posted August 16, 2004 04:48 PM              

It's interesting how some people just pop in here to hurl insults and not offer anyting constructive.

This is why I have tolerance for JW, Isis, Pid, and you Randall (and I'm sure others I'm not remembering to mention)... even though we are from opposite sides of the fence, so to speak.

posted August 16, 2004 05:13 PM              

And about name-calling. What is "girlie men" and "manly girl"?

posted August 16, 2004 05:35 PM            

For the most part, I don't think that it's even right to refer to someone that differs in opinion as anyone, should be concidered as a "sissy", that's just BS, in my book!

posted August 16, 2004 05:42 PM              

Why aren't I getting into this, because it's time consuming. I don't feel like making a long post, and reviewing articles to prove my point, and then turn this into a long tedious debate with people who will never agree with what I agree. Besides Jwhop and Isis do a far better job. Because I agree with them, they speak for me, and those who do also.

posted August 16, 2004 05:48 PM            

Spoon!

posted August 16, 2004 06:36 PM            

quote:

---

I don't care much for the parties, but right now I'm leaning against the Republicans because the Democrats are making fools of themselves.

---

posted August 17, 2004 12:43 AM              

quote:

---

I really appreciate leaders from around the globe who have come to share in prayer with us today. It reminds me that the Almighty God is a God to everybody, every person.

[Immigrants] bring to America the values of faith in God, love of family, hard work and self reliance -- the values that made us a great nation to begin with. We've all seen those values in action, through the service and sacrifice of more than 35,000 foreign-born men and women currently on active duty in the United States military.

My administration will be more supportive of the good works done here than any administration in the history of this country because I understand the power of faith, that faith can change lives.

---

Libra Sparkle et al, I am with you on wanting a separation of church and state. I personally do not care for the religious zealotry and preaching that many on the far right partake in...however, I don't see what is wrong with the above statements, or any of the others posted for that matter.

GWB talks about God and faith a lot, yes. But in all those quotes, he isn't talking about a Christian God specifically and whether you are Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Buddhist or anything else... We all believe that there is a divine being(s), a source of universal energy or light. Personally I don't see what is wrong with the president asking people to pray and have faith, I think it's Liberal paranoia assuming he is asking you to pray to baby Jesus Pray to whomever you like, but I certainly hope we are all praying at this time. We need all the Gods on our side we can get, lol.

posted August 17, 2004 11:19 AM              

I'd also like to add that it has been proven that the IQ among the Non-Religous (.. that would include Athiests, m'dear) is higher than those of the Religious community.

Maybe this is because the latter doesn't think for themselves... I don't know. That's speculation on my part. But I have seen plenty of studies on the net that compare the IQs.

quiksilver,
Exactly... to understand that Religion does not belong in Politics. That is what GWB doesn't understand.

And please explain to me how it is slander to use ones own words, quiksilver? They are his words. I didn't write them for him.

Jerry Falwell Counseling Center for Gays and Lesbians
Sally Kalson raised concerns about Bush's faith-based initiative. "If the government says 'no' to the Branch Davidians but 'yes' to the Southern Baptists who are proposing to do the same thing, is that religious favoritism, discrimination or an invitation to litigation?" Will people, she asks, want to support with their taxes the program of a fundamentalist church whose members believe "the more women submit to their husbands, the more peaceful and happy their homes will be? How about a Jerry Falwell counseling center for gays and lesbians based on the notion of 'reparative therapy' that purports to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals through faith in Jesus? Or a drug and alcohol treatment center run by the Church of Scientology, where addicts not only receive standard therapy but also are encouraged to study the writings of L. Ron Hubbard?"

