Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, study finds

Rob Waugh
Yahoo! News
Religious people are less intelligent than non-believers, according to a new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades.

A team led by Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies. Even in extreme old age, intelligent people are less likely to believe, the researchers found - and the reasons why people with high IQs shun religion may not be as simple as previously thought.

For instance, intelligent people are more likely to be married, and more likely to be successful in life - and this may mean they “need” religion less.

The studies used in Zuckerman's paper included a life-long analysis of the beliefs of a group of 1,500 gifted children - those with IQs over 135 - in a study which began in 1921 and continues today.

Even at 75 to 91 years of age, the children from Lewis Terman’s study scored lower for religiosity than the general population - contrary to the widely held belief that people turn to God as they age. The researchers noted that data was lacking about religious attitudes in old age and say, “Additional research is needed to resolve this issue.”

As early as 1958, Michael Argyle concluded, “Although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs, and rather less likely to have pro-religious attitudes.”

A 1916 study quoted in Zuckerman’s paper (Leuba) found that, “58% of randomly selected scientists in the United States expressed disbelief in, or doubt regarding the existence of God; this proportion rose to nearly 70% for the most eminent scientists.”

The paper, published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, said “Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme—the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who “know better.”

The answer may, however, be more complex. Intelligent people may simply be able to provide themselves with the psychological benefits offered by religion - such as “self-regulation and self-enhancement,” because they are more likely to be successful, and have stable lives.

“Intelligent people typically spend more time in school—a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits,” the researchers write. “More intelligent people get higher level jobs (and better employment (and higher salary) may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs.”

“Last, more intelligent people are more likely to get and stay married (greater attachment), though for intelligent people, that too comes later in life. We therefore suggest that as intelligent people move from young adulthood to adulthood and then to middle age, the benefits of intelligence may continue to accrue.”

The researchers suggest that further research on the “function” of religion may reveal more.

“People possessing the functions that religion provides are likely to adopt atheism, people lacking these very functions (e.g., the poor, the helpless) are likely to adopt theism,” the researchers wrote.


http://news.yahoo.com/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists--study-finds--113350723.html;_ylt=Anl9d9Fy5h31I9rtU9tuQzoSscB_;_ylu=X3oDMTB1bHJlcDdhBG1pdAMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA2xuX1JlbGlnaW9uX2dhbA--;_ylg=X3oDMTBhYWM1a2sxBGxhbmcDZW4tVVM-;_ylv=3

I hate it when people make "studies" like this. People just measure intelligence in a way to bring out the outcome that suits them.

Meh, you would think 'intelligent' people would know first that correlation does not equal causation. Second, you can do this sort of study with a whole heap of related factors such as wealth which have repeatedly been shown to be more relevant - wealth seems to result in education and atheism, not education resulting in atheism. In fact, the researchers noted that as the article says. Unfortunately, editors show just how unintelligent all humanity is by using such inaccurate and controversial headlines to sucker us all in to reading and commenting... Dang.

In other news just in, the pope is a catholic and water is wet.

Ozboy assuming he's better than others, there's a first

Damnit, I wanted to say 'inb4 ozboy'

Too late.

Explains Islam's lack of Nobel Prize winners...

Muhammad Yunus, Mohammed El Baradei, Orhan Pamuk and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan spring to mind.

Ironic as Iraq had the greatest libraries of man until Ghengis fucked shit up.

Islam was on the cusp of so much discovery even before Renaissance times.

Were miles ahead in things like Astronomy and Architecture.

-PB

Indeed.

That said, in the 100 years or so before the sacking of Baghdad the Muslim world was swaying towards the anti-intellectual works of Imam Hamid al-Ghazali. Part of his work included the beginning of the codification of Islamic Law.

Mathematics, Science, Literature as well as the things you listed were philosophically deemed works of the devil.

Islamic intellectualism still hasn't recovered.

I think it was more that he blurred the lines between intellectualism, science and Islamic belief systems to the point where faith became the dominant feature and the former two were abandoned.

Interesting to hear. The two smartest people I know are religious.

