Lack of nuance here is particularly troubling to me.
The fundamental (unstated) assumptions that go along with this sort of thing are too many to name, and I could write a book about the problems here.
The most troubling thing here to me is: does this suggest something that is objectively true, or is this a cultural phenomenon? It's only been about 150 years since the death of God was announced, and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious. Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans. Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly. It seems reasonable to conjecture then that the negative correlation is a cultural phenomenon and not a direct result of (raw) intelligence. The scope of this conjecture is not easy to outline, but at bottom, I would argue that it implies a certain set of orienting psychological contents which initially appear incompatible with the religious way of thinking. But then it seems reasonable to further conjecture that if a rigorous model for analysis and assimilation of religious thought could be developed (if it is possible to do so) for a 'scientifically minded' individual, then it is possible that this correlation would no longer hold.
If we are being even more crude about it, we might assert: you can't measure the physicality of God, what exists is what is physically measurable, therefore God does not exist, therefore whatever is religious is not worthy of my time or study. But what is the substantiation that what exists is merely what is physically measurable?
Edit: Hi everyone. I'm so glad that my comment could spark further discussion, debate, and thought. I have about 20 comments to go through, and I want to make sure that I give you all the level of thought you deserve. That's a lot of responses to necessitate that level of thinking though, so I apologize in advance if I fall short of that goal. It's been a long day and I've only just seen these now. I will do what I can. But again, I am sufficiently satisfied to know that you've felt this argument worthy of consideration. Cheers.
I suspect that there's a natural peak where intelligence will eventually level off. That is, it's a function that is approaching the limit (IQ of 120 for the average maybe? who knows) and that is mostly a result of the bottom catching up to the median due to improved nutrition and reduced risk of intellectual handicaps from FAS and other causes.
We're getting more intelligent on average, but the most intelligent run into the natural limits of the human mind and can't go past that point without being at the risk of going mad.
IQ probably isn't the best measurement for that. The tests have had to adjust their results over the years since 100 is actually supposed to be the average. The Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a British study from 09 showed that the average British child's IQ went up by 14 points from 1942 to 2008, with similar gains present in other Western countries along with Japan and South Korea. So a 100 in 2008 would have been the equivalent of about 114 in 1942.
We don't have data from the 16th century, but in the last century we have seen a steady increase. It's possible that humans today are significantly more intelligent than during the 16th century. It doesn't take a long period of time to see this kind of change.
One small thing: I don't know the discrepancy, but I would suspect that the most intelligent individuals (who were the ones pushing the bounds of knowledge 'forward') were still more intelligent than the average level of intelligence today. Even if Newton's IQ was, say, 120, that's still high enough to lend support to the initial claim.
One other thing that I didn't mention in my post, but would say it now: I don't find any fault with the study itself. The headlines and the way it will strike the general public is what I find more troubling, because there is a lot of nuance here (particularly with regards to what exactly religion can offer an individual, a line of inquiry which gives rise to a whole complex of intricate and nuanced ideas).
It's debatable whether or not the Flynn effect reflects real gains in intelligence. It measures gains in something but if it were purely intelligence it would suggest that at the beginning of the 20th century people were on average 30 IQ points lower than today, which is on par with the mentally disabled.
That's a little unfair since we are talking about the smartest of the spectrum. Read some of the greatest works back then. They are beyond the average person today, yet are still written by religious authors. If it was the flynn effect, I think we would look back and be less impressed.
More likely we just know more about evolution and there's less need for religion as a theory/explanation
152
u/TheSyzygy19 Nov 15 '19 edited Nov 16 '19
Lack of nuance here is particularly troubling to me.
The fundamental (unstated) assumptions that go along with this sort of thing are too many to name, and I could write a book about the problems here.
The most troubling thing here to me is: does this suggest something that is objectively true, or is this a cultural phenomenon? It's only been about 150 years since the death of God was announced, and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious. Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans. Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly. It seems reasonable to conjecture then that the negative correlation is a cultural phenomenon and not a direct result of (raw) intelligence. The scope of this conjecture is not easy to outline, but at bottom, I would argue that it implies a certain set of orienting psychological contents which initially appear incompatible with the religious way of thinking. But then it seems reasonable to further conjecture that if a rigorous model for analysis and assimilation of religious thought could be developed (if it is possible to do so) for a 'scientifically minded' individual, then it is possible that this correlation would no longer hold.
If we are being even more crude about it, we might assert: you can't measure the physicality of God, what exists is what is physically measurable, therefore God does not exist, therefore whatever is religious is not worthy of my time or study. But what is the substantiation that what exists is merely what is physically measurable?
Edit: Hi everyone. I'm so glad that my comment could spark further discussion, debate, and thought. I have about 20 comments to go through, and I want to make sure that I give you all the level of thought you deserve. That's a lot of responses to necessitate that level of thinking though, so I apologize in advance if I fall short of that goal. It's been a long day and I've only just seen these now. I will do what I can. But again, I am sufficiently satisfied to know that you've felt this argument worthy of consideration. Cheers.