According to Kalson, government funding for faith-based social services has been going on for years, but with certain rules. "You had to serve everyone on a nonsectarian basis; you had to eschew proselytizing; you had to follow nondiscriminatory hiring practices that don't otherwise apply to religious institutions." But Bush, she says, "intends for something else to happen with federal money than has been happening already...Faith in the power of God to change the human heart is, in fact, at the core of some of the programs Bush touted in Texas...Furthermore, this plan will allow religious organizations receiving public funds to hire only those people who share their beliefs." She pointed to a Bush comment that particularly struck her: "When we see social needs in America, my administration will look first at faith-based programs and community groups, which have proven their power to save and change lives," he said. Kalson concludes by saying, "I'd much rather see my tax dollars placing children in permanent homes than defending a barrage of religious discrimination lawsuits." (7)
http://newsletters.cephasministry.com/04_01_pros_and_cons_faith_based.html

There are pros (for Christians) and cons (for everyone else) to GWB's incorporation of Church and State. The people who are not Christian in this country will not stand by and allow this BS. I'm sorry. Maybe you don't agree, or are incapable of seeing it... but I do.

This is more Religious Right meddling. They won't have their way. Just because Christians believe that everyone should be Christian... that doesn't mean that 'everyone else' agrees. They need to keep that to themselves.

I believe wholeheartedly that GWB & Co. are pushing a religious agenda on the American people.

That does not make me slanderous, and I resent you for making such an insulting judgement call about me.

Star Lover, It's too bad that you're tired of Bush-bashing. No, I don't have to support him just because he's the president of the country I live in. I don't have to support him blindly because he is a 'man of faith'. I don't have to do anyting but live and die... hell, you can even find ways out of paying taxes.

posted August 17, 2004 10:27 PM              

Myth: Intelligent people tend to be more religious.

Fact: Intelligent people tend to be more secular.

Summary

The broad consensus of research shows that people with higher IQs tend to be less religious, not more so.

Argument

Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious.

To place these studies in perspective, it is helpful to know the general religious attitudes of Americans today. According to a February 1995 Gallup poll, 96 percent of all Americans believe in God, and 88 percent affirm the importance of religion. However, the degree of religiosity within this group varies considerably. Only 35 percent can be classified as "religious," using a definition that requires them to consider religion important and attend religious services at least once a week. And a March 1994 Gallup poll found that only 20 percent of all Americans belong to that politically active group known as "Christian conservatives."

The following is a review of several studies of IQ and religiosity, paraphrased and summarized from Burnham Beckwith's article, "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith," Free Inquiry, Spring 1986: (1)

STUDIES OF STUDENTS

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS

1. Rose Goldsen, 1952
Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; North Carolina 68.

2. National Review Study, 1970
Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.

3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.

4. Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26 percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.

STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS

1. William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less religious] are… far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous."

Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

2. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists.

Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.

3. Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]

4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend… All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives… A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

5. Francis Bello, 1954
Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

6. Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative men… significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16 percent for the most eminent chemists.

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.

Conclusion

The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.

This is the result even when the researchers are Christian conservatives themselves. One such researcher is George Gallup. Here are the results of a Fall 1995 Gallup poll:

Percentage of respondents who agreed with the following statements:

(This didn't c/p well)

Respondents Religion is Religion can
"very important "answer all
in their life" or most of
today's
"problems"
...........................................
Attended college 53 percent 58 percent
No college 63 65
Income over $50,000 48 56
$30,000 - $50,000 56 62
$20,000 - $30,000 56 60
Under $20,000 66 66

Why does this correlation exist? The first answer that comes to mind is that religious beliefs tend to be more illogical or incoherent than secular beliefs, and intelligent people tend to recognize that more quickly. But this explanation will surely be rejected by religious people, who will seek other explanations and rationalizations.

A possible counter-argument is that intelligent people tend to be more successful than others. The lure of worldly success and materialism draws many of these intellectually gifted individuals away from God. After all, who needs God when you (apparently) are making it on your own?

However, this argument does not withstand closer scrutiny. Most of the studies outlined above describe the religious attitudes of students, who have yet to enter the working world, much less succeed in it. Some might then argue that the most intelligent students are nonetheless succeeding in school. But "success" in school (for those who may have forgotten!) is more measured in terms of popularity, sports, physical attractiveness, personality, clothes, etc. Grades are but one of many measures of success in a young person's life -- one that is increasingly becoming less important, as many social critics point out.

