analysis of over 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades concludes

This is the conclusion after analysis of 63 studies conducted between 1928 and 2012 by a team at University of Rochester, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman.

Heh, I was just going to post a similar article reported by ArsTechnica: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/new-meta-analysis-checks-the-correlation-between-intelligence-and-faith/, though I was contemplating copying and pasting the entire article for those less inclined on reading links.

I don't think that equates to being less intelligent in the accepted sense of intelligence.

The ArsTechnica article is very careful to mention that the intelligence measured is only analytic intelligence (more reasoned-based critical thinking), which is not the full measure of human intelligence. I'd really encourage you to read the full article as it is very interesting.

Yeah, I read The Bell Curve.

Left side of curve: Toothless, with Tabakee Stains on Blouse, IQ <80, No Moola, Believes in Satan.

Righ side of curve: Shiny Whites, with Coke Stains on Blouse, IQ >100, Moola, and Believes in Hustlin'HulaSkirtHussein.

Duh

Bound FO "IT" IT.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Well, cocaine is the drug of choice for people with money. ;-)

Both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, the greatest scientists who ever lived, believed in God (though having different views).

Maybe the scientists conducting the study did not have the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

---

Both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, the greatest scientists who ever lived, believed in God (though having different views).

Maybe the scientists conducting the study did not have the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

Sir Isaac Newton's beliefs are probably what caused his years of depression because his science did not agree with the religious teaching of that time.
In his time to call yourself a non-believer was virtual suicide.

Albert Einstein also said he was an agnostic, and did not believe in personal gods.

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

I would say that devout religious people are more likely to be susceptible to suggestion than others. Maybe because they are looking for something missing in their lives that religion seems to more easily provide for them. I don't think that equates to being less intelligent in the accepted sense of intelligence. However there is a case for those that have looked at various religions and found them wanting for various reasons, to perhaps be more discerning in their thoughts.

I think not.

People seek religion because they can not accept an answer of unknowable or unknown. For them they must have an answer for everything. They provide God - or mysticism - as the answer for those things that are unknowable or unknown. The more intelligent see God as an answer, similar to that given a child when it asks why. Something to just shut them up. They realize that the answer given is not the truth and they may go out an investigate. After all, the earth is fixed and the unchanging sky rotates around it.

---

Both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, the greatest scientists who ever lived, believed in God (though having different views).

How does their personal beliefs suggest that all other accomplished scientists do not measure up? Are you suggesting that no other scientist is as smart as those two, and with their belief in God, all others should follow their example?

Maybe the scientists conducting the study did not have the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

Did you actually read their work before making such a statement? Or is it a knee-jerk reaction to something you don't like?

I think most people can't accept the possibility that things happen for no apparent reason, like a tornado hitting a church but missing a bar. So they have to latch on to the only explanation that seems to fit the circumstances that God made it happen. People who are more intelligent realize that "stuff" happens without consideration for the consequences. In centuries past admitting to being an atheist or even an agnostic could get you in a lot of trouble if not worse.

I think many people are closet atheists and go through the motions of whatever religion they were brought up believing in as it makes it easier to function in the community they live in.

I also believe that most people need the purpose and direction that being associated with a religious group provides and to that extent I think religion serves a purpose in society and the more intelligent members of society should keep that in mind when either intentionally or not they ridicule those that need the security of religion.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, the greatest scientists who ever lived, believed in God (though having different views).

Right on!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I also believe that most people need the purpose and direction that being associated with a religious group provides and to that extent I think religion serves a purpose in society and the more intelligent members of society should keep that in mind when either intentionally or not they ridicule those that need the security of religion.

It is my opinion that everyone has the same capacity for learning. If people would seek out answers objectively to the world around us and learn to look naturally inward to themselves for their confidence and answers instead of externally to a fictional, unseen force, the function of religion would no longer be needed.

I don't agree with ridiculing anyone who has true faith, and those smart enough to know better aren't very intelligent if they do ridicule someone with faith. I do believe in challenging people and encouraging them to look deeper into any given issue for which they believe the simple answer is "God did it", and sometimes I like to be provocative in getting them to think.

Both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, the greatest scientists who ever lived, believed in God (though having different views).

Maybe the scientists conducting the study did not have the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

Exactly!

Why do people bring up examples of people who lived in the past.

The first question that must be asked when people bring up these examples is, "Would these people be religious if they lived in today's society?"

For the two brought up here, one must take into account that for Sir Isaac Newton his total knowledge from what he was taught about maths and physics was less than a 16 year old's today. Most of what he would have been taught would have been about the Classics and the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. Any science he learnt would probably have been based on Aristotle.

And I assume you can read what I said earlier about Albert Einstein, if you didn't then your opinion is worthless.

This thread is about people alive today, and the observations that people who are classed as intelligent, probably university graduates choose to leave religion behind. And those that stay religious are more probably more likely not to have received higher education.

It is my opinion that everyone has the same capacity for learning.

I take objection to that. Some people can learn, others can not. Some can't even learn how to use a mop and bucket!

---

I think many people are closet atheists and go through the motions of whatever religion they were brought up believing in as it makes it easier to function in the community they live in.

How many people in the UK fill in forms with C of E as their religion rather than putting none? Millions and millions. Even in the 21C it is still seen as more socially acceptable to have a religion than not.

Certainly I can say that I was told quite clearly by my boss in the early 70's, that the chances of me getting promoted would be improved if one, I attended church, even though my records stated I was an atheist, and two, get married.

For the record I met him about 15 years latter he was one rank higher, I was the equivalent of 6 ranks higher, and newly married and still an atheist.

It is my opinion that everyone has the same capacity for learning.

I take objection to that. Some people can learn, others can not. Some can't even learn how to use a mop and bucket!

In fairness, I said everyone has the same capacity for learning. Whether they are willing to learn is another story.

Why do people bring up examples of people who lived in the past.

Because they'd rather score points with like-minded people instead of understanding the folly of their statements.

News Item:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-ln-fresno-tree-weep-tears-of-god-20130813,0,120764.story
The religious view ...

Rosemarie Navarro wore a mask over her nose and mouth and looked up, with hope, from her wheelchair at the crape myrtle tree.

The tree outside her Catholic church in Fresno has been dripping a clear liquid, and Navarro and a small group of parishioners believe the liquid is the tears of God, the television station CBS47 Fresno reported.

“I said my prayer and asked for him to give me a miracle because I’m really, really sick,” Navarro told CBS47.

The tree outside St. John’s Cathedral weeps more when they pray, Maria Ybarra told the station.

“When you say ‘glory be to God in Jesus’ name,’ the tree starts throwing out more water,” Ybarra said.

Ybarra said she was the first person to feel the liquid last week and believes it is from God, whether it is water or something else.

Right powerful stuff this prayer and belief ...

Now for the rest of the story:

Fresno arborist Jon Reelhorn told the television station that the liquid dripping from the crape myrtle is not water but excrement from aphids, small, sap-sucking insects.

“The aphids will suck the sap, the sap goes through the aphid,” Reelhorn said. “And then it is a honey dew excrement from the aphid, and it gets so heavy in the summer that it will drip down.”

Reelhorn told CBS47 he found another tree dripping across the street from St. John’s.

---