Oh I understand. I believe it's a fine study. I've just seen
  problematic results of meta-studies with regards to bias with
  regards to choice of studies used for the meta-analysis.

  [1]https://scholar.google.com/scholar...

  shows 8440 studies. Are all of them relevant for a meta-study of
  this nature? Probably not.

  Are 8,377 invalid for the meta-study? Probably not.

  I don't know. I'm not saying it's an invalid study. But few
  things can be more easily abused than statistical analysis.

  And, having been a member of a Unitarian Universalist group for
  a short time in my early 20s, yes, they are a skeptical bunch
  tongue emoticon   My point is, Steve, there's bullshit wherever
  you go and when something tells you what you already believe to
  be true, I think it's MORE important to be extra skeptical.
  Confirmation bias is a very real problem, whether in science or
  among the general population. To me, good skepticism isn't just
  skeptical about things it already doesn't like. It must be
  skeptical equally towards things it does like. I accept very
  little on faith, especially on subjects prone to heavy bias.
  If you disagree with my position or think I am being
  unreasonable, that's ok, but I'd like to know your further
  thoughts either way.

References

  Visible links
  1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=religiosity%20intelligence%20atheist%20&btnG&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10&as_vis=1

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.