Researchers who conducted a meta-research (research of studies) discovered that people with a naturalistic worldview are on average smarter than those who hold a supernatural worldview
A review of scientific studies shows that people who hold a naturalistic worldview are on average smarter than those who believe in God.
In an analysis of 63 studies carried out since 1928, researchers from the University of Rochester found a distinct negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity, in 53 of the articles. The other ten articles showed a positive correlation and two of them showed a significant relationship.
The researchers offered three interpretations of their findings. First, intelligent people are less prone to conformity and therefore more likely to reject religious dogmas. The second explanation - intelligent people tend to adopt an analytical thinking style (as opposed to an intuitive thinking style), which has been shown to weaken religious beliefs. And a third explanation: some of the functions of religion, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-improvement, and secure attachment, are also counterbalanced by reason. Wise people may have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
The main researcher, Miron Zuckerman says that 35 of the studies showed a clear negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity. "Most of the explanations for the negative correlation share one central explanation: the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not scientifically based, cannot be tested and therefore do not appeal to intelligent people who "know more," Zuckerman writes in an article published this month.
Zuckerman and two other psychologists examined the scientific literature that defined intelligence as "the ability to use logic, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, grasp complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience." Religiosity is defined by psychologists as participation in various aspects of rituals, which may range from participating in one prayer a week to a type of messianism defined in Robert Duvall's 1997 film "The Apostle".
Other variables such as gender or education did not change the correlation between intelligence and religiosity, but age had an effect. The relationship between low intelligence and religiosity was weak among teenage boys.
However, the long-standing connection between strong intelligence and atheism or a naturalistic worldview has remained stable in many studies, starting with a long-term study that began in 1928 that surveyed questions asked of 1,500 gifted children with an IQ of over 135. After those children have since been interviewed again in 1995 and 2005 ( In the hands of other researchers of course), it turned out that even at advanced ages, close to death (or to God, depending on the view) these children remained stable in their faith, or rather their lack of faith.
The high intelligence of non-believers is attributed by researchers to a tendency to seek higher education and employment, when possible, and they want to control their own direction in life. "Intelligent people, on average, spend more time in educational institutions - a type of self-regulation that may provide them with long-term benefits," Zuckerman writes. "More intelligent people get better jobs and employment opportunities that lead them to self-esteem and encourage their belief in self-control."
Supporters of religious beliefs oppose the narrow definition in their opinion of the definition of intelligence by psychologists. Preference for an area such as analytical ability omits abilities such as emotional intelligence and creativity and in general wisdom is an elusive issue that slips from grip.
Zuckerman M. The Relationship Between Intelligence And Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis And Some Proposed Explanations. Personality And Social Psychology Review. 2013.
On the same topic on the science website
84 תגובות
אלו שעומדים בראש הדתות והכתות, כמו גם המחזירים בתשובה יכולים להיות חכמים, אבל זו חוכמה של ערמומיות וזדון. הם פסיכופתים. רובם גם יודעים בוודאות שאין אלוהים.
So I will teach my atheist friends some logic. The appearance of characteristic A and B together does not prove that it causes heart disease. It is possible that both stem from, let's say, a common muffin - c.
But this is not a hunch in the case of this study. The studies that appear in this analysis were all done in the USA where there is an absolute majority (83 I think) who believe in God.
In secular Europe they did similar studies and there the result was exactly the opposite! The smarter a person is, the more likely he is to be religious!
http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18228/jdm18228.html
This shows that there is, in my opinion, a good probability that the reasons for the results in both cases teach that intelligence is not related to religious belief, but that it is related to a person's ability to challenge what he was taught. This is why in secular Europe the connection is that the wiser you are, the more likely you are to believe (because you challenged what you were taught). And vice versa in the US. There are other methodological failures in this study but we will leave them for another time. Successfully.
Oh come on, do yourself a favor
IQ often does not show wisdom
It doesn't matter now what you believe
Happiness level is not measured according to this
Level of happiness is already something else
In my opinion, it's better to be smart and anxious than a happy fool (anxious - not ultra-orthodox) 🙂
I tend to agree with the research findings.
At the same time, it is interesting to check the level of happiness of atheists compared to religious people.
In my opinion religious people are happier on average.
Research is needed for this. come on.
If you are more intelligent you are more likely to be an atheist or agnostic.
But the opposite is not true.
If you're an atheist it doesn't necessarily mean you're intelligent.
Even if there is some statistical correlation because of the first reason.
Mo Yehudi - short for Mordechai.
tree
It's really not like that. Atheists do not fight religious belief, because it does not interest us in any way. What is interesting is the influence of religion on life - mine, my children's and others'.
For us (at least for me) religious belief is no different from belief in astrology, spirits, crystals, homeopathy and Santa Claus - a belief without an evidentiary basis, and even in contradiction to the evidence. You can believe from me that Homer Simpson is real, but when you try to pass a law that would require him to participate in financing his drinking at Mo's - then expect a war.
