You mention Sarah Palin.

Why didn't you mention, for instance... uhm.... Barack Obama?

He also believes in a personal God.

I would think that if you believed so much in scientific methodology, then you would want to make your argument using it rather than by an appeal to authority and an ad hominem attack.

Asking science to validate or answer questions about religion will tend to sound as "crazy" as asking religion to validate and answer questions about science. There are many forms of religion that understand that its primary concern is not to inform us about science and empirical reality (of course, there are many that don't). What would it be like if science could stay out of religion?

I too wrestle with the inner polarity that Saad writes about in the larger culture between my rational side and my spiritual side. And I know that when I can stop the wrestling, relax, and let them both co-exist, I find myself feeling a lot bigger, more creative, and more energy.

Could you imagine if our culture as a whole could stop wrestling over this? Think of the problems we might solve then.

Get personal. Get real. Join the Talk Your Heart Out forum.

The arguments in this article are clearly without substantial research foundation. The fact that some scientists believe in God (even if there are more of these types) and some scientists don't believe in God (even if there are fewer of these types) doesn't prove anything. The mere presence of a correlation doesn't show a causal relationship. Has the author considered other reasons for this apparent relationship? There are other explanations, and the literature on this topic is replete with alternative explanations.

I think the point of the blog was missed by a few judging from the comments. The writer was commenting on his findings and adding his personal thoughts on the topic. I mean there obvisouly is no evidence that says God doesn't want you to use your brain. I'm sure if he was going to go through the process of writing material that was scientifically sound arguing intelligence and religiosity, he would write a paper or a book instead of a blog.

I think it is interesting to take the points in this article into consideration with those mentioned in another Psychology Today article:

Religion: With God on Our Side

If the claims in that article are to be believed then our ideas about 'God' are similar to our personally held ideas about things in general. That would suggest that 'God' to those who believe in it, is equivalent to the notions scientist have about themselves (perhaps rationale scientific enquiry and standards of evidence is 'God's' way?); albeit a 'special' word for it.

Perhaps more pertinently however, the idea of people of lower IQ and education level believing things more readily (with less scepticism, interpretation, and critical analysis) and applying them dogmatically in an over-generalised fashion, would seem to be something that would exist with or without the existence of organised religion. Instead they may 'religiously' believe and follow the popular-press's rendition of scientific findings and empirical research (which like Chinese whispers tend to become distorted). As I am sure many do!

All this aside, I must point out that a point that seems sorely lacking from everyone's minds when it comes to the origins and function of religion, is that of whether or not it originally served as a system of knowledge? Weekly church sessions where people are taught religious knowledge does not seem that far removed from education from a more knowledgable individual; and there appears to be considerable evidence to suggest that religious knowledge has been THE topic of scholarly efforts in many a bygone era. Why has it not been considered that religious knowledge albeit speaking a symbolic language of it's own, is/was a system for organising information with it's own methods, values and doctrines? How do we know that contemporary science won't be debunked and seen as ridiculous in the distant future?

It seems to me that scientist's understanding of what religion is talking about is the equivalent of the lay-person's understandings of the philosophy, methodology, values, and current state of knowledge within science (not that well understood). And are scientists not dogmatic and indoctrinated in their application of logical positivism, their ideal/value of objectivity, and their blind faith in science eventually unravelling the mysteries of the universe if only we believe and keep up the good fight? Much as the religious individual seeks to know God through unerring devotion? Further, if God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, then what difference is there between it at the sum totality of everything? As such would it not be the case the religious individuals and scientists are in the pursuit of the same goal, albeit in their own way?

My contention is that they are both after the same thing; science via objectivity, religion via subjectivity. Plus both parties seem virtually illiterate in the interpretation of each other's messages (in the extremes anyway). Time to get post-modern and understand that things need to be interpreted and translated in terms of their basis of reason, not taken on face value (doing so on either side of the fence is a bad idea).

Scienctist would do better to consider religion in terms of cognitive science and the development of knowledge/ideas across societies and time (in line with it's values, not sciences). That there is a schemata called "God" that refers to an abstract concept should not be too surprising (how different is this to a theory?); and that people use artistic renditions of it with their personally held schemata for it should not be surprising either (albeit rather naive)! Treat scripture like a scientific journal article, with a healthy scepticism and interpretation alongside the evidences you know, and it does have useful things to tell you; especially from a psychological point of view.

