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 5)
7 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7 
on May 09, 2006
Color has never been an issue in scripture.


KFC, Of course. You missed my point. The point was that scripture once condoned slavery. Yet we don't bar former slaves, regardless of color, from being priests. I was simply suggesting that using ancient scriptural supports to buttress contemporary discrimination is a problem.

Be well.
on May 09, 2006
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.


Hello Kingbee, You make excellent points here, it is a mystery...well not all that mysterious, if we consider power and masculinity in the equation. Reform Judaism, as well as Reconstructionist Judaism ordain women as rabbis. Soto Zen Buddhism, as well as Son Buddhism (Korean Zen) ordains women as monks and priests. I have ordained two women priests and made one the abbot of a Zen Center within my Temple. I know there are some Protestant Christian denominations who do the same. It seems the more orthodox or fundamentalist the group the less likely this will happen.

Be well.
on May 09, 2006
Soto Zen Buddhism, as well as Son Buddhism (Korean Zen) ordains women as monks and priests.

Happily true. Unhappily Theravadan Buddhism in South East Asia ties itself up in knots trying to find valid reasons not to allow the full ordination of women. This is even more bizarre than the situation in Christianity, because the Buddha himself inaugurated the ordination of bhikkhunis (nuns), albeit with some reluctance according to at least one scriptural source.

The idea that men and women have different, though complementary abilities is not without merit; however wouldn't any kind of ministry benefit from a full range of human abilities? I think the problem, is that those who believe in male only priests/ministers in whatever religion see the role of clergy entirely in the light of power and authority. This is limiting.

The fact that there are both patriarchalists and feminists within contemporary religions suggests that the problem is not one of individual religions but of an even greater cultural prejudice so strong that it affected all of those religions that came about during the Axial Age. Link

It is said that God doesn't change; that is true by definition (along with his omniscience and omnipotence). But we do, and it is perfectly natural for our religious understanding to evolve with our understanding of art, science, philosophy and the rest of life. Some in the age of the internet, would prefer to stay with the social ideas of 3,000 years ago, others, more reasonably, think that we can now do better.
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.

I remember, KFC. I was just giving you a little winding up...
on May 09, 2006
The point was that scripture once condoned slavery.


Would you like to elaborate on this? Scripture also commands one woman for one man yet we do see plural marriages going on. Most of the time to their detriment I might add. Same with adultery and murder. The man after God's own heart (gasp) committed murder and adultery. Because it was between the pages of the bible does that make it right? The bible is not just a book of do's. It's also a book of don'ts and we see the examples of good and bad played out amongst its pages.

This is one of the reasons I believe makes the bible so authentic. All the worts and scars are there for all to see. Nothing is covered up. If it was man's book, it would be very clean and antiseptic; much more cleaned up than it is. Only the good side of each one of these people profiled would be seen. How can one come to God trying to follow these people? They were cowards, stutterers, murderers,liars, disobedient, sulky, nasty, etc. Not exactly fitting the hero senerio.

new patriarchs declared menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth 'unclean'


actually this came from the OT law and was tied up with the fact that menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth represented new life coming into the world. It pointed to the human condition of sin. Reproduction meant another sinner would enter the world and thus render the world even more sinful than before. That's why sacrifices were done at the birth of a child and a cleansing ritual performed. From what I understand men took this to greater limits using it to demonize women and make them lower than dirt. Don't blame God for this. Satan likes to twist and turns things a bit.

bad enough females are still being insulted, dehumanized, handicapped culturally and tormented physically


While this is horrible and not God honoring at all, I would hardly compare this to denying a woman's right to headship in a church. Christ clearly elevated women and is grieved that this is happening all over the world. But rest assured, paying the piper is still part of the game plan. Everything will have its day in court.

I remember, KFC. I was just giving you a little winding up...


soooooo you like to push buttons, eh? Well then I'm going to have some fun with you!!! What's good for the gander........



on May 09, 2006
Kingbee: I love you. Here's an insightful for your comment.
on May 10, 2006
the scripture is also clear that we shouldn't suffer a witch to live. Those that say that they believe every word of the Bible without question or interpretation should explain why they aren't sacrificing animals and stoning people to death. You'll find nothing in the Bible telling us to stop the vast majority of Old Testament practices that we've moved on from.

Yet, every word of the Bible is perfect, but we've decided to "interpret" the New Testament to mean that we can decide not to do stuff in the old. The lack of a clear command as to what to retain and what not to destroys the idea that the Bible isn't open to interpretation. The "Man is the head of the family" probably made sense and was probably beneficial in the bronze age. If anyone would like to point out where God gave us new mandates in a clear and concise fashion, fell free.

