This post was originally published in October of 2015 on another platform:
Some months ago one of my friends posted a link to an article on Facebook. In this case the poster is not just an "FB friend", but someone I consider an actual friend. The story was about a study conducted by someone in the world of academia. The gist of the findings was that non-religious people have a higher IQ than religious people. For whatever reason I didn't respond online. I generally like to take a breath before jumping into a fray. The pace of FB posts doesn't really allow for measured contemplation. By the time you can think something through, the topic has long been buried and forgotten. I'm sure my response here will not be read by many, if any, and it is just my opinion which is probably worth as little as I think the study is worth. My initial reaction was that the study findings sounded something like what I might have heard in the sixth grade. "Oh yeah! Well you're dumber than me!" I was waiting for the next study to have findings showing that "My dad can beat up your dad!"
As I thought it over for a few days I was reminded of the old adage that you can make statistics say whatever you want them to say.
I have not spent any time digging into the study or how thorough it was. I'm sure people could quickly point to this as a reason my response is not defensible. I would, however, like to remind us all about some basic ideas in statistics. The first is the symbol N. It is used to define a total population, or a complete set of actual or potential observations. In the case of the referenced study this could be something like all adults in the United States. Then there is the symbol n. It is used to define some smaller part of N that will represent the group as a whole without needing to consider every subject contained in N. The symbol n is specifically the subset of the population selected according to some scheme. These definitions are not mine. I took them from The Basic Principles of Statistics for Introductory Courses, published by BarCharts, Inc.
The story linked in FB said the study used two samples to come to its conclusions. The first was a sample of people chosen from among college educated adults. The second was a sample of people chosen from among adults of all sorts. The results were that those with higher education had a lower percentage of people who believed in God or considered themselves religious. Those who came from a more general population had a higher percentage of people who believed in God or considered themselves religious. There was a link made depicting those with higher degrees of education having, in general, higher IQ than those who did not.
Based on the definitions of N and n these conclusions should come as no surprise at all. It's self-fulfilling prophesy. If we accept the premise that those with higher education also have a higher IQ then it is no wonder this study drew its stated conclusions.
For one thing, those who attend institutions that tend to disagree with religious principles are more likely to adopt the perspective of the institution. If the sample of higher-educated people is limited to just that group, then it is no wonder that this group would have a higher instance of non-religious perspective. Those who do not receive academic indoctrination will be less persuaded by the arguments of academia. If the "regular Joe" population includes many other groups then the average religiosity would obviously shift upward since more perspectives are included.
The idea of linking IQ with non-religiosity is also in question. Using much the same argument, if the "regular Joe" population has more people of lower IQ then the average would be naturally lowered. Not because as a whole these people are dumber, but because there are many more of them who have not attended institutions of higher learning. It's likely there are "dumb" people who attend college and "dumb" people who do not attend college. It is also likely that the percentage of lower IQ individuals in higher education is less than the general population. If that is true then the IQ of educated people would average higher than the general population. I'm only stating what the study argues and I'm not really sure any of these assertions are true.
Which institutions of higher learning were selected could also have much to do with these findings. For example, if the study had focused on universities that are owned or sponsored by religious organizations the sample results n might have actually shown the exact opposite. These people would likely be a population that is both highly educated and more likely to be religious.
The problem is the issue of coincidence and correlation. The study is arguing cause-and-effect. The study argument is that people are less religious because they are smarter, and that people are more religious because they are dumber. I am arguing that the supposedly smarter group is less religious because of the smaller population. Many other factors can also be associated with cause such as institutional indoctrination. I am also arguing that the supposedly dumber group is more religious because of the larger population size. More people with a wider range of IQ involved will naturally explain a lowering of the average IQ and raising of religiosity among the group simply because of the larger sample size.
I think the study would be more telling if people in the study were actually tested for IQ both within the higher-educated group and within the lesser-educated group, then religiosity could be compared based on IQ and not based on level of education.
Within the study I don't fit the mold. I have an advanced degree and am on the cusp of completing another. It would seem I'm the anomalous highly-educated dumb person who is religious because of my dumbness. If I were smarter I would have better understood the concepts shown me in my education. That greater understanding would have made me less religious. At least, so goes the argument of the study.
Well… I'm OK considering myself a highly-educated dumb person. It fits better with an argument from the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:27. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty…"
I doubt my little quibbling would confound "the wise" or "mighty". I'm certain some person connected with the study could point to why I'm off base since as I said earlier, you can make statistics say anything you want them to.
