Talk:Religiosity and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religiosity and intelligence article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 May 2005. The result of the discussion was keep (but needs cleanup).

This article was nominated for deletion on October 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete.

• Archive 1: May 2005 to August 2007

Contents 1 POV 2 Creeping Vandalism in the wake of AFD controversy? 3 Ready for deletion? 4 POV still? 5 Improve 6 Religiosity and Science 6.1 Science culture 7 Removal of Bell (Dawkins) 8 Can spirituality be measured? 9 any pointers to original research? 10 Eminent Scientists 11 Canadian Mensa 12 Regan Clark's report 13 Why I marked this page 14 poythress 1975 15 EI 16 religious behaviour vs religious belief 17 Censorship of this site 18 Definitions please 19 Bias - advancement of a pov 20 deletion of scientists and religiosity 21 "Metanalysis" or bias 22 definitions, use of education 23 behaviour vs belief 24 Confusion about the LDS study

[edit] POV

As it stands, this article is heavy on POV, OR and synthesis.

• "Some criticize the validity and fairness of the use of IQ tests or psychometric measures of intelligence in general."

Maybe "some"^[who?] do. But without a cite linking this directly to "Religiosity and intelligence", this is uncited synthesis.

• "Discussion of such objections may be found in the article Intelligence quotient."

Wow.

• "Many of the issues pertaining to the investigation of group differences in intelligence vis-à-vis religiosity are also raised in the investigation of race and intelligence—a better established, though controversial, area of intelligence research."

In other words, "'Religiosity and intelligence' is just like 'Race and intelligence'. And you know what that means."

• "The measurement of religiosity or the related area of spirituality is a comparatively new field, with a number of new measurement tools available. Tools include "The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire"[1], "The Spiritual Assessment Inventory" and the "Spiritual Transcendence Scale" [2]. Use of such standardised tools assists social scientists to measure reliably and to compare findings between studies."

All of that may or may not be true. But this article is about "Religiosity and intelligence". This is uncited synthesis.

• "In an undergraduate student project at the University of California, Davis, Regan Clark claims...(long attack on correlation)." This is immediately followed by "Some often quoted [1] essays, noted below, suggest an inverse relationship between intelligence and religiosity; however, they use non scientifically recognized measures of intelligence, such as SAT scores, academic ability and the prevalence of atheists in the science field, and were not published in peer reviewed journals."

Whoever wrote that had no problem worth noting about research done for an undergradute student project. Beckwith's article and Dawkins' book are then attacked.

• "In 1986, an essay in the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine..."

Odd: why did "Council for Secular Humanism" get a link? (Those &*%$ing humanists!) We didn't hear that "Explorations: An Undergraduate Research Journal" is an on-line collection of essays (their word, not mine[1]) published by the Office of the Vice Provost-Undergraduate Studies.

• "...summarized studies on religiosity and intelligence.[4]"

Are these the ones that "use non scientifically recognized measures of intelligence, ... and were not published in peer reviewed journals"? Unlike Clark's study of 67 UC Davis undergrads (78% female, significantly higher than average IQ, all age 17-24), Beckwith's "essay" looked at 17 studies of students (over 5,000 students total) from age 10 to post-doctoral; 4 studies comparing student bodies; 3 studies of high IQ groups; and 7 studies of prominent scientists. All of these (we are supposed to guess?) "use non scientifically recognized measures of intelligence" and "were not published in peer reviewed journals (you know, like "Explorations: An Undergraduate Research Journal").

The current issue (volume 9! it's been around since before "Friends" last episode!) features such peer-reviewed studies as "Venturing in from the Intellectual Parking Lot", "Three Short Pieces for Cello and Piano" and "The California High Speed Train Debate."[2] I am confident the M- Heacock used only scientifically recognized measures of sex, spirits and socialism.

• "In it Burnham Beckwith, the author of self-published and subsidy-published books on socialism and futurism,[2]"

This is odd. The reference points to a search on the Canadian version of amazon and shows out-of-print notices for four books. Yes, Beckwith is listed as "publisher" for three of them. "Subsidy-published" is not shown. "Futurism" is not shown ("Beyond Tomorrow", one of the four, is a study of religious escatology). One of the four, "Liberal Socialism; The Pure Welfare Economics of a Liberal Socialist Economy", is, it seems, about socialism. The article did not mention that all 28 of his books are university textbooks, many published by Stanford as a search of amazon's main site would show. Is Beckwith best known as "the author of self-published and subsidy-published books"? Actually, I think he was probably best known as "my sociology prof", with the question of who published his books only being relevant to those paying over $100 for their into to philosophy text [3].

• "summarized 43 studies on religiosity and its relation with attributes that he considered were positively linked with intelligence: IQ, SAT scores, academic ability and other measures of "success", including employment as a scientist."

Clark, meanwhile found "there is little research directly linking IQ with higher or lower levels of religiosity and spirituality" and "no significant correlation between religiosity levels and IQ scores". So IQ is the wrong measure for intelligence, unless it shows what we want it to show. Insidentally, Clark found significant correlations between verbal IQ and verbal SAT along with performance IQ and quantitative SAT.

• "He included studies of scientists in 1927's Who's Who, where researchers measured degrees of religiosity by looking at how "religious" their denomination was."

Out of 43 studies examined, the article singles out one?

• "In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins [5] cites an article by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine, containing a meta-analysis of studies relating to the connection between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[6]"

If the Bell article was actually being used as a source, there should be a complete cite for it, instead of the brief one that copies the note from Dawkins character for character. I don't think the editor actual saw that article, but is quoting Dawkins' mention of it. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the editor was quoting someone else quoting Dawkins citing Bell. In any event, quoting one source's take on another source is not WP:RS. Quoting a source that you haven't seen is even worse.

In short, there seems to be nothing to save here. Over the next few days, I will be taking this article apart -- down to the bare studs, so to speak -- and building it back up with anything solid I can find. If you have anything specifically discussing this topic (not intelligence, not religiosity, but the interaction between the two) from a reliable source (not someone's blog, not an undergrad's submission to an online... whatever), please add it. If I disagree, I'll flag it, comment here, wait a bit, respond to any comments, then act. Mdbrownmsw 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You raise many issues. The format of the previous article was (perhaps clumsily) like this:

(intro- definition) The topic of religiosity and intelligence is…

(general comment about the connection) is it established/accepted?

(expand definitions): how do we validly measure intelligence

how do we validly measure religiosity

(body of article) what studies connect the two, and what is the connection?

Generally, only scientifically valid, verifiable studies would be listed. As far as I can see, this would mean deleting the entire article.

Can we agree on a general layout for the article first?

Many of your points have been raised and discussed above. Could you please make comments continuing the above discussions, so it will be easier to follow how decisions were made? It's really hard to follow the sequence of decisions regarding (for example) the Beckwith quotes, and will make life easier for future readers if we don't keep rehashing old discussions under new headings.

For example, for issues re Clarke, see, and add to, #Problems with sources discussion above. It shows that the nearest anyone has found to a study of accepted measures of intelligence with accepted measures of religiosity, was the undergraduate study. I think it is incorrect to assert that "Whoever wrote that had no problem worth noting about research done for an undergradute student project." As one of the earlier editors (not the author), I had problems worth noting about it, so ensured that it clearly said it was an undergrauate student project.

for issues with Dawkins/Bell, see, and add to, #Removal of Burnhan Beckwith block quote, inclusion of Dawkins discussion above.

for issues with Beckwith, see #Caplovitz and Sherrow and #older studies above. If you're still wondering why it is included, see, and comment at, #Removal of Burnhan Beckwith block quote, inclusion of Dawkins

... and please, read the block at the top of the page. The bit about reading this talk page and discussing substantial changes here before making them. WotherspoonSmith 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As discussed at the archived talk pages, the Burnmum Beckwith study is not worthy of a Wikipedia link without explanation. Beckwith lists a variety of non recognised indicators of intelligence to make his conclusions. We have deleted all references to educational level as an indicator of intelligence, yet this is a fair chunk of Beckwith's meta analysis.