What many people interpret as a lack of intelligence is more of an ability to accept conflicts in the name of the overall good of the work. Dems do it all the time in politics, so do Republicans. When a Democrat turns a blind eye to the acts of their party because they prefer it in terms of the policies they DO find merit in, it doesn't mean they aren't intelligent.

Take Iraq. People claim we in the US are stupid for not understanding what is going on there. We aren't stupid, and we do understand. We simply can't throw out the baby with the bathwater, even if we differ with the bathwater 100%. Christians aren't stupid, they just tend to selectively adhere to a religion that others would throw out completely based upon facts we see as teriary to the point.
on May 10, 2006
P.S. the reason we see the bible warts and all isn't because it is "God's Book", but because it has been anathema to update and revise it. We expect people to be intelligent enough to adhere to it and not go out and start stoning witches to death.

In those terms, I think you'll find that religious people are very capable to both adhere to religion and understand what they can and can't do. I think you'll find that it takes more of a discerning eye to see the good in the midst of the bad as opposed to ignorant folks who see a bad detail and can't be bothered to do anything but toss out the whole book.

I find people who make the kind of assumptions many Atheists make to be far more blinded and, frankly, ignorant. You can be a religious person and still be open to possibilities. Atheism, by definition, is close minded.
on May 10, 2006
Wise words. However, the problem isn't just a belief in inerrant text, but inerrant text plus inerrant interpretation. When I made the very points you make above I was informed in rebuttal that Christ's words from the cross "It is finished" 'means' that the Old Covenant had passed away, and thus the awkward verses of the OT could now be ignored. To argue against a belief in inerrant scripture plus inerrant interpretation of those scriptures is just about impossible, but poses an interesting question. If the Bible gets its authority from being the Word of God, where does the 'interpretation' gets its authority?
on May 10, 2006
With palms together,

Earlier this morning I wrote a lengthy replyto KFC's comments. I posted it. I got an "error" message. In the past I resubmitted when this happened, resulting in a duplicate posting, so I assumed it went through. I was in a hurry (my "bad") as I had to run to a morning meeting and didn't check. Well, it didn't go through.

I do not believe I can reconstruct it exactly. No matter, BakerStreet did a good job saying essentially the same thing.

Odd, the meeting's discussion this morning had to do with Women in Judaism, timely, eh? It was dovetailing off a comment by an Orthodox rabbi on the DaVinci Code. The one fundamentalist Christian (brave soul he is) in our group wenyt as about ballistic as I have seen him. I have not read the book nor do intend to. I rarely read fiction. Anyway, Judaism has struggled with women's role for centuries. We attempt to find a way to understand the intent of Scripture and the Talmudic commentaries in a way that aligns with contemporary realities. The Conservative movement in Judaism has finally decided to ordain women, yet they still place a number of restrictions on their roles in general.

My sense is that once a person or group deviates from a set of "commandments" as those in the Hebrew Scripture, one is in the land of interpretation and reform. Even to attempt to follow the original commandments would be a challenge, hence the need for rabbinic interpretation in the Mishah, as well as further commentary throughout the ages. To suggest that anyone can follow God's Law as it was written in today's world is an impossible challenge. Therefore upon some basis we must choose how we will understand the Law and live within it today. The question is, upon what basis? I cannot speak for Christians or Muslims, but as for Jews, we have large assemblies of rabbinical scholars in each of the four traditions who take contemporary questions and attempt to form a response. We call this a "Responsa." In the Reform movement each congregation is free to accept or reject or modify these responsa.

Be well.
on May 10, 2006
new patriarchs declared menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth 'unclean'


actually this came from the OT law and was tied up with the fact that menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth represented new life coming into the world. It pointed to the human condition of sin. Reproduction meant another sinner would enter the world and thus render the world even more sinful than before. That's why sacrifices were done at the birth of a child and a cleansing ritual performed. From what I understand men took this to greater limits using it to demonize women and make them lower than dirt. Don't blame God for this. Satan likes to twist and turns things a bit.


KFC, With respect, this is Christian theological spin. God decides what is clean and unclean and says so in His Torah. It has nothing to do with the Christian notion of "Original Sin," a notion never accepted by the rabbis and the Jewish people. Jews never demonized women, ever. The notions of "clean" and "unclean" by the way have nothing to do with our understanding of cleanliness. They have to do with sanctioned or not sanctioned by God, in other words, the sacred and the profane.

