Talk:Religiosity and intelligence/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence or psychology and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on psychology to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to verify articles on these issues as well as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

deletion of scientists and religiosity

I have deleted the scientists and religiosity section. As has been discussed previously, it belongs more in the science and religion article. The authors do not make any claims about the intelligence of the scientists involved. The criteria for being a prominent scientist is not exclusively intelligence (Many highly intelligent scientists are not invited to join the National Academy, for example). It is OR to suggest otherwise, but that seems to be what we are saying. At best, the section was saying "some sectors of highly intelligent people are not at all religious" which does't add much to the topic. Also, see above discussions #Religiosity_and_Science, #Science_culture, #Eminent_Scientists and some more on the archived pages- the discussion seems to keep coming up, never being resolved, just reinserted because people give up removing it, or because the article was empty without it (it has grown a little lately). WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does belong to the science & religion article, but it is relevant here too.

• For instance, there are cites showing the inverse correlation between IQ and religiosity, and IQ is *highly debatable* as a measure of intelligence, and further, it also shows inverse correlations between national IQs and religiosity, when the overwhelming majority agree that malnutrition, and cultural differences are the cause. If those sections find a place in this article, why not the one on eminent scientists and religiosity?
• Maybe many scientists were not invited to join the National Academy of Sciences, but since the invitation did not take into account the scientists' religiosity, NAS contains a random sample of eminent scientists.
• Hence the section says that a lot of highly educated people aren't religious! In fact since the atheists outnumber the theists almost 10-to-1, it is clear that the vast majority of a random sample of highly educated people aren't religious.

I think that the section is fits in quite well here and would like to see it reinserted. Let the decision to delete be based on consensus.

--SDas (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

agree with WotherspoonSmith on this. FWIW. Fremte (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The international study is included because it is about religiosity and intelligence, not religiosity and job preference. whether you agree that IQ is a good measure of intelligence or not, it is established in the literature as a measure for this purpose (with caveats).

If you have cites showing that "the overwhelming majority agree that malnutrition, and cultural differences are the cause.", please add them. It would make that article a more accurate one.

NAS members are far from a random selection of (US) highly intelligent people. A random selection of highly intelligent people would include people from many walks of life, many different jobs (including, I suspect, theologians). It is OR to suggest otherwise, but this is the mistake commonly assumed when this section is included. Consider this logic:

• Maybe many scientists were not invited to join the National Academy of Sciences, but since the invitation did not take into account the scientists' (gender /race/ sexuality/ etc), NAS contains a random sample of eminent scientists.
• Hence the section says that a lot of highly educated people aren't (female /black /gay /etc)! In fact since the (males/ whites/ gays) outnumber the (females/ blacks/ gays)..., it is clear that the vast majority of a random sample of highly educated people aren't (female /black/ gay). .
  

clearly, not a logical path to follow.

(FWIW: According to http://csicop.org/si/2007-01/sagan.html, "Academy membership requires distinguished research scholarship, but that is rarely sufficient to ensure membership. Considerable weight is also given to public service, as well as more political factors such as where a nominee works and whom he or she knows." I am sure I have read this elsewhere as well.)

It is common knowledge that blacks and females face barriers to a career in science. Hence NAS members are predominantly white males. Likewise, NAS membership may be influenced by public seervice. Fine, I agree (isn't it obvious). But I utterly fail to see how religiosity could affect membership. Hence it would be a random sample of white males. Unless more educated people are less likely to be religious, how can the ratio be so skewed 1:10?

I am sure that the Nature and Sciam articles would have done basic statistical analysis before reporting such figures. A journal like Nature would never report anything that is not statistically valid. I will be happy to verify it. --SDas (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What you're sure of does not matter, nor does it matter that some organization has a really good reputation, cf, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority . Fremte (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Stating that data published by Nature is statistically valid is not an appeal to authority. --SDas (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It is if you do not reference, quote or properly review the data. One could just as well day "I'm sure that SDas would only quote statistically valid data". So if you wish to include the info, please don't appeal to the reputations of the associations or journals or whatever, put forward the info. Otherwise it is non-npov. Kindly, Fremte (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is Nature reliable or not? --SDas (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting sidetracked. The articles, unless demonstrated otherwise, are probably accurate. however, they do not talk about intelligence. The questions Are these scientists a representative sample of intelligent people? Is NAS membership skewed against religiosity as it is for other cultural factors? has not been answered. If you would like to research it and publish it, we can use it. Until then, it is original research. The articles, to my knowledge, claim to be discussions of how many eminent scientists are religious, not how many intelligent people are religious.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. In my own judgment, it is common knowledge that scientists are smart people, hence not POV.--SDas (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SDas. In my judgement, I also feel that these elite scientists are smart people. I'm thinking the issue is not so much that (elite) scientists are smart people, but that they are not a representative group of smart people. (and not so much POV as the issue as OR).

