

IQ and Religion - pooriaazimi
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

======
corry
But of course correlation != causation. My guess: the real independent
variable is wealth, so wealthier countries (e.g. the secular West, with the
exception of USA) will have both higher IQ and lower religiosity.

It seems obvious to me that long-time wealthy countries would have higher IQ
scores (especially with the immigration boost - wealthiest countries can
attract the smartest immigrants).

If this is all the case, the deeper question is why increasing wealth reduces
religiosity.

(Edit: What's funny about this question is that you can answer it either way
to fit theist or atheist narratives - e.g. "it's because people in wealthy
countries become insulated to our true reliance-on-God nature" vs. "only poor
people need to resort to fanciful beliefs to make themselves feel better".)

~~~
api
"If this is all the case, the deeper question is why increasing wealth reduces
religiosity."

Because a big part of religion is coping with a painful, short, and often
violent life.

------
swombat
Whether or not (as implied by the article) stupid people tend to be more
religious, is largely immaterial.

All these attacks of religion from the point of view of science or
intelligence fail to acknowledge the fact that it (religion) fulfils basic
human psychological needs - such as the need for purpose and meaning, the need
for structure and ritual, or the need for social cohesion - which science
(rightly) does not give a shit about.

Science is not about those things, but those things are basic human needs (as
abundantly demonstrated by the large populations of believers). So why oppose
science to religion, when science is sure to lose on the sine-qua-non criteria
of providing for those basic needs?

Instead, if one wants to "defeat" religion, something else should be opposed.
Perhaps a better kind of religion, that fulfils these basic human
psychological needs without all the superstition and the side-effects.

~~~
ThePherocity
Please never ever say religion fills a need. It fills a want. No part of being
human needs religion any more than they need crack cocaine. Id argue the
effects are similar on the brain as well.

~~~
swombat
I didn't say that humans need religion, I said that religion fills a human
need.

Are you saying that purpose, social cohesion and rituals are not human needs?
If so, I have 7 billion pieces of evidence against you - and that's just the
live ones.

The point of my comment is that this need can be filled by something other
than religion. But science ain't it.

~~~
ThePherocity
Purpose most certainly does not require religion. Social cohesion happens far
better in the absence of religion. Finally, why would I need ritual. I loathe
almost all pomp ant ritual. Regardless, you again need no religion for ritual.

There is no need.

~~~
cup
Yet religion still exists and thrives after tens of thousands of years. In
fact religion seems to be one of the only staples of human civilization,
suggesting in fact that many people do have some kind of intrinsic need for
religion in their lives.

~~~
ThePherocity
In most religions, it was a death sentence to leave the religion. So that
couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it?

------
Radim
Seems to have been flagged.

Fascinating how HN, of all places, is enraged by presenting some raw data.

If you question the data or methodology, just say so, improve on it. The
article quotes its sources (which btw do seem to be somewhat controversial...
unsurprisingly).

But if you just dislike the data, well, tough. Don't stone the author, please.

~~~
Tichy
The data seems to be bunk, too: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372627>

------
Tichy
Does that graph imply that for example the mean IQ in Angola is 69? That
doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

~~~
mxfh
"For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the
authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of
neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a
figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for
Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation
of IQ and GDP is 0.62. To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors
averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of
72. The figures for Colombia, Peru, and Singapore were arrived at in a similar
manner."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Na...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates)

Seriously?

If that's not enough:

"This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade. The Pioneer Fund of
America, champion of many dubious causes in the past, will obtain little
credit from having assisted this one. The myriad corrections and estimates
aside, this is a blast from another age, an old-fashioned attempt to give an
imperial mindset biological validity."

<http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html>

------
capex
This seems to be saying: 'If you are religious, there is a good chance you are
stupid'. Adding insult to the injury is country based classification of human
intelligence. For 'Gods' sake, please liberate yourself from these notions and
live a life of thinking-freedom. I have seen so many highly intelligent and
successful people in my life who are also religious.

------
cup
This is a really ridiculous post.

If I understand correctly, the methedology consisted of graphing data taken
from two seperate studies. While cross sectional studies are useful, ones like
these really do nothing but inflame an already controversial and sensitive
topic.

I think the real issue isn't religion, which seems to be by many 'the enemy'
of science, but health and poverty. Countries with low 'iq levels', which I
loathe to say, also seem to be countries that are poor, war torn or ex -
colonies who have been economically and socially raped.

This is true junk science which I feel is only to the interest of people who
are trying to push the growing notion that religion has no place in science,
something I, as a Muslim, disagree with. My religion, naturally, is my source
of bias.

~~~
SimHacker
And your religion is junk, without the science.

------
api
A big part of why the U.S. is an outlier in all these religiosity vs X graphs
is because in the vast majority of the U.S. there is _no_ forum for community
or social cohesion apart from religion. Outside of the church, most of
American culture is utterly asocial.

This is only somewhat accidental, though. There is a long history of stealth
or not-so-stealth repression of non-religious social and cultural phenomena in
the US. Virtually any form of human cultural expression outside of religion
tends to be classed as "deviant" or "counterculture" and at least discouraged.
The mechanisms are occasionally overt, as with serious countercultures, but
more often take subtile and complex forms involving combinations of social
discouragement, media vilification, conformism, zoning regulations, anti-
social urban development patterns, etc.

This isn't true across all of America. In the places where it isn't true (e.g.
San Francisco, New York, etc.), the religiosity vs. X numbers look a lot more
like other developed countries. In the "flyover country," fascist social
conservatism represses all non-religious expression.

------
ThePherocity
A fallacy built off a contrivance. Good job.