We have removed references to studies of the number of scientists who are religious, as job description is not an indicator of intelligence, yet this is another number of Beckwith's study. Likewise, the rate of religiosity in various clubs or groups (mensa, NAS) shows little.

His inclusion of the number of 1927 Who's Who entrants by denomination, and subsequent ranking of denominations by how religious they are, is just plain silly, and reduces the credibility of the entire essay, IMHO.

I have removed the reference. It does not meet WP:RS standards.

As Mdbrownmsw notes so well, above, neither does the Dawkins/ Bell study, so it has also been removed.

WotherspoonSmith 01:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creeping Vandalism in the wake of AFD controversy?

This article has been whittled down to one tenth of its June 2007 length by a series of dubious edits. People should not just delete every entire section in which there is a slight violation of a wikipedia policy, they should just fix the violation and keep the underlying material. WP:SYN has been used as an excuse for deletion of almost everything that was ever in this article. WP:SYN does NOT mean that we are not allowed to present evidence the evidence for or against a position. 70.248.146.109 05:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What part, in particular, was removed that you do not believe violated WP:SYN? -- Schaefer (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

One edit deleted most of the article with the spurious excuses WP:SYN and WP:NOR: "14:33, 10 July 2007 Leinad-Z (Talk | contribs) (6,629 bytes) (Removing infringement of WP:NOR and WP:SYN - see talk) (undo)". I'm suprised this wasn't caught and reverted. 70.253.172.148 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. I'm asking what part of the removed content didn't violate WP:SYN and WP:NOR, in your opinion. -- Schaefer (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In your opinions, would the line

"Many of the issues pertaining to the investigation of group differences in intelligence vis-à-vis religiosity are also raised in the investigation of race and intelligence—a better established, though controversial, area of intelligence research."

be WP:SYN or WP:NOR ? I do not agree with the assertion above that there is an inference that this is saying it is (I'm guessing) racist, but would welcome others' opinions. It seems relevant to me. WotherspoonSmith 01:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That line is clunky and it's self-reference. The controversy surrounding these kinds of subjects would be better handled in a general article called "Correlates of Intelligence". Any time your research correlates intelligence with a lifestyle choice, people are going to blindly accuse you of bigotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.172.148 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The same ignorant objections get raised on every correlate of intelligence article. 70.248.147.66 (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If issues raised in race-and-intelligence research actually are raised in religiosity-and-intelligence research, then it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source noting the overlap. Without attribution, the text violates NPOV as it implies correlations between religiosity and IQ are as unpopular or as contentious as those between race and IQ. For example, imagine the absurdity of placing the above line on an article dealing with the better-established correlation between childhood lead exposure and IQ. One certainly could draw parallels from criticisms of race and IQ to argue that IQ tests are designed by scientists who don't eat lead paint chips and thus are biased against people who do eat lead paint chips, whose intellects were made different but not inferior by lead exposure. But nobody has argued this, as far as I know. Including the statement you quoted is makes an equally unfounded suggestion for religiosity. What issues from race and IQ, specifically, are raised in criticism of research of religiosity and IQ, and by whom? -- Schaefer (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

so.. you see it as implying POV racism, too. Fair enough. FWIW, I wasn't seeing it as implying the parallel solely due to unpopularity or contentiousness. I read it as a parallel due to 1. things (mainly IQ performance, but also educational attainment, career choice etc) being attributed to race (or religiosity) when they could more accurately be attributed to class/culture/demographic/economic grounds; 2. Race being ill defined, religiosity being ill defined; 3. (to a certain extent) alleged intrinsic bias in intelligence testing. hence my question was re WP:SYN or WP:NOR, not WP:NPOV.

as noted in the archived discussion pages, there is very little religiosity-and-intelligence research, even less of it credibly produced by researchers without a barrow to push. Finding a reliable source noting anything is proving difficult.WotherspoonSmith 12:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean by "implying POV racism". I'm assuming, "implying that studies of religiosity and intelligence are racist, or as bad as racism"? If so, this wasn't my intent. My point is that objections like those in your numbered list can't be applied to arbitrary correlates of intelligence without attribution: Perhaps lead exposure alters children's motor skills in strange ways, fostering negative peer reactions and stereotypes which are the real causes of their lowered IQs. Lead exposure is ill-defined: How how much lead must one eat, and at what age? And, as I said, most designers of IQ tests are not lead-exposed, inviting an obvious source of bias.

All these objections are completely unfounded, as far as I know, so nobody notable espouses them. And that's what matters. Our sole measure of whether or not an opinion on a scientific question is worth including in an article is whether notable commentators have voiced it. The fact that we as editors see parallels between two subjects doesn't cut it, as, I hope, the lead lead-exposure example shows. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for deletion?

Given that the two remaining quotes don't meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, should we just delete the whole article? It was nominated two years ago, with the hope that it would be greatly improved. Numerous edits later, reliable sources haven't been found. The only reason these studies weren't deleted months ago was that they are noteworthy for being quoted so often, not because they are reliable, verifiable, or relevant to the topic of 'intelligence'. Is anyone confident of finding anything new to add? If not, I will nominate for deletion.WotherspoonSmith 09:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe several edits since June were deliberate attempts to undermine and delete good material that was already in the article. I recommend a revert to the early june version. If you look back at the June version, there are plenty of good references there worth saving, and the topic is obviously important enough to be encyclopedic. 70.253.172.148 09:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

i made many of the edits since 10 june, so i guess i should explain.

Many of the references back then were about things which are not indicators of intelligence. The number of scientists who are (not) religious, the number of members of mensa and so on. intelligence is measured, at best, by IQ ranking. It says something about scientists that so many aren't religious, but it does not connect intelligence and religiosity. Ditto educational achievement. we could have an interesting section on education and religiosity (including the Australian statistics, which contrast with those from the US), but that is not intelligence and religiosity. Educational achievement has a wide variety of other contributing factors, only one of which is intelligence.

I honestly was not plotting this, but was seeking accuracy in my edits since then. Look at the archived discussion pages to see the reasoning, i won't repeat it all here.WotherspoonSmith 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV still?

I am heavily biased about the subject matter of this article, and even so I have to admit it is pretty neutral at this point. All contentious statements are backed up and properly put in context. Time to remove the NPOV template? 24.131.82.38 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

sections are considered POV, sections are considered synthesis, sections are considered original research, the entire article is considered irrelevant due to a paucity of evidence or research. this has not really been resolved- only reverted. before tidying it up, i'm nominating it for deletion, on the basis that all of it (other than the title!) could be (and has been) removed for these reasons. if people can justify its existence, we can then work on tidying it up.WotherspoonSmith 12:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improve

So, add back the previous bits that were unfairly deleted, instead of bleating about it on the discussion page. WotherspoonSmith is clearly pushing an agenda and displays all the symptoms of article ownership. Clearly he'd rather see it go completely, than have anything which heaven forbid may provide good info to those interested in the topic.

BTW here is a nice collection of references which are relevent to this topic: http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

More: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm

I think my point is, discussions of religious topics never go anywhere, so get over it and don't get bogged down in the discussion page or depths of delete pages etc. That's what the POV folk want. 124.197.12.28 06:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cute. by 'more' you mean "a word for word copy from the previous website you just quoted," or, to put it differently, a copy from the Beckwith article which we have been dealing with all along. If we can find reliable, wikipedia standard resources ("good info") about religiosity and intelligence, I am strongly in favour of keeping them. I certainly have never deleted any.WotherspoonSmith 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. 124.197.12.28 04:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religiosity and Science

The topic of religiosity and science and their relationship belongs at Relationship between religion and science. To put it here implies that someone has made a distinct published peer-reviewed commentary which agrees that scientific esteem is a direct indicator of intelligence. Putting it here is in that sense original research due to the implication about the definition of intelligence. Ansell 00:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is regarding your deletion of the section on eminent scientists from the Religiosity and intelligence page. I agree with you that that subject is very relevant to the article on science & religion. However, I believe it's also quite relevant to the article on religiosity & intelligence.