I'll leave the section in for a few days, then remove it unless anyone expresses a view that we do not yet have a consensus.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wotherspoon, If you and I agree that scientists are smart people and the topic is about intelligence and religiosity, that section seems quite relevant to me, even if I agree that scientists are not a representative group of intelligent people. Let me express my thoughts by means of an analogy. Suppose we had an article on "Hibernation and Mammals" (there are non-mammals that hibernate, mammals that do not hibernate.) Then, "Migratory animals in the Tundra" would be a relevant section as it would lend support to the theory that "Mammals hibernate" in general, even if Tundra mammals are not a representative sample of mammals. Makes sense? --SDas (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes good sense, if this wasn't Wikipedia, with its policies on WP:OR and, specifically, synthesis. It would be a relevant section to demonstrate that "some mammals hibernate", just as the scientists section demonstrates that "some intelligent people are less religious" (or, more precisely, "some people we are fairly sure are intelligent are less religious").

BTW, doesn't your example actually demonstrate the fallacy of this synthesis? Lending support to the theory that "mammals hibernate in general" would be deceptive, because (AFAIK) they don't (in general), but using that example would lead a reader to belive that they do... or maybe I've missed something? (I know, it was just an example, but it does seem to illustrate why this policy exists). WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... Yes in a certain manner of speaking, it is synthesis. I need time to mull over it. And since I so strongly feel that the section is relevant, I must try and come up with a valid counter-argument. How I wish others would express their opinions too. --SDas (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

a valid counter-argument is: NAS scientist ARE a representative sample of intelligent people with regard to the studied parameter: religiosity. The NAS sientist are NOT representative of inteliigent people regarding race, gender or some other criteria... but these criteria are irrelevant to the topic at hand. So unless there is reliable source that claim that religious people do not get selected for NAS due to their religiosity, the result are valid and belong in this article. Shmget (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(Butting in to say that Wotherspoon is right--though we can be fairly certain that most top scientists are much more intelligent than the average person, we can't use top scientists' attitudes as evidence about the religiosity of intelligent people in general. My suspicion is that a survey of the IQs of popes would find that they tended to be more intelligent than the average person

Even if that were verified, being selected to be pope is clearly based on a required religiosity, hence the set of pope is not a representative sample of intlligent people with regard to religosity. (same rational apply to elected president in the US). On the other hand there is no obvious (like pope) nor is there reliable source that has been cited to substanciate the claim that somehow the selection of NAS membership selection is based on the religiosity of the candidat Shmget (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

--and so would a survey of US presidents, nearly all of whom have been churchgoers in one form or another. Basically, any group of high achievers in any field is likely to be composed of people of above-average intelligence, and some of those groups are disproportionately religious. The point is that none of them--including the group of top scientists--is anything like a representative sample of intelligent people.) 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wotherspoon, I happen to be really hard pressed for time. Dunno when I can reply to your comment. The subsection on "1.3 Studies comparing religious behaviour and educational attainment" seems to be a more tenuous link than the one you intend to delete. I intend, at a later stage, to add more material too to this article. It is about religion and intelligence, but so far it looks like only christianity and intelligence. If you delete a section, can you please paste that section here, for others to see and respond? --SDas (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

sounds like a good idea. I will leave it as is for a few days, awaiting any objections, and post the deleted section in the talk pages.

I agree with your statements re tenuous links, christianity. Will bear them in mind.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i have deleted the following text:

(heading Studies evaluating religious belief among eminent scientists

See also: Relationship between religion and science

This section discusses the prevalence of religious beliefs among leading scientists. Note that the authors do not make the assumption that leading scientists are more intelligent than either other scientists or the general population. It does not investigate the social and cultural biases possibly prevalent in either group.

In 1921, James H. Leuba published the results of research into the prevalence of religious beliefs among scientists and “greater” scientists. For the general scientists, he took a random sample of 1,000 from American Men of Science and for the greater scientists, a random sample of 200 marked in the reference as being great scientists. Of the scientists in general, 41.8% professed a belief in God compared to 31.6% in the second group.

In 1996 and 1998, a survey was conducted, and later published in the journal Nature and Scientific American magazine, which aimed to update the results of the previous study. For the broader set of scientists, they again selected those listed in American Men and Women of Science. For the narrower set of “greater” scientists, they took members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences since the previous measure of greater scientists was no longer available.

The study found that just 40% of the scientists polled held religious beliefs, versus 85-90% in the general population (see: Religion in the United States). This marked a small decline from the 1922 figure.

Among the narrower group, the NAS members, fewer than 10% held religious beliefs in the new study. Although this number is much lower than in the previous study, the two figures are not directly comparable since the selection of “greater” scientists between the two studies was necessarily different.

Congratulations to all on a very civilised and intelligent debate. Can anyone advise, has there been a co-relation between IQ, and tendency towards faith? It strikes me that if there is validity to this research, then it would also be reflected in an index which shows the smarter/dumber a subject is, the more/less likely they are to be a believer. As an example, if we took a base line of 100 IQ's and came up with say 85% were theists, but at 110, this dropped to say 82%, while at 120, this dropped again to say 78% and kept decreasing as IQ's increased, I think there would be a problem disputing that the higher the IQ, the more likely they were to be atheist.

Basically, if the premise that Atheists, are smarter in terms of IQ than Theists holds any water, research of this type would reflect that. Of course, at the end of the day, it is purely a matter of faith, and having a higher IQ, will not guarantee the correct answer.

