This below was cited from a message board. It will be in bold print. My comments below in regular print:
SOCIAL science professors at elite institutions are more likely to be religious and politically extreme than their counterparts in the natural sciences, argues a new paper. Why? Natural scientists are just smarter.
“There is sound evidence of a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity and between intelligence and political extremism,” reads the paper in the Interdisciplinary Journal on Research and Religion which examines existing data on academic scientists’ IQs by field, and on religious beliefs and political extremism among science professors in the US and Britain. “Therefore the most probable reason behind elite social scientists being more religious than are elite physical scientists is that social scientists are less intelligent.”
The paper, written by Edward Dutton, adjunct professor of cultural anthropology at the University of Oulu, in Finland, and Richard Lynn, a retired professor of psychology from the University of Ulster, in Northern Ireland, who is known for his work on race and IQ, continues: “Intelligence is also a factor in interdisciplinary differences in political extremism, [with] physicists, who have high IQs, being among the least extreme and lower-IQ scholars being among the most extreme.”
In an interview, Dutton said social scientists aren’t stupid, or necessarily extreme in their politics or overly religious. But, statistically speaking, they have lower IQs than their colleagues in biological and physical sciences and are likelier to be extremely conservative or liberal or religious, or both.
Dutton said that there are many similarities between political extremism and religious fundamentalism; in other research, he uses the term “replacement religions” to describe the phenomenon.
“[Physical] scientists are overwhelmingly atheist,” Dutton said. “This is predicted by their high IQ, which allows you to rise above emotion and see through the fallacious, emotional arguments.” Arguments about God are all emotional arguments, he added.
The paper is a meta-analysis of existing data showing several things: that natural scientists have higher IQs than social scientists; that low intelligence “predicts” political extremism and religiosity; and that physical scientists at elite institutions are less likely to believe in God or be politically extreme than their counterparts in the social sciences.
The connection between all three research areas has never been made until now, Dutton said. But — in just one example of potentially problematic methodology — the logic can’t be extended to academe in general. Several studies cited in the paper drawing from a wider mix of colleges and universities than simply the most elite show that life sciences professors are more likely to attend church than their peers in the social sciences, not less. The paper assumes this is because professors at elite institutions are smarter than their peers elsewhere.
The researchers also use IQ as the sole measure of intelligence (they mention Howard Gardner’s multiple forms of intelligence, but argue that they could also be considered personality traits).
The researchers acknowledge some of their limitations, including that some older data in the analysis involve a very small sample size. Dutton and Lynn say that future research involving larger academic samples would be “extremely useful” in exploring these areas in greater depth.
Dutton said he knew his paper would upset some readers, but that he invited feedback from fellow scholars. The point of research, even when controversial, is to “get closer to the truth of human life,” he said
My comments now:
Some of my smartest professors were very religious, or so they seemed….yet they weren’t in the science and math department where the really smart people reside. Why say that, i.e. that smarter people are there?….it’s because fewer people are good at science or math than social sciences….where information is not as precise and exact. If something doesn’t fit or jive up in science, the scientist sees this as an opportunity to contribute something to the body of knowledge, so he is glad. He reports it, and then others ctest it. If it is significant enought, the theory to which it was a part is changed to more accurately reflect the world. We all ben3efit from such.
Religion is definitely not a hard science. If someone points out something that doesn’t jive up, believers will ignore it, not embrace it or consider it good. They also will attack the messenger….usually emotionally by saying he hates everyone who believes….and in the past they would kill him, or condemn him to hell, by denying him sacraments.
Man seems to have to believe in something bigger than himself….though there is no evidence to factually prove this. I propose that all this a result of early man needing to prevent members of their tribes from hurting each other, and keeping them in line before police and a law system formed…..but I of course cannot prove it….I just use logic, and try to put myself back then. Thus you have formed thousands of different religions. The best way to really organize and control tribes is to declare there is only one God….as did propose Moses, Mohammad, etc.
How do you destroy anybody’s desire to investigate any of this religion stuff….you say you must not question anything lest you go to hell….just have faith.
This is all my opinion after thinking about all this for a long time and studying everything I can find on it….such as The Great Courses series, and reading books such as the Historical Jesus, the Bible for Dummies, and Idiots, the actual Bible itself (which I can never get through), tapes, etc. Plus I listen to Jimmy Swaggart Channel a lot.
I hope others will at least read what I say here, and at least consider it….without thinking I am trying to hurt them….but if you don’t, that’s okay too….it doesn’t bother me to take criticism.