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 4)
7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
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.
on May 08, 2006
good food, good meat, good God, Let's eat...
on May 08, 2006
good food, good meat, good God, Let's eat...


er, sorry for that. Got a good beer buzz goin'on and was just wanting to cut through the high IQ bullshit. Sorry...
on May 08, 2006
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


Great guys mentioned here Stute. I have an idea. Why don't we all read Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and do a book review here on it. It's an awesome read!! Very logical and given he was an atheist in his beginnings he understands both sides very well. I think I'll take a copy on my upcoming vacation.

He took a good look at his Southern Baptist roots, found what the Southern Baptist Convention was doing was morally wrong


Knowing quite a bit about the SBC I would say they are doing nothing "morally" wrong. I do know that Carter had a problem with the SBC not allowing woman preachers. Is that what you are referring to? If so, that is not morally wrong, but biblically accurate. Doesn't mean they are not spiritual equals, but only that God has given different roles to both male and female for a purpose.

I told a cult leader once that demanded my explanation of a cult that a cult is a group or religion that strays from the historic Christian faith. He had no response and just walked away.
on May 08, 2006
And christian missionaries want to make those people give up their religion because they're "godless savages."

They DID, many years ago, but I'm confident that the blanket conversion of the heathen has been severely curtailed in recent years. Something about individual freedom of religion, I'm told.
on May 08, 2006
(as an aside) KFC:
I told a cult leader once that demanded my explanation of a cult that a cult is a group or religion that strays from the historic Christian faith

Fantastic, so you should have no problem with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on which Parated2k is doing a wonderful set of articles. You can clearly see that our church (as I am a Mormon too) tries its hardest to stick with the original church which Christ himself established on the earth!
on May 08, 2006
Why don't we all read Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and do a book review here on it. It's an awesome read!! Very logical and given he was an atheist in his beginnings he understands both sides very well. I think I'll take a copy on my upcoming vacation.

An excellent idea. I would love to have a JU collective read of "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. No, really I would. I have always wanted to have a crack at that book. Just an excuse is all I need!
on May 08, 2006
Is that what you are referring to? If so, that is not morally wrong, but biblically accurate. Doesn't mean they are not spiritual equals, but only that God has given different roles to both male and female for a purpose.


Hello KFC, It was more than the gender thing. I think, as I recall from the book, that he took issue with their changes as to the centrality and authority of the pulpit itself, as opposed to a more horizontal authority. The other thing, I believe, was the entrance of evengelicals into the political arena. Its a thoughtful book. You might enjoy it.

The whole thing about gender bothers me as well. You might have guessed. Biblical accuracy is no excuse for oppression. There are a ton of things that are biblically accurate that we don't do any more. Frankly, I don't think God cares a wit whether His priests or rabbis are men or women. God, after all is neither and created both equally. To me it was just a power grab on the part of the men in the SBC.

Be well.
on May 09, 2006
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?


Shintoism is by no means a dominant religion. Not every Japanese person is Shintoist, and even if they were it would have more than a few hundred million adherents. Compared to desert or mountain religions like Buddhism, Christianity and Islam the African and American faiths have proven to be lacking in resilience. Hinduism is more or less restricted to a handful of locations in the world, with little growth.

But to be honest I wasn't treating it as an entirely serious response. It's simply an interesting coincidence.
on May 09, 2006
Fantastic, so you should have no problem with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on which Parated2k is doing a wonderful set of articles. You can clearly see that our church (as I am a Mormon too) tries its hardest to stick with the original church which Christ himself established on the earth!


I don't think you really want me to answer this. Remember I was a Mormon. No longer tho.

An excellent idea. I would love to have a JU collective read of "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis.


Well I'm taking it with me. I'm leaving Thursday and will be back next week. If you do, read it with a highlighter.

Sodaiho

Carter is not a biblical scholar. He's basing what he believes on opinion not fact. God doesn't change. Did you ever hear of any female apostles? How about writers to either the OT or the NT? While I do believe Christ elevated woman very highly, and I could show you that sometime, scripture is quite clear, quite clear that the role of headship belongs to the man. Period. Anyone who deviates from that either has an agenda or is going on emotion, not fact.

Having said that, I do believe there are very good Christian women that are terrific speakers and teachers not only now but also in biblical times. I just got back from a conference with Beth Moore and she could have knocked me over with a feather. She was unbelievable. A Godsend if you will. She would also tell you as talented and gifted as she is that God would not intend for her to be the head of his church.
on May 09, 2006
While I do believe Christ elevated woman very highly, and I could show you that sometime, scripture is quite clear, quite clear that the role of headship belongs to the man. Period. Anyone who deviates from that either has an agenda or is going on emotion, not fact.