The reasoning behind this is that, similar to the section on educational attainment, those who attain faculty positions at Universities are among the most intelligent people in society. This is even more true for the tiny portion of society (I think about 2,000 out of the U.S. population) which is elected to the National Academy of Science. So, religious belief among these people is very relevant to the debate.

In some ways, this is a separate issue to the science Vs. religion article since what this section is focussing on is the intellectual elite in society. That it happens to also be about scientists is somewhat of a coincidence since the only real research into this (that I've seen) looks only at eminent scientists.

So, based on this, I've decided to reinsert the deleted portions. If perhaps you think the section ought to be reworded to focus more on the eminence of the people and leave the science to the specific science article, please feel free to rephrase it accordingly. Cheers, Paul.rogers.1964 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As an aside, it would be nice to not delete entire sections of the article which are put there in good faith. If you believe something necessitates additional sourcing, then common Wikipedia practice is to simply add a template requesting a reference. Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Dealing_with_citation_problems for more information on how to do this. Paul.rogers.1964 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"among the most intelligent people in society" is not the same as "a representative group of the most intelligent people in society." Saying "that it happens to be about (a non representative section of the intellectual elite) is somewhat of a coincidence" is not a reason to leave the section here. Equating educational attainment as an indicator of intelligence is a bit of a stretch, equating employment as a scientist, or 'eminence' is excessively questionable. (The same applies to those with faculty positions at universities, if that is mentioned some time in the article).

As an aside, I don't think this was removed because it needed additional sourcing, but because it was not a relevant part of the article, as per WP:BOLD WotherspoonSmith 12:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I made an apology about deleting the entire section, therefore, I was attempting to show that I was assuming good faith, but that I disagreed with it entirely, based not on the content but on its place in the scope of this article. As it was, the article made no attempt to link emminence of scientists to being the most intelligent people in society, therefore, it was more of an aside than a real argument for why intelligence and religiousity may be inversely correlated. See above for why WP:BOLD applies in this case. Ansell 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the section again as I am still not even barely convinced that it belongs on this page as opposed to the actual religion and science page. If there is a direct conclusion that intelligence and religion are related, utilising someone elses research, then it may be valuable. Feel free to integrate the sources into one of the other pages on the issue but this page does not fit the scope that the religion and science paragraphs were supposing. The new references which can only refer to "greater" scientists demonstrate that research has not actually been performed into intelligence more than attempting to demonstrate a bias of some sort between those who "succeed" in science and those who do not. It is original research to attempt to include it, even if the connection is not made here. Ansell 07:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science culture

I'm not sure I agree with the recent removal of much "science and religion" material. Yet what does need mentioning for a balanced treatment is a discussion of the "culture" amongst the scientific community. I have read authors who have said this, so it should be verifiable. My point is – the high percentage of atheism amongst scientists is not just attributable to intelligence alone. Also, the definition of "elite" scientists as those belonging to a particular body - the United States National Academy of Sciences - has flaws. While I assume this body does correspond to increased intelligence levels, it is not a direct association. What other factors might be at work? What are the selection procedures for members? Is it IQ alone? Of course not.

Dawkins is a highly reputable source and most likely deserves a citation or two, yet he is about as non-neutral as you can get when it comes to science and religion. Colin MacLaurin 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Bell (Dawkins)

I have reverted the removal of the Bell (Dawkins) sourced quote. The original edit referred me to the (archived) talk page, where I found no agreement to remove the source.

I think we must be careful here that we may inject a non-neutral point of view into the page by setting an impossible burden of proof for sources making arguments we don’t like.

User WotherspoonSmith argued for the deletion of the source since he couldn’t find it online and other people had similar difficulty. If something is not available on the internet, that does not mean it doesn’t exist.

So, given that the article is difficult to track down, how reliable is what we have from it? We have a direct quotation from the article in a book published by a mainstream publisher which was written by one of the UK’s (and, arguably, the world’s) most eminent scientists. This to me suggests that what we have already is pretty reliable as things go.

Assuming there is some doubt over the original source, we have a detailed reference. Go check it out. I don’t see the article online already, but — and this is from a couple of minutes’ research — the specific edition of the journal in which it was published is certainly available from the British Library. So, anyone wishing to view the paper could view it either in person for free or over the internet on paying the requisite fees.

The source is reliable and belongs here. If anyone cares to check out the original article and elaborate on what we have, that would be a good thing to do.Paul.rogers.1964 09:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems, from a wikipedia point of view, with the inclusion of Bell. But let's take it from the top. Here's what we have from Dawkins:

"On the subject of religion and IQ, the only meta-analysis known to me was published by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine in 2002 (Mensa is the society of individuals with a high IQ, and their journal not surprisingly includes articles on the one thing that draws them together).57 Bell concluded: 'Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind.' A meta-analysis is almost bound to be less specific than any one of the studies that contributed to it. It would be nice to have more studies along these lines, as well as more studies of the members of elite bodies such as other national academies, and winners of major prizes and medals such as the Nobel, the Crafoord, the Field, the Kyoto, the Cosmos and others. I hope that future editions of this book will include such data. A reasonable conclusion from existing studies is that religious apologists might be wise to keep quieter than they habitually do on the subject of admired role models, at least where scientists are concerned. (57. P.Bell, 'Would you believe it?', Mensa Magazine, Feb. 2002, 12-13.)"

"On the subject of religion and IQ..." Not religiosity and intelligence, so Dawkins isn't claiming to be presenting "information directly related to the topic of the article". WP:OR

"by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine" Putting aside for the moment whether or not Dawkins' book is a reliable source for this article, is the Bell article? "Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." As no one has yet given any indication of the nature of the (members only) magazine mentioned or who Paul Bell is, it’s hard to support the idea that this qualifies as a "reliable source". What we know of the source is that it’s a European members only magazine from Mensa, it’s the "only meta-analysis known to" Dawkins "on the subject of religion and IQ" and that Dawkins feels a meta-analysis is "bound to be less specific than any one of the studies that contributed to it".

Is Dawkins a reliable source? I don’t think that really matters. He is not saying "Of 43 studies … of any kind." (the actual meat of the matter), he’s saying an article by Paul Bell said it. If Dawkins is judged a reliable source, we know that the article said it, but nothing whatsoever about whether or not it is a reliable source.

Various inclusions of this in the article have cited the Bell article as a source, often character for character from the Dawkins’ cite. The only differences I’ve seen are the expansion of "P. Bell" to "Paul Bell" and, after my last complaint about citing sources without seeing the sources, the addition of "attributed to". "Attributed to" is great for wikiquote, for wikipedia it sucks.

What does the Bell article say? "on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level" Religiosity vs. religion vs. religious belief: three different things. Intelligence vs. IQ vs. "intelligence and/or educational level": three different things.

Well, urm, maybe the fact that Dawkins cited it makes it ok? Why would that be? He doesn’t hold it up as a shining example of scholarship. He merely says he wants more studies/data and that the religious "might be wise to keep quieter than they habitually do on the subject of admired role models, at least where scientists are concerned".

Mdbrownmsw 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to be misunderstanding me slightly. Let me clarify. In my post, I was not suggesting that we should consider the original source reliable simply because of Dawkins' reputation. Merely that, when Dawkins quotes directly from an article, we can rely upon that quotation being an accurate copy of that portion of the underlying text. Paul.rogers.1964 00:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't quite work like that. It doesn't just trust people when they publish books to be completely accurate. Of course, in most cases it is easy to verify whether the person actually did the research. In this case it is proving very difficult for people who genuinely want to find the original source to find it. We cannot rely on a single quote in a book that is explicitly anti-religious to provide the proper context or original facts basically, not to put down the book personally, but it is an issue when there is only one verified citation of a large study. Peer reviewed journal articles sourcing it as well might give it the extra impetus it needs but have fun trying to get that past a peer reviewer and editor if they can't find the original. Ansell 00:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second. You seem to think that a properly cited reference should be removed because someone couldn't find it after, presumably, a brief search? As far as I recall, there is no requirement on Wikipedia for cited publications to be available for free on the web. Lots of books and articles aren't on the web at all but this does not make them unverifiable.

