CJ
Mensa is the top 2%. TOPS is the top 1%. A favorite activity at TOPS meetings is telling Mensa jokes.
Kniz wrote:
Not to the satisfaction of anyone who wishes to believe they were not.
Just because you knew somebody who chained smoked everyday and still lived to 100 years old doesn’t mean that smoking isn’t bad for your health.
Likewise, just because there are some highly intelligent religionists doesn’t mean that religious beliefs is not inversely proportional to intelligence.
Warren and Heist, in 1960, found an equal number of theists and atheists among National Merit Scholars.
That seems to be still holding.
Dr. Leslie J Francis, in 1998 published, “The Relationship Between Intelligence and Religiosity Among 15-16-Year-Olds”, in which she surveyed 711 students ages 15 to 16 from schools throughout England, and found no link between religion and intelligence. Similar studies by Argyle and Keegan show the same thing.
Libertarian, I do know the difference between Mensa and TOPS, although I can never be bothered to remember the name of TOPS because I’ve got no desire to join it. For that matter, I really did only join Mensa because I like the kind of parties they throw.
Urban Ranger:
Neither does it mean the converse. Since you’ve ruled out the word “belief” to describe atheism, let me put it this way. I have no doubt that many people who call themselves atheists and many people who call themselves agnostic have logical, rational reasons for arriving at their way of dealing with the universe. So do many people who are religious, including Libertarian, Polycarp, Tomndebb, Zev_Steinhart, Doc Cathode, and others too numerous to mention on this board.
I don’t know where you’d go to get a sample of the “most intelligent people” to determine their stances on religion. Mensa is self-selecting, and a poll there would be even further self-selected. Not all engineers or scientists will be among the top x% in intelligence unless X is close to 100, nor will everyone in the top x% be an engineer or scientist. Within my own family, my youngest brother who is higher in I.Q. that me or my other brother is neither, nor am I. The church I grew up in has a higher than usual proportion of engineers, but that’s also partially a function of the town and worth exactly nothing.
stpauler, it’s still an interesting question. There’s one place I know where I could put out a poll, but, as noted, it would be a self-selected sample of a self-selected population. My own feeling is there’s little correllation between high intelligence and religious belief because some of what influences religious belief has more to do with life experience than religious belief. Some highly intelligent people on this Board have had experiences (including thought processess) which rule out the existence of God for them. I’ve had experiences (also including thought processes) which require belief in God for me. Either one could be right. I will agree with some agnostics in that human beings as a whole cannot know for sure.
This post is still worth two cents at most, regardless of comments by Justhink.
CJ
CJ
TOPS is easy to remember: Top One Percent Society.
Which test? What scoring?
Thanks kniz, for pointing this out. The link was working earlier. Here’s another cite that has many of the studies that were offered up in the link now that isn’t working.
http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html
JZ
I can’t get that page to display, but if it’s what I think it is, it is a cherry-picked compendium first put together by the notorious hand-stabbing American Atheists. Many of the studies cited are from the early to mid twentieth century and are practically all contradicted by other studies that they don’t mention (but a couple of which I did above).
The cite may be a part of “American Atheists” but the article was from “Free Inquiry” magazine. They are not affiliated with “American Atheists.” If you can ever get to the cite, you’ll find these 50 studies or so span quite a bit of time, and are carried out by different groups.
Many of the studies cited are from the early to mid twentieth century and are practically all contradicted by other studies that they don’t mention (but a couple of which I did above).p
You’re mistaken, it does mention a couple of studies that didn’t agree with the rest, but that’s basically it: a couple of studies. Also, one should note too, that some polling is done by Gallop, and everyone knows their conservative Christian background.
JZ
Urban Ranger can you explain this?
How can atheism not be a belief? the dictionary defines it:
Atheism is by definition a belief, how can you possibly claim otherwise?
That’s exactly right. That is the historic definition, and it is also how the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Encyclopedia Brittanica, the World Book Encyclopedia and other references use the term. See this article for further discussion of this point.
Now, some people assert that atheism is nothing but an ABSENCE of belief. Quite simply, this is preposterous. Even if we accept the popularized, non-classical notion that atheism is the non-belief in God (as opposed to believing in NO god), this still means that atheists believe theism to be unjustified. ERGO, atheism still entails belief, regardless of how one uses the term.
That is a remarkable finding, considering the ratio of theists to atheists in the general population.
Which side of the argument were you supporting again, Libertarian? 
Atheism, to me, means activily stating that God or gods do not exist. A person raised in a totally areligious enviornment would not be an atheist until (if) someone tried and failed to convert them.
Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about people of intelligence, rather than the general population?
To clarify: my point was that, since atheists are vastly outnumbered by theists in the general population, the equal mix among National Merit Scholars indicates a vast overrepresentation of atheists in that group.
That statistic appears to refute the point Libertarian was trying to make, which was that there was no connection between academic performance/intelligence and rejection of religion.
Ridiculous. In a rather famous academic context, National Merit Scholarship, there is no connection to rejection of religion. Neither is there any connection between NMS and the general populace. You cannot logically make the extrapolation that you apparently want to make.
Um, the general populace is the pool from which the National Merit Scholars are from.
If, as you claimed earlier, half of the National Merit Scholars are atheists, then the ratio of atheists-to-theists within that group is much higher than that of the general population. Logically, we must then conclude that a significant positive correlatation between being a National Merit Scholar and an atheist exists.
Now, if the study had found that the percentage of Scholars who were atheists was the same as the percentage in the general population (is that what you meant to say?), you’d be quite correct.
Oh, and it’s not an extrapolation, it’s a comparison. 
I don’t think you get the point.
The issue is whether intelligent people are more likely to be atheists than theists. In order to examine this question, we must consider, well, intelligent people. Specifically, we must compare intelligent atheists with intelligent theists. The beliefs of the general populace are irrelevant to this issue.
Consider the question, “Are doberman pinschers more likely to be violent or docile?” To answer this query, we must only examine doberman pinschers. The behavior of other dogs is utterly irrelevant, even though dogs are the pool from which doberman pinschers are drawn.
Libertarian offered that statistic in his argument against the idea that academic achievement (which is presumably at least weakly linked to intelligence) has no relationship to rejecting religion.
We could ask the question, “Are intelligent people more likely to be atheistic or theistic?” In which case, the answer is clearly theistic.
A more important question would be “Are intelligent people more likely to be atheistic than the general population?” The answer to that question seems to be “yes”.
Even the most liberal estimates of the percentage of atheists in the population put them at about 10-13%, with some estimates going as low as 1-2%. Libertarian’s point that atheists weren’t the majority among National Merit Scholars misses the rather remarkable point that atheism is significantly over-represented within that population.
When dealing with epidemiological studies, we rarely ask the question, “Do more of the people with risk factor X have a particular disease or not?” Instead, we ask, “Do people with risk factor X have a greater likelihood of developing a particular disease than those without it?”
We should also be considering the nature of the theism in question. Albert Einstein was a theist, although his beliefs more little resemblance to the majority of theists.
How would we determine relative violence of dobermans if we were not allowed to examine other dogs? If we find the group we are studying over- or under-represented in an area (lots of smart atheists OR few dumb atheists), then we have data.
So, no, you’re wrong.