Hello KFC,

My understand of the Southern Baptist Convention was that prior to some date, don't recall when, it was a tenent of the Convention that each person, filled with the Holy Spirit, born again, and all was his own interpreter of the Word. Bible in hand, free to read and dialogue with God. After this date, they changed the rules and centered power in their clergy. Every Christian I talk with seems to have an opinion about biblical truth, backed with scripture. This is the problem (and the blessing) of a faith based approach. However it often collides with civilization as civilization unfolds.

What you say of women was also true of slaves, yet we do not hold, buy and sell them any longer either. There were no Black priests or authors of the Hebrew scripture or the New Testament, yet we have Black ministers and priests.

An enlightened person has no agenda and sees without reference to appearance.

Be well.
on May 09, 2006
Color has never been an issue in scripture. The Hebrews were slaves more than once, they were not colored. We do not know the color of the writers of scripture only that the majority of it was written by Jewish writers. Luke was a gentile. Do we know his color? We read of the Eunuch of Ethiopia in Acts who went back and started his own church with the gosepl now firmly planted in his heart and mind. My take on him is he most likely was black but again we don't know for sure.

The black slaves you talk of have nothing to do with the bible. No, man made that up all by himself. Scripture says, male, female, slave or free are all one in Christ. But God still had roles in mind for his people. For the woman it was to bear children. For that she would be greater than a man. For man, it was to remain the head of his family. For that he would be greater than woman remembering also that they are partners in all of this. It's only when we deviate from God's best we get into the mess we do.

That's exactly why we see Adam blamed for what Eve did. He was not in control. His role was usurped by Eve. It was the sin of Adam that really got us in trouble. He was not being obedient in taking on the headship thet he should have. We later see that in God's admonition to them; when HE said her desire would be to rule over her husband, Gen 3:16.

Can a woman lead her home? Yes. Is it God's best? No. Is it what God desires for the home? No. The same goes for the church.

As for the SBC it was a mess before the changes were made. It was going "south" and quickly the way it was headed. I have great respect for the men who turned the SBC around.
on May 09, 2006
Atheists and non-Christians have, indeed, attempted to stop public funds from being spent of Christian displays in public spaces.


No, they have tried to stop PRIVATELY FUNDED Christian displays from being erected in public spaces, sodaiho. My analogy is apt.

The ten commandments statue erected by Judge Moore? Privately funded.

The nativity displays in public parks?
Privately funded

The highway patrol memorials in Utah?
Privately funded.

Atheists do more than their share of bookburning, sodaiho.

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.


Icono,

It was their personal mindset, not their religion. I am a Christian, and I've never pushed for the ban of ANY book. A few fringe radicals within the Christian community have engaged in banning certain books, but believe me, if the majority of Christians were engaged in it, you'd know it.

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


Nothing was burned.


Icon,

In the instance Sodaiho cited, nothing was burned either. There are VERY FEW modern instances of book burnings by Christians in America. bannings, sure, but banning, while wholly misguided, is not the same as burning.
on May 09, 2006
scripture is quite clear, quite clear that the role of headship belongs to the man. Period. Anyone who deviates from that either has an agenda or is going on emotion, not fact


for years i've tried to understand two mysterious anomalies.

1. how and why did women--who were mankind's first healers--wind up so completely and senselessly losing their role and its status to rabidly mysogynistic males who subsequently spent centuries and went to cruel lengths to retain their hold on what eventually became the medical profession by staunchly excluding females for centuries after centuries(those who didn't give it up graciously often found themselves condemned as witches or worse).

2.every early human society's spiritual beliefs (to the best of my knowledge anyway)were originaly focused on female powers and deities. the most ancient representations of what we now call 'gods' or 'god' incorporated female physical characteristics. as with healing, there also came a time when males somehow managed to hijack the power, using it to minimize and marginalize women. blaming eve for being natively gullible, unable to resist seduction and therefore virtually certain to betray men is a perfect example--as well as underlying basis for all forms of male domination. jealous of womens' ability to bring forth life, the new patriarchs declared menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth 'unclean' and insisted females endure demeaning rituals before permitting them to participate in the community or worship.

bad enough females are still being insulted, dehumanized, handicapped culturally and tormented physically (i'd love to see mullahs, imams, rabbis and other so-called men of god forced to wear bhurkas), considered inferior to any and all men and, far too often, treated like disposable property without intelligent women such as yourself defending it the exact same way and for the exact same reason as your muslim brothers.
7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last