You have suggested or implied in a number of posts that I should look into the Scripture. I take a mild offense at this. I have said repeatedly that I have studied Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. I attend synagogue weekly. As you may know, we read a portion from the Torah each week of the year and study it. I have done this for as many years as I can remember. As to your scripture, I have studied it as well, although I am certainly no where close to knowing it. Nor do I care to, it is, afterall, not my scripture, not bible to me.

Be well.
on May 10, 2006
Well guys, I can't even began to rebutt here as you have given me way to much, but let's just say we will agree to disagree. Most of the stuff you all have written I have already addressed in one form or another anyhow. For instance I'm pretty sure I explained the whole "suffer not a witch" scripture to Andy Baker somewhere along the line. That seems to be a favorite verse to pick out when one wants to show how irrevelant the bible is for today.

And Chak yes, Christ as I told you was the "body" that was revealed in the NT after only his "shadow" was seen in the Old. He fulfilled all the sacrificial system of the OT. The Old covenant was our schoolmaster, our teacher showing us how far we fall short from God and his commands. It couldn't save us, only show us. You can read more on this in Galatians.

It all makes sense Baker, really. The more I read and put the pieces together the more I'm amazed at how this is done. It's not just me either. I wish I had a dime for everyone that looked at me and said..."I had no idea this was in here" or "Now I get it." Or how it's changed lives. How can that be, if it's not relevant today? Why are many lives being changed? I believe because this word is living and active.

I believe God's word is as relevant today, as it was when it was written. I believe that God has different dispensations he's working through tho and every generation he's given more and more information, but he doesn't ever deviate from his own word in doing so. No he reveals more of it.

Believe what you will, but as for me and my house, we'll go by the book. It makes more sense than anything this crazy world has to offer....and all the answers are in there. I know because I've been on both sides of it.
on May 10, 2006
If the Bible gets its authority from being the Word of God, where does the 'interpretation' gets its authority?


ok, gotta address this one....lol. The bible interprets itself. I will be the first to say, don't believe me, the answers are in there. I can show you, but I can't make you believe it.

Peter said it best I think....."Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 2:20-21

just before he said those words he said you'd do well to take heed as like a light that shines in a dark place.

oh and another thought.....remember the temptation of Christ? What did he use in his offence against the devil? Scripture was his weapon. What scripture did he use? He reached into his quiver and pulled out three verses all written in Deut by Moses. Now Moses wrote these scriptures about 1400-1450 years before. But Christ thought them relevant still in his use of them.

Why should we do any less?
on May 10, 2006
Christian notion of "Original Sin"

Actually you might be interested to know that, while western Christians, both Catholic and Protestant accept this doctrine as formulated by St Augustine and others, it has never been emphasised by the oriental Orthodox Churches, who have an entirely different understanding of the matter. Western Christians have tended to emphasise the ''substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross, and a belief in original sin is inherent in this as Christ, according to this tradition thereby "paid the price" of our sin, inherited from Adam.

Interestingly, this is not how the Eastern Churches view the situation. In their view "man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin of Adam. According to the Orthodox, we inherit the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference came about because Augustine interpreted a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 as meaning that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that we all sin as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. Therefore, the Orthodox Church does not teach that we are born deserving to go to hell and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that result from the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin are not a part of Orthodox belief". Link

In many ways Orthodox Christianity seems to share a belief in the essential goodness of man and of creation that is characteristic of other eastern religions.
on May 10, 2006
Hmmmm interesting Chak. I wonder what they do with the scriptures that are very clear in the opposite view of the essential goodness of man; that the heart is deceitful among all other things? That none seek after God...none. That our rightesousness is as filthy rags type of thing. Actually just turn the page backward and you see in 3:23 it says, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

I mean I look at the writings of David, Isaiah, Paul and see just the opposite. I don't believe the scriptures teach that man is basically good at all. But I do know and understand that it is a popular teaching.

What I always do when there's a question on the interpretation of a particular scripture is to hold it up to the light of other scriptures that are much clearer in understanding. I do know that many run with an obscure or cloudy or scripture and ignore the rest that could shed more light on a discrepancy. This is how many doctrines are formed and many religions established.

I have seen this up close and personal as well. When this happens, I know they don't want the truth, they want the group.

It's funny you mention Romans 5, I just studied that and it's the Greek that we look at as we do. My preacher uses Greek to bring out the real meanings behind our English words. One of the things we looked at was the past tense..."sinned" in that verse 12. It means when Adam sinned, we all did. Adam represented all mankind; he was our representative.

I would say we inherit both the consequences of our sin (nature) and the guilt of that same. But we can trade it for a much better inheritance if we so choose...

We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.
7 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7