Ohio state university quiz says atheists are smarter

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/25/ohio-state-quiz-under-fire-for-question-implying-atheist-are-sma/20937131/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl16|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D507108&ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

Ohio State University published the results from a quiz showing that atheists are smarter than those of faith.

Is this just more evidence of the war between academia and those of faith?

I've seen similar claims on these boards, so here is your chance atheists.

I envision atheist pride parades. Be proud that you are the master race.

Originally posted by whodey
Is this just more evidence of the war between academia and those of faith?

I have not herd of such a war before.

I think that it is well known that on average atheists are smarter. However this is not a case of 'being atheist makes you smarter', but rather being smarter makes you more likely to be atheist. This may be simply that being more logical means you are less likely to accept the illogical aspects of religion, or it may be a case of being smarter means you will go further in your education, and a good education conflicts with many aspects of religion.
I do wonder whether there are differences between denominations. For example Catholicism doesn't conflict with education as strongly as denominations that preach YEC. So maybe Catholics are less likely to loose their faith upon being educated. Whereas a YEC, upon receiving a scientific education has no choice but to change their beliefs - to either something without YEC or become atheist.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/25/ohio-state-quiz-under-fire-for-question-implying-atheist-are-sma/20937131/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl16|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D507108&ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

Ohio State University published the results from a quiz showing that atheists are smarter than those of faith.

This is silly. I won't touch this. I just felt the need to say that, which means I've kinda
touched it. Okay, I'll say this: ohio state university better have a good explanation as to the
relevance of the quiz question... in question, because it really is insulting. If I were a
christian I'd be raising hell (pun intended), right now.

Originally posted by C Hess
Okay, I'll say this: ohio state university better have a good explanation as to the
relevance of the quiz question... in question, because it really is insulting.

I don't see why it should be insulting.
If they had instead asked: given that Susan is american, is she more likely to be white or black? Would the correct answer 'white' be insulting to black people?
What if the same question was asked with regards to university degrees?
What if the same question were asked with regards to being incarcerated in the US?
They should only be insulting if you don't understand statistics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have not herd of such a war before.

I think that it is well known that on average atheists are smarter. However this is not a case of 'being atheist makes you smarter', but rather being smarter makes you more likely to be atheist. This may be simply that being more logical means you are less likely to accept the illogical aspects of religion, or it m ...[text shortened]... n has no choice but to change their beliefs - to either something without YEC or become atheist.

I think equating being "smarter" with being "more logical" by default, is a mistake. I did well in school, from kindergarten all the way through college, always near the top of my class, and I think no one will argue with me that my mindset is not the "most logical" mindset. I think there's way more to "being smart" and "being intelligent" than mere logic. I had a 1490 SAT, so clearly I'm not stupid, but I struggled in any classes where classical logic was a big part, and yes, my 710 math score held me back a bit, especially compared to the boys.

"On average" is an okay yardstick, but it really only tells part of the story. For example, look at you. You might be a superb logician, but still, the word is "heard" not "herd".

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't see why it should be insulting.
If they had instead asked: given that Susan is american, is she more likely to be white or black? Would the correct answer 'white' be insulting to black people?
What if the same question was asked with regards to university degrees?
What if the same question were asked with regards to being incarcerated in the US?
They should only be insulting if you don't understand statistics.

Yes, but OSU is a state institution and is thus regulated by laws meant to stop discrimination by gender, race, sexual orientation and religion. This question is not comparing Christians to atheists based on statistics, but based on intelligence. The IQ mentioned in the quiz question is meant as an indicator of intelligence, there are no statistics involved in the question. What if they had instead asked, "Given that Susan has an IQ of 100 while Francine has an IQ of 120, which of the following statements do you expect to be true?" with a correct answer of "Susan is black and Francine is white", or even "Susan is gay, while Francine is straight"? There would have been an immediate uproar of accusations of discrimination leveled at OSU, and rightfully so. That there is not a bigger deal made of this story says volumes about which direction America is heading, and I suspect we'll only see more of this type of discrimination as time goes on.

All that being said, yes, this test question was written by students doing work for the Psychology department, but it was a test for a Gen Ed class. The class is only a required class if you are in the General Education program. In my school, this was usually where the under-performing students generally ended up. Still, it should have been approved by a professor or at least a higher-ranking educator in the Psychology department before going out on the test.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I think equating being "smarter" with being "more logical" by default, is a mistake.

Most IQ tests, include a significant amount of logical tests so a high IQ usually does mean being more logical. But I would fully agree that being intelligent does not equate to being logical. There is however a strong correlation.

"On average" is an okay yardstick, but it really only tells part of the story. For example, look at you. You might be a superb logician, but still, the word is "heard" not "herd".
Again, I agree. A statistic does not make everyone conform to a pattern. If anything, exceptions are the norm 🙂
As for the spelling, it was a typo. I touch type imperfectly and do not always bother to read what I type. I also sometimes use a wireless keyboard that has a tendency to miss characters. But I concede that my spelling may be worse than yours. You may even have a higher IQ, better high school results or a higher degree than me, I do not know. But it remains true that statistically, atheists have a higher average IQ than theists - and in the US and here in SA, black people are more likely to have a criminal record than white people - by quite a large margin.