Michael, from reading just a few of the first comments here, there is something I want to clarify that, in my opinion, Itamar tried to convey in the first comment here two years ago 🙂 You are busy invalidating what people say logically. You say that the measure "knowledge" exists only in its context, when both parties in the conversation understand the context and then you know that there is no God like you know that the sun rises every day. So far so good but when you dismiss what Itamar says you completely ignore the context! Maybe it's because Itamar didn't clarify his position well and maybe it's you who is fixated and can't get out of the "anti-religion" framework he talked about.
Religious and non-religious is not black and white, when you are religious there is a whole scale of levels of religion, the level of religiosity is usually characterized by how much energy you invest for that religion (an ultra-Orthodox person who spends all day in the synagogue is considered more religious than a person who only eats kosher). What Itamar is trying to say (if I understood him correctly) is that a person who doesn't care, who "doesn't know" (or according to him is an agnostic), actually doesn't invest energy in religion, it doesn't matter to him, if everyone gets married through rabbis then good luck, it's not It really does matter who is getting married (especially when a wedding is basically a religious ceremony). In complete contrast to this position, there is the common atheist who invests more energy in religion than most religious people I know, the investment is characterized by false wars against the religious establishment, changing the normal way of life to deliberately avoid errors in religion and endless arguments with people about the fact that religion and God are nonsense (and this is when you " know" that faith is not something that can be changed with words because it does not really exist and its definition is different for everyone)! In my opinion, his point in saying that atheism is a religion is that the level of energy that the average atheist invests in religion is no less than the average religious person and therefore in my opinion he (and I with him) shy away from such definitions...
I think that good people are, on average, smarter than bad and cruel people. You should check it out.
Of course there are psychopaths with high intelligence and high abilities in certain fields, or good fools... but in the SCA, on average - the good ones are more intelligent.
And atheists/non-religious are better than believers/religious, but mainly when it comes by choice and not when they are defined by their parents.
Aaron:
You don't know me and you're just rambling.
The nonsense he spews when he talks about evolution indicates profound stupidity.
All scientists in the relevant fields disagree on it But the truth is that his stupidity stands out in almost every sentence.
If you had brought your own arguments, there would have been a place to discuss the arguments, but since you bring "ex-cathedra" arguments, the only way to contradict them is to point to the nature of the cathedra.
You are welcome to bring his arguments if you really want us to refute them.
You've probably taken a few more science courses besides what you've narrowed down. Nevertheless, it was more serious to disagree with him factually and scientifically and not to prove his claim that evolutionists treat their faith like a religion.
Aharon, as someone who knows Orbach, I appreciate his authority in the field of nanotechnology and especially in connection with the production of alternative energy. This field has nothing to do with evolution.
Michael, in terms of science, Auerbach probably surpasses you in every parameter (and apparently also the "favorite" Eric Vanisim). By the way, I didn't write anything, I just quoted to provoke a real discussion, but Auerbach apparently proves Rothschild's religion - you don't have to ask, compared to Auerbach, who asked questions Fair enough until he found his truth
Michael
Walla …. 🙂
He is the one I said: he is an idiot and it seems Orbach is one too
Michael Rothschild
Reverse gota, reverse. He showed that Auerbach denies science on the one hand, and on the other hand, says that there is no contradiction between them.
It is enough to read the first paragraph of Aaron.
And in the last paragraph he goes to lies/nonsense - Orbach claims that most scientists believe in God? Or does he choose to work only with those who agree with his opinions?
Nissim and Eric:
Aaron just wanted to bring himself as a personal example of what was said in the article about the believers.
In order not to be alone, he also brought Orbach.
Aharon
On the one hand, you refer to Doron Orbach's scientific degree (it has meaning in your eyes). On the other hand you write 'Darwin stories are not science' even though evolution is not stories but a scientific consensus of people who work in the field
Aaron
There is no contradiction between science and religion, but evolution is not true? I read it to my nine-month-old grandson - even he raised an eyebrow...
You said that science does not explain the "why". This is true. The reason is that you have to assume that there is a higher power, a creator, or some other weird thing, for this question to have meaning. If a glass falls from my hand - there is no meaning in the question "for what purpose" the glass fell. For exactly the same reason there is no point in asking why the world was created.
And now, regarding Darwin and questions about evolution - Auerbach is simply a disgusting liar. To say that a scientist will get into vibrations when you argue with them about evolution is a lie.
To summarize - the meta-research (which is a completely legitimate thing in science, without offending safkan who knows everything...) is simply right. Beyond that, it also makes sense……those who believe in nonsense are less wise…and the religious will also agree to that 🙂
Well, what will happen? A very educated Prof. and a repentant scientist after a thorough study of science
Maybe one day you will ask for his response to your commenters so that we receive proper and balanced communication.