As the man says, peace prizes don't count.

:-s :-s

Sample doesn't hold true for this forum.

All I can say is

I Knew it :lol:

Pretty obvious really - religion is for people without the intellectual capabilities for thinking for themselves.

IF religious people are less intelligent, and thupercoach is an atheist, what's his excuse?

I don't think economics should count, either.

I have no issue with people of faith - but I would state that anyone who ignores science and historical fact in order to BLINDLY accept the contents of a book (written before most of the scientific discoveries were made) is a prize dullard. End of story. Not sorry if that offends anyone - it's reality.

The problem with research like the above is that it takes all of these dullards into account, which inevitably brings down the average IQ of the religious groups.

Why not?

Self-evident.

Lolol what a load of shit. Absolutely embarrassing to the human race that someone would publish this. Religious people have driven so much of man's development.

i could never live the way they do, but it's simply embarrassing when people disregard them.

Article on study of all religions.


Lets turn it in to an article to highlight how messed up Muslims are. It is only the Muslims who are effed up after all.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

-PB

This.

There is a surprising number of people of the mistaken belief that they have IQs over 135.

:lol: Given the average IQ in Australia is 108, there are a large number of people claiming to have bizarrely high IQ's.

That said, IQ is only a measure of potential, not of actual intelligence.

??
I thought 108 was the average for an Asian country (Sth Korea?) - Australia was about 98 IIRC. Where do your stats come from?
As for IQ not being a measure of intelligence, then I would argue intelligence is just an arbitrary word itself. Somehow I don't think someone with profound mental retardation (IQ circa 25), is going to discover cold fusion.

I remember reading it the other day. I might be wrong.

In many regards it is arbitrary. A person's IQ score is indicative of their potential rather than an actual measure of what they know. Of course a person with an IQ of 25 isn't going to discover cold fusion. But as a measure of potential a person with an above average IQ, say 120, isn't necessarily using that intelligence.

Ridiculous study, some of the most intelligent people to have ever lived (and had access to the tools needed to showcase their intellect) have been religious. I mean hell, pretty much all of the "famous smart people", for want of a better term, have been religious. Galileo, Newton, Darwin were all religious, Einstein, although for most of his life was agnostic, by the end of it he was pantheistic, up until ~2008 Stephen Hawkin believed in God (M-theory eventually changed his belief). Religious views have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. I mean hell, my IQ is 138 and I'm religious. I know IQ is hardly a good indicator of intelligence, but the fact that I'm acing computer science without killing myself with study kind of implies that I am a fair bit above average intelligence.
Religious views are built over the course of a lifetime, influenced by a person's experiences and interpretations, as well as either ignorance or understanding of particular facets of life. The dumbest person on earth is no different to the most brilliant mind to have ever existed when it comes to how their religious views are formed.

I am guessing you're doing first year computer science, not having read many research papers yet, because you're rather ignorant of the scientific method and basic statistics. Rather than cherry picking facts and a couple of people, you might want to look into the concept of 'average'.

It's not the size of your IQ, it's what you do with it.

Ridiculous post.

Studies suggest that on average religious people are less intelligent as measured by IQ (or other means) than non-religious people.
There are always outliers, that doesn't change anything.

You might find that in the past the great thinkers were more commonly religious, just because virtually everyone was religious for most periods in the past. In fact, for those times there was an abnormally high proportion of non-religious amongst the "great thinkers".

Calling a Pantheist like Einstein religious is highly debatable. His use of the word "God" was little more than a metaphor for the nature of the universe.
Darwin was not religious except when he was young. Was a self described Agnostic lacking belief in a god but not ruling it out.

Steven Hawking was religious and was de-converted by string theory?? My god.
No he was always an agnostic atheist. He just happened to claim that M-theory is a better explanation of the universe than religion. But they changed nothing of his agnostic views.



There are many different forms of intelligence which do not necessarily correlate.
Someone can be extremely logically intelligent with a high IQ and a computer science degree but be emotionally unintelligent enough to end up believing in flying spaghetti monsters if it suits their emotional needs/wants.