Incidentally, two of the case studies put forward, the Pope and POTUS, were hardly going to lead to objective answers. The Pope must clearly be a believer, regardless of his intelligence, whilst POTUS is a politician, who will say what is needed to get elected. That does not include professing Atheism. 80.111.155.138 (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Religion: nature or nurture?

Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn

If religion is environmentally influenced (learned), then how can it affect intelligence either way? After all, it's simply one more learned behavior. It could be said that if somebody is incapable of "being religious", he should be incapable of learning in other areas as well. Also, how much of a person's refusal to believe the natural explanation over the supernatural one due to just plain stubbornness and how much to an actual lack of intelligence? I haven't seen these addressed in this article.Jlujan69 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence is also environmentally influenced, that's how. -Aeonoris (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a more probable explanation that Aeonoris might want to consider is most people are introduced to religion as children when they will usually lack the ability to question or even fear the message they are being given. To quote the Jesuits, "Give me the child, and I will give you the man". Most five year olds believe in Father Christmas, but eventually learn from their peers (rather than from adults)within 2-3 years that he does not exist. How many children are capable of debating the existence of God? So if you are being told by adults about the existence of God, and your own peers cannot give you reason to doubt this, the environmental influence is not intelligence, but indoctrination.80.111.155.138 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Its more of a relationship argument,saying that people with higher intelligence are less likely to take up religions,not necessarily that religion leads to lower intelligent,like humm bla bla bla means gods not possible since i went to the collage of bla i know this scientific basis,thats why im a athiest thats just a example,but higher intelegent might have a relationship to athiestic groth,witch is why they affect each other,the other factors leading to religion or athiesm arnt discussed because simply,thats not what the articles about,maybe in a more phycology/religion article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.140.226 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

reducing intro text, proposing new section

This article had a lot of info discussing what intelligence is, which i have reduced somewhat. It seemed to take up an unbalanced amount of the article. I don't think I've taken out anything that didn't belong. correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm also of the opinion that any article about 'religiosity and intelligence' should probably include a (short) mention of spiritual intelligence- which incorporates and links both concepts, but is not in the tone of the existing article about correlations between (the various types of intelligence) and (the various forms of) religiosity. Unfortuantely, the article on spiritual intelligence seems to need a major makeover before it could be linked to as a main article. Any thoughts, anyone? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have totally lost me there? What is "spiritual intelligence"? Can it be scientifically measured as with IQ, or demonstrated in any objective format?80.111.155.138 (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ref to "religious being dumber"

I find the ref to atheists being smarter than everyone else, or religious being dumber, to be dubious. I couldn't get to the site. I think an assertions of this kind needs more than one source. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that was almost certainly written by a troll.80.111.155.138 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/religious-people-less-intelligent-atheists_n_3750096.html i dont know how to write on wiki but i thought id add this contribution. its not meant to be provocative 23:31 Central, 5/21/15

Fallacious Argument

This page does not give a balanced account of the relationship between religiosity and intelligence - it is written in the style of an argument, and it implies the conclusion that, in general, possessing a greater intellect makes that person more likely to "see through" religious claims and dogma. This is particularly true of the subsection "WHY low IQ might correlate with religiosity", which seems to suggest that "reflective thinking on the issue" will naturally lead one the conclusion that God does not exist.

Assuming the (scanty) data is accurate and generalisable, isn't the following at least a plausible alternative explanation: (1) People who are of above-average intelligence are more likely to think of themselves as "free-thinking" and intelligent - that is, they will consider themselves to have superiour analytical abilities as compared to the person of average intellect. (2) Such people are more likely to see religious assertions as an affront to their self-image, especially if they have atheistic peers of similar intellect. In short, they could be conforming to a social meme; namely conforming to the assertion that "rigorous thinking is incompatible with religion".

I'm not saying that this is the only other possible explanation, but it serves to show that the implicit conclusion of this article is flawed, since it excludes alternative explanations. Steps should be taken to improve the objectivity and rigour of this article.

EulersNumber (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. To add a counter argument, we would need a reliable source making that argument. Without it, we have nothing to discuss here. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted - although I think you've perhaps missed my main point. The claim made in the article that reflective thinking will tend to lead the intelligent person to atheism is made without any proof whatsoever, and it does not admit the possibility of alternative explanations for the data presented. It assumes that there is only one possible reason for the data being as it is, and happily presents this as the only possible conclusion that a rational person could draw. I gave the above argument, not for inclusion in the article, but as a demonstration that this claim is debateable. At least some of this article is written in a style that promotes atheism, although the title of the article suggests that its contents should be objective and verifiable. Attributing the conclusion to Professor Nyborg (which is a personal opinion that he is entitled to hold) is an appeal to authority, and such commentary should be removed in the interest of objectivity. - EulersNumber (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A little late to the conversation but... In the humble opinion of an atheist, I suspect there's a correlation in that religion usually requires a leap of faith which is not directly supported by logic. As such those that cling to logic can't/won't make the leap to religion. While I personally believe that's a sensible position, I don't believe any of the sources support it so I'd add my vote to removing this implication from the article as rewrites occur 86.174.184.73 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

EN, I think you are right to consider plausible alternative explanations. I am not sure how "considering" oneself to have superior analytic abilities would itself make a difference here. Except to the extent that it causes more critical thinking (which is already mentioned in the article). Considering oneself to have higher intellect may be a part of suggestion #2 that you offered - it could be a matter of social identity.