"There is no contradiction between Judaism and science," states Prof. Doron Orbach, head of the chemistry department at Bar Ilan University, who converted following an encounter with organic chemistry. However, he rejects the theory of evolution, and goes against his colleagues in the academy who are "programmed to believe in Darwin's stories almost as a religious belief"
Facebook
11/09/2013 17:45
During his doctoral studies in organic chemistry, Doron Orbach came to the conclusion that it is difficult to understand the world without recognition of a higher power. "Science, at most, brings us to a position of admiration. Science has no mandate to ask what questions, because all laws of nature are completely arbitrary. The answer to the scientific question 'Why?' She is 'like that'. Then I started asking questions. I realized that there is one question that is the key question: Does the people of Israel really have a Torah from heaven?", he tells Ynet and Orot - Jewish TV.
<>
More in the "Very Narrow Bridge" series:
A leg here and a leg there: Mandar Meretz for the youth of the hills
Doron Shafer hits the mitzvot basket
Orbach - today a professor and head of the chemistry department at Bar-Ilan University - did not get the answer to this question in academia, but in Bnei Brak. There it became clear to him that "it is possible to connect with the Jewish truth mentally", and in the middle of his twenties he began the process of repentance.
Darwin stories are not science
According to him, there is no religious belief to conflict with his scientific occupation. "There is no contradiction between Judaism and science. The view of Judaism is that the more a person investigates objectively and gets to know creation, the more he will admire the Holy One, blessed be He."
Photo: Orot
However, the scientific theory that deals with the development of species through natural selection, evolution,
Completely unacceptable to Orbach. "I deal with chemistry, and chemistry does not create any problems. In chemistry I study the reality of God. On the other hand, the academy makes mistakes in researching the past, in things that cannot be proven. Most people in biology are programmed to believe Darwin stories and it is almost a religious belief. You start discussing this topic with them, and they get into the vibes. "Darwin's stories are not science," he states.
Prof. Auerbach, who defines himself as ultra-orthodox, does not feel unusual as a believer in academia. "I can say that the majority of my colleagues abroad believe in the sovereignty of the world. They believe in a higher power based on their scientific understanding."
Yosef:
If it's clear that you won't read - obviously I won't bother looking for answers to questions for you anymore because it's clear to me that you've already decided what your conclusion is and the factual data is of no importance to you.
This is the dishonest activity of rabbis who encouraged their communities not to escape from the Nazis, but they themselves did escape.
You will not find legislation in the statute book that forbids doing this, therefore it is impossible to prosecute them.
The fact that they have already passed away also makes it difficult to prosecute them.
I remind you that we were not talking about the laws at all, but about what the innocent faith can cause and in this case - the communities of those rabbis were destroyed because of their innocent faith.
I mention this because it turns out that you already forgot when you told me about "the message you wanted to convey".
The evolution in my computer program is run only by the computer and it creates wonderful results.
All I care about is that the computer will follow the laws of evolution, which are mathematical laws that no one cares about. They work by themselves because that's how math works.
But that's it. I'm tired It seems to me that I am mangling words and you are not coming close to understanding my meaning.
Michael,
You sent a collection of boring articles about extreme Hasidisms during the Holocaust such as Belez/Satmar, of course I won't read all the articles (and from what I read, I didn't find the incriminating line either)
If someone acted improperly, he will have to give judgment even under the guise of religion, this religion is not immune to judgment.
The message I wanted to convey is that there is no halacha to lead an entire people to slaughter, on the contrary, the halacha is: "Save your souls" and even desecrate the Sabbath to save a Jewish soul.
Regarding evolution, the claim that the systems are intelligent is before the observer, because the systems themselves operate in a mechanistic manner according to laws, but the person who operates them is the intelligent person who created them, and it is a fact that a living being cannot create a mechanistic system as you describe, but only a person who has the appropriate intelligence...
And if there is no intelligence then who invented this word religious?
Yosef:
I'm preparing for a trip abroad and I don't have time for much research, but regarding the Holocaust, you are invited to read the discussion that took place here in the ultra-Orthodox rooms:
http://www.bhol.co.il/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=1367891&forum_id=771
Also read here:
http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/update_views.php?num=3211&file=/vbm/archive/12-shoa/06belz.doc
And here:
http://uripaz.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%90%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%A6/
Evolution is not intelligent unless you accept the claim that the mechanized systems we are building today are intelligent (in themselves - not because of our intelligence). I gave examples of mechanized systems that work according to the mathematics of evolution and solve problems that humans are unable to solve otherwise.
In any case - it is about something that the fact that it works (again - in a mechanistic way and according to strict laws) can be proved mathematically. It is something that does not even have a will - let alone free will.
Yes, indeed, that's how you write "massacre"...
In any case, the blame is on the ultra-orthodox sector
Still implicit, whether you call it a soothing call or by any other name and if your words are indeed true
So this topic was more publicized, documented or published in the media and in all 40 years of my life I have not heard this argument and therefore I asked to see references....