Edited by neanderthal: 15/8/2013 01:43:23 PM

The flying spaghetti monster does exist, just outside the realms of space and time.

Australia's average is 98
http://www.statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-lowest-average-iq/
http://www.iqtestforfree.net/average-IQ-by-country.html
http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Behead those who insult Flying Spaghetti Monster:twisted: =p~

Well called, GA.

AN IQ above 135 is 3 standard deviations above average and puts you in the top 2% of smartest minds on earth. Bottom line, stop taking online IQ tests because it's bollocks.

I was only part-kidding. The real question is this - does being religious or atheist help a person get the best out if themselves?

Is there a correlation at all?

Does it vary from faith to faith?

Now that's interesting, not your IQ size per se.

I already touched on this. It's only a measure of potential not your ability to apply that intelligence.

Edited by afromanGT: 15/8/2013 04:23:47 PM

Couldn't find another thread on religion (is there one?) so thought I'd put my religion question here..

So over the last few months I've been doing a bit of info-finding on religion. I'm going in pretty open-minded - I don't necessarily believe nor don't believe in a lot of religious stories, but I'm interested in the bible/church/etc and how they function, and how they view things. And at the end of my journey, I hope I'm in a better, more-informed position to make more judgements on things.

Anyway, a question for any religious types out there, or people who are able to talk about religion without just saying "zomg me be an atheist, evrythin else is st00pid":

What is the deal with the Trinity? What are the pros/cons/reasons for believing, or not believing, in it? I've been going to a Baptist church who believe in it, yet I have a mate who is Christodelphian and he says they don't believe in it. Anyone have a laymans terms view on what the trinity actually is (the best I've been described so far is three seperate people are NOT each other but are all god - and I've had the comparison of an egg shell, egg white & egg yolk all being an egg as the best example) and what it means to believe or not believe in the trinity?

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They really want to confuse the fuck outa ya! I'm not here to steam roll my views onto others but I did go to a catholic primary school who also acknowledge the trinity. In the Bible Jesus talks to God, yet Jesus is the Son of God thus making him God also but there's this other thing called the Holy Ghost and tbh that's confusing enough. It's like the three stooges wouldn't be a funny without either Larry, Curly or Moe - as to the Holy trinity is not as divine and spiritual without The Son, The Father and the Holy Ghost...

"In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti"

The holy trinity is simply the belief in the three manifestations of god - God himself, His son, and the belief that there is god in all of us.

Christodelphians don't believe that Jesus is a manifestation of god and hence don't believe in the Trinity.

Yep, so that's about as far as my understanding has taken me before I posted.

So what is the effects of believing, or not believing, in the trinity? Why is it so divisional? Does it make beliefs/meanings of other events completely different?

Basically - why the need to divide opinion over something like this? That's basically where I'm at with my understanding of it.

EDIT: pretty much everyone/where I went to find info showed me this picture



I guess what I'm mostly confused/interested in is why it is such a divisional topic - why people do or don't believe in it, and what it means to do so

Edited by pv4: 4/11/2013 10:17:27 AM

Well that's your answer. Christianity is a bunch of differing opinions and translations of the Bible. Which is why there are so many different Christian sub-religions. All adhere to similar dogma but also understand or take statements from the bible in different context.

It's the standard 19th century Christianity division. A guy stars a belief and hand picks what he's going to believe in from the bible. See: 7th day adventists, Mormon, Jehova's Witness, etc.

You came to the wrong place.

The Trinity was invented to convince people of the divinity of Jesus.

It's a concept that's always been logically confusing to me, even when I was a Christian.

Just in general. Although I've only really looked at Christianity so far

I thought it had been well established that I am a former Christian, and my father is a lay-minister in the UCA.

The most interesting religion is Norse Mythology, IMO.

Seconded. Their tales are elaborate and fascinating.

Flying Spaghetti Monster yo.

-PB

Religion is for those who are too stupid to think for themselves.

