Intelligent People 'less Likely To Believe In God'

[scotter]

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/211...n-God'.html

 

Content pasted:

 

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

 

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.

 

But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics

 

Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.

 

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

 

A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.

 

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.

 

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

 

He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time as people became more intelligent.

 

But Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College, London, said it failed to take account of a complex range of social, economic and historical factors.

 

"Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response," he said.

 

Dr Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at Leeds University, said the conclusion had "a slight tinge of Western cultural imperialism as well as an anti-religious sentiment".

 

Dr David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt institutions."

 

Source Credit: UK Telegraph.

 

-----

 

This post is worth posting and sharing. No hard feelings on my part, or else I wouldn't have post it with a catchy title.

 

I haven't read all the follow-up feedbacks and comments, so there could be overlapping. My own comment would be that belief has a content of faith, and faith is the emotional part. Subscribing the notion of EQ, I think intelligent people have have high IQs no doubt, just that the high IQ part overwhelms the EQ part. So it is a natural explanation.

 

btw, I have been quite away since last time I post about in the other Department - I have been waiting for some phone calls. I am like old-fashioned dial-up, so I had to minimize internet access.

[florduh]

I think there are many intelligent theologians, but the masses that make up the huge numbers of believers are the less intelligent people.

 

God belief, and specific religious dogma in particular, has little or no logical footing (despite valiant attempts by apologists). The emotional factor is what makes a believer, and faith requires no logic. In fact, logic and faith are exclusive of each other.

 

I think that even stupid people who would have the courage to question and think about what they have been told to believe since childhood would in many cases stop believing. But it is much easier to not think, go along with the rest of your friends and family, and just never question anything. Intelligent people have a harder time doing that.

 

The Christian version of God, especially, gives some hope for a better life (at least after death!) to the less fortunate. That group is largely comprised of the uneducated. That's why the religion has traditionally had such a strong hold on American slaves and the rural poor. With more education and more thinking, it becomes harder to shut one's eyes and have blind faith.

 

Religionists would like to believe it is a conspiracy of intellectual elitists, but the fact remains, the smarter and more educated one is, the less likely one will hold onto emotionally based beliefs.

[florduh]

Additionally, the Bible writers admonished their followers to trust God and not use their brains. They knew full well that rationality would weaken or destroy faith. So it's no surprise that many thinking people dismiss the god idea, and those who don't think critically might embrace the concept.

 

I also think it might be relevant that at least in the USA, the "snake handlers" who demonstrate the strongest faith in their god, are also among the most ignorant and superstitious part of our population. Most mainstream Christians find ways to deny the validity of the practice, but the Bible says they can handle the snakes and drink the poison and have protection through faith. It says it, they believe it, and I give them an odd respect for holding true to the Word. But, they are woefully uneducated by any standards.

[The-Captain]

I think I'm more or less paraphrasing Florduh here, but I think its more about the sort of belief.

[Deva]

Most mainstream Christians find ways to deny the validity of the practice, but the Bible says they can handle the snakes and drink the poison and have protection through faith. It says it, they believe it, and I give them an odd respect for holding true to the Word. But, they are woefully uneducated by any standards.

 

 

I respect them as well, it shows integrity and seriousness.

[Guest end3]

The question I would offer with respect to the topic is: Is it intelligence that plays a role in non-belivers, or is it something that make non-believers uncomfortable without a "complete" understanding in any particular situation. (by "complete", I mean reasonable certainty)

[florduh]

The question I would offer with respect to the topic is: Is it intelligence that plays a role in non-belivers, or is it something that make non-believers uncomfortable without a "complete" understanding in any particular situation. (by "complete", I mean reasonable certainty)

 

Reasonable certainty is the only reason to hold something to be true.

 

Anything else is guessing, and a world full of guessers has come up with thousands of different answers to the same questions. What value is that, compared to having a reasonable certainty?

 

Thinkers have found that a conclusion reached by emotionalism is never universally true, since it relies on the individual, his mood, his personality, and his society. The greatest example of this is of course the myriad of religions and sects that all reached different conclusions about god, bible, koran, souls, hell, etc. Since there are no discernible facts to be found in these areas, anyone is free to just pick something to believe, or even make up something new.

 

So that's why higher intelligence and education engenders a hesitancy to believe in the supernatural.

 

Of course, there are smart Christians and stupid atheists, but generally the division of god belief has followed these lines.

[JernJane]

I think the conclusion that "intelligent people are less likely to believe in God" is not only simplistic, but slightly stupid in and of itself.

 

One reason is that it leaves the obvious question: What about believers who "shed" their belief in God? Do they turn intelligent overnight (or however long the process takes for them to do so)? You're free to claim that, but then at least don't define intelligence as IQ, but rather as training in critical thinking.

 

Second reason is this: If you define intelligence as IQ, and you define IQ as "logical and mathematical IQ", then by all means, have your survey, but don't conclude what you find as representative for all people with a high general IQ.

 

Third reason (with a reference to the second one): Intelligence and wisdom are not synonymous. People with high scores in logical and mathematical IQ-tests can do horribly in terms of social or emotional IQ. I have met so many mathematically intelligent people, who can get their heads around anything from linear algebra to high levels of chemistry, simply because they both build on mathematical concepts, yet who can be called anything but intelligent in terms of humour, social behaviour etc.

 

Forth reason: You can be a great mathematician and never see that a belief in God is irrational. This can simply be due to your head being trained to think in a specific way (read: theology) about religious issues, while in another way (read: rational/calculating) about "earthly" issues. I believe intelligent thinking can be taught to anyone who wants to learn it.

 

The whole matter comes down to a few things: Training and the ability, honesty and courage to doubt and question belief, even your own, and far from all people worthy of the title "math whiz" possess those attributes.

