These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
Religious people are stupid, and smart people aren't religious, apparently...
Published on May 1, 2006 By singrdave In Religion
I found a very incendiary article yesterday on Wikipedia regarding the correlation between religiosity and intelligence. It copiously documents how the more religious you are, the stupider you are. And the smarter you are, the less likely it is that you are have religious feeling...

From Wikipedia:
In 1986, the magazine Sceptic summarized studies on religiosity and intelligence:

All but four of the forty-three polls listed support the conclusion that native intelligence varies inversely with degree of religious faith; i.e., that, other factors being equal, the more intelligent a person is, the less religious he is.

Conclusions -- In this essay:

1. sixteen studies of the correlation between individual measures of student intelligence and religiosity, all but three of which reported an inverse correlation.
2. five studies reporting that student bodies with high average IQ and/or SAT scores are far less religious than lower-scoring student bodies;
3. three studies reporting that geniuses (IQ 3+ standard deviations above average) are much less religious than the general public, and one dubious study;
4. seven studies reporting that highly successful persons are much less religious in belief than are others; and
5. eight old and four new Gallup polls revealing that college alumni (average IQ about one standard deviation above average) are much less religious in belief than are grade-school pollees.

RECENT STUDIES:
In Explorations: An undergraduate research journal, Regan Clarke reports religious belief and behavior were negatively correlated with SAT scores in the USA. In 2000, noted skeptic Michael Shermer found a negative correlation between education and religosity in the United States, though Rice University indicates this may not apply to the social sciences.

Several studies on Americans focus on the beliefs of high-IQ individuals. In one study, 90% of the general population surveyed professed a distinct belief in a personal god and afterlife, while only 40% of the scientists with a BS surveyed did so, and only 10% of those considered "eminent.". Another study found that mathematicians were just over 40%, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.

A 1998 survey by Larson and Witham of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief". This was a follow-up to their own earlier 1996 study which itself was a follow-up to a 1916 study by James Leuba.


Some would say, no surprise there. But I would say, let me go out and get me some larnin', so's I can break the curve!

Comments (Page 1)
7 Pages1 2 3  Last
on May 01, 2006
As an educated religious person, I am deeply offended and shocked that anyone would come out and claim that religous people are less intelligent than those who are agnostic or atheist. Just for the record.
on May 01, 2006
As an Uneducated, but strong believer in GOD, with an I.Q. last tested at 149 I to am deeply offended.

I can hardly wait till the end when GOD has his/her chance to ask. "so my people are stupid because they believe in me?"

well you go to hell buddy!
on May 01, 2006

I can't believe they actually wrote it down! hahaha

It's one thing to actually believe that in private...and I certainly saw the mentality at University....but to publish it?

That cracks me up.  Some of the greatest minds in history were God fearing ones!

on May 01, 2006
I'd expect that except in fields that actively filter for intelligent people, intelligence is going to be negatively correlated with every area of human interest, simply on account of most people not being in the top intelligence brackets.

I think the best way to understand the relationship between intelligence and religion is not to look at studies like these, but to study the works of any one of the hundreds of intelligent religious people out there.

When a smarty man tells you in his own words why he thinks religion is the smart choice, it's a lot more meaningful than any number of polls or studies.
on May 01, 2006
It is a theme I have seen parrotted elsewhere, so I am not surprised.  But their sweeping genearlizations could also be used to say that all criminals are intelligent and agnostic since they are not following a creed.  I think that would sting the phaux [sic] intellectuals a lot worse than it does telling the Pope and Billy Graham they are stupid.
on May 01, 2006

As an Uneducated, but strong believer in GOD, with an I.Q. last tested at 149 I to am deeply offended.


Precisely. I won't give the numbers (I hate IQ bragging threads), but let's just say it's a number substantially higher than 100...guess that means I'm supposed to be an atheist, eh?
on May 01, 2006
It's idiotic. If people asked about people's sexual orientation during the SAT, I wonder how credible the results would seem. Belief is a very personal thing, especially for young people who are forced into educational situations where the "result" of this is already a "given".

So, you are in an environment where belief is thought to be less intelligent, in a society which more and more perceives belief to be less intelligent. Someone asks young people to represent themselves, and they say... what? Duh.

One of my cousins is a founding member and fellow of csicop, the people behind Skeptic magazine. I've been around educational institutions all my life, and I'll tell you right up front that you will never find a bigger pool of posers and hypocrites in terms of "belief". They'd rant to the heavens about how idiotic religion is, and then quietly tell you later that they hold personal beliefs of their own. I went to a METHODIST college and I had to deal with instructors who looked down on me because of my beliefs, as I have documented elsewhere.

