Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

[mcdiddy]

This study is wack. Though, as shown in the past (the enlightenment), religion does reject common facts and substitutes there own so they can't be proven wrong. It is smarter if u aren't in religion so your thoughts and points of view aren't obscured by an overwhelming presence called the church.

[devonin]

Er...if you'd paid any attention to the discussion as it developed, you'd see exactly why saying something like "This study is wack" makes very little sense.

Further, a large percentage, a majority even, of the great scientific minds of the enlightenment were quite devoutly religious. In some instances, actively supported by the church.

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by devonin

Er...if you'd paid any attention to the discussion as it developed, you'd see exactly why saying something like "This study is wack" makes very little sense.

Further, a large percentage, a majority even, of the great scientific minds of the enlightenment were quite devoutly religious. In some instances, actively supported by the church.

Let us not forget that science was originally the study of God's creations.

[g4z33b0]

You should know better than that. -Dev

[Dark Ronin]

I dont see how IQ and religious affiliation could have anything to do with one another. Religous views are primarily caused by the way in which one is raised. Of course there are instances where people will continue their education and learn so much that they stop beliving in a god, but then there are also some people who learn so much that they have decided that there must be a god, or something with greater power than us anyway. I believe that god can deffinitly limit ones ability to learn, by causeing one to dismiss some things based entirely on the fact that "it goes against the Bible" or any other religous text for that matter. I just dont see how being religious could affect ones IQ, when there are incredibly smart people who are athiest and others equally as smart from nearly every religion. I saw the peice about the survey, but a survey by deffinition is random. It doesnt take into account every person, and could very possibly be inaccurate. Even if it is accurate and it does show that athiests are smarter, it still doesnt mean that they have higher IQs because they are athiest, it could be a coincidence. Now if it were a published study that showed a huge change in IQ between the two groups then I might give it more credit, but I have yet to see such a study.

[devonin]

There's a difference between pointing to a correlation and saying "We found a correlation" and pointing to a correlation and saying "We found that one necessarily causes the other"

Certainly they leave that conclusion strongly implied, as shown by the OP jumping immidiately to that claim, but if the people surveyed demonstrated a tendency towards being intelligent and non-religious, and unintelligent and religious, the correlation is there.

My question is this Dark Ronin: Given your statement that people who are raised religious and remain devout can be limited in what they learn, because they are prone to reject things on the grounds that it is rejected by the bible...how can such an ignorant behavior -not- effect your overall intelligence?

Your ability to analyze, to critically evaluate, comes with use and practice. If you are never critically evaluating as important a thing as your religion, and rejecting anything that opposed your belief without analyzing it, I can't see how it would -not- negatively effect your potential overall intelligence.

[Dark Ronin]

My only problem with your statement is that there are essentially two types of intelligence. There is a person’s total accumulated knowledge, as well as their ability and capacity to learn. (Ex: A fifty year old college professor would certainly know a lot about things in his field, he would be a very “intelligent” person. Then you could also have a seven year old prodigy who is a junior in high school, and can pick up nearly any book and quickly learn and understand every bit of it, also incredibly “intelligent”.) When you look at it that way, it would be impossible for religion to affect it.

Let’s say a college student who worked hard for his knowledge could choose to discontinue his learning because it somehow offended his religious views. This would end his ability to accumulate knowledge, but he could still be intelligent in the sense that he might have the ability to learn things far more quickly and efficiently than other people.

The only type of intelligence that should be viewed as true intelligence would be ones personal capacity for learning. Your total knowledge will eventually reach a plateau, a point where it can no longer grow. True intelligence could make ones plateau much higher than someone else’s, but when religion is introduced it might possibly cause a persons total amount of knowledge to level out much more quickly than it should have. And so with or without religion one would still have that ability to learn, religion could only affect the total amount of knowledge you have. I only wish I knew how to put a simple graph up here instead of having to go through such a lengthy explanation.

On a final note even atheism is a sort of religion. Atheists completely dismiss the possibility that there might in fact be some sort of higher being. We can’t prove that there is nothing supernatural, and on that same note we can’t prove that there is either. All the information we know or think we know could be completely worthless. There could be a major breakthrough on any given day. And so the ones who would be most intelligent in the first sense I mentioned would have to be agnostics, or just anyone who has a really open mind. You can’t dismiss anything. I mean we all KNOW the earth is flat, right?

I hope that answers your question. To sum it all up there could be no correlation between the two. If there were to be one it would be that anyone with an open mind would in theory win out in the end. Both atheists and religious people have limits that they choose to set for themselves whereas agnostics have no such limit.

[sjoecool1991]

Considering all the smartest people I know are religious.
In fact, the least intelligent person I have ever met is atheist.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by sjoecool1991

Considering all the smartest people I know are religious.
In fact, the least intelligent person I have ever met is atheist.