Regarding the issue of evolution, it is evident from your words and articles that you understand quite a bit about evolution and thank you
And what about Shemita to Mount Sinai, I have no problem with the mechanism of evolution as it works today,
But I argue that the debate about whether or not evolution is intelligent is purely philosophical
And here the camps split
Because intelligence is in the eye of the beholder, meaning I can see complexity created by an evolutionary process and conclude that it is intelligent, while the atheist, on the other hand, will decide that it is accidental + a collection of terms to explain to the ear that it is not only random, but all streams flow into the same sea in the end ( As Ecclesiastes said...)
The Orange Wizard:
Not really peer pressure.
The whole point is education, so the correlation also increases with age.
Just clarifying, regarding the link that my nickname pointed to, it was not on purpose, I wrote DONT HAVE ANY dot com because it wouldn't let me post without adding a site for some reason, it turns out that there really is such a site...please don't enter.
"The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age"
Haha social pressure
Yosef:
There was no decision to lead the people as sheep toMassacre (that's how they write "massacre") but a misplaced call of reassurance on the part of the rabbis who were sure that the name would be preserved (and of course one who does not exist cannot preserve) and the believers did what they know how to do best and that is to believe.
There is only one logic and the logic that led me to the conclusion that there is no God is by definition the one that led me to atheism and therefore my atheism could not have any effect on this logic (because the conclusion of a logical consideration is never its premise).
It is not evident from my words that evolution is intelligent. You draw from the claim that it is not random the conclusion that it is intelligent and that is simply not true.
Know that the mechanism of evolution (including the randomness of mutations) is also used in technological frameworks to solve problems that cannot be solved otherwise.
You better read An article I wrote on the subject
Michael,
The cruelty here is the implicit pointing of blame towards the ultra-Orthodox/religious public because of their faith, and if you have actual proof of the ultra-Orthodox sector's decision to lead the people like sheep to the slaughter during Nazi Germany, I would be happy to read references to the sources.
Regarding the age-old debate of evolution vs. a creator, who is more rational and who is less, what has not been said on this issue that can be renewed, we both know that any argument in favor of the creator will not be accepted among the atheistic public,
But what is evident from your words is that evolution is intelligent to a certain extent, therefore there is only
Use of terms and puns and if this is true then there is evidence here of intelligent planning or random intelligent planning, whatever you call it and this is exactly the definition of the Creator as an intelligent planner.
Yosef:
First of all - the comment at the end is not cruel. It's just a fact. Even if everywhere sometimes they want to kill Jews (which is not really true) then at any time there are safer places and less safe places. During World War II - staying in Europe was very dangerous and don't tell me that those who escaped from there didn't survive.
When someone decides that a creator of the world (who was created how? randomly? and there is no evidence of his existence) is more rational than evolution whose mechanism is correct (which is not random: there is a random component of mutations that also creates nonsense and there is a completely non-random process of natural selection) it is possible to prove mathematically and its existence In nature you see at every step, it makes an irrational decision.
To Michael,
To set things straight, there is a danger in any trait that is extreme: even innocence that is extreme endangers a person's freedom of choice.
That is why the educated religious public investigates more the subject of faith in the Creator of the world and it seems to them more rational than the randomness of life....
Regarding the cruel comment at the end, I think that Jews want to kill anywhere and anytime regardless of their location or external appearance.
Yosef:
Although there is a certain danger in curiosity and intelligence, their benefits clearly outweigh that of naive belief.
In fact, without curiosity and intelligence, the human life span would not have been doubled, and with such life-saving dimensions, naive faith cannot compete.
By the way - innocent faith in the Rabbi also prevented people from fleeing Nazi Germany and being saved.
As a religious person,
From my experience with the various sectors,
I can testify that it is very true that, on average, the more educated than religious people,
But this is due to the fact that many in the sector believe in innocence and do not investigate beyond what they are told
Indeed, innocence indicates a lack of intelligence,
But not necessarily that excess intelligence is better than naive faith, sometimes excess curiosity kills the cat....
Asaf:
Coercion exists only on the part of religion and it is also built into religion as part of its commandments.
Faith is based on many different false claims that a thinking person cannot accept.
One of the strategies developed by religious people to protect religion is to present studies that present the truth about religion as hate letters.
This article saddens me to tears. These are words of incitement under the guise of being written here under the guise of scientific studies.
There are quite a few studies done in the world in order to serve hatred - and this is probably one of them.
There is no reason why faith and science cannot sit together at the same table. These are two different ways of looking at the world and each is a specific and dedicated tool and for its purposes. The problem begins when people think that their tool can do everything and force a total world view on us in order to serve their wars....
Haim Mazar,
As a former agnostic I suggest you start looking for evidence here:
http://creation.com/qa#Biology
Gegal a little also on the simile of the replicating organic clock.
skeptic
I don't think I fixed it, it seems to me that you are just plain rubbish..
And of course - the settlement where I live - Ramot HaShevim - will be erased from the map!
skeptic:
Does religion provide an answer to problems that have no answer in an atheist society?