If you re-read my earlier comment, you'll see that a couple of minutes of research turned up a copy in the British Library at P.523/475. You can verify this, and order your own copy, in their online catalogue at: [4]

That seems, to me, to meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. I'm re-adding the paragraph.Paul.rogers.1964 20:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just ordered a copy of the article.Paul.rogers.1964 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add the paragraph citing a source no one on wikipedia has seen. You are correct that "there is no requirement on Wikipedia for cited publications to be available for free on the web". However, you cannot cite a source you have not seen.

Once you have the article, decide if you think it is a reliable source:

• Can we establish "the credibility of the author"?
• How about "the credibility of ... the publication"?
• Does it have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight" ("a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy")?
• Clearly it's not a "peer-reviewed journals or books published in university (presses; university-level (textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses." So, what is "the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments" in that magazine?
• As it isn't an "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" and it's not a "respected mainstream publications" what makes it reliable?
• Remember that "magazines have various different forms of articles from straight and neutral reporting through to opinion pieces of dubious veracity." Where does this article fall on that continuum?

At the moment, we have a biased source (Dawkins' book would be hard to call "neutral") reporting on an otherwise unknown study by an unknown author in an unknown source. Sure, you might be able to verify that it came from that source (though, at the moment, no one on wp claims to have done so), but that does not make it a reliable source or on-topic.

Mdbrownmsw 14:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. After I made the first post, I made the decision to request a copy of the article and hold off reverting the page until I received it.

So, last night, I submitted a request for the article to the British Library's Document Supply department. This morning, I received a rather cryptic e-mail from them saying, “We are sorry but we have been unable to fulfil your order.” “We have not taken any payment from your credit or debit card for these orders.” This is despite the fact that I gave them the exact details of the publication in which it was published and the shelf mark at which (according to their online catalogue) it was stored.

So, with this in mind, I'm inclined to agree that the portion relating to this should be removed from the page until a copy can be obtained, although I'm slightly puzzled as to how to proceed. Paul.rogers.1964 15:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have found in my searches: many have tried, many have failed. I expect that someone will eventually determine that the answer to this riddle is 42... - Mdbrownmsw 16:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can spirituality be measured?

Do we have a source for the statement "Researchers believe that internal spirituality cannot be measured"? As it stands, it seems to contradict the earlier statement about how spirituality is measured.WotherspoonSmith 12:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! This bit caused me to stumble when reading the article too. I think the emphasis on the first quote you make is the word internal which seems as though it's trying to draw a distinction with external spirituality. If the two are indeed unique concepts, then I suppose the two statements might not contradict each other. Quite what the difference between internal & external spirituality is, I really don't know :-) Paul.rogers.1964 00:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I added the statement, and I haven't currently provided a reference, as I am new to this article and haven't dug out a source yet. However, does anyone seriously dispute it? The comment was trying to explain the meaning of "religiosity" within a sociology/research setting. The point is, no-one can measure [internal] "spirituality" - I don't think any researcher would claim that - but what they can measure are external habits, i.e. "religiousness" or "religiosity" - i.e. they can ask in a survey, "how many times a week do you pray?", "do you believe in God?" etc. I request that it only be removed if somebody actually seriously doubts its truth. I recall the policy says this. Colin MacLaurin 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for contributing to the article. I have no particular problem with the content of what you added. It seems to make sense. There are just a couple of things I'd like to mention about it:

It differentiates between internal & external spirituality but I don't think these terms are going to be familiar with a lot of readers and they're not defined in the article. One can kind of infer what they mean but it would be nice to briefly explain what each of them means, to help a more general audience to understand.

The other thing is about sourcing. As I mentioned, what you said seems to make sense. However, it's stated as "researchers believe" which of course makes the inquisitive reader wonder: which researchers? Is it a common belief held by researchers in the field or a couple of researchers on the fringe? Wikipedia has a policy on this: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I think there's no great doubt about what you're saying but it'd be nice to rephrase it to avoid those weasel words, or to specify & cite which researchers that is believed by.

One final thing is that it would be good to clarify, between what you added and what was in the article originally, which specific types of beliefs are generally viewed as being measurable & immeasurable. Paul.rogers.1964 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul, thanks for your friendly reply. Perhaps we could change it to "religious behaviour", because that is what "religiosity" means in the context of these studies. The internal/external thing presupposes the existence of God, I suppose. As an experienced contributor, I do know better than to contribute uncited material to a controversial page, yet I appreciate you assuming good faith. Colin MacLaurin 09:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colin. No problem for the friendly reply. I spent a couple of hours the last few days reverting vandalism so it's really good to see people, like yourself, improving Wikipedia. That's what it's all about.

What you suggested sounds spot on. I only came to this article a few days ago but from the research that I've looked at so far, all the studies I've seen tend to focus on religious behaviour since, I guess, that’s the easiest to measure/quantify.Paul.rogers.1964 14:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The religiosity page suggests a direction to this dilemma. It discussed different facets of religiosity and, in this context, I can see that different studies seem to be researching different aspects of religiosity. perhaps an early paragraph could be rewritten (with references where appropriate) to say:

"The measurement of religiosity is hampered by the difficulties involved in defining what is meant by the term. Numerous studies have explored the different components of religiosity, with most finding some distinction between religious doctrine, religious practice, and spirituality. Different aspects of religiosity or the related area of spirituality have been measured by detailed measurement tools, including "The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire","The Spiritual Assessment Inventory" and the "Spiritual Transcendence Scale". Use of such standardised tools assists social scientists to measure reliably and to compare findings between studies. Alternatively, less detailed surveys measure religious practice by counting attendance at religious services, religious doctrine by asking a few doctrinal questions, or spirituality, by asking respondents about their sense of oneness with the divine."

this is a draft, open to criticism, but I would like your opinions if this is a productive direction to head, without crossing into WP:OR or synthesis. I think it could help clarify the aspects of religiosity that is being measured in the studies cited further down the page.WotherspoonSmith 12:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] any pointers to original research?

The following newsvine article does not reference the original study or where it was published. This may not be an issue on some newspapers, but newsvine is a conglomeration that does not seem to publish original, and therefore, it would be great if the original publication could also be cited. [5]. Cheers, Ansell 08:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the original, but I did find a tertiary (which is better, of course). Unfortunately, it isn't in English, so we need a reliable translation (or another tertiary source in English). [6]

Mdbrownmsw 13:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I happen to live in Denmark. I also failed to find any direct source on the net, I will try to contact the university myself.--Deleet (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eminent Scientists

The section on eminent scientists is not about scientists in general. I have seen evidence which puts the IQ of eminent scientists (in the study I saw, members of the U.S. National Academy of Science) far above the population mean. They are a high IQ group.Paul.rogers.1964 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

They are one high IQ group, I agree. If anyone is contending that there are no high IQ groups who are low in religiosity, this is clear evidence that they are wrong. If anyone is contending that all high IQ groups are low in religiosity, or that these scientists are representative of all high IQ groups, they would need to show some more evidence. I have not read the articles in question. Are the authors suggesting that this is a representative group of high IQ people? If they are, this is a very useful article to include, and we should include their evidence to show this.(also Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God")

Alternatively: Both Dawkins and the http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm site seem to be responding to inferences that all intelligent people tend to be more religious, or that religious apologists might be wise to keep quieter than they habitually do on the subject of admired role models, at least where scientists are concerned. I haven't seen such inferences, but get strong vibes that everything is different in the US. If this is a trend, it is wise for us to include such articles for this purpose, IMHO.WotherspoonSmith 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"everything is different in the US" - absolutely! "Only in America", as they say :-). As I commented on the deletion discussion for this page, this page does need a worldwide view. For example, I have heard that in America, education levels for Christians (the major religion there) are lower than the general public. In Australia, it is the opposite. I think the inclusion of the scientist comments is warranted, but only in the context of many other professions also. Paul or someone else, please dig out that statistic on the average IQ of the NAS. It will be interesting to see how the religiousness of the NAS compares with the religiousness of other groups with a similar IQ. I am very confident we will find that there is a cultural element at play, not just IQ alone. Let's watch out for original research or synthesis of existing results of course. Then I will be very interested to find out how religiousness compares with EQ and other factors. Perhaps Daniel Goleman comments on this? If you look at my user page, I am not hiding my "theistic" personal POV (hence "religiousness" I guess), yet I do believe this is the logical way to proceed. Colin MacLaurin 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Colin MacLaurin, here is the specific study I spotted: [7].

