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 3)
7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on May 07, 2006
I believe most atheism is simply a rationalization to appease a guilty conscience!

"...I choose not to live X way, therefore I do not believe in the religion/God/god/tenet that compels me to live X way."
Hmmm... good one, Gid. Isn't that conveeeeeeeeeenient?
on May 07, 2006
Personally, I believe most atheism is simply a rationalization to appease a guilty conscience!


I think it could be a lack of deserts. If you look at history, most successful religions come out of the mountains or out of the deserts. People seem to need a really desolate place with lots of stars at night before they start thinking clearly about gods. It wouldn't surprise me if someone who spends all their time surrounded by people rather than the darkness would be less inclined to believe in gods. You don't need to when there's so much humanity to believe in.
on May 07, 2006
With palms together,
As a religious person and a well-educated person, I am interested in this thread. My sense is that religiosity gets a very bad rep among intellectuals for very good reason. There is a long history of anti-intellectualism among religious cultures. Religious cultures tortured scientists and philosophers who disagreed with the tenets of 'the faith.' Religious cultures put people on trial for teaching scientifically based theories such as natural selection. Religious cultures have burned books, banned books, forced teachers to change their curricula in order to comply with a belief system, even today here in the United States. Just two years ago in my town a church community burned the Harry Potter books and demanded they be banned from the public library. Intelligent people who read, study and attempt to understand the world around them often find themselves in dens of dumbness and hostility. I can understand how it could be that smart people who are well educated would want to distance themselves from this sort of thing.

On the other hand, there are very smart people involved in lots of religious activity. I find them everywhere. People unafraid to have libraries and library cards, unafraid of books, regardless of their content, religious people who listen to NPR, watch and support public television, religious people who support stem cell research because they want cures for the worst diseases known to man. But these are not the religious people most people consider when thinking about religious people. These are the religious folks who have been marginalized by the wacko right, who actually believe their own anti-intellectual hype and want you to buy it as well.

I used to teach a a major university in the graduate school. I cannot tell you the number of times I was challenged by students who would simply say what I was teaching was "just (my) opinion." As if a Ph.D. and years of clinical experience counted for nothing in their minds. I was listening to a report this morning on CNN. It was about criminal invetigation technique and testing. It seems the FBI has been using bullet composition testing for 30 or 40 years, using such lab test to convict people. Several independent laboratories have discovered there is absolutely no scientific basis for the FBI's claims. The FBI's response? "That's your opinion." This plays well with people who lack an education in the sciences. People who actually believe scientists just sort of make up stuff and put it out there. Oh well. Its an anti-intellectiual environment, don't be surprised that we elect actors and worse for presidents, after all, its all in the sales pitch, eh, presentation.

Be well.
on May 08, 2006
I believe most atheism is simply a rationalization to appease a guilty conscience!

"...I choose not to live X way, therefore I do not believe in the religion/God/god/tenet that compels me to live X way."
Hmmm... good one, Gid. Isn't that conveeeeeeeeeenient?

Well, to come to the defence of 'atheists' - who also count among their number many 'religious' people, including Buddhists and Jains - it is simply untrue to say that they all hold their views on the existence/non-existence of a creator/supreme being simply in order to 'justify' their personal ethical systems. Agnostics may not care enough to have an opinion on God, and that lack of care might also be reflected in their ethical stance. However true atheists have usually given a lot of thought to the question and have probably been just as thoughtful about their personal ethics.

While it is true that few atheists would attempt to live up to the ethical perfection of the Sermon on the Mount, that is equally true of Christians. It is true that atheists include amongst their number people like Stalin and Mao, but they also include inspirational figures like the Buddha and Mahavira. And believers in a creator/supreme being include Hitler as well as Gandhi and St. Francis of Assisi.

This raises an important issue. If christians (in particular) wish their faith and philosophy to be treated with any degree of sophistication, they will have to offer the same courtesy in return to those who differ with them.
on May 08, 2006
Religious cultures have burned books, banned books, Just two years ago in my town a church community burned the Harry Potter books and demanded they be banned from the public library.


Sounds like Nazi Germany, doesn't it?
on May 08, 2006
Religious cultures have burned books, banned books, forced teachers to change their curricula in order to comply with a belief system, even today here in the United States. Just two years ago in my town a church community burned the Harry Potter books and demanded they be banned from the public library.