There are many, many scientists who believe in a higher power. It is quite egotistical to basically say that if you believe in one, then you are an idiot (like you seem to say here).

Even within those that say they don't believe (which BTW, some polls show around 70% of scientists believe in a higher power), there is pressure to be an atheist.

In my own experiences at least, I know of quite a few academics that admit belief in god, yet proclaim atheism when others are around).

At any rate, I know this is a blog, but your argument is really weak and ridden with confirmation bias.

All theists are idiots, just like all Asians rule at math, and all males with high voices are homosexual. oh, and all men are taller than all women.

What is ironic is that you blog about these cognitive biases like "1 exception doesn't disprove the rule" and then you write dribble like this.

And I know men are taller because Yao Ming is a man and a have a midget neighbor who is female.Oh, and there is a correlation between ender and heigth.

(note the parellel: You know theists are dumb, because a scientist doesn't believe, but Palin does. And there is a correlation between intelligence and theism).

Cheers.

1. I know my stats just fine thank you. If anyone was misusin correlational data, it was you. You overstretch these correlations to fit your opinion. That is all.

2. The point of your article was to say that smart people believe in od, which I would bet a million dollars you believe (if I had it!). If it wasn't then what was it?

3. I didnt say atheist academics pressure people intentionally to not believe. All I meant was that in any roup, there is pressure to conform to the norm. And in some cases (more than people think, I suspect), academics aren't "as atheist" as they let on. Many are, but many aren't.

4. If I come off as harsh, then well, so do you !-:) But anyway, like others have said, science can't disprove od. For all we know, the joke is on the scientists and all this stupidly blind faith will be rewarded (I doubt it, but how can we know?) Science cannot answer matters like this, as you know.

5. I know the majority of reliious people are incredibly annoyin. They annoy me too with (what seems to me) unfounded certainty and pure lunacy (come on, Jonah lived in a whale!). But there is a sphere out there of reasonable, intellient theists. And it isn't fair to lump all theists with the Jonah lived in a whale crowd.

6. I am hardly a defender of reliion at all costs. I am not an absolute basher either, however. Unfortunately for me, I am in the middle, which is not always the most pleasant place to be.

As much as atheists like to champion their rationality, they often are just as venomous as the most fundamentalist christian, or muslim or any other faith.

Bottom line: intelligence and education are the vaccines against the religion memeplex.

Ok, so you arent sayin that theism is a disease (hence needing a vaccine and an inoculation)? Come on; how can you actually say that wasn't the point of your entry?

If it was, that is fine. Then we have a difference of opinion. And the data you cite demonstrates that smart people TEND to no believe in god. Okay, fine.

But let's call a spade and spade and not backpedal on your intentions when they are so apparent.

Nobody should be surprised at the article, the correlation is well known, both within societies and as trends over time as educational levels increase. My comment on reading the article was so what, tell me something I don't know.... so I was a little surprised to read the response here.

Let's face it, every religion knows that education and knowledge is the enemy to the propagation of the self-replicating religious meme / virus. Why else do you think the original sin was eating of the Tree of Knowledge? Why do religions try to "get them young" before a person's own critical faculties are developed (a fact recognized in the rules for advertising anything other than religion to kids).

It's farcical to think that a form of thought that insists on belief over logic applied to facts, and that attempts to remain unchanged, while science moves the world forward, isn't by definition going to be inversely correlated with educational or academic achievement.

JR

Let's all hear it for suicide bombers. At least they're willing to bet their lives on their beliefs...nutty as they may be.

I don’t find that disrespectful; it was polite and cited the evidence.

I might dispute that “a leap of faith” necessarily entails “a suspension of reason” based on the whole non-overlapping-magisteria thing, but it’s a defensible point.

Actually, though, I would like to say that this evidence may not necessarily be inconsistent with Christianity. Christ stated that He came for “the poor”; was he necessarily limiting himself to financial challenges, or maybe educational as well? Talents can make people proud and cold to the idea of God prima facie (I'm not referring to yourself, you've apparently actually considered it, but in general)... and, hey, maybe that's why Sarah Palin feels so close to Him! This probably sounds like nonsense, lol, or maybe desperate rationalization, but just saying.

Do those that reject a theistic worldview adopt a reductionist, materialistic, naturalistic worldview? If so, I pity them. They do not see in color.