WotherspoonSmith, of course nobody would suggest that *all* high IQ groups are less religious. Similarly, I don't think there's any real need to show that the particular high IQ groups mentioned in the articles are representative of the whole. It's just interesting, in the context of the article, to see how religious some of the most famous high IQ groups are, particularly in light of the other evidence cited in the article showing negative correlations between IQ and religiosity.Paul.rogers.1964 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

i'm a little pressed for time at the moment, but i recall that a google scholar search for "emotional intelligence" and religiosity brings up a few relevant hits. Previous discussions had us ignoring EQ, so i skipped them at the time. will look if no-one beats me to it.Paul.rogers.1964- i figured as much, but was trying to look at all the reasons for including the quotes. WotherspoonSmith 12:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Mensa

This is a cute little article which I really enjoyed, but it's really not Wikipedia material, is it? The tone suggests not even the author expected it to be a taken seriously as a study of the membership (however big or small that is). It is also a major error to state "Assuming that the distribution of members involved in Mensa matches the distribution of the population, then it could be said that in the upper levels of intelligence in the Candadian population there may be a negative correlation within the upper intelligence levels in the community." As discussed above, we need evidence if we are to assert that any group is representative of all people with high IQ's.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the article.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi WotherspoonSmith. Could I ask your reasons for removing the reference to the article? You're right to say that there is no evidence that Mensa members are representative of the whole population. However, that wasn't the point of including the article. The idea is that a group whose requirements for members is high intelligence, is on average far less religious than the general Canadian population. This in itself is notable enough for inclusion, but we should be careful not to overstep the bounds of what the evidence actually says.Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul et al. I removed the article because it was neither verifiable , a reliable source nor, I believe, was the author expecting it to be. For example, there are no indicators of the numbers involved, and much of the article is about how the club members didn't seem to take the poll at all seriously.
The line I quoted does seem to be saying that we should consider that mensans are somehow representative of intelligent people.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi WotherspoonSmith! I actually see there's been a bit of a misunderstanding. The quotation you make from the article above is not from the referenced Canadian Mensa article nor was it part of my original contribution to the Wikipedia article - it was added later by Ansell (Please see the diff here: [8]). I agree with you that his addition is erroneous. Given that this was not part of the cited article and the original wording was much less wide-ranging, would you have a problem with me reinserting it in the original language? I do believe it is notable & useful in the limited sense that I originally added it. Thanks a lot, Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. I see the quote took the quote to a place that wasn't your original intention, but I still don't see it as having Wikipedia quality verifiability, a reliability nor, I believe, was the author expecting it to be, as discussed above. It was a fun article in an in house magazine, which is unfortunate because the info could have told us something related to te religiosity of Canadian mensans.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regan Clark's report

I hardly think that a report written by an undergraduate student is a credible source that should be cited in an encycleopedia. Unless I'm missing something obvious and it's actually a peer-reviewed journal or something (which isn't indicated anywhere), then the entire section should be removed. 124.171.84.141 (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter that the author is an undergraduate? I had peer reviewed papers when I was an undergrad, and I know others who did too. Reject something (or keep it) based solely on its scientific merit.Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

it's credibility has been questioned before,including in archived discussions. I think it was agreed that it is not the usual wikipedia standard, but was included because there is so little of direct relevance to the topic. it was seen as important to make sure it says that it is an undergraduate study etc. your opinion, and edits, may differ. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why I marked this page

I marked this page as totally disputed a few days ago. I forgot to mention why I did it so here I am. The page has an off topic section on how many scientists are religious, Uses only a few studies, and should probably merged with the psychology of religion's pageYVNP (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The specific section you refer to is not about religious beliefs among scientists. It is about religious beliefs among eminent scientists, contrasted with scientists and the general populace. I have seen at least one study (referenced above) which shows that members of the NAS (one of the groups mentioned here) have IQs far above the average for the general populace. This makes it interesting to look at religious beliefs among this high IQ group. Such articles were also referred to in the two meta-analyses I've seen on this subject.

Specifically referring to your point about the page not having enough studies. There are a decent number of studies in this area. There are two main problems here:

• A few other editors and I are actively seeking to find all the studies in this area. There have been some meta-analyses which reference large numbers of studies. So, we're trying to track as many down as possible but please understand that this takes some time. I only came to this page when I saw it listed on Articles for Deletion recently but have already put a decent amount of research into finding references & plan to continue this as time permits. So, please bear with me & other editors.

• One editor is specifically removing large numbers of referenced studies from the text of the article which I previously added and believe belong here. Please judge this article not by the version which happens to be here at the moment but also by the useful content from recent versions which has been deleted by a certain editor.

Specifically, I would like to ask you kindly to remove the totally disputed tag. I am aware that the subject of the article, being particularly contentious, is ripe ground for POVs but I believe the article in its current state relies exclusively on scientific studies and restricts itself to reporting the outcomes of the studies in the area. Given this, saying that the article is totally disputed seems a little harsh.

Thanks a lot - Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] poythress 1975

i must confess that I have only read the abstract of this article. I have tried studying the sources of the Beckwith meta analysis, and still believe that the articles that Beckwith chose make it an unreliable source. However, amongst the silly or hard to verify sources, he has a useful quote or two, and this one seemed relevant if we expand 'intelligence' to include educational attainment. The full list, and my attempt to make sense of them, is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WotherspoonSmith/beckwith . Feel free to use it as a tool for further research, and add/ comment etc. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EI

EI was raised as a point for further exploration above. some articles have been summarised at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WotherspoonSmith/EI for anyone wishing to explore further. hope this is useful. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] religious behaviour vs religious belief

I have tweaked a comment made by user 152.98.202.68, by removing the comment, but changing the heading it sits under. The comment was that "However, it must be noted that attending a Christian church does not automatically mean a belief in Christianity, or any other form of religion." Earlier in the article, there is a bit of a definition of 'religiosity', which clarifies that the concept encompasses "religious behaviour, belief or spirituality". I think I have kept user 152.98.202.68's intention, despite deleting the sentence. It is a worthwhile observation that stats regarding religious behaviour do not directly relate to religious belief (although there may, obviously, be some corellations.) Please let me know if you disagree.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good move. Valid point by the anonymous editor, but you are right to point out that church attendance is "religiosity", part of the title of this article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship of this site

Why are you deleting my posts Smith?

--Jackkalpakian (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, your posts, and subsequent discussion, were not "censored", but they were removed (and not by myself) as per WP:TALK.- "Talk pages are not forums" WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions please

Where does this article define any of the terms thrown around by the studies?

I do not want to get into an edit war, but I am troubled by the attempt to silence criticism of this article by people sympathetic to its anti-religious tone.