Sodaiho,

You are wrong in assuming that it was their religion that led to the ban. Narrowmindedness is not exclusive to religion, or have you forgotten the numerous lawsuits by atheists to try to remove public displays of religion from their community? When religious groups attempt to ban "Harry Potter" from school libraries, atheists get their undies in a bundle. Yet when they try to ban books with religious topics, suddenly it's acceptable. There's hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, sodaiho.

That being said, it's a blanket accusation of ALL individuals who hold religious beliefs, and you should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating the stereotype. Just as I'm not buying the "white guilt" that many are trying to place on me because of the color of my skin, I am not buying the "Christian guilt" that you and others are trying to place on me because of my faith. Yes, what you say is true of some individuals, but it is not true of all.

Some years back, I rallied to the side of Wiccans who were attempting to make some of their land into a cemetary and were coming up against a town board that didn't want to allow it. While I am not Wiccan and am in fact, quite opposed to many of their beliefs, I felt and still feel that their religious beliefs need defending as much as mine and will always be there to defend them.
on May 08, 2006
You are wrong in assuming that it was their religion that led to the ban.


Of course it was their religion. What do you think they were afraid of? They were afraid of stories about witches and warlocks polluting their kid's minds.

the numerous lawsuits by atheists to try to remove public displays of religion from their community?


Nothing was burned.
on May 08, 2006
I have no idea what my IQ is but I don't consider myself smart by a damn sight- I'm probably a wonderfully sub-low average if I were guessing. On the bell curve I would probably be in the upper center left region but miles and miles from the top or the right side of it. And I ain't that religious either so I guess that shoots holes in that theory from another angle.
on May 08, 2006
I think it could be a lack of deserts. If you look at history, most successful religions come out of the mountains or out of the deserts. People seem to need a really desolate place with lots of stars at night before they start thinking clearly about gods.


Tell that to the African tribes that have their own religion. Or the central American cultures that were more advanced than any European ones in the sciences (except warfare). No, perhaps you may want to say the DOMINANT religions, but then that would not explain Hinduism and Shintoism now would it?
on May 08, 2006
African tribes that have their own religion.


And christian missionaries want to make those people give up their religion because they're "godless savages."
on May 08, 2006
I ran into Brant Grygiel the other day. He told me he'd just been moved out of his 2nd-floor office into a shared office on the 3rd floor, to make room for more CTG transplants.


This in no way describes any Christian missionary I have ever met.

For example, it does not describe my parents. It does not describe any of the of missionaries they've welcomed into our home over the years, nor any of the missionaries into whose homes we've been welcomed over the years. It doesn't describe any of the missionaries my father has worked with, in any of the agencies he's worked for. It doesn't describe any of the missionaries I have personally met, whose hands I have shaken, whose sermons I have attended, and with whom I have conversed at length.

There are asshats in every walk of life, including Christian missions. But I think you are sorely mistaken, Ico, if you believe that this is the institutional attitude or agenda of Christian missionaries.
on May 08, 2006
You are wrong in assuming that it was their religion that led to the ban. Narrowmindedness is not exclusive to religion, or have you forgotten the numerous lawsuits by atheists to try to remove public displays of religion from their community? When religious groups attempt to ban "Harry Potter" from school libraries, atheists get their undies in a bundle. Yet when they try to ban books with religious topics, suddenly it's acceptable. There's hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, sodaiho.


With palms together,

Hello Gideon,

Thank you for responding. I do not see my assumption as incorrect and your example is off the mark. Atheists and non-Christians have, indeed, attempted to stop public funds from being spent of Christian displays in public spaces. This is wholley different from a Baptist church (as was the case here) organizing a book burning. While they have every right to do so and I would defend that right, I see the thing itself as a reflection of a deep distrust of anything outside the domain of their faith. Its much the same as burning a cross as some Christians have been known to do. They have a right to do it, but I will not support it and see it as an affront to decency.

Personally I do not see a problem with Christian books in a public school library, provided attention is also paid to other faiths and no special attention is given to specifics. I think religion should be taught in public schools. All religion. As in a survay course on comparative religions or the life and teachings of various religious leaders and founders such as Jesus of Nazereth, Mohammed, Abraham, Moses, and Buddha. I do have issues with officially sanctioned school prayer. God has hears our prayers whether they are said out loud or silently.