Religious people live at the center of their universe and believe that everything involves them and is intentional. Their being here is part of a great plan. The stars are aligned to foretell their destiny. The tornado spared their trailer for a special reason. As a result, they are uninterested in new information and greater insight. They accept whatever reinforces their belief and reject (often with foaming mouth) whatever doesn't. One might as well talk to the cat.

Stephen Mason, Ph.D wrote "Religious people...believe...the tornado spared their trailer for a special reason."

See the Tower of Siloam.

"In mentioning the collapse of the tower of Siloam, Jesus taught that tragic death can come upon anyone, regardless of how sinful they are."

Wouldn't a more meaningful comparison be that of the intelligence and educational level of academics and clergy?

If it is possible to get a PhD in divinity, then surely there must be highly educated religious individuals?

It seems spurious to compare academics with layman and draw a conclusion about intelligence and education inoculating against religiosity; especially if you consider that vocationally less people are employed within organised religion as compared to the larger part of the economy where the usual academic qualifications are more in demand!

Before you say what Jesus said, you ought to make certain there even was a Jesus. Begin with something simple. Watch "The God that Never Was" (no reading required).

And "highly educated religious individuals" is an oxymoron. Any such training is a matter of Garbage In / Garbage Out. It would be like putting a Flat-Earther on a panel with a Round-Earther and calling it balanced.

Years ago, as an intern in a mental hospital, I tried to be a nice guy - caring and empathetic. That was when a senior resident explained to me that tolerating madness is the same as encouraging it. Today you smile supportively when hearing about a patient's friend in the sky. Tomorrow, when you stop smiling, you get your head cut off. It's not a matter of kind so much as degree. Perhaps a few more terrorist attacks will make my point.

Hang in there Doc...look's like it's you and me.

Steve

Nice job Ph.D.'ers. You've effectively set up the religious straw man and torn him down. Now can either of you carry your weight in a serious philosophical discussion about The Divine? Doubtful. Even those in the scientific community acknowledge that Dawkin's has stepped outside his expertise. Maybe you should wise up.

That's interesting to me that eminent and well-recognized or "highly educated" professors are less likely to be religious and that this correlation is seen as legitimate statistics by anti-religious folks. Correlation certainly does not imply causality, and anyone who has taken a college level statistics course will know that. This relationship doesn't necessarily provide support for any causal relationship, but it does imply that there is a relationship of some kind (but not necessarily a significant relationship).
If there were (after more research) then that wouldn't necessarily be strange because it makes sense that those who feel they have "arrived" in the world and possessed all the material they need and want, they are more likely to shun God or anything connected to religion. Unfortunately a lot of people misinterpret what religion truly is and a real, spiritual relationship with God. Religion is often what runs people away and sadly this happens to be those who have "achieved" because they feel they do not need it.
It would be like a CEO attaining everyone in life and feeling complete with all his money, material, and fame. How likely is he to seek spiritual insight? He is more than likely going to overlook this part of himself (until one day he awakens to the fact that he is not complete with the possessions of the world, that is, those things that don't make you).

Talk about the relationship between religion and intelligence seems frivolous. It is quite obvious why people who have material possessions would disregard religion and why those who are without would not disregard it. I don't think we need scientists to examine this relationship and further waste our time when the discovery of more important things such as Alzheimer's disease, autism, schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, etc. still needs figuring out. This "knowledge" doesn't disprove an omnipotent existence nor does it prove it.

The author of this article implied that "It would seem that God is one hell of a trickster as he has apparently endowed us with the most complex computational system known to mankind (our brain) and then has asked that we refrain from using it, as per His narcissistic edict to believe in Him."

I don't think this was an intelligible approach to explaining the brain and its relationship to faith. In fact, we are not to suspend our thinking, logical selves. But rather to learn how to integrate those two things in order to be able to properly utilize them as a whole. You see...until we are able to remove our prideful, "all-knowing," arrogant persona's, we will not understand this relationship. The brain and faith are not opposites, in fact, they are assimilated into our existence once we obtain further knowledge on how to motivate this change in ourselves. Studying faith and learning how to incorporate the brain with our logical selves takes studying and mastery of the faith and things relating to it.

Faith is not just a matter of believing and networking with "like-minds" of religion as many religious leaders have inferred; it is a matter of having confidence in, untouchable faith and acceptance of, and irrevocable conception, wisdom, and awareness of his previous corporeal and current transcendent existence. This is not gathered by naively reading the bible and attending church every Sunday, Tuesday, and Saturday. But it is gathered by a deep, and introspective searching of the answer to many of life's most challenging questions...many questions that are not as fully answered by science and evolution as one would have you close-mindedly believe.