--Jackkalpakian (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jackkalpakian

Immediately under the heading of "Summary of research in the area, and definitions of terms", there are a couple of paragraphs where it spells out how intelligence is measured, and what is meant by religiosity. Both are difficult terms to nail down, hence there are a couple of ways of measuring intelligence (IQ being the main one, educational attainment being one less accepted but still used frequently), and a couple of kinds of of religiosity (religious behaviour, spirituality and belief). For a more comprehensive definition of each, there are links immediately below that heading.

Are there other terms you think should be defined, or defined more clearly? I would like to improve this article. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide a definition of "religion" and provide a definition of "intelligence." In your response here, you are conceding that the terms being used are purely political and involve an exercise of power -- in other words, the article should be deleted.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias - advancement of a pov

The article appears to be npov, designed to advance a particular pov - that people who engage in conventional American/fundamentalist/organized religion are less smart that those who are not according to a small group of studies. The article misses totally the history of the subject, e.g., the country vicars of England in the 19th century who researched geology, biology, basic industrial mechanics; the clerics who did basic research in Roman Catholic institutions like Gregor Mendel. The article is about a narrow, current ideology of religion only. It really should be deleted! Fremte (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please! This is a really good article. There is NOTHING POV when a lot of such studies have been done. The article does not "miss totally" any point. It is a nice summary of several research findings that have been published in reputed places. Just because others do not like it does not mean that the article is POV.

• This is a study on the current population. Have any actual statistical studies about the country vicars of England been done? If so that can be added as a section in this article. If not, then that is your original research. The article does not "miss totally" anything except your own original research!

• Also, there are articles on smaller studies in Wikipedia, which nobody wants to have deleted as they are perfectly OK with the subject matter. An example of that is the Iraq Body Count - a single (highly controversial) study.

--SDas (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for just the promotion of some current research, nor is there any requirement that some statistical test be conducted on the value of information. If the article is to stay, then there will need to be some additions. I am not the expert about the history, sociology and philosophy of the acquisition of knowledge that comes to bear on this topic. But it is clear that whomever started the topic did not know the actual breadth of the issue either. Arguments about some completely different topic pertaining to Iraq have no bearing on the merits an quality of the info presented in this article. Fremte (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are many articles on current research. I can supply you with some examples where reserch significantly less meritorious than this one on Religiosity & Intelligence have been included in wikipedia. I gave the example of another topic pertaining to Iraq, which nobody objects. Yes, mentioning that article is absolutely relevant to understand the fact that the same standard for deletion/retention needs to be applied uniformly to all Wikipedia articles. --SDas (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, just because this article lacks some additions, does not qualify it for deletion either. That only makes it rank low on the quality scale. There are even wikipedia articles rated as "stub class" which lack a LOT more additions than this one. How could lacking some additions (that you have not specified) possibly make this article qualify for deletion? --SDas (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

a better comparison might be this article: Race_and_intelligence, which covers the topic in much more depth and provides an history in addition to dealing with current ideas. Fremte (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So that makes "Race & Intelligence" a better article than this one. How does the existence of a better article possibly qualify this article "Religiosity & Intelligence" for deletion?--SDas (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(Side note: The article that you cite may look better than this one to you, but this article is actually much more mainstream - being researched by none other than people like Richard Dawkins, and being published in highly prestigious publications such as Scientific American and Nature - the standards for publication in journals like Nature are very very rigorous. Unlike the article on Race & Intelligence, the lack of any published research criticizing this one may actually be indicating its veracity. --SDas (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC) )

Because this article has been sitting for a long time and no-one has done the necessary expanision. It is either not a topic of interest or - from seeing the argument over it - a forum for advancing bias that has meant that those who would expand it and have not because they get shot down by those who have deep feelings about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremte (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The argument over this is simply because religious people don't like it. How many atheists or agnostics have objected to the contents in the discussion? But why do you deem the expansion "necessary"? What expansion are we talking about? If you know of any real arguments (not your own original research) that should be added, why don't you simply add it to the main article? Perhaps there are no researched counterarguments to this rock solid article! --SDas (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

just to clarify a few points:

• It's hard to say, as people don't feel the need to state their views when commenting, but there does appear to have been a few athiests/ agnostics objecting to the article in the discussions above. It swings between annoying atheists and theists.
• It is far from a static page, not really "sitting for a long time" without expansion.
• Richard Dawkins does not, to my knowledge, research this topic. He makes passing reference to someone else's study in The God Delusion, stating that theists should be careful when talking about their claims of intellignet role models. We haven't found any others, despite searching his books and website.
• I feel the meta analysis includes articles which do not belong, in order to puch Beckwith's POV. Have a critical look at the source and you might agree. It is not a rock solid article, but is popular to quote on atheist websites, and appears to be the original basis of this article. I will clarify this argument at a future date, when I have time to make my points clearly and succinctly.
• Likewise, the quoted articles in Nature and Scientific America are about how many scientists are atheists/ agnostic/ theists, which they do not in any way link to intelligence. I don't belive it belongs in this article, but it keeps coming back when deleted. Now that there is more of a relevant body to the article, I will try again.
• I do not believe much of the article is pushing a POV, but have my own bias in having added many of the references. As sDas states above, if you find anything to add, or clear reasons to delete, please do.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dawkins didn't actually "research" this topic. Wrong choice of words. He does mention it in The God Delusion. Also since I haven't participated in this discussion before, I didn't know that there are atheists who objected to this article - I just assumed that only theists would object (I am surprised). As I have library access to Nature and Sciam, I'll verify what was said there. Anyways, I stand for complete retention of this article. Improvements possible, but that is no ground for deletion. Thanks. --SDas (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that you deleted a major section. Why? I thought it was quite relevant. SDas (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(See new section below)

In my haste, I may have given the wrong impression. Non- theists are more likely to have objected to deletions/ editing etc or the watering down of the article, rather than the overall flavour. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is what I thought. Theists obviously would like to see this article - which they obviously hate - to be deleted. --SDas (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thou shalt not make assumptions about the personal orientations of other contributors! Okay, seriously here. The article is of concern because it tends to support a social-political agenda and does not yet present a balanced view. There is a longer historical perspective on intellect and various human attributes such as race, educational attainment, earning power etc. This topic so far leaves out the history and cites info from a particular subset of info. The issues of measurement are also missing, e.g., what does IQ actually index, and what is religiosity as distinct for instance from spirituality. I wonder if a request for an expert on the field might help - if the article is to stay it need to be of the quality that the banners can be removed. I am trying to recall the references and material when this was dealt with a number of years ago in a class I took. Fremte (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not making assumptions about anything, and I am sorry it came out that way. I did not make any attempt to implicate any one person's views, just a statistical observation. There is nothing in this particular article that stands out from other articles which do not make it into the A+ category, and I wonder why this one is receives so many requests for deletion. It makes no sense. However, it is nonsense to claim that religion is personal orientation. I could lose my head for my personal (dis)beliefs in some countries, and in my present one I am discriminated.

As far as I am concerned, this a balanced article. As before, if you actually know anything that it misses, please put it in. missing out on history etc. etc. does not make an article a candidate for deletion. It makes it a candidate for further expansion. --SDas (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of scientists and religiosity

I have deleted the scientists and religiosity section. As has been discussed previously, it belongs more in the science and religion article. The authors do not make any claims about the intelligence of the scientists involved. The criteria for being a prominent scientist is not exclusively intelligence (Many highly intelligent scientists are not invited to join the National Academy, for example). It is OR to suggest otherwise, but that seems to be what we are saying. At best, the section was saying "some sectors of highly intelligent people are not at all religious" which does't add much to the topic. Also, see above discussions #Religiosity_and_Science, #Science_culture, #Eminent_Scientists and some more on the archived pages- the discussion seems to keep coming up, never being resolved, just reinserted because people give up removing it, or because the article was empty without it (it has grown a little lately). WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does belong to the science & religion article, but it is relevant here too.