So, this is like taking a poll and deciding that the coolest people in a given high school wear a certain brand of jeans. Humans see to their interests by emulating behaviors that are preferred in their environment. Smart people are trained to make themselves appear smart by being openly defiant toward spritual belief.

It's no surprise that when asked, the results reflect that defiance. I'm sure that had the Catholic Church done this poll back in the middle ages it would have come out a lot differently. Of course then the students then would have wanted to please those in power over them as well, wouldn't they?

I won't whip out my IQ score, either, but I know a lot of smart people, and they all hold personal beliefs in God. I know people who would say openly in the lounge that people who believe in God are supersitious fools, but who in private admit to different feelings. Data like this is meaningless.
on May 01, 2006
... but apparently mindless bigots can be found among the intelligencia too. And doesn't academia teach us that bigotry is based on ignorance?
on May 01, 2006

but apparently mindless bigots can be found among the intelligencia too. And doesn't academia teach us that bigotry is based on ignorance?

Wise are the ones that know they know not.

on May 01, 2006
I think what bothers me the most about this belittling of religious folk is the smug satisfaction you know each of these high-minded bigoted losers sitting around taking polls to show how superior they are to the "common eveyrday rabble".

No wonder Marx is so big in the intelligensia -- he said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

The prevailing attitude among the people who write and subscribe to these polls is, "If you were as smart as I am, you'd be agnostic/athiest too..."

Slap those silly smug effete boys back to the farm.

FTR, I'm smart too, but not so smart that I overlook the miracles around me. I have four little miracles right now, downstairs watching Spongebob.
on May 01, 2006
No wonder Marx is so big in the intelligensia -- he said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

I feel rather strange leaping to the defence of Marx(!), but looking at that quote in context he also described religion as "the heart of a heartless world", so he wasn't meaning to demean religious thinking in quite the same way as the wikipedia-quoted article seems to.

I don't want to be too harsh, but whatever understanding of religion I have is that it holds people to a 'higher standard', and surely that higher standard has to involve lightly brushing off such minor irritating barbs. However, to instead fulminate about 'mindless bigots' cheapens the meaning of words. There are mindless bigots in this world: they count their own lives and the lives of others as cheap in the pursuit of a 'purity' that doesn't include most of us here. Using the same words to describe a bit of adolescent ribbing is using a thermonuclear sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. When the writers of Sceptic magazine start strapping explosive vests to their chests, then we can start to talk about mindless bigots.
on May 01, 2006
I was not showin off posting my I.Q. I freely admit to being an uneducated lout at times at least book learnin, but let it also be said I been knockin round the planet fer nigh onta 60 years and might have learned a thing or two.
on May 01, 2006
knockin round the planet fer nigh onta 60 years and might have learned a thing or two.

There is much more to be said for "street smarts" than "book smarts".

lightly brushing off such minor irritating barbs.

You are right -- I should not let it bother me. I just don't enjoy being "lightly brushed off" as an ignorant boob who doesn't know aany better. I like to think that I *do* know better, and I choose to believe that God exists and all that entails. It's not about fairy tales for me, it's about the reality of the power of God in the lives of people around us.

Besides, brushing these too-smart athiests aside as effete, snob intellectuals who don't have a lick of sense... isn't that the same high-mindedness that started this debate in the first place, just reversed?
on May 03, 2006
but looking at that quote in context he also described religion as "the heart of a heartless world", so he wasn't meaning to demean religious thinking in quite the same way as the wikipedia-quoted article seems to.

You make a good point, because I never knew there was a context to that quote.

It's just always handed out by young, self-rigteous intellectual snobs so they can dismiss all us religious types as unwashed braindead lemmings.
on May 05, 2006
Excellent counterpoint

in anticipation of boinking celestial virgins.

I've written elsewhere of an interesting and controversial bit of scholarship that says the Quran was originally composed in a Syro-Aramaic dialect, and predates classical Arabic. According to this theory the 'huri' (celestial virgins reserved for the 'use' of martyrs) are actually 'hur' (white raisins), a middle eastern delicacy at the time, and a contemporary christian mystical symbol. An image inevitable arises of the randy jihadist arriving in 'paradise', only to be given a handful of dried fruit.
7 Pages1 2 3  Last