Come the fuck at me EasternGlory

I don't know if you read my megabump, but I quite clearly asked for these types of opinions not to be included

If it gives meaning and governance to their lives then good. You know what's scarier than religion? The notion that the only thing stopping many people from acting like total barbarians to each other is the belief that god is watching them.

I'm an atheist, but I think Afro has mentioned this before but the average punter is partaking in Pascal's Wager:

It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or does not exist. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in God or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).

Too many people are happy to live an believe in God for fear of the afterlife.

By the same token, if God's love is truly unconditional then it shouldn't matter if you believe in him or not.

For me atheism is the same as a religious belief in God but on the flip side. How can one know with certainty that there is not higher power that connects everything in this universe? You cant. Being an Athiest is just as narrow minded as being a religious person. Be a good person and live your life and keep an open mind.

Firstly it's atheist, no capital.

secondly, it is not that I am not open to the possibility, but that I require evidence, proof if you will, blind faith is not enough.

from the ancient religions grew Judaism, from that Christianity and from that Islam (not the country) all picking and choosing what they needed from the ancients to get the people to follow them. show me proof of the one true god and I'll join you next Sunday for communion and mass. But until then, I'll still be an atheist.

But...WHAT IF THE NORSE WERE RIGHT?!

Ahhh the age old question. Love it.

I don't go to church and I'm not a dogmatic follower of any religion. I think you missed the point. An atheist does not believe in any type/version/form of God. The door is closed on that subject. So to keep an open mind means you are not atheist.

If you get past the guy with the beard in the sky image and view it more as an ultimate power source that connects everything there is some merit to that theory. I don't believe it as absolute truth, but I'm open to the possibilities.

Listening to Amon Amarth is a great way to learn about it :lol:

Choosing not to believe in something due to lack of evidence is equal to believing the rehashed scriptures about people who lived over a millennium ago?

But God needs your love Afro, he craves it. That and he takes pleasure in making innocent people suffer to teach others a lesson. What a champ!

Being an Atheist doesn't mean that you are certain that god doesn't exist. That would be a "gnostic atheist" or in laymans terms a stupid atheist. Where as the vast majority of atheists with a working cerebral cortex are agnostic.
The word atheist meaning to rule out the possibility of a god is a myth created by religious people.

I'm an agnostic atheist, and therefore to me a creator of the universe as it was 13.8 billion years ago sounds like a perfectly reasonable possibility.
But to me there's also no more chance of Christianity or Islam being true than Scientology or the Spaggetti monster.
All clearly made up to control people and fulfil their desire to understand the universe or in many cases to feel comfort in death.



True but there's better philosophy available to live your life by than religion.
It is important for people to live by some kind of philosophy though because it gives them direction and a sense of who they are which is very important for the self esteem.

Edited by neanderthal: 4/11/2013 04:34:15 PM

uggh... now I have to answer this.

No. All I am stating is that having an OPEN MIND means you are not an atheist. ;)

It worries me that so many people created a homophobic-sadist-murderer to assist with their self esteem :-s

I'm open minded but a non-theist :-s I will entertain the possibility of spirituality when something convincing can be presented reasonably to me.

I think I covered above why this is utter nonsense.


You are an atheist. These guy's just don't know the different between a gnostic and agnostic atheist. I feel a little bit embarrassed for them.

You've missed the point entirely. The only thing stopping these people from committing heinous crimes is the idea that they're being constantly watched by an all-powerful and judgemental deity. If that's what it takes, good.

There are plenty of other more rational philosophies to live by, but these people clearly aren't rational if a deity is the ONLY thing that stops them from committing murder.

Personally I don't like labeling myself anything for that matter. If people ask me I just say I'm open minded to new ideas but I know what I don't believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism Read the first sentence.

I'm not here to argue semantics. Broad sense, no God never was.

Edited by leftrightout: 4/11/2013 04:55:29 PM

Hah okay. But I think they generally just use the murder thing for arguments sake. I'm pretty sure we could have a functioning society with something other than fear of a God stopping them.