I made a minor change to the article recently. Confounding social factors are now briefly mentioned. You do make an interesting point that they could be a real factor here (i.e. social identity). Please find some good sources making those points, so you or I can write them into the article. Also, feel free to mention any other specific sentences or paragraphs that you think could use improvement in some way.

Pleasure working with you-Tesseract²(talk) 17:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally can see huge problems with the Nyborg study, but it isn't our job to "consider plausible alternative explanations" - it is our job to report on whether the scientific community has, ideally in peer reviewed articles, published plausible alternative explanations. I'm a little time limited at the moment but, for those wanting to improve this article with relevant sources, the following might be appropriate:

Why does Jesus go to Oxford University? Conversion Experience, Creativity and Intelligence http://www.jirrs.org/jirrs_nr_6/3-jirrs6-dutton.pdf

The relationship between intelligence and multiple domains of religious belief: Evidence from a large adult US sample http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000912 addresses some limitations of Nyborg's work- specifies different typles of 'religiosity')

Atheists, agnostics and apostates https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2050070&fileOId=2272772

(ideally there would be some research on the relationship between intelligence and conversion rates, or 'apostacy rates', which, i suspect, is a more relevant area to research that religiosity per se. If i find the time i will search this out as well)

Also, an enthusiatic writer made huge edits in the last couple of months, which were removed since there was so much unsourced or orginal research. the following portion might still be worth including though:

"A trans-generational study that tracked the journey of about 3,300 - 2,500 American youth from early teens to adulthood through their religious and spiritual landscape, determined that religiosity does not decrease with higher education in America - contrary to popular secularization theories and that religiosity in American universities is increasing overall. "

hope this is helpful WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Tesseract - thanks for changing the objectionable section directly quoting the opinions of Nyborg. I'm sorry that the way I presented the argument using numbered points is confusing - #1 is indeed meant to lead to #2. I'm a little short of time at the moment, but I will make time in the next couple of days to find reputable sources to back up alternative interpretations of the data. I'll make a point of consulting other editors before making even minor changes to the page, since this is such a controversial topic. Likewise, a pleasure working with you!

WS - thanks for doing some research and getting useful resources. I'll read through them in the next couple of days. As for "our job", I would argue that it is indeed our role to look for alternative explanations, but only to present them on the article once we've located some corroborating evidence. This is in the spirit of scientific enquiry, otherwise we are in danger of sticking to narrow points of view, and presenting theories in debated issues as if they were fact. EulersNumber (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Does 'apostacy rates' demonstrate anything useful? The reason I ask is that most people learn about deities as children, and there would be very few who did not face some form of indoctrination on this issue. This would mean that all children are born without belief, and become believers through lack of ability to recognise and understand indoctrination. In this case, apostacy might be just as legitimately described as reverting to the default position. Then there is the other form of aspostacy, which is "conversion" such as changing faith from (e.g.) Jew to Christian. Not sure that apostacy is the right word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.155.138 (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Use of the term 'God'

It's one thing to talk about religion as if it is sound, intellectually, but to speak of it in terms of "belief in God" versus "lack of belief in God" shows a hamstringed, myopic, childish ignorance which doesn't deserve to be called reputable or well-founded, no matter what types of degrees people have been provided who supported such notions. Please, use 'theistic' or 'religious' or at worst 'spiritual', but try not to base anything important on the gross and completely meaningless (mired in Christian dogma) notion of 'God' without some kind of qualifier. It begs to be laughed at. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

I find myself applauding the attempts of the editors here to be fair and balanced, but I noticed in another Wiki article: Discrimination against Atheists, Thailand was described as a Moslem country, though it is a Buddhist country, and then went on to suggest Buddhism is not a religious belief. One of the problems that seems not to have been dealt with in this article, is there is no definition of what constitutes an Atheist. If it helps, my own is a person who believes that that there are no divine beings or supernatural powers. As such, Astrologers, Tea-leaf Readers, Tarot Readers, Numerologists, Wiccans, Black Magicians, Satanists, Occultists, Buddhists etc are not Atheists

If this Article had been about (say) Tarot and Intelligence, I think a similar outcome would have been that the higher the IQ, the less likely someone is to believe in Tarot, and I suspect that the only people who would argue with that would be Tarot believers. Which brings me to the second issue I have with the generality of the arguments that it has given rise to: Why is Tarot, any less valid a belief system than say Monotheism, or any of the others I have mentioned here. There is the same scientific evidence for the existence of a God, that there is for Tea-Leaf Readers.

It should not be any surprise that most intelligent people don't believe in Palmistry, because like God, it lacks scientific proof, but believers are not happy when you make implications about there faith. If the Article had a title such as "Intelligence and the likelihood to be sceptical", it would probably have raised little comment. But that is one of the by-products of intelligence, that you are more likely to rely on logic than faith, and are more likely to be questioning, as well as know what questions to ask. It should not come as a surprise that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to put logic ahead of faith. That does not invalidate that the believers might actually be correct. 80.111.155.138 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Atheism is clever, but Evangelicals have more compound familly support

You don't have to have only one clever idea. You need also a family with bonds, warm, willing to support you also a community of friends to communicate.