That being said, it's a blanket accusation of ALL individuals who hold religious beliefs, and you should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating the stereotype. Just as I'm not buying the "white guilt" that many are trying to place on me because of the color of my skin, I am not buying the "Christian guilt" that you and others are trying to place on me because of my faith. Yes, what you say is true of some individuals, but it is not true of all.


I never said anything about all individuals or made blanket accusations. In fact, I believe I specifically mentioned religious folks who were not in the "stereotype."

I am not placing guilt anywhere. Certainly not on you. I do believe that people should be more accepting of their neighbors and respect them even when they are different. This has not been my experience in certain "Christian" communities, but then they could be an anomoly.

Just as people jump up and down about liberals this and that and toss a blanket over anything progressive, it is equally wrong to do the same with religions and those holding religious beliefs. That said, it is also important, I think, that those among religious groups who are known to be intolerant, should stand up against their group's intolerance, just as I've read on the JU about people thinking moderate Muslims ought to be more vocally against their more radical kin.

Jimmy Carter did just this in his latest book. He took a good look at his Southern Baptist roots, found what the Southern Baptist Convention was doing was morally wrong and spoke out about it. I value such a thing, whether I agree with him or not.

Some years back, I rallied to the side of Wiccans who were attempting to make some of their land into a cemetary and were coming up against a town board that didn't want to allow it. While I am not Wiccan and am in fact, quite opposed to many of their beliefs, I felt and still feel that their religious beliefs need defending as much as mine and will always be there to defend them.


A deep bow to you for this act of support. I would stand there with you. Be well.
on May 08, 2006
Anyway, back on topic (and returning to an idea brought up earlier):

There are many intelligent people who have given very intelligent justifications for religious belief.

One excellent example of this in Protestant Christianity is C. S. Lewis's essays collected under the title "Mere Christianity". In these essays, Lewis lays out a reasoned, logical case for Christianity, from the outside in, so to speak. You may dispute his conclusions, but you have to do so with reason: It's obvious that Lewis is a very intelligent person, and he can't be easily dismissed as a dupe or a crackpot. He really is intelligent, and he really does give intelligent reasons for his faith.

Other examples in Protestant Christianity include Os Guinness and Francis Schaeffer. I'm not as familiar with the deep thinkers of other religions, but I'm sure they exist--except maybe for Scientology...

But Scientology brings up another issue: the difference between "religions" and "cults". Obviously we could argue about definitions all day, but in this context, I'd say a "cult" is a belief system that truly attracts only stupid people and opportunistic charlatans. A "religion", on the other hand, can usually boast a credible array of actual thoughtful, reasonable, people, capable of making sincere and compelling arguments in favor of their faith.
on May 08, 2006
You are wrong in assuming that it was their religion that led to the ban. Narrowmindedness is not exclusive to religion, or have you forgotten the numerous lawsuits by atheists to try to remove public displays of religion from their community? When religious groups attempt to ban "Harry Potter" from school libraries, atheists get their undies in a bundle. Yet when they try to ban books with religious topics, suddenly it's acceptable. There's hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, sodaiho.


With palms together,

Hello Gideon,

Thank you for responding. I do not see my assumption as incorrect and your example is off the mark. Atheists and non-Christians have, indeed, attempted to stop public funds from being spent of Christian displays in public spaces. This is wholley different from a Baptist church (as was the case here) organizing a book burning. While they have every right to do so and I would defend that right, I see the thing itself as a reflection of a deep distrust of anything outside the domain of their faith. Its much the same as burning a cross as some Christians have been known to do. They have a right to do it, but I will not support it and see it as an affront to decency.

Personally I do not see a problem with Christian books in a public school library, provided attention is also paid to other faiths and no special attention is given to specifics. I think religion should be taught in public schools. All religion. As in a survay course on comparative religions or the life and teachings of various religious leaders and founders such as Jesus of Nazereth, Mohammed, Abraham, Moses, and Buddha. I do have issues with officially sanctioned school prayer. God has hears our prayers whether they are said out loud or silently.

That being said, it's a blanket accusation of ALL individuals who hold religious beliefs, and you should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating the stereotype. Just as I'm not buying the "white guilt" that many are trying to place on me because of the color of my skin, I am not buying the "Christian guilt" that you and others are trying to place on me because of my faith. Yes, what you say is true of some individuals, but it is not true of all.