Anecdotes are rull good evidence.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Dark Ronin]

Originally Posted by sjoecool1991

Considering all the smartest people I know are religious.
In fact, the least intelligent person I have ever met is atheist.

It would be completely asinine to base your opinion of an entire people on the actions of the few that you come in contact with everyday. One of my best friends in school was Asian, he was an idiot, so by your statement all Asians must be idots, right? If A=B and A=C then B=C logic doesnt apply very often in the real world.

[kylehaas]

Hmmm...
That may be true for the whole amount of people on our planet, since I would agree that an upper-class or educated person is much more likely to be atheist in the first place.

However, that gives no man any rights to go around and proclaim that atheism will make you smarter.... It sure as hell won't.

I go to a catholic high school which is the most expensive in America.
It also has some of the smartest students... We are all catholic.
It is only due to the masses of people whom are religious...

If you think about it: Would voodoo worshipers in Africa count as religious people?

If so, this survey is complete bogus.

[ARMSBot101]

It makes sense, I guess. Atheists are more open to different ideologies that religious people and they take in more information.

[Sir_Thomas]

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...pray_1108.html

Quote:
With no rain in sight, Gov. Sonny Perdue is looking for a little spiritual help to get North Georgia out of its drought.

Perdue's office has begun sending out invitations to a prayer service for rain at the Capitol next week.

The service is scheduled for Tuesday at 11:45 a.m. on the Washington Street side of the statehouse.

Heather Teilhet, his spokeswoman, said the governor began talking about wanting to host a service to pray for rain on his way back from Washington D.C. last week. He was in D.C. meeting with federal officials and the governors of Alabama and Florida to discuss the region's water crisis.

Perdue, whose son is a Baptist preacher, has had similar prayer services in the past.

"Georgia needs rain. The issue at the heart of our drought problems is a lack of rain," Teilhet said. "And there is nothing the government can do to make that happen.

"The governor recognizes that the request has got to be made to a higher power."

Teilhet said the governor's office has invited spiritual leaders from several faiths and dominations to participate in the service.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

When you look at it that way, it would be impossible for religion to affect it.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am claiming the possibility that being religious effects your intelligence. That is utterly backwards.

The implication I got from the data was that being an intelligent person makes you less inclined to be religious, not the other way around.

The people who have high IQs, and thus are generally more well educated, more prone to question, and analyze are then less likely to strongly support belief systems that are centred around faith.

-Obviously- this is not a universal case. I can point to several religious people on this forum that I consider quite highly intelligent (Chardish leaps to mind as a good example) and I know plenty of people on this forum who jump into religious discussions as an OMG ATHEIST who are, frankly, morons.

But what the data of this study suggested, to me anyway, was that the more prone you are to thinking critically, questioning, and analyzing the world around you, the less likely you are to be a strongly devout member of a faith-based religion.

[Dark Ronin]

Originally Posted by devonin

But what the data of this study suggested, to me anyway, was that the more prone you are to thinking critically, questioning, and analyzing the world around you, the less likely you are to be a strongly devout member of a faith-based religion.

I just don’t think atheists do this very well. Any atheist I have ever head of completely refuses to believe that there could possibly be some higher power, but what if there is a god? What if the billions of people who aren’t atheist are right?

If, as you said, being intelligent means you think critically, question things, and analyze the word around you without bias then atheists are on the same level as religious people in that respect. They completely refuse to believe in the possibility of a god, the same way a religious person might refuse to believe the big bang theory. Neither can be proven or disproven with the technology we have now. So both are equally good explanations. The problem is when you say God DID it, no doubt about it that’s how it happened and I don’t care what anyone else says. But that view can be shared equally with atheists who might say the universe was DEFFINTLY caused by a few random clouds of gasses coming together and reacting in such a way as to create everything in existence. A truly intelligent person would be open to all the possibilities until it is scenically proven, and even then he wouldn’t base everything on that fact.

Other than that argument I really have nothing. It’s true that many people who continue their education do give up religion. So it is entirely possible that at this point in time atheists could be smarter than religous people. I wish I could redo this same survey, but focus more on agnostics. I agree with your definition of intelligence, Devonin, and I really think agnostic people portray this attitude the best.

[Relambrien]

Dark Ronin, you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of atheism.

"Atheism" refers to the lack of belief in a god or gods. It comes from the word "theism," roughly meaning "religion," and the prefix "a-" meaning "not."

"Strong atheism" is a subset of atheism which asserts the total nonexistence of divine beings.
"Weak atheism" is a subset of atheism which asserts the nonexistence of divine beings until evidence is shown to the contrary.

Agnosticism also falls into the category of atheism, as does things like apatheism. Coming from "apathy" and "theism," an apatheist is someone who generally doesn't care about the question of a higher power.