Atheistic unions are not as supportive as some religious unions.

It seems inteligence has more do to if you are supported by a community and family. Also you have to be in an open minded community. For example religious people that accept evolution statistically are more intelligent if that is combined with a warm, positive community.

The problem of modern atheistic unions and families? The are not supportive and positive enough. We must allow psychology academic lectures to the public with scientific data. Focus on support, and not fighting other beliefs. Many atheists waste so much energy fighting family members or being fighted. Robert Sapolsky professor at Stanford University has data to prove that anxiety and lackage of love, leeds to lower iq levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.206.14 (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty interesting statement. Got sources for all of it?MicroMacroMania (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of source

The below material was removed by an editor with the premise that Nyborg has been accused of scientific misconduct. I reverted because it was published in a peer-review journal. Another editor later removed it with a concern that, because the article is a primary source/research article, it is not considered reliable here, and secondary sources should be used.

In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence, demonstrated that atheists scored an average of 1.95 IQ points higher than agnostics, 3.82 points higher than liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than other dogmatic persuasions.

Assuming the text is agreeable as a straightforward presentation of the article's methodology and conclusions (and does add a spin to it), the material appears germane to the article. Regarding the two edits that removed the material:

1. I don't know if Nyborg was accused of scientific misconduct or not. What would only be relevant to this particular article, however, would be if the journal retracted the article. It is not for us as editors to determine what, if any, of an author's material remains reliable after an accusation of misconduct.

2. WP:RS identifies that primary source material can be used, although secondary sources are preferable. More directly, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." In short, Wikipedia says this article, which passed peer review in a scholarly journal, is reliable. It's fine if an editor prefers secondary sources over primary sources (and we generally should), but that does not preclude the use of primary sources, especially when they explicity meet Wikipedia's criterion listed above.

I propose to readd the material. I welcome further comment. Airborne84 (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there haven't been comments to date, I'll list this at the reliable sources noticeboard. Airborne84 (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Religion and neurons

Some publication found the the fear of god is connected to fewer neurons in the brain:

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/12/4876.full.pdf+html

Worth mentioning?ParanoidLemmings (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Where in that study did it say that? It mostly just analyzed what parts of the brain process different ideas about God.67.176.51.111 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Evening out

This should probably be in the article... http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/of-10-highest-iqs-on-earth-at-least-8-are-theists-at-least-6-are-christians/

--JT2958 (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You'd need a more reliable source than a blog post citing an Examiner.com article. Not only is Examiner.com not a reliable source, that specific article's list omits the last holder of the Guinness World Record for "Highest IQ", Marilyn vos Savant. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Atheism as Religion and NPOV

As the article stands it has studies comparing the statistical corelations of IQ with the "religious" and with atheists, who are then presumed to be "non-religious". However many people define atheism as a religion itself so labeling atheists as non-religious would be POV. Perhaps the article needs to be retitled to something like "Religions and intelligence" and atheism labeled as a possible religion. 67.176.51.111 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea of whether atheism is or isn't a religion isn't a topic for this page. What is important is what the reliable sources mean when they discuss this topic. If they are discussing someone who doesn't believe in a deity, we have to stay true to what the reliable sources present, labels aside. If there is a definitional concern or confusion, that should be addressed in the lede or better yet, in a footnote. Airborne84 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The topic is "Religiosity and IQ" and to assume atheism isn't a religion is POV. If a source defines someone who doesn't believe in a deity as non religious that might be their POV but then putting that POV into this page shouldn't be allowed under the NPOV policy. As the article stands it assumes atheists have less "religiosity" than others, which is a POV. Why not simply change the title of the article and then compare the statistical correlations of IQ and different beliefs without labeling various beliefs as more or less religious than others?67.176.51.111 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've looked through the sources I have access to, and while it may not be the case in other sources or with the many people you cite, the sources as they currently are assume atheism and non-religious to be largely synonymous "Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'" on telegraph.uk has the following passages: "Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average. A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed. Dr Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at Leeds University, said the conclusion had "a slight tinge of Western cultural imperialism as well as an anti-religious sentiment"." Professor Richard Lynn correlates high degree of atheism in the intellectual elite and a decline in religious observance. Dr Alstair McFadyen talks about anti-religious sentiment. If atheism is a religion in the eyes of Dr. McFadyen how could the conclusion be anti-religious? In "Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds" one of the pieces of data to justify the headline is: "Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence." Divine Intuition: Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God, by Amitai Shenhav, David G. Rand, and Joshua D. Greene at Harvard University has an "atheist-believer scale" Only one other source that I have read mentions atheism, that would be "Analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, study shows". This source doesn't link atheism and non-belief, but it doesn't contrast it either. If you feel this is a non-neutral treatment of the subject you are welcome to add reliable sources pertaining to the subject which define atheism as a religion, but as it is now, this would be misrepresenting the sources. Qsdd (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's all semantics. Atheism is clearly a religious viewpoint. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Is defining atheism as a religion something most reliable sources on religion do, or only religious sources do when making an argument? I don't know the answer here, I'm simply asking. Airborne84 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I see some definitions in The Anthropology of Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft (2d Ed) by Rebecca and Philip Stein. It notes challenges with defining religion, but provides some coverage in three areas: (1) "Analytic definitions", (2) "Functional definitions", and (3) an "essentialist definition". The first area, outlined by Ninian Smart, provides many examples that atheism could fall under, such as organization, leadership, worldview, rites of passage, a "group activity", customs, and "moral rules". However it also notes myths, "creation stories", and "experiences of a sacred reality that is beyond ordinary experience". The latter don't align well with atheism. The "Functional definitions" could align with atheism, where "a religion might enforce social cohesion by bringing members together for rituals and providing a foundation for shared beliefs". I don't know what atheist rituals would be, but the foundation for shared beliefs could be argued. Although atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, I suspect most atheists also share some positive beliefs. Finally, an "essentialist definition ... emphasizes the fact that religion is the domain of the extraordinary—things beyond the ... natural". This one is not compatible with atheism as I understand it.