I never said anything about all individuals or made blanket accusations. In fact, I believe I specifically mentioned religious folks who were not in the "stereotype."

I am not placing guilt anywhere. Certainly not on you. I do believe that people should be more accepting of their neighbors and respect them even when they are different. This has not been my experience in certain "Christian" communities, but then they could be an anomoly.

Just as people jump up and down about liberals this and that and toss a blanket over anything progressive, it is equally wrong to do the same with religions and those holding religious beliefs. That said, it is also important, I think, that those among religious groups who are known to be intolerant, should stand up against their group's intolerance, just as I've read on the JU about people thinking moderate Muslims ought to be more vocally against their more radical kin.

Jimmy Carter did just this in his latest book. He took a good look at his Southern Baptist roots, found what the Southern Baptist Convention was doing was morally wrong and spoke out about it. I value such a thing, whether I agree with him or not.

Some years back, I rallied to the side of Wiccans who were attempting to make some of their land into a cemetary and were coming up against a town board that didn't want to allow it. While I am not Wiccan and am in fact, quite opposed to many of their beliefs, I felt and still feel that their religious beliefs need defending as much as mine and will always be there to defend them.


A deep bow to you for this act of support. I would stand there with you. Be well.
on May 08, 2006
You are wrong in assuming that it was their religion that led to the ban. Narrowmindedness is not exclusive to religion, or have you forgotten the numerous lawsuits by atheists to try to remove public displays of religion from their community? When religious groups attempt to ban "Harry Potter" from school libraries, atheists get their undies in a bundle. Yet when they try to ban books with religious topics, suddenly it's acceptable. There's hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, sodaiho.


With palms together,

Hello Gideon,

Thank you for responding. I do not see my assumption as incorrect and your example is off the mark. Atheists and non-Christians have, indeed, attempted to stop public funds from being spent of Christian displays in public spaces. This is wholley different from a Baptist church (as was the case here) organizing a book burning. While they have every right to do so and I would defend that right, I see the thing itself as a reflection of a deep distrust of anything outside the domain of their faith. Its much the same as burning a cross as some Christians have been known to do. They have a right to do it, but I will not support it and see it as an affront to decency.

Personally I do not see a problem with Christian books in a public school library, provided attention is also paid to other faiths and no special attention is given to specifics. I think religion should be taught in public schools. All religion. As in a survay course on comparative religions or the life and teachings of various religious leaders and founders such as Jesus of Nazereth, Mohammed, Abraham, Moses, and Buddha. I do have issues with officially sanctioned school prayer. God has hears our prayers whether they are said out loud or silently.

That being said, it's a blanket accusation of ALL individuals who hold religious beliefs, and you should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating the stereotype. Just as I'm not buying the "white guilt" that many are trying to place on me because of the color of my skin, I am not buying the "Christian guilt" that you and others are trying to place on me because of my faith. Yes, what you say is true of some individuals, but it is not true of all.


I never said anything about all individuals or made blanket accusations. In fact, I believe I specifically mentioned religious folks who were not in the "stereotype."

I am not placing guilt anywhere. Certainly not on you. I do believe that people should be more accepting of their neighbors and respect them even when they are different. This has not been my experience in certain "Christian" communities, but then they could be an anomoly.

Just as people jump up and down about liberals this and that and toss a blanket over anything progressive, it is equally wrong to do the same with religions and those holding religious beliefs. That said, it is also important, I think, that those among religious groups who are known to be intolerant, should stand up against their group's intolerance, just as I've read on the JU about people thinking moderate Muslims ought to be more vocally against their more radical kin.

Jimmy Carter did just this in his latest book. He took a good look at his Southern Baptist roots, found what the Southern Baptist Convention was doing was morally wrong and spoke out about it. I value such a thing, whether I agree with him or not.

Some years back, I rallied to the side of Wiccans who were attempting to make some of their land into a cemetary and were coming up against a town board that didn't want to allow it. While I am not Wiccan and am in fact, quite opposed to many of their beliefs, I felt and still feel that their religious beliefs need defending as much as mine and will always be there to defend them.


A deep bow to you for this act of support. I would stand there with you. Be well.
7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last