Now I understand why the Scandinavian countries became extinct!
ארי
A. I don't understand what you have about Gates. I admitted that I was wrong when I portrayed Bill Gates as the usual religious type (ie goes to church often). I explained to the best of my ability Gates' attitude to religion from several points of view because I thought it was relevant to my first (erroneous) claim that Bill Gates is religious.
B. I explained as best I could how I describe "religion". If my explanations are not acceptable to you, that is your right, and arguments about definitions in this case are idle arguments.
third. I don't know what you meant by the words jarring and chattering. I had two responses, one to all readers and the other to you. In the first response I presented my position on several issues without wanting to get into arguments. Since you corrected me, I "had" to answer you to explain my view on religious matters. If you are not interested in further clarifications, I would be happy because it relieves me of the hassle.
d. I meant to upload the link about Mozart if we had a minimal common language in matters of defining religion. If we disagree, that's fine and I won't post the link.
Skeptic, I don't think it matters what Gates believes. I was sick of the nonsense you wrote
A raccoon who cares:
You are just a "skeptic" in disguise, trying to justify himself.
And like I said: you're trying to ride on Bill Gates to justify your stupidity.
Now you also tried to push Mozart into the debate...
Turns out you're the pathetic kind of fool.
And you also write time and time again that you excuse yourself from answering me... (and guess what, my friends: yes yes... he continues to answer me... this is the behavior of an idiot and a liar)
To the troll I called him "consultant de la shamte".
You are a troll because you change nick names constantly. Here you used additional nicknames "skeptical Damicolo" and "I care teddy bears". A troll constantly changes nicknames because he is afraid of identification.
As a troll I am exempt from answering you.
Your every response against me insults you and not me. Yes, it exposes you as a man with severe mental problems. Your obsessive pursuit of me for nonsensical reasons is a mental disorder.
It is advisable for your own sake that you seek mental health treatment as soon as possible. You are really not well.
ארי
Thanks for your referral. I was apparently *very wrong* about my claim that Bill Gates goes to church regularly today. It happens, they are wrong.
As of today, according to information I just saw on the Internet - Bill Gates is an agnostic. If I have time I will expand the talk (in another message) about the connection between Bill Gates and religion, as well as about information that misled me. Not sure I'll have time.
Anyway. Please note: I defined the behavior of Bill Gates as "a new form of the Christian religion". Note: Bill Gates bequeathing his entire fortune to the public good is something I interpret as a new form of the Christian religion, even if he is an agnostic. Very few do such an act of kindness without a deep moral emotion bordering on religion. Religion is not only an aerial creature in the sky that watches over our actions from above, religion is also a "higher self" that is within us and teaches us what we should do for the benefit of others.
All extreme atheists tend to greatly reduce the various manifestations of religion. They choose to choose only the shows with which it is easy to make fun of religion or take down an act. If you are not an extreme atheist, I strongly recommend you to read the book "Mr Al, here is Anna" which presents a religious approach that will surprise you. The book is also beautifully written, it is a book as if for children in the style of "The Little Prince". This book is more difficult to read than the little prince because it discusses complex philosophical issues related to religion, this includes a very sympathetic attitude to science, this includes not going to church or religious ceremonies.
I have a copy of the book in English online; It was printed in Hebrew a long time ago, so it is difficult to obtain it. If you're not an extreme atheist it's worth seeing the world from a religious point of view, believe me you won't lose anything if you have an open mind.
I should mention that I am an agnostic (as a safkan it is understandable), this is so that I will not be treated as a religious preacher. What I want to say is that religion, in the broadest sense, does not arise from low intelligence but from something that defines us as people living within a society. From my point of view: it was not God who created man in his image but on the contrary, man created God in man's image. Why did man create such a fictitious figure in his image? This is a complex question that I don't want to get into here.
The link provided here is a link I found just now. The link may roughly define Bill Gates' attitude to religion.
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Bill_Gates
As you will read in the link - Bill Gates is very sympathetic to religion, but sees his going to church as a waste of time from his personal point of view. His words imply that he goes to church only rarely. There are other links about Bill Gates' parents being members of a church whose name is complicated. There is a considerable chance that Bill Gates' parents often went to church and Bill Gates as a child went with them, at least to honor his parents. According to my memory it was published in the newspapers that Bill Gates himself went to church once a week together with his wife, it is possible that my memory is misleading or that the news in the newspaper was false.
Well, I probably won't find more time to debate the case of Bill Gates and the claim (silly in my opinion) that religious people are less intelligent than atheists.
I may add one more message and one link, this time to Mozart's piece "A-L-W-H-Y-T". I don't want to add the above additions here because I have a fear that my comment here will be blocked because it will include two links.
Aha...! And to be fair, you are also welcome to call me a troll to justify yourself.
Skeptic Damicolo, every person - "from the most avaricious believer to the most brilliant atheist" - can see that you are a troll, we don't need SAFKAN to tell us that.