Some months ago one of my friends posted a link to an article on Facebook. In this case the poster is not just an "FB friend", but someone I consider an actual friend. The story was about a study conducted by someone in the world of academia. The gist of the findings was that non-religious people have a higher IQ than religious people. For whatever reason I didn't respond online. I generally like to take a breath before jumping into a fray. The pace of FB posts doesn't really allow for measured contemplation. By the time you can think something through, the topic has long been buried and forgotten. I'm sure my response here will not be read by many, if any, and it is just my opinion which is probably worth as little as I think the study is worth. My initial reaction was that the study findings sounded something like what I might have heard in the sixth grade. "Oh yeah! Well you're dumber than me!" I was waiting for the next study to have findings showing that "My dad can beat up your dad!"
As I thought it over for a few days I was reminded of the old adage that you can make statistics say whatever you want them to say.
I have not spent any time digging into the study or how thorough it was. I'm sure people could quickly point to this as a reason my response is not defensible. I would, however, like to remind us all about some basic ideas in statistics. The first is the symbol N. It is used to define a total population, or a complete set of actual or potential observations. In the case of the referenced study this could be something like all adults in the United States. Then there is the symbol n. It is used to define some smaller part of N that will represent the group as a whole without needing to consider every subject contained in N. The symbol n is specifically the subset of the population selected according to some scheme. These definitions are not mine. I took them from The Basic Principles of Statistics for Introductory Courses, published by BarCharts, Inc.
The story linked in FB said the study used two samples to come to its conclusions. The first was a sample of people chosen from among college educated adults. The second was a sample of people chosen from among adults of all sorts. The results were that those with higher education had a lower percentage of people who believed in God or considered themselves religious. Those who came from a more general population had a higher percentage of people who believed in God or considered themselves religious. There was a link made depicting those with higher degrees of education having, in general, higher IQ than those who did not.
Based on the definitions of N and n these conclusions should come as no surprise at all. It's self-fulfilling prophesy. If we accept the premise that those with higher education also have a higher IQ then it is no wonder this study drew its stated conclusions.
For one thing, those who attend institutions that tend to disagree with religious principles are more likely to adopt the perspective of the institution. If the sample of higher-educated people is limited to just that group, then it is no wonder that this group would have a higher instance of non-religious perspective. Those who do not receive academic indoctrination will be less persuaded by the arguments of academia. If the "regular Joe" population includes many other groups then the average religiosity would obviously shift upward since more perspectives are included.
The idea of linking IQ with non-religiosity is also in question. Using much the same argument, if the "regular Joe" population has more people of lower IQ then the average would be naturally lowered. Not because as a whole these people are dumber, but because there are many more of them who have not attended institutions of higher learning. It's likely there are "dumb" people who attend college and "dumb" people who do not attend college. It is also likely that the percentage of lower IQ individuals in higher education is less than the general population. If that is true then the IQ of educated people would average higher than the general population. I'm only stating what the study argues and I'm not really sure any of these assertions are true.
Which institutions of higher learning were selected could also have much to do with these findings. For example, if the study had focused on universities that are owned or sponsored by religious organizations the sample results n might have actually shown the exact opposite. These people would likely be a population that is both highly educated and more likely to be religious.
The problem is the issue of coincidence and correlation. The study is arguing cause-and-effect. The study argument is that people are less religious because they are smarter, and that people are more religious because they are dumber. I am arguing that the supposedly smarter group is less religious because of the smaller population. Many other factors can also be associated with cause such as institutional indoctrination. I am also arguing that the supposedly dumber group is more religious because of the larger population size. More people with a wider range of IQ involved will naturally explain a lowering of the average IQ and raising of religiosity among the group simply because of the larger sample size.
I think the study would be more telling if people in the study were actually tested for IQ both within the higher-educated group and within the lesser-educated group, then religiosity could be compared based on IQ and not based on level of education.
Within the study I don't fit the mold. I have an advanced degree and am on the cusp of completing another. It would seem I'm the anomalous highly-educated dumb person who is religious because of my dumbness. If I were smarter I would have better understood the concepts shown me in my education. That greater understanding would have made me less religious. At least, so goes the argument of the study.
Well… I'm OK considering myself a highly-educated dumb person. It fits better with an argument from the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:27. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty…"
I doubt my little quibbling would confound "the wise" or "mighty". I'm certain some person connected with the study could point to why I'm off base since as I said earlier, you can make statistics say anything you want them to.
RSS Feed