I believe you'll find that you're grouping all atheists into the "strong atheist" category when strong atheism is only one of many parts of atheism as a whole.

[Dark Ronin]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Dark Ronin, you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of atheism.

First off athiesm falls into the very broad catagory of secular humanism. Here is a brief summary of an essay I did on the topic for a religion class. As you should see I fully understand what atheism is.

The Faith of Secular Humanism

Secular Humanism is a faith-based system (i.e., a religion) whose adherents believe, among other things, that the material world is all that exists. Secular humanists believe that the highest being that exists is mankind. They do not believe in a supernatural God.

Since secular humanists do not believe in God, obviously they do not believe in a Creator. They hypothesize that life simply sprang into existence, through a process of chance events. Higher life forms came into existence, they believe through the process of biological evolution. They believe these things on the basis of faith, as many of the more honest scientists who are evolutionists have admitted. Many scientists who are evolutionists have explained that to believe in a supernatural God is not “scientific”. Therefore they hypothesize evolution to explain the existence of life. They hope to find evidence to support their hypothesis.

Since, to secular humanists, God does not exist, any appeal to His authority would be considered to be foolish. The only authority that secular humanists appeal to is the authority of men who are perceived to be highly educated, brilliant and wise.

Secular humanists believe the Bible to be simply a book of human traditions and ideas. To them, it has no authority. The only writings that have authority for them would be the writing of men and women whom they perceive to be especially brilliant and wise.

Secular humanists generally reject the concepts of moral absolutes and of “sin.” In a situation in which Christians might see a need for repentance and forgiveness and forsaking sinful behavior, secular humanists would more likely see a need for every person to decide for himself what is right or wrong, and to try to build personal self-esteem regardless of an individual’s behavior.

While a Christian’s goals are determined by God and are influenced by the reality of an eternity after this life has passed, the secular humanist goals are entirely focused on this present physical existence.

[devonin]

Well, while your excerpt certainly suggests that you've done a deal of research into secular humanist tradition, your definitions still seem to be rather prone to the hasty generalisation. Relambrien was pretty much spot on making the distinction between Strong and Weak Atheists and Agnosticism (Though as he seems to keep doing, left out the distinction between Strong and Weak Agnosticism)

The problem comes in when you try to affix the label of a religion to secular beliefs. While you can make the argument (And I enjoy that argument) that science meets many of the same requirements as a religion, the key difference as it pertains to this discussion is this (Or at least as it pertains to my post in the discussion)

"Religion" especially western religion, most especially Christianity is "faith-based" Many of the questions don't have answers, or their answer contains no evidence, and followers are told to simply accept and believe.

"Science" especially western science, is "Proof-based" Many of the questions don't have answers, but the ones that do have answers contain evidence: visible, testable, reproducable evidence that can allow you to understand and accept.

So even if Science has some of the trappings of religion, and even if your average non-religious person may accept the "proofs" of science in the same way they accept the "faiths" of religion, that doesn't change the integral difference that science -has- that proof that you can confirm yourself.

And that is why I can perfectly understand the claim that people who are more intelligent, more critical in their analysis and evaluation of things, will be less prone to be religious.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well, while your excerpt certainly suggests that you've done a deal of research into secular humanist tradition, your definitions still seem to be rather prone to the hasty generalisation. Relambrien was pretty much spot on making the distinction between Strong and Weak Atheists and Agnosticism (Though as he seems to keep doing, left out the distinction between Strong and Weak Agnosticism)

Well, the reason for this is that I don't particularly understand the difference myself. I think it has something to do with strong agnosticism stating it's not possible to know about the existence of divine beings, and weak agnosticism stating that it could be possible, but the person doesn't know it at the moment. I'm not even entirely sure if that's correct, and I don't know any further differences.

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

As you should see I fully understand what atheism is.

And it appears you do, except that the following excerpt from one of your posts points to an extremely hasty generalization:

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

Any atheist I have ever head of completely refuses to believe that there could possibly be some higher power, but what if there is a god?

This implies that you believe all atheists are strong atheists, since every atheist you have ever heard of completely refuses to admit to the possibility of a divine being.

[devonin]

Just for clarification's sake.

Atheist - "A" meaning "Not" and "Theos" meaning "Religion" - Not Religious
Agnostic - "A" meaning "Not" and "Gnostos" meaning "Knowing" - Not Knowing (Not Knowable)

Weak Agnosticism is largely analagous to weak Atheism. A Weak Agnostic says "Having reviewed all the evidence on both sides, I'm still unable to make a choice, so I'll continute to withhold judgement until more evidence presents itself"

Strong Agnosticism is not at all analagous to strong Atheism. A Strong Agnostic says "Asking questions about this at all is a total waste of time, because whether there is evidence or not, that evidence is necessarily beyond human comprehension"

I should really make a sticky defining a lot of these commonly used terms.