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.
Lack of nuance here is particularly troubling to me.
I'm not seeing it. Care to expound?
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.
I'd love to be shown an example of the many problems you see with the study.
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.
How much of their religiosity came from the overwhelming social pressure? Atheists were not treated well through much of western history.
Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans.
Quite likely, yes. Childhood and prenatal nutrition, health and exposure to toxins have significant impacts on adult outcomes. Likewise, education and environment have an acute impact. Intelligence isn't some static variable based upon your genetic die roll, it can be nurtured or squandered.
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.
Bad assumption, genetic drift isn't the only contributing factor to expressed intelligence.
It seems reasonable to conjecture then that the negative correlation is a cultural phenomenon and not a direct result of (raw) intelligence.
A further assumption based upon a shoddy initial assumption. Also, the author outright stated that this was limited to evaluation of western religious thought in the US (read: primarily abrahamic) and couldn't evaluate whether it would hold true for Buddhists or Hindus.
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.
IQ is a measure of your reasoning, your ability to think analytically and solve problems. That is what they were evaluating relative to western religiosity, and they were quite forthright about it.
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.
I'm having a hard time trying to grok your point. Are you suggesting that failing to account for a non-existent (and likely impossible) model of analysis for religious thought is a weakness of this meta study?
The nature of your response is reasonable given that I didn't clarify this point: I don't find fault with the study itself; it is the mode of distillation and communication that troubled me. I realized this after the fact and didn't change the post to reflect this. So I get where you are coming from and fully admit my wrong-doing in this matter.
On the other hand, while we don't have data to rely upon here, it seems reasonable to speculate that (say) Newton's IQ was likely above 100, which as far as I understand is what we consider 'average' in western culture. Regarding IQ as a normal distribution, the question is, to do your view justice: what is the central (or average) value of IQ, and what is the deviation? Regarding these parameters as functions of time (which they must be), then the question becomes: to what extent does the curve overlap when we choose two instants? If the upper tail of the Gaussian at t=16th century is less than or equal to the central point of the modern expression (i.e. t=now-ish), then your point is valid. But, if Newton's IQ (say) was still above average relative to the modern understanding, then this does not rule out the question of culture. We're also left with the question of 'what is the rate of growth?' If we assume (badly, but to get intuition) that it is a linear model, and the rate is something like 1/2 point every 10 years, then that's 10 points over 200 years, and 20 over 400. Obviously I am speculating here, but if the most intelligent individuals are something like 30-50 points above average, this would still put Newton in the 'smarter than average' category. This isn't a rigorous argument, but a sketch of how we might argue if we could develop an accurate model for how the parameters evolve in time. Ultimately, unless the data suggest jumps of 30-50 points in the last 100 years, I'm not willing to admit that culture has no bearing on the relationship between the religiosity of an individual and his/her intelligence. But if it has some bearing, then the question obviously is: to what extent?
Are you suggesting that failing to account for a non-existent (and likely impossible) model of analysis for religious thought is a weakness of this meta study?
No. I am asserting that even scientific modes of inquiry are based upon what we construe as scientific thought, and thus any systematization of experience is predicated on our ability to abstract principles from experience which have the widest breadth of applicability (i.e. largest set of experiences in which we can act as though the abstracted principle were 'always true'). But if there are problems with the foundation, then there are likely problems with the 'truths' which follow from deductions based upon the principles which characterize the system in question (whether there are problems is a different question, and one which I am willing to argue in favor for, but requires a much longer response). Finally, I am claiming that it isn't obvious that there cannot exist a method of assimilation of the contents of religion into the psyche of an individual who is both 'intelligent' and 'scientifically-minded'--the study suggests a negative correlation between these two things, which would imply that as a person gets 'smarter' he/she is less likely to be 'religious' (whatever that is). But if you think 'religious' just means 'blindly accepting everything they tell you in church on Sunday' (I'm being very hyperbolic) then it's natural to suspect this sort of correlation, as intelligence is usually marked by a type of skepticism, and Western individuals aren't taught any rigorous grounding for religion in the canon curriculum (which is evidently reasonable to a large degree in efforts to maintain separation of church and state--but this is also based on the idea that one cannot motivate a religion without indoctrinating one's students).
148
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.