>> The rest of your rebuttal also appears to misunderstand my use of the specific examples.
I discussed that and referenced it with "See my comment on the brother comment of yours."
I think I wasn't clear, so sturgill missed my trivial point -- I meant that it was not rational to believe in supernatural phenomena without good support.
And intelligence is probably less correlated with rationality than you'd naively think, so of course you'll find highly intelligent people that believe in anything. For instance, I've talked to a guy with mental issues that believed in lots of conspiracy theories. And so on.
(And many hundreds of years old books are not good support; there is better support and more witnesses that Elvis lives. And so on. This is a really old discussion.)
> Controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants.
So... American Protestants. Okay. In the scope of living people, that's... quite specific.
>> I already discussed the problems with arguing single data points for statistical correlations.
My use of these examples was not to counteract a statistical argument, but the opening sentence:
>>> I always hear about the mythical intelligent religious person but somehow, they remain elusive.
The rest of your rebuttal also appears to misunderstand my use of the specific examples. It was a simple exercise in showing that religious intellectuals are not a mythical creature.