So, within these three categories of definitions of religion, the second could arguably align with atheism. The other two do not. At the minimum, that makes the assertion that atheism is a religion to be a problematic one. For me, I'll just refer to my earlier post that we should defer to what the author means when we capture what she/he says. Airborne84 (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Stein's definitions are interesting, but ultimately that's their POV isn't it? Atheists can certainly have myths and creation stories, and I'm not necessarily talking about something like the big bang theory or evolution. An atheist doesn't necessarily believe in scientific theories, they just don't believe in a divinity. An atheist could also hold something to be sacred in the sense that's it's really important and also beyond ordinary experience, ultimate truth for instance. And a religion need not hold that there are things beyond the natural world, such as some forms of pantheism do. Do people who believe in multiverses think there is something beyond nature, or do they define the sum total of all universes as just one big natural world? Whether you find the assertion of atheism being a religion to be problematic or not, many people do argue with good reasons that it is so should there POV be included or not?67.176.51.111 (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If those people are reliable sources, then their positions should be recorded on the Wikipedia article on Religion. If they are not reliable sources, then no. For many people make those arguments for specific reasons. There are government officials in the US Congress who argued that atheism is not a religion when voting on a bill that would allow atheist chaplains in the US military. I've heard religious people argue atheism is a religion in order to put religion and nonreligion on a equal footing regarding "faith". I've heard atheists argue atheism is not a religion to distance themselves from religion, and I've heard the opposite to obtain the rights that religious institutions have. And there are other reasons why people might argue one way or the other.

So, we must be careful about simply incorporating people's views on this subject due to its nature. We have to rely on reliable sources on this here at Wikipedia and let others argue POV positions at other sources. Discussion using reliable sources should happen at the Religion article, and there are various definitions listed there. Here, we simply need to ensure that we accurately capture what the author means when we cite her or him. Airborne84 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As a further note, however, if you think that one of the authors cited in the article is not clear in their work on what they mean by religion, then that should be identified. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Atheism cannot be defined as a religion, because it is the absence of an entire category of beliefs. You could accurately call it a religious viewpoint, as it does contradict many (or most) religions. It does not meet most definitions of religion, however. 1) It is not the "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." 2) It is not a system of faith and/or worship. If used in the colloquial sense, it is true that there are some atheists who feel so passionately about it that they might ironically be described as 'religiously atheist', but that doesn't have anything to do with belief in gods or supernatural entities. I think the intent behind labeling atheism as a religion is essentially to circumvent the argument that not believing in gods requires equivalent suspensions of disbelief or faith as believing in a god. While this is an interesting line of inquiry, it doesn't belong in this topic.TomClement (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Atheism, in and of itself, probably isn't a religion- we can discuss that elsewhere. However, it is worthwhile noting on the page that "theism" is not the same thing as "religiosity", since some forms of Buddhism and perhaps other religions do not require a belief in a god, even amongst the most religious of adherents. This would skew the results of international studies (Eastern Asian nations may have fewer theists, but are they less religious?)

Undue weight

Richard Lynn, a discredited researcher associated with a white supremacist hate group, is quoted at length in the lede. Considering that his findings generally are far outside the scientific mainstream, isn't that undue weight? Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Lynn and his findings, as well as research sponsored by the Pioneer Fund in general, should be covered in the article according to their prominence in reliable sources on intelligence research. Empirical results matter, political slanders don't. Where's the evidence that Lynn's views on religion and intelligence are "far outside the scientific mainstream"?--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The quoting at length may be undue weight (but I haven't checked recently, so I'll be glad to hear other editors' points of view), but the mention that he has discussed such findings would not be, as long as reliable sources independent of Lynn pass on these same statements by Lynn. How settled the issue is as yet would also be disclosed by taking a good look at several current, reliable secondary sources. (I'm not expressing an opinion about the current condition of the article here but am talking about general principles of editing Wikipedia articles, as I think Victor also is.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 13:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he should be ignored. I'm not objecting to him being covered in the rest of the article. I'm saying he shouldn't be given undue weight. Of the four lede paragraphs, one is devoted to quoting some statistics (which appear to be OR) from a paper by Lynn. I also never said his views on religion and intelligence specifically are at all incongruous with the mainstream; his findings on intelligence generally, particularly about race and intelligence, are. That makes him a poor source for the lede, unless he's the most notable member of a notable minority view. Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that all scholars called White Supremacist Haters by Charlotte Aryanne should have their work covered minimally, if at all. 112.172.232.217 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede has been adjusted accordingly.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"higher IQ countries"?

