Current Features

Confused or Sardonic?
Religion and the Relative Intelligence of Scientists
David Mamet's Political Awakening
Eliot Spitzer: Capitalism + Amorality = Despotism
Chavez and FARC
Dr. Evil's Economics
Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong's "Reality-Based" Economics
Liberal Fascism at Barnes & Noble
Racism and Collectivism
The Original Teachings of Jesus
Life Skills 101: Reason
Famous Dave Makes A Splash

Read the Front Page

Topics

Blogging
Computers and Technology
Conspiracy Theories
Crime and Punishment
Dictatorships
Education
Election 2008
Entertainment
Europe
Faith and Philosophy
Faith and Politics
Features
France
Fun
General
Happy Stuff
Health
History
Human Rights
Humor
International
Iraq
Left Versus Right
Life Skills
Media Bias
Personal Notes
Politics
Product Reviews
Quick Alerts
Quixtar
Racism
Ron Paul
Science
Science Fiction
Sexuality
Sick & Wrong Department
Society
The Arab Street
The Arts
The Church of Gaia
Travel
Words, Words, Words
Your Money

Archives

March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

Search


The Blogosphere

BitsBlog
Beyond the Rim
Common Sense and Wonder
Dissecting Leftism
Drive-Thru Musings
FunMurphys.com
Investor Blogger
Iowa Geek
La Shawn Barber
The Littlest Apologist
Mark D. Roberts
Muddling Towards Maturity
Quixtar/Amway Infiltrator
Quixtar Blog
Quixtar Sucks
Sinking in Quixand
Zappe Family Blog


Religion and the Relative Intelligence of Scientists

A recent study discovered that belief in God among academics, by discipline, was ordered about like this:

(Most Atheistic)
Biology
Physics
Sociology
Psychology
Economics
Political Science
Chemistry
(Most Theistic)

"Does God exist?" is mainly a philosophical or religious question, an area in which "verbal" (non-numerical) reasoning is most important. However, if we look at the GRE scores (h/t Vox Day) of these disciplines, we find that percent of atheism doesn't neatly correlate with logical (non-quantitative) reasoning abilities. In fact, the correlation appears (except for Physics) to be somewhat inverse:

(Strongest Verbal Reasoning Skills)
Physics
Political Science
Economics
Biology
Chemistry
Sociology
Psychology
(Weakest Verbal Reasoning Skills)

Besides those shown, Philosophy, English, History and Religion majors thoroughly trounced Biologists, Physicists and Sociologists in non-mathematical reasoning. So it would seem the average atheistic biologist has poorer logical abilities than a theologian-in-training. (While I could easily accept the opposite outcome, I'm not surprised, given the rather poor reasoning behind some of (say) Richard Dawkins' arguments. He may be a respected biologist, but he seems to make a lot of really basic mistakes in his logical arguments.)

The GRE scores above would also seem to undermine our cultural belief that "scientists" are the smartest people in the population. True, scientists are sharper than the average non-academic, and many have truly stunning quantitative (mathematical) reasoning abilities -- but it seems that in terms non-mathematical reasoning skills, they're not even the smartest among academics.

Like philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson, I don't think that intelligence really determines that much about whether a person is likely to believe in a religion or not. What I think is going on here is that materialists tend to turn to science as a kind of surrogate religion; I suspect intelligent religious people tend to be attracted to other disciplines (such as philosophy, theology, or medicine -- the last having a very high percentage of God-believers) or non-academic pursuits.

And indeed, the aforementioned study came to the same conclusion -- it wasn't so much that scientists' exposure to science turned them from believers to unbelievers, but more that they were unbelievers in the first place.

Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform.... It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions.

This information goes a long way towards refuting the (ironically) poor reasoning and research skills* displayed in atheistic arguments like this one, citing studies which found that scientists, academics, Mensa members, and other self-selected "smart" populations tend to disbelieve in God. Scientists aren't necessarily the smartest people out there, and a belief is not necessarily true even if smart people do believe it.**

(** I'm sure the average Marxist was historically much smarter than the average non-Marxist. Likewise, during the late 19th and early 20th century, scientists tended to believe the cosmos had no beginning, whereas the average Baptist didn't.)

(* The cited article also shows a marked tendency towards cherry-picking: For example, a 1950 study which implied atheists were more likely to help the poor is cited, but decades of evidence showing atheists are less charitable are omitted. And I would be embarrassed if I were founding citing, seriously, a 1927 study which treated the showboats who paid to appear in "Who's Who in America" as a representative sample, or citing a study which could be summarized: "Found a negative correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. How these were measured is unknown"! Almost no studies after 1975 -- they seem to think the heydey of reliable sociological research was the 1930s and 1940s!)

Comments

Add your two cents...

The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.

















« David Mamet's Political Awakening | Front Page | Page Two | Confused or Sardonic? »