• For instance, there are cites showing the inverse correlation between IQ and religiosity, and IQ is *highly debatable* as a measure of intelligence, and further, it also shows inverse correlations between national IQs and religiosity, when the overwhelming majority agree that malnutrition, and cultural differences are the cause. If those sections find a place in this article, why not the one on eminent scientists and religiosity?
• Maybe many scientists were not invited to join the National Academy of Sciences, but since the invitation did not take into account the scientists' religiosity, NAS contains a random sample of eminent scientists.
• Hence the section says that a lot of highly educated people aren't religious! In fact since the atheists outnumber the theists almost 10-to-1, it is clear that the vast majority of a random sample of highly educated people aren't religious.

I think that the section is fits in quite well here and would like to see it reinserted. Let the decision to delete be based on consensus.

--SDas (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

agree with WotherspoonSmith on this. FWIW. Fremte (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The international study is included because it is about religiosity and intelligence, not religiosity and job preference. whether you agree that IQ is a good measure of intelligence or not, it is established in the literature as a measure for this purpose (with caveats).

If you have cites showing that "the overwhelming majority agree that malnutrition, and cultural differences are the cause.", please add them. It would make that article a more accurate one.

NAS members are far from a random selection of (US) highly intelligent people. A random selection of highly intelligent people would include people from many walks of life, many different jobs (including, I suspect, theologians). It is OR to suggest otherwise, but this is the mistake commonly assumed when this section is included. Consider this logic:

• Maybe many scientists were not invited to join the National Academy of Sciences, but since the invitation did not take into account the scientists' (gender /race/ sexuality/ etc), NAS contains a random sample of eminent scientists.
• Hence the section says that a lot of highly educated people aren't (female /black /gay /etc)! In fact since the (males/ whites/ gays) outnumber the (females/ blacks/ gays)..., it is clear that the vast majority of a random sample of highly educated people aren't (female /black/ gay). .
  

clearly, not a logical path to follow.

(FWIW: According to http://csicop.org/si/2007-01/sagan.html, "Academy membership requires distinguished research scholarship, but that is rarely sufficient to ensure membership. Considerable weight is also given to public service, as well as more political factors such as where a nominee works and whom he or she knows." I am sure I have read this elsewhere as well.)

It is common knowledge that blacks and females face barriers to a career in science. Hence NAS members are predominantly white males. Likewise, NAS membership may be influenced by public seervice. Fine, I agree (isn't it obvious). But I utterly fail to see how religiosity could affect membership. Hence it would be a random sample of white males. Unless more educated people are less likely to be religious, how can the ratio be so skewed 1:10?

I am sure that the Nature and Sciam articles would have done basic statistical analysis before reporting such figures. A journal like Nature would never report anything that is not statistically valid. I will be happy to verify it. --SDas (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What you're sure of does not matter, nor does it matter that some organization has a really good reputation, cf, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority . Fremte (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Stating that data published by Nature is statistically valid is not an appeal to authority. --SDas (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It is if you do not reference, quote or properly review the data. One could just as well day "I'm sure that SDas would only quote statistically valid data". So if you wish to include the info, please don't appeal to the reputations of the associations or journals or whatever, put forward the info. Otherwise it is non-npov. Kindly, Fremte (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is Nature reliable or not? --SDas (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting sidetracked. The articles, unless demonstrated otherwise, are probably accurate. however, they do not talk about intelligence. The questions Are these scientists a representative sample of intelligent people? Is NAS membership skewed against religiosity as it is for other cultural factors? has not been answered. If you would like to research it and publish it, we can use it. Until then, it is original research. The articles, to my knowledge, claim to be discussions of how many eminent scientists are religious, not how many intelligent people are religious.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. In my own judgment, it is common knowledge that scientists are smart people, hence not POV.--SDas (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SDas. In my judgement, I also feel that these elite scientists are smart people. I'm thinking the issue is not so much that (elite) scientists are smart people, but that they are not a representative group of smart people. (and not so much POV as the issue as OR).

I'll leave the section in for a few days, then remove it unless anyone expresses a view that we do not yet have a consensus.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wotherspoon, If you and I agree that scientists are smart people and the topic is about intelligence and religiosity, that section seems quite relevant to me, even if I agree that scientists are not a representative group of intelligent people. Let me express my thoughts by means of an analogy. Suppose we had an article on "Hibernation and Mammals" (there are non-mammals that hibernate, mammals that do not hibernate.) Then, "Migratory animals in the Tundra" would be a relevant section as it would lend support to the theory that "Mammals hibernate" in general, even if Tundra mammals are not a representative sample of mammals. Makes sense? --SDas (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes good sense, if this wasn't Wikipedia, with its policies on WP:OR and, specifically, synthesis. It would be a relevant section to demonstrate that "some mammals hibernate", just as the scientists section demonstrates that "some intelligent people are less religious" (or, more precisely, "some people we are fairly sure are intelligent are less religious").

BTW, doesn't your example actually demonstrate the fallacy of this synthesis? Lending support to the theory that "mammals hibernate in general" would be deceptive, because (AFAIK) they don't (in general), but using that example would lead a reader to belive that they do... or maybe I've missed something? (I know, it was just an example, but it does seem to illustrate why this policy exists). WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... Yes in a certain manner of speaking, it is synthesis. I need time to mull over it. And since I so strongly feel that the section is relevant, I must try and come up with a valid counter-argument. How I wish others would express their opinions too. --SDas (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in to say that Wotherspoon is right--though we can be fairly certain that most top scientists are much more intelligent than the average person, we can't use top scientists' attitudes as evidence about the religiosity of intelligent people in general. My suspicion is that a survey of the IQs of popes would find that they tended to be more intelligent than the average person--and so would a survey of US presidents, nearly all of whom have been churchgoers in one form or another. Basically, any group of high achievers in any field is likely to be composed of people of above-average intelligence, and some of those groups are disproportionately religious. The point is that none of them--including the group of top scientists--is anything like a representative sample of intelligent people.) 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wotherspoon, I happen to be really hard pressed for time. Dunno when I can reply to your comment. The subsection on "1.3 Studies comparing religious behaviour and educational attainment" seems to be a more tenuous link than the one you intend to delete. I intend, at a later stage, to add more material too to this article. It is about religion and intelligence, but so far it looks like only christianity and intelligence. If you delete a section, can you please paste that section here, for others to see and respond? --SDas (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

sounds like a good idea. I will leave it as is for a few days, awaiting any objections, and post the deleted section in the talk pages.

I agree with your statements re tenuous links, christianity. Will bear them in mind.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i have deleted the following text:

(heading Studies evaluating religious belief among eminent scientists

See also: Relationship between religion and science

This section discusses the prevalence of religious beliefs among leading scientists. Note that the authors do not make the assumption that leading scientists are more intelligent than either other scientists or the general population. It does not investigate the social and cultural biases possibly prevalent in either group.

In 1921, James H. Leuba published the results of research into the prevalence of religious beliefs among scientists and “greater” scientists.^[1] For the general scientists, he took a random sample of 1,000 from American Men of Science and for the greater scientists, a random sample of 200 marked in the reference as being great scientists. Of the scientists in general, 41.8% professed a belief in God compared to 31.6% in the second group.

In 1996 and 1998, a survey was conducted, and later published in the journal Nature^[2] and Scientific American^[3] magazine, which aimed to update the results of the previous study. For the broader set of scientists, they again selected those listed in American Men and Women of Science. For the narrower set of “greater” scientists, they took members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences since the previous measure of greater scientists was no longer available.

The study found that just 40% of the scientists polled held religious beliefs, versus 85-90% in the general population (see: Religion in the United States). This marked a small decline from the 1922 figure.

Among the narrower group, the NAS members, fewer than 10% held religious beliefs in the new study. Although this number is much lower than in the previous study, the two figures are not directly comparable since the selection of “greater” scientists between the two studies was necessarily different.