The simplest and most parsimonious explanation is that religion is a set of logical and factual claims, and those with the most logic and facts at their disposal are rejecting it largely on those grounds.

Endnotes:

posted August 18, 2004 12:29 AM              

quote:

---

AquaGirl, ...and the Athiest's are wrong anyway? Who the hell are you to make a statement like that? God? I don't think so. The Athiests and the Pagans, the Jews and the Muslims... all have a voice in this country. It is closed minded statements just like this one that gets my blood boiling.

---

Libra Sparkle, calm down. My comment wasn't meant to be taken so literally, it was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else, hence the smiley. And Randall is right. I meant that I believe Athiests are just plain WRONG about there being no higher power, not necessarily that they shouldn't have a voice. So what my statement means is that if a few Athiests get their panties in a bunch because the president asks us to pray, I for one am not going to care about it. You are free to care about it if you want and take issue with prayer and argue whatever you feel is right. It's your opinion, you do in fact have a voice and you are entitled to it.

I don't know why you keep asking people who have an opinion different to yours if they think they are God... No. I don't think that. But I think and this is a forum to share our thoughts and ideas and opinions. I'm not God and either are you.

As for more intelligent people tending to be more secular, I would agree with you. But there is a huge distinction between being a religious zealot (less intelligent, less questioning, less critical thought generally) and someone who is merely "secular" and then an Athiest.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the meaning of secular in this context means "modern", "mainstream"... or as my Jehovah's Witness in-laws would call me.... "worldly"... Am I wrong? I'm just hoping I am not missing something.

Just because someone is secular like myself and I don't affiliate myself with any religion, does not auomatically make me an Athiest. I do believe in a higher power and I think most people do even if they do not attend church every sunday, practice a religion or get their beliefs tattooed on their foreheads. Most "secular" people may not identify themselves as a religion in surveys and census data, but it doesn't mean they don't believe in anything.

posted August 18, 2004 01:01 AM              

Your comment about Athiests being just plain wrong was (IMO) in poor taste. One of the points I've been trying to make is that there is no place for anyone to tell another whether they are wrong or right about their spiritual preference. Freedom of religion means being free from ridicule. Free from people telling you are wrong for the way you believe. Saying that someone is "wrong" for the way they believe is an infringement on religious freedom. We have no place to judge in that matter. That is between that person and their maker. So, to assume you have the right to say someone is wrong for their beliefs is to assume the position of god. Which you are not.

As far as asking everyone who disagrees with me if they think they are god... well, that's just plain untrue. It's a blanket statement. I have said that to you and suggested SS had an omnipotance complex because she somehow felt it ok to tell me what I need to do. It was an arrogant statement that I received insultingly. So, now that you have your explaination for all two times in this string anything of the like came up, I hope you see the fallasy of your words... that I accuse everyone of being god.

To clear up any confusion about the meaning of the word secular:

Yes, it means "worldly", or not overtly or specifically religious; not bound by monastic vows or rules.

posted August 18, 2004 01:19 AM              

quote:

---

You're totally right, Aqua. Secular does not = Athiest. But... Athiests are secular. They do not subscribe to religious beliefs. I never suggested they were one and the same.

---

Right. But my original point was that most people believe in a God of some sort and one of your more recent studies you quoted backs that up - it says that 96% of Americans believe in God. So why shouldn't the president ask us to pray?

posted August 18, 2004 01:27 AM              

The separation of church and state was put into place for a very good reason, and GWB is really pushing the limits IMO. It doesn't matter how many people believe in god. The entities are to be seperate. And the last thing any government official should quote from is the bible. The bible is fallible, archaic and has no place in government.

The comment, no, I didn't see any humor in it. I didn't see that you were implying humor. I have a great sense of humor... but I didn't find that comment funny. Maybe I was overly offended by it, but I don't see the humor in saying someone is wrong in their personal beliefs... just because there are probably not any here.