Has anyone asked your opinion about a skeptic's specific opinion or their opinions in general? So you think they're stupid... So you think... Who cares?
From a quick search on the internet, Gates is really not religiously extreme, and in fact is agnostic and not religious at all
skeptic
Well? What now, are you trying to ride on Bill Gates to justify your stupid opinion?
Has anyone talked about Bill Gates?
"Therefore, religion in one form or another will continue to exist for at least another thousand years,"
Tell us, are you a foolish prophet (or something like that)?
How do you know?
Did someone ask for your opinion?
It's obvious to everyone that you're desperate for attention.
No one cares about your uneducated opinion. And no one asks you either.
So you thought so…. So you thought. who cares? Anyone.
No relation to Bill Gates. And the fact that you are trying to push him into discussion does not make you right. There is simply no connection between what you say and reality.
Beyond the fact that you're trying to ride Bill Gates, you didn't say anything.
It really would have been better if you hadn't said anything.
And the fact that there are many people who believe indicates that there are more fools than intelligent ones. that's it.
You write a lot of nonsense on every subject. And so that you don't continue to embarrass yourself - I ask you to stop writing nonsense. for your benefit
(You are welcome to write that I am a troll - because it is expected what you will do to justify yourself)
beginning. A note about a spelling and wording error in the article that can create a mistake in understanding: not "meta-research" but "meta-analysis" (or "meta-analysis") and in English meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is an analysis that is based on many analyzes done by others.
Secondly. I completely disagree with many of the claims in the study, but right now I don't want to get into a deep discussion due to lack of time. It is currently said that meta-analysis is generally a poor quality analysis because it filters information in a "two-step" way, a type of evidence from the second and third tools instead of evidence from the first tool.
Third. All those who despise religion do not understand that it draws strength from social and mental needs that have no good response in an atheist society. Therefore, religion in one form or another will continue to exist for at least another thousand years, while it takes shape and takes on a new form. For example, Bill Gates is rational and religious extreme when his religiosity is a new clothing of the Christian religion. By the way, Bill Gates does not suffer from low intelligence even though he is an extreme religious. For those who don't know - Bill Gates and his wife Linda decided to bequeath all their money for the benefit of humanity, the rest of their family members are not supposed to receive an inheritance. Bill Gates goes to church regularly as far as I know, or so it was reported in the press.
another one:
First of all - the correlation coefficient (which is the measure they used) is a symmetrical expression - that is - the correlation between intelligence and religiosity is the correlation between religiosity and intelligence, so it is not clear to me why you only conclude from this that intelligent people have a tendency to atheism and not that atheists have a tendency to be intelligent.
Besides, it can be shown that from the claim that most intelligent people are atheists and most fools are believers, the claim that the percentage of intelligent people among atheists is higher than the percentage of intelligent people among believers also follows.
Besides - here is a study that specifically examined the question in question:
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html
Doron - I guess I know the answer to the question but not for the reason that you "know" it.
Simple - most researchers in general, in the world, are atheists and this is because the research results are correct.
Haim Mazar:
It may be a bit pretentious but it turns out that it has been tested in many studies and it turns out that there is a match in the results so what does that mean?
A man enters a zoo, sees a giraffe and says: "It can't be, there is no such animal"
R.H
Tell us: how come you whine every time you put a mirror in front of your face?
Maybe it's because of your poor confidence?
Maybe you didn't notice (I'm sure you did but you won't admit it) but the trend in the world is to get rid of "harms to humanity" like you.
You have the right to live in fantasies. And it is our right that your fantasies do not prevent us from existing in this world.
If it weren't for atheist and intelligent people - you wouldn't survive in this world and you certainly wouldn't have reached the achievements that humanity has reached.
Not because of you - but because of you.
(Go ahead; start whining and give a poor response. This is what is expected of you)
Determining who is more intellectual, a believer or an atheist, sounds a bit pretentious. You can find intelligent people and those who are not on both sides. In my opinion, the fundamental question that should be asked is what do people believe? If we compare the monotheistic religions it seems that there are differences in the way God is described and defined. Can this reference to God shed light on what is characteristic of this or that religious group. Let's go a little far, intelligent life on some other planet. Do they also believe and what does that mean about them?
We will return to Earth for one of the most difficult and charged events - the Holocaust. Some Holocaust survivors stopped believing. Their question is why God allowed such an event to happen. Do we deserve it as Jews? There will be those who will miraculously tell you not to demand. These are people who with a high degree of probability can be said to be of a fatalistic nature.. Regarding those who have stopped believing, there will be those who will come and say that belief is a conditional thing. If God does not harm them, what else if they consider themselves free from any blemish will they continue to believe in him. Regarding those who continued and continue to believe, this is probably something that is very basic and is the need to believe. As long as there are those who need it, there will be those who will continue to believe and will find many rationalizations for it
Full disclosure, I am agnostic myself.
R.H.
Much more surprising is the fact that the Dossians continue to see themselves as smarter.