I may be wrong, but I think Christians believe in the trinity. Jews and Muslims are probably more similar in terms of their believing in one god and so on.

Most Christian religions believe in the trinity but not all. This was the reason this thread was resurrected.

The trinity is still god though, so they believe in the same god.

This is my god:cool:

[youtube]lrvGbRpvTQY[/youtube]

Yes it is correct that I do not believe in god, it doesn't mean I won't believe in one if shown proof of ones or many's existence. I don't believe in string theory either but research may prove right and therefore I will believe!

I wish we knew more on pre-roman Briton religion(being of british heritage)

That doesn't seem to contradict what I said.
I think you may have misread it as "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of...existence of deities". Entirely different. Poorly worded actually.

Yes all atheist's including myself "reject belief in a deity". That doesn't mean we rule out the possibility of one. It just means we choose not to believe in any.
The narrower atheist it refers to who is the gnostic atheist. A rare creature.


The fact is that most people who call themselves atheists do not reject the possibility of a creator.
It's a big straw man argument that religious people talk about in their little circles while ignorant to what most atheists actually think.

Edited by neanderthal: 4/11/2013 05:21:40 PM

I concede - but people should be more specific when claiming they are an atheist.

Though this was a good quote from that page which reaffirms why I don't like labeling myself...

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

And funny enough that was Sam Harris who was on Joe Rogans Podcast last week.



Edited by leftrightout: 4/11/2013 05:29:27 PM

Your god was raped by a horse, impregnated and gave birth to Odin's 8-legged Steed.

If it takes the threat of an all powerful being to stop them from committing murder, I don't think much else will cut the mustard.

Christadelphian checking in here, there are quite a few verses in the Bible which show that the trinity isn't from the Bible itself.

Probably the best verse to show the difference between God and the son of God is 1 Timothy 2:5.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

Thought I'd chip in with a bit of explanation of why we don't believe in the trinity. There are a couple of other verses as well which I could look up if people were interested enough.

this thread has turned into a huge crapstorm of opinions...


but anyway, no "study" can convince me that either side is smarter. However I am an atheist, and I still acknowledge that there could have easily been a man called "jesus christ", but I do not believe in there being any sort of god/deity that is open to having people die in his name, or supposedly "loving all", but hating anyone that does not believe in them, or homosexual.

And how does conforming to a broad sweeping statement about something you clearly have no understanding of rank in your intelligence scale?

People don't need to be more specific when they say they are atheists, it's a very clear word with a very clear definition

Hells yeah.

There also seems to be a bit of confusion about the burden of proof when it comes to theistic discussion.

Claiming that religious people would fly off the handle, raping & killing en masse if they were to lose their faith is as absurd as any other unsubstantiated claim.

Anyway, how's straightening out that clusterfuck of a theory of the trinity, pv4?

DISCLAIMER IN ADVANCE: Yes, I'm mildly trolling here. :)



Since you're citing the bible as an explanation of what you believe, how do you explain Judges 1:19?

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

1) Is this really stating that the all-powerful creator of the universe is powerless against iron chariots?
2) Does a car count as an iron chariot?
3) Does this explain the inverse relationship between the number of cars in the world and the general decline in religious belief over the last century?
4) Is god only powerless against me while I'm actually in my car, or is simple ownership of a car enough to protect me from god?

Stupid quotes are for those too ignorant to educate themselves, rather than just being angry about something they don't understand in the slightest.
But, I'd rather have this discussion with the baked shit of a Sasquatch.


/my input in this thread.

I won't bite at Q's 2-4 but I will attempt to explain number 1 as best I can. In the process of claiming the land there were a number of instances when Israel did not drive out the other idolatrous nations/city states around them. They were reproved for this in Judges 2:1-3:

And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.

That is what I was able to come up with in order to best explain that. My best guess is that even with God's support they baulked at going against these iron chariots. In short they had to do what they were commanded and when they didn't God withdrew support.

And iron chariots aren't really a problem if you take a squiz at Judges 4, Sisera had 900 iron chariots and he got taken down.
:)

Clear definition yet clearly different types of atheist.