I have removed the following sentence: "Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” This is a quote from the authors but is not accurately describing the data, as clearly shown in the graph on the main page and the examination by Olsen later in the article. Higher IQ countries (those above 100) are evenly distributed from low to high belief in a god, the top 23 seem all within the average range (90 to 110) except one particularly low. If anything, the high IQ countries (above 105) tended to be lower. I'm not suggesting removing the study (it is peer reviewed etc) but this particular sentence does not seem to be the best quote of the findings. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The study is controversial since there were also methodological problems including using outdated studies and of course dubious definitions of both religion and intelligence. The trend was mainly pulled by the cluster of the less developed countries which of course varied in IQ between 64-100 or more, where 90-110 is average IQ. Even in countries where atheists were roughly 0-10%, numerous countries had IQs similar to all the other countries with 20% or more atheists. Mayan1990 (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If that is the case, (and noting Charlotte Aryanne's points above), do we have undue weight on his research in the body of the article? When it was added, it was one of the few citations we had related to this topic, this is not the case now. I note that people have had concerns with other cooauthor (Helmuth Nyborg) of the study before, and the dataset, which was used for other controversial studies re Race and intelligence. It may be wp:undue weight to have as much space as we do on these studies. Thoughts? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

True. It was one of the few studies before others were added for contrast. Perhaps some slight condensing is in order for Lynn et al. Mayan1990 (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality and Accuracy

There seems to be a problem with the npov and accuracy of this article. To start with the article really only cites and discusses the studies that show a negative correlation between IQ and religiousity. There are, however, nearly as many studies published in scientific journals showing a positive correlation between religiousity and IQ. It also states that most studies show a difference between IQ and religiousity and then goes on to suggest that most of the time this difference is one of negative correlation. This is inaccurate. The VAST majority of studies concerning this issue show NO correlation between religiousity and IQ. In other words, the majority show no difference as opposed to what is suggested by this article. The article also did not discuss the multitude of concerns regarding the accuracy of the Helmuth studies both in the instance of religiousity and in the instances of his other works regarding intelligence. Helmuth is a less than reliable source having also claimed that women are less intelligent than men (despite multiple other studies showing no correlation) and that african americans are inherently less intelligent than white people (also dismissed by other studies. This article is in clear need of revision or removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.116.90 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

First I will reply here, then I will move this comment to the end of the talk page (where new comments are expected to be posted). I agree that there are sourcing problems here. The way to cure those is to find more sources. Adding more sources to this article is one of several kinds of edits that I think this article needs to be better and more encyclopedic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As usual, the main sourcing problem here is much too much reliance on unreplicated primary research studies, rather than on reliable professional secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's ironic that the person who introduces this section talks about lack of neutrality and accuracy, and goes on to cite that "There are, however, nearly as many studies published in scientific journals showing a positive correlation between religiousity and IQ." If that is correct, then how does he account for the mention that 53 of 63 studies sho the opposite?80.111.155.138 (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is a simple solution for that, simply provide the study for counter-arguments, if you make a claim you should be able to back it up.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the second paragraph of the introduction points towards correlation between religiosity and educational level, even though this is not the topic of this article (and in fact, there is another article dealing with this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.76.30 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

ZUCKERMAN

The abstract says it all

 'A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior'

and here

 'Earlier we alluded to some possible effects of religion type and culture. Specifically, it was mentioned that the emphasis on beliefs as the intrinsic component of religiosity (and, as such, the component with stronger negative relation to intelligence) might be an attribute of American Protestant religion, and may be less true of Judaism and Catholicism (Cohen et al., 2005).'

and their discussion

 'Results of the present meta-analysis demonstrated a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity. The size of the relation varied according to sample type and the nature of the religiosity measure. The relation was weakest at the precollege level, although even in that group it was sig- nificantly different from zero. After correlations observed in college populations were corrected for range restriction of intelligence scores, the magnitude of the intelligence–religi- osity relation at the college level was comparable with that at the non-college level.

The relation was also more negative when religiosity measures assessed religious beliefs rather than religious behavior.'

and notice here the words 'STRONGER and MAY, indicating a strong, statistically significant relationship exists OUTSIDE the protestant population, contrary to the old article paraphrasing, which quite frankly was screaming POV and WP:ADVOCACY.

 Stated differently, the stronger negative relation of intelligence with religious beliefs may also be limited to American Protestant population.

and in their clarification

 'With one exception (Sherkat, 2010), the interpretations that follow focus on the assumption that intelligence affects religiosity rather than the reverse. To be sure, this assump- tion is not derived from our correlational data. Rather, it is derived from data indicating that intelligence develops ear- lier than does religiosity. Intelligence can be reliably mea- sured at a very early age while religiosity cannot (e.g., Jensen, 1998; Larsen, Hartmann, & Nyborg, 2008). In their classic study, for example, H. E. Jones and Bayley (1941) showed that the mean of intelligence scores assessed at ages 17 and 18 (a) correlated .86 with the mean scores assessed at ages 5, 6, and 7; and (b) correlated .96 with the mean of intel- ligence scores assessed at ages 11, 12, and 13. Because intel- ligence can be measured at an early age, it can be used to predict outcomes observed years later. For example, Deary, Strand, Smith, and Fernandes (2007) reported a .69 correla- tion between intelligence measured at age 11 and educational achievement at age 16.'