By the way, the fact that you use the nickname of a serious commenter on the site I will judge as sound and assume that you do not often visit scientific sites and therefore you did not notice its existence.
Another "study" that shows how intelligent the atheists are and how stupid the dossies are. It's really amazing how the same studies are done again and again by atheist scientists, in a kind of particularly poor self-patting. Atheists have told me: if you are so intelligent, why is your self-confidence so low?
And for the "lazy"...
Members of a Christian community in Fresno, California gather around a myrtle tree
As one of the members of the community says:
"When you say 'glory be to God in Jesus name'
the tree starts throwing out more water,"
On the tree live aphids that secrete drops of a tickling liquid,
Because of the heat, the aphids are more active
And the drops are dripping …..
"From the Lord and from your works..."
* is not
Regardless, in my opinion wisdom is not a measurable thing that can be quantified by some number
I raised an eyebrow when I read the title.
I wonder which of the two (believers/atheists) most scholars belong to?
I guess we all know the answer to that question.
Without getting into the debate (argument not discussion) above
But yes, referring to the stupidity that a religion imposes on its believers, it is worth reading Harchav
http://www.livescience.com/38887-gods-tears-aphid-excrement.html
While I can agree that a rational thinking person would have a harder time believing in religious beliefs.
(For example, I don't believe) - this does not mean that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. But intellectuals are more fully intelligent atheists. The relative relationship is such that it is not the other way around. Of course, statistical correlation alone will not show this. In any case, there is something senseless that a website that is known to be affiliated with the Or party publishes something like this. I wonder what you would say if someone came up with religious studies that are more generous than atheists, or more satisfied with their lives, or even more financially successful. (I have no idea if this is the case or the opposite by the way).
As many times as needed depending on the matter, don't forget that this is a news site. It's not my fault that you're always in the news...
Of course I mean the articles that appear on the science website.
A question in statistics.
How many times an average month does an article appear whose content is:
Atheists are great, religious are yuck.
My assessment: the average is a number between 4 and 10.
A research staff, seems to me (the atheist) more like a tautology staff.
And why?
This title is equivalent to an official announcement from the Vatican, which says that "by God's grace, we believe that generally people with an affinity for religion are smarter, more satisfied with their lives and have more extensive social connections".
I want to say: the only ones who may be convinced by the title are those who are convinced in advance.
hello Daniel
You are right in your words that religion gives answers, the answers are also absolutely clear and give a certain feeling of security,
But in my opinion, the need to enter a world where you can get clear, safe and reassuring answers, stems mainly from two reasons
One - the character of the person, does he have a natural inner need to be led and controlled (like a herd) and the second - there may be an influence in childhood education that accustomed him to the fact that in life everything has an explanation for every question there is an absolute answer.
He will not find this in science or research even if he is engaged in it.
Father, do you really believe this?
Did you read the study?
Do you really think it deserves to be featured on the site?
At least under this title?
1 against religion... according to the comments here it also looks like: "1 intelligent against a bunch of angry fools who hate themselves"
Dan1:
Reality is one and how it is described is important only for our understanding of it.
If, when you speak of a spiritual layer, you are simply speaking of an economical way of describing natural phenomena that operate under the influence of the laws of nature, such as "air pressure" or "entropy" which are simply a concise way of describing statistically the dispersion of physical entities, or as an example of a "condition spirit" as a compact way of effectively describing the state of the human mind, since this layer is included within the framework of naturalism (naturalism does not limit language).
If, on the other hand, you are talking about entities that must be believed in existence without having evidence of this existence in nature, then this is a form of belief in God.
As I mentioned jokingly - it all depends on the definition of God and the existence of God which is a shoe or a box of corn I accept.
How much intelligence can be attributed to people who obsessively (63 studies between 1928 and 1912 in one journal!) try to prove, not always successfully, that they are more intelligent than others? At first glance it is quite clear that they are severely challenged in this area (intelligence). Knowing the methods used in scientific studies of this type, when the researcher determines the questions, their wording and order of presentation, the research population, and analyzes the results himself and publishes them, it is quite clear to any person who is not brainwashed that this is another case of assuming the desired. And to rely on 63 studies that were conducted using the above method, this is the requested assumption with some strength. Descartes has already informed us (more or less), that all human beings are equal in terms of their wisdom. I think they are all equally stupid. Except for those who try to prove that they are smarter than others: those are the dumbest. Their actions testify to them.
In my opinion there is a fourth possibility that they did not refer to and it seems to me the most logical.
Religion offers answers and a way of life to people and it is also a kind of mainstream and therefore it is more attractive to the less intellectual people. I believe that the difference is not because atheism is more attractive to the intelligent than religion is more attractive to the unintelligent
No, I did not attribute to beings beyond nature. My definition of spiritual is transcendental existence, meaning that the world of naturism is only one layer of it. Hence the question regarding the definitions of atheism/naturalism.
