.  (Remember that a
>>correlation does not necessarily demonstrate a cause-and-effect
>>relationship--a correlation merely means that when one goes up,
>>the other tends to go up, too.)  As an extension of this
>>argument, we might fairly conclude that there are more atheists
>>among the richer, more intelligent people than among the poorer,
>>less educated people.
>
>It would be nice to see some stats made from the population of USA or Europe,
>for example, and see exactly how this correlates (it does correlate, that is
>for sure).

Well, then look them up!  What are you waiting for?

SD