These quotations also need to be paraphrased and added as they are relevant

 'During adolescence, there is a strong relation between religiosity of parents and that of their children (Cavalli- Sforza, Feldman, Chen, & Dornbusch, 1982; Gibson, Francis, & Pearson, 1990; Hoge, Petrillo, & Smith, 1982). As adolescents grow older, these associations decrease such that correlations between childhood religious socialization and religiosity in adulthood are weak or nonexistent (Arnett & Jensen, 2002; Hoge, Johnson, & Luidens, 1993; Willits & Crider, 1989). If religiosity in adolescence is largely a func- tion of parental instructions and example, then it will be only minimally influenced by attributes of the person, including intelligence.'

 'We therefore suggest that as intelligent people move from young adulthood to adulthood and then to middle age, the benefits of intelligence may continue to accrue. Thus, after college, the degree to which intelligence obviates the functions of religion may gradually increase over time.'

Petergstrom (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring

The study from the Pew Research Center clearly states:

By far, Hindus and Unitarian Universalists have among the largest share of those with a college degree – 77% and 67% respectively. Roughly six-in-ten Jews (59%) have college degrees, as do similar shares in both the Anglican church (59%) and the Episcopal Church (56%).

It then states:

Our study also looked at educational attainment in three categories of religiously unaffiliated people. About four-in-ten atheists (43%) and agnostics (42%) have earned college degrees, as have nearly a quarter (24%) of those who say their religion is “nothing in particular.”

You inappropriately have removed and censored the aforementioned information with your clandestine edit summary "Fixed with relevance". You have been reverted by three different editors, myself User:Ramos1990 and User:Renzoy16. It should be noted that you have a history demonstrating your conflict of interest vis-à-vis religion and antireligion-related articles, as you have added that Jesus, Moses, and Ignatius of Loyola had the psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia (see evidence for your tendentious editing Example 1, Example 2, and Example 3). You are being strongly warned to revert yourself before I take this to WP:AN3 and WP:ANI where you will no doubt be blocked for edit warring and topic banned from editing religion and atheism-related articles, broadly construed.-Jobas (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jobas:You seem very eager to describe christianity when, and only when, their statistics lie above those of unaffiliated group. Secondly I have no COI, the changes to the religious figure articles were about MENTAL HEALTH, not anti religion. If you perceive them as anti religion, that seems to me like evidence of a confirmation bias. You are assuming advocacy, when all of my prior edits were of an NPOV, neither advocating for either side of the spectrum. If anyone has a COI it is evident in you edits. Listing every single religion above the unaffiliated group is not a waste of space according to you(as some denominations of christianity were included), however when the list only contained five groups, and christianity was at the bottom, it was a waste of space according to you. That is a clear demonstration of a COI, judging relevance inconsistent in such a manner. You cry censorship while blatantly contradicting yourself, when you ignore flat out REAL censorship here, followed by a violation of the 3RR.Petergstrom Furthermore, User:Renzoy16 was clearly in the wrong here, as I gave the EXACT quotations in the talk page that supported the change, and he flat out ignored it to support the sentence that the correlation only existed in protestants(contradictory to the study) Petergstrom (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Also you might want to view WP:COMPETENCE Don't change and play of my edits, and here You break the 3RR. Petergstrom (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well you seem very eager to describe religiously unaffiliated are above all, for example your tried to misleading the source and adding your own personal opinion which is an original research, when the study do not mention in any place that "some Christians denominations" - it cited Christians- surpassed religiously unaffiliated, in term in education, you try misleading the source.--Jobas (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That was an accident, I thought the ref was referring to the other PEW research article(the one where the image originates). It was not OR, it was a mistake...Also about the title, if I was in an edit war, than you were in an edit world war....Petergstrom (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Try to read this Wikipedia:No personal attacks, so no personal attacks please. You seem very eager to describe unaffiliated when, and only when, their statistics lie above those of Christians group. your edit that you mentioned before was focusing on specific age group although the study itself do not give more detailed or particularly on this age group from the other age group to give it here special place, anyway I'm not argue about this edit now since I'm okay with the current text that done by User:Ramos1990 which is more neutral and less "competitive", and it's include now all the rest and put out the numbers.--Jobas (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Religiosity vs. religious affiliation

I see that Jobas has restored the coatrack material from the Pew study I removed earlier. This article is about religiosity (i.e., how religious a person is) and not religious affiliation (what religion one follows). Hence, the only distinction from the study that I see which is potentially relevant for this article is between the non-religious and the religious. Arguably, even inclusion of that content is OR because the study doesn't mention religiosity and doesn't control for socio-economic factors. I'll give others a chance to discuss before removing that content again. Eperoton (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone from this section and the last section (both are related). I think the issue is pretty simple to solve. I will re-word for a more neutral reading and hope that satisfies everyone. I usually try to just stick to the numbers since they speak for themselves. Here I go....Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)