From what I understood from you in your previous responses that the definition of atheism is specifically against the gods of religions
or idols. I would appreciate an extension from you
Dan1:
There may be people who will call themselves atheists and not be naturalists, but these are people who are fooling themselves.
As soon as you believe that the world is ruled by supernatural beings you are not an atheist. You may not believe in an established religion but you do believe in a "kind of" God.
I mentioned that even an atheist can believe in the existence of God if it is defined as a house shoe but usually God is not defined in this way.
I object to the use of the word "spiritual" in contexts where it is customary to use it.
In my opinion - the greatest achievement of the "human spirit" is actually science.
The "spirituality" you refer to is just hot air (scented/spiritual).
point:
You're coming back and trying to drop us in the very fall trap I pointed out.
I derive the definition of God that the religion talks about from the religion and not from "any person who defines as he wants".
I said that if you define God as a house shoe, I will accept the existence of such a God, but the connection between such a God and religion does not exist.
And the joke that atheists do not understand philosophy is very successful.
Do you attribute the "misunderstanding" to them being more intelligent?
a question:
Is the definition of an atheist the same as a naturalist? Are the two the same? I mean in relation to the article as well as in relation to the comment above me.
Or an atheist simply does not believe in the gods of religions but can certainly be spiritual or a naturalist
Teda
Michael, where did you get the definition of God?
After all, each person defines it in a different way.
I don't know a definition like you said he is omnipotent or something like that. It is not written anywhere.
The definition I know is not a definition in the usual sense but in the negative sense, meaning a definition that would disqualify anything from being God.
The problem is that today, unlike in the past, people do not deal with philosophy, therefore the claims of the differences between today and the past apply in this matter as well. That is, the atheists do not understand philosophy.
Itamar:
I do not agree with you and your attempt to analyze my psychology is nothing more than ridiculous.
In your words you prove that you have no idea what religion is and you have no idea about the general concepts of most people who are called atheists.
In fact - overall - your words give further confirmation to the research claim that atheists are more intelligent than others.
To begin to understand the difference between a rational approach to life and religion, I suggest you read here:
http://1vsdat.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=573:%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%90-%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%9A-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%9C-%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%93%D7%AA?&Itemid=189
In fact you don't even understand what atheism is.
Do you sometimes use the word "know"?
I guess so, although in the purest sense of the word you don't know anything - not even your name (in fact you don't even know that you are a person and that you have a name and for any theoretical need you can be a brain stuck in the matrix or any other nonsense).
Therefore, when someone says that he is an atheist, he is simply using the conventional sense of the word "knows". He knows there is no God, as he knows other things he knows.
And that's gently! In fact, I allowed myself up to this point in my response to be dragged along by the obscurity that your words surround regarding the meaning of the word "God".
It turns out that in general you fell into the trap that the religious people use when they blur the definition of the term.
After all, God is a religious term that has a fairly defined meaning: for example - in Judaism - God is an omnipotent and omniscient being who created the rabbit and did not know that it does not rumen and also created the cow and the Tigris and did not know that they do not come from a common source.
Are you agnostic about that kind of God or do you know that such a God is not logically possible?
If you define God as a house shoe, I will be the first to claim that such a God actually exists, but the God of religions does not exist and a court of law will not help.
The response of "Misho" is one of the nonsense that religious people repeat every time they are put in front of a mirror.
The study talks about today - days when people were freed (to a certain extent) from the burden of religion and secularism is a legitimate option.
Newton was religious in the days when everyone was religious. Newton also believed in astrology and alchemy and I am interested in whether anyone (and even Jesus) thinks that this is evidence that even today being an astrologer or alchemist is evidence of wisdom.
Newton contributed a lot to science and thus, indirectly and not intentionally - also to the liberation of culture from the yoke of religion and to the return of the characteristics of the period that preceded the Middle Ages - days when the Greeks developed mathematics, technology and science, until the Middle Ages when religion took over the Western world and stopped its progress for hundreds of years.
The greatest scientist, the one who more or less invented mathematics and modern physics - Newton - was a firm believer and even wrote more theological articles than scientific articles. In my atheistic opinion, the flock is led by a shepherd and today the shepherds are less religious and this is the only reason.
And now a puzzle in statistics:
a) What is the average of: 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,100,100
b) What is the average of: 50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50
I define myself as a pantheist or an agnostic, or I simply don't define myself, but I think it is healthiest for all of humanity that there simply be no definition, that everyone be asked what their worldview is, they just have to say "I don't know" because no one has idea.
Saying "I'm an atheist" is just like saying I'm "religious" in my opinion, because you already hold a position when you say "I'm an atheist" you actually mean that there is no higher power / God, to hold a position regarding such things is, in my opinion, absurd.
It has nothing to do with this, Avi Blizovsky and also Michael Rothschild: In my opinion, you both suffered from moral preaching from your religious life in the past, until you compensate for it to this day with a tiresome obsession with atheism and anti-religion - this is supposed to be a science site, not a site of atheists against religious people - all It's such a shame that it's like this.