Dr.T

http://kalkap.ning.com/profiles/blog/list

(1) You are one of several readers to have posted the proverbial "correlation does not imply causality" straw man argument. Nowhere in my post did I imply that one relationship was caused by the other. I simply reported HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT correlations that have been uncovered in countless studies covering close to eight decades of research.

(2) For someone who is accusing scientists of being prideful and arrogant in their "all-knowing" stance, you certainly did not waste much time being patronizing and condescending throughout your post. For example, your subject heading speaks volume: "Think again...my friend and read to be enlightened." Nice. :)

Oh, Enlightened Guru, show us the way to the truth.

I happen to be an obsessively voracious reader albeit I suppose that I cannot quote from Genesis and/or Deuteronomy off the top of my head. If this is your benchmark of someone who is enlightened and well read then I suppose that most scientists are illiterate fools.

(3) You mentioned that scientists should not be wasting their time conducting such "trivial" research when there are so many more important problems to solve such as "Alzheimer's disease, autism, schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, etc."

This is quite an extraordinary claim given that you have a blog titled "A biblical approach to mental health." Hence, should we be looking toward the Bible to solve the latter important problems or should we rely on the "ignorant, unenlightened, and arrogant" scientists to solve these?

To borrow the term of my colleague Dr. Mason, "save your affected pity."

Ciao for now, "my friend."

GS

I expected a defensive reply. It is certainly not uncharacteristic. I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, but I hope you will consider examining broader knowledge on this topic.
Have you heard of author and metapsychiatrist Thomas Hora (1914-1995)? I encourage you to read something from him (www.pagl.org) and please don't hesitate to obtain his book: Beyond the Dream.

To make my initial point even further...Hora says "wisdom is not intellectual. Education cannot provide man with wisdom...a well educated man may be well informed, but he is not yet a wise man. He can become a wise man only if his consciousness is spiritualized" (p.14). This spiritualization makes you a being who is tuned in on a source of higher intelligence. The more you are in tuned with this spiritualized man, the more you can integrate the brain and faith and attain a broader conception of faith and its relation to the brains' interconnected component parts. It has all been created by one Creator...and therefore, is not to be separated, but assimilated. It seems insubstantial to the unbeliever because it's not easy to understand.

I simply believe that educational attainment has nothing to do with religiosity, if that were the case then many PhD, Masters, Bachelors, and PsyD's would not exist in university's dedicated to teaching creationism. In fact, I also recommend the book: Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow (2004).

On another note, I'm sure you would agree that defensiveness as a result of varying and opposing opinions will not achieve any more answers than we already have. As Gandhi's wife stated "...you cannot shake hands with a clenched fist." This charged topic unfortunately evokes passion successfully and as a result continues to stagnate our growth. I'm sure through logical reasoning you understand why I took the tone I did in response to your article. It is controversial and often has the tone of circular reasoning to those who have been enlightened through other means of knowledge. But I guess I should respond more scholarly and try to understand the dilemma of science and of the evolutionist who seeks answers and finds very little.

Lastly, the arrogance and pride that I spoke of was not the dictionary's definition, but rather I referred to an inability to shed man's overwhelming sense of false power, prestige, and knowledge (the knowledge of society's standards). It's amazing that science proclaims to know as much as it does and feels confident with nothing more than claims. Instead of wasting time seeking answers about people's religion and their level of education, it would be more interesting and worthy of attention if scientific researchers would focus on why they haven't been able to prove our existence using evolution yet.
Better yet, it would be interesting if society could hear more about the fossils science claims we have from previous species and are nothing more than reinvented, reproductions of the "real thing." They are sequestered inside vaults of concrete or stone and accessible only through massive steel doors. Few can see them--let alone study them. Therefore, it is difficult for even the best scientist to examine a fossil's authenticity. In fact, Darwin never saw a real fossil himself, although he published an entire book on it in 1871 (which was based mainly on preconceived notions and unproven claims).You tell me this is the evolutionists biggest weapon?

Essentially, I think it's best to keep an open mind when information has not fully been substantiated. When a bunch of question marks remain after years of in-depth seeking of the answer, it is very possible that either we are looking in the wrong places and need to turn elsewhere, or we're not permitted to ever know the truth.

Dr.T

p.s. before I go...a biblical approach to mental health doesn't exclude science, if helps to illuminate it.