[edit] "Metanalysis" or bias

I removed the section titled metanalysis, because it contains an non-neutral POV source. I do not feel any regret after I saw liberal deletion of my objections by the non-theists here. Will be glad to get into an edit war.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What is it that makes you believe that all sources must be neutral? The threshhold for sources is reliability and verifiability. If you look at the Free Inquiry (magazine) article, the publication looks very reliable to me: Paul Kurtz is editor in chief, and people like Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are regular contributors. The WP:NPOV policy requires that all significant points of view be presented in a neutral tone. But not that no "points of view" should be presented at all. Removing text because you do not agree with the point of view of the source is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. In fact, this issue is specifically addressed in Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting you all wrong, Jackkalpakian, but you appear, IMHO, to have been baiting for a fight since your first edit on this page , making constant false accusations and assumptions about people's motives. Which is a pity, because it diminishes your case on this edit. ^{(happy to discuss this on my talk page if you desire).}

I think the issue is not so much NPOV, but reliability. The journal is not vetted by the scholarly community or, as far as I can see [9] , recommended in scholarly bibliographies _{and is possibly extremist.}

Additionally, we can look at the quality of the meta analysis itself. I don't know if this is delving into WP:OR here, but many (NOT ALL) of the articles he bases his conclusions on have nothing to do with religiousness or, alternatively, intelligence, and the authors he is quoting do not claim that they do. On several occasions he equates "liberal" attitudes with a lesser degree of religiosity, a non sequitor. On several occasions he equates intelligence with prominence (eg counting those with who's Who entries, or those "judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding"). I could go on- there are other non sequitors and unusual measures. The quoted statement that "it was easy to find fault with the studies he reviewed, "for all were imperfect", but collectively they showed a correlation, is truly unusual logic.

If he had stayed with a lesser number of articles, perhaps limiting himself to those made after 1950, scholars might accept the article. As it stands, it appears to be written for a secular humanist popular entertainment audience, not a scholarly or encyclopedic audience.

Beckwith's POV may be better expressed by other citations in the article. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply put your thesis and the supposed thesis of all these studies, conducted by non-theists, is that theists are less intelligent than they are. There is a MASSIVE problem with coding, there are massive problems with definitions, there are massive problems with the fact that the persons conducting these studies, including Dawkins, are a party in what is an avowedly political struggle. Now if you wish there to be a situation where there is co-existence, perhaps you should not rush to delete others' talk-oriented objections to what you pretend to be NPOV research. Let us begin by you restoring my deleted objection. --Jackkalpakian (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember not to disrupt Wikipedia in order to prove a WP:POINT. You have so far threatened edit warring, and now you demand that your (quite inflammatory) soapboxing ([10]) be restored. If you have an objection, then please state it in plain language without attacking those with whom you disagree. Remember that the goal here is not to fight a battle with those you disagree with, but to attempt to construct a better article. With that in mind, I am restoring the deleted content in the article. Please continue the discussion on how you feel it may be improved. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the reasons for replacing the deleted section, but I don't feel like my objections (above) were addressed. In short

1. while the language and rationale for the removal was innappropriate, the removal itself appears justified.

2. Free Enquiry does not meet Wikipedia reliability standards;

3. The article is not of sufficient quality to ever be published as a peer reviewed article.

Please review my comment above and see if you agree. Sorry if it is a bit verbose.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing your comment above, I am forced to agree with you that the sources are not reliable for inclusion here. Thank you for waiting patiently until the situation had defused. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following text: (title) Meta-analyses

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

In 1986, the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine summarized studies on religiosity and intelligence.^[4] In it Burnham Beckwith summarized 43 studies on religiosity and its relation with attributes that he considered were positively linked with intelligence: IQ, SAT scores, academic ability and other measures of overall "success". Although conceding that it was easy to find fault with the studies he reviewed, "for all were imperfect," he contended that the studies he examined, taken together, provided strong evidence for an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious faith in the United States.

[edit] definitions, use of education

i have expanded the definitions section, but would appreciate someone having a second check over the section. I have noted that most of the researchers have not linked education with intelligence. The consensus during the deletion discussion seemed to be that it was appropriate to expand the definition of intelligence to include educational levels as well as IQ., without which this looks like a pretty empty area of research. Since i am biased against this measure, feel free to check my edits for neutrality.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the section on religiosity and education does not belong in this article. Education is another topic, with questionable relationship to intelligence. In the US, for example, a large percentage of students go to college, while in Europe fewer do. This fact does not mean US citizens are smarter than Europeans. That we elected George W. Bush not once but twice is a clear indication that this is not true. IQ, for all its faults, is the gold standard. (I am a psychology professor, if that makes any difference). Cgboeree (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not the first psychologist to make this point, BTW. I'm not sure how to proceed. Deleting the education sections leaves us with a blog and an unsubstantiated newspaper article as sources, but deleting the article is rejected by people wanting to accept these measures which, at first glance, make this appear to be an area of much research. Any suggestions? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] behaviour vs belief

I have reverted a deletion of a heading, as i think it is important to differentiate between studies of religious belief and studies of religious behaviour, as per the descriptions in the lede. Results from both seem quite different.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion about the LDS study

The article describes a 1992 study of Latter-Day Saints in a way that just doesn't make any sense to me. To review, here is what it currently says (minus references):

In contrast, a 1992 study found a significantly high correlation between education and strong religious beliefs in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The subjects were asked to rank their belief (1) That Jesus is the Divine Son of God, the Savior, the Messiah; (2) That Joseph Smith, Jr., was inspired by God in the formation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and (3) that this church has the only current authority to administer the teachings and ordinances of Christ's restored church. 85 percent of the post-graduate subjects returned "strong" or "very strong" agreement with the first statement. Belief in God and in the divinity of Jesus Christ showed a similarly high proportion. The percentages contrasted enough with mainstream survey data that the study was performed a second time, with the same results.

The first thing that caught my eye was "85 percent" part. So then I thought, "Compared to what? Is that high, low, normal...?" So I wanted to figure out what the control group would be. It was then that I realised that this was actually a study of the religiosity of people who are religious (see the first sentence). If you're excluding the non-religious, why is it surprising that they are more religious than average? Perhaps I'm simply missing something, but it looks like they picked a group predisposed to give them the answer they wanted, rather than a good random sample. Admittedly I didn't read the studies, I don't have the time or energy right now, which is why I'm asking for input instead of simply deleting it. So, is this a decent study and I'm simply missing something, or is my baloney detector right and the study is hopelessly broken by design?
Even if I have missed something, there are other problems. First, whether the "85 percent" is significantly higher or lower than the control group should be included somewhere, and the control group needs to be briefly described as well. Just saying "85 percent" by itself is meaningless; you need something to compare it to. Also, the "85 percent" was for strongly people agreeing with "the first statement", which was the belief that "Jesus is the Divine Son of God, the Savior, the Messiah", but then the next sentence basically says that "belief in God and in the divinity of Jesus Christ" was "similarly high". Something is wrong there. It seems to be saying the ratio of belief in item (1) was similar to the ratio of belief in item (1). Again, perhaps I'm missing some subtle point, but it looks like they're just a rephrasing of the same thing, in which case it would be more surprising if the ratio wasn't similar. If that isn't broken, it certainly needs to be clarified. -- HiEv 09:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I find the studies a bit confusing as well. I think the "item (1) was similar to item (1)" is a badly written "study A returned similar results to study B", but not worth correcting since both are off topic. I think that section belongs more in the Religiosity and scientists article than this one. The studies (it seems there are more than one) are about a high proportion of scientist mormons having strong religious beliefs. It's not about a high proportion of well educated mormons having strong religious beliefs, and it is a bit too much of a stretch to suggest it is. I will remove that section. It appears, though I can't be sure, that the later paragraph about US Mormons under "Studies comparing religious behaviour and educational attainment" is more relevant, but I can't find the original study, so it, too, may not be a good fit. I will leave it as it stands.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)