Originally posted by Suzianne
.... there are no statistics involved in the question.

Having re-read it, maybe it would be better phrased if it said 'which of the following is most likely to be true'. But I do think it was intended in a statistical manner.

What if they had instead asked, "Given that Susan has an IQ of 100 while Francine has an IQ of 120, which of the following statements do you expect to be true?" with a correct answer of "Susan is black and Francine is white"
Would that answer be wrong?

There would have been an immediate uproar of accusations of discrimination leveled at OSU, and rightfully so.
Given that we are discussing this here, it appears there was an uproar.

That there is not a bigger deal made of this story says volumes about which direction America is heading, and I suspect we'll only see more of this type of discrimination as time goes on.
How big a deal would you expect had it been racial? How would you measure the size of the 'deal'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Most IQ tests, include a significant amount of logical tests so a high IQ usually does mean being more logical. But I would fully agree that being intelligent does not equate to being logical. There is however a strong correlation.

[b]"On average" is an okay yardstick, but it really only tells part of the story. For example, look at you. You might be ...[text shortened]... ck people are more likely to have a criminal record than white people - by quite a large margin.

Well, my point is that statistics are one thing, but they cannot be used as a predictor. You cannot assume (in America anyway, on pain of a lawsuit) that any particular black guy is going to be less smart than any particular white guy. Yes, statistics show averages, but these cannot be used as a basis for discrimination, period.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Having re-read it, maybe it would be better phrased if it said 'which of the following is most likely to be true'. But I do think it was intended in a statistical manner.

What if they had instead asked, "Given that Susan has an IQ of 100 while Francine has an IQ of 120, which of the following statements do you expect to be true?" with a correct answer ...[text shortened]... ow big a deal would you expect had it been racial? How would you measure the size of the 'deal'?

I disagree. I think this question was written to directly compare the intelligence of a typical Christian versus the intelligence of a typical atheist, and is therefore wrong. Nowhere did the question state "Statistically", "On average" or anything like that.

Yes, that answer would be wrong, for reasons I've already stated. You cannot use statistics of an entire population as an excuse to discriminate against individuals. I believe the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, but I may be incorrect. The Third Reich tried this in times past, and clearly, it was wrong then, too.

I expect that had it been racially motivated, the uproar would have been louder. It has become "a thing" lately to overstress how non-prejudicial one is, and so I think the uproar would have been far and wide, especially in comparison to the uproar this incident is causing.

Originally posted by C Hess
This is silly. I won't touch this. I just felt the need to say that, which means I've kinda
touched it. Okay, I'll say this: ohio state university better have a good explanation as to the
relevance of the quiz question... in question, because it really is insulting. If I were a
christian I'd be raising hell (pun intended), right now.

The University says that it broke policy by releasing this quiz because it "targets Christians". Of course, the damage is done so who cares if they get their hands slapped now.

However, it makes me uneasy to have such political correctness prevent you from searching for the truth just because it may offend someone. I would think that the university would be a place where the truth is sought no matter whose toes are stepped on.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, my point is that statistics are one thing, but they cannot be used as a predictor. You cannot assume (in America anyway, on pain of a lawsuit) that any particular black guy is going to be less smart than any particular white guy. Yes, statistics show averages, but these cannot be used as a basis for discrimination, period.

And that is what is wrong with America. You should have tests that show that blacks are not as smart as whites, just like you should be able to show that Christians are not as smart as atheists. This is what is wrong with America.

Instead of running from the truth, we should embrace it and find out why things are the way they are instead of continuing to run from the truth.

Originally posted by whodey
The University says that it broke policy by releasing this quiz because it "targets Christians". Of course, the damage is done so who cares if they get their hands slapped now.

However, it makes me uneasy to have such political correctness prevent you from searching for the truth just because it may offend someone. I would think that the university would be a place where the truth is sought no matter whose toes are stepped on.

Well, I think we can comfortably say that one individual Christian is not any more likely to be less intelligent than any one individual atheist, based solely on their religious affiliation, and you certainly cannot lawfully (in the United States, at least) use this as a reason to discriminate against either one, just as you cannot legally discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation, regardless of any statistics one cares to dig up to substantiate their claim.

And that is the truth.

Originally posted by whodey
And that is what is wrong with America. You should have tests that show that blacks are not as smart as whites, just like you should be able to show that Christians are not as smart as atheists. This is what is wrong with America.

Instead of running from the truth, we should embrace it and find out why things are the way they are instead of continuing to run from the truth.

Okay, so, in other words, we should bring back racism, gender bias and homophobia? Embrace them fully and make them the law of the land? Really?? The fact that we cannot legally do so is really what's wrong with America? Is this what you're saying?

I think you have your priority pants on backwards, sir.