[florduh]

JernJane, all you say is true. Training and mindset play roles at least as much as native intelligence.

 

But looking around, I see the inbred, uneducated small southern towns and rural areas as festering pools of religious fervor, while the academic and scientific communities are rather evidence-oriented and in large part, godless.

 

Those are the extremes of course, but in my own experience friends, family and acquaintances also tend to fall along those lines. I think it is more due to education (learning to think) than it is to native intelligence.

[Guest end3]

Art is not always logical.....emotions, not always logical..........both are real, so why should certainty and logic dictate truth?

[florduh]

Art is not always logical.....emotions, not always logical..........both are real, so why should certainty and logic dictate truth?

 

That's been dealt with, end. And not just on this thread. Emotions are never logical, by definition.

 

The emotional experience is subjective. The rational experience is universal.

 

A rational conclusion is valid for everyone all the time. Your personal feeling or vision, hallucination, whatever, means something to you only, and only if you let it. It does not objectively exist for someone else to see or experience. It is how your mind has chosen to interpret "soft" input.

 

Beautiful music, a painting, love for your wife are real and fulfilling experiences. For you.

 

That reality has nothing to do with questions such as, Is there a god (sure, I can feel it), or Is there life after death (sure, there just HAS to be more than only this life) and Are aliens abducting my neighbor every night (he swears it's true, and he never lied to me before).

[JernJane]

Art is not always logical.....emotions, not always logical..........both are real, so why should certainty and logic dictate truth?

 

Easy, because with the question: "Does art exist" it's easy to find evidence in favour of the positive. We understand and interpret art with the already acquired knowledge that there is a thing which fits the definition of the word art.

 

Theology and faith do the opposite: They don't have the knowledge of the existence of a god, yet they formulate their interpretations and "understandings" based on their assumption that there is such a thing which fits our definition of the word god.

 

The funny thing is that believers don't even try to excuse or cover up this fact, they present the assumption of the existence of God - called faith - a criterion for understanding anything about religion at all, which is absolute nonsense.

[Guest end3]

Ok, that's fine, but here is what I am seeing....first, we seek to become intelligent so to gain understanding, that is, monetary understanding......then, when we acquire that, to show how much understanding and/or intelligence we have gathered along the way, we start to gather stuff....and when we become aloofly intelligent, we go to acquire stuff, primarily art, ect. to show how superior our understanding is. Then, somehow, after the realization it isn't what we had understood to be so damn smart, we go back to the beginning........but then, I could be just an idoit...

[mwc]

Is it as simplistic as higher IQ or is it simply more information combined with increased critical thinking?

 

Sure there maybe be a correlation between the two but I doubt that someone who has a high IQ, but is uneducated and ignorant, will be less inclined to believe than that same person with a little knowledge under their belt and the willingness to apply their critical thinking ability to the issue.

 

I have to concede that I suffered from a bit of cognitive dissonance for many, many years and it wasn't until I actually took "god" off the "forbidden topics" list that I was able to apply the same reasoning to my "faith," "god," "the supernatural" and the rest as I did everything else in my life. It fell apart pretty quickly once that happened. The human mind seems to be able to figure out fantasy from reality quite easily...but only if the owner really, honestly, wants it to, otherwise the results are always biased.

 

mwc

[Eponymic]

The most intelligent person in the world can also be completely ignorant of the reality of a situation if they so choose.

 

It doesn't matter how smart you are.

What matters is what you convince yourself, to believe, or, what you believe due to thorough analysis and application of critical thinking.

 

The fact is that we can believe anything if we so choose it and apply ourselves towards that belief. Regardless of intelligence.

[Mike D]

Unfortunately this is not "Breaking News" to those of us in the Christian Community. It has always been that way, and always will be, until the wisdom of the wise is revealed to be pure foolishness. The Bible tells us this. God uses the foolish things of this world to confound the highly educated fool.

"God uses the foolish things of this word to confound the highly educated fool".

 

Wow, that's classic.......classic stupidity that is!

 

It really kills me how willingly these idiots admit - almost with a sense of pride - that they are ignorant and uneducated!

 

As with most hypocrites though, they do a good job of selectively "picking and choosing" which "wisdom" of man is "foolish" and which isn't. For example modern medicine is "man's wisdom" but I don't see many Christians insisting that doctors are fools and refusing to take their own kids to them when they are sick. What about inventions like electricity, refrigerators, AC, heating, etc. Why do no Christians stand up and be counted in their belief that the people who invented these things are all "fools" and immediately discontinue their use?

[HuaiDan]

developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive

 

Religion is primitive.

[JernJane]

Unfortunately this is not "Breaking News" to those of us in the Christian Community. It has always been that way, and always will be, until the wisdom of the wise is revealed to be pure foolishness. The Bible tells us this. God uses the foolish things of this world to confound the highly educated fool.

 

Does it not even occur to you that the Bible may contain a verse such as this, and such as "blessed are those who do not see and yet believe" simply because the Bible doesn't make sense? Then please, do tell me, if it's not a case of critical thinking, how on earth do you value one holy book over another. If there is no such thing as intelligence and wisdom which is important, then how do you choose one faith over another at all?

 

What you may as well say, is that the more stupid a claim occurs, the more likely it is to be true! Well, that's one fine way to turn the world upside-down isn't it! I hope people with such blind faith never ever are employed within the fields of law and justice.

 

And why (!), why, why, why do you think it's more stupid to believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse (Burak (sp)), or that when we die we are born into another body based on what we did in this life, or that the Northern Lights are really spirits than to believe that a man was both god and man, was born of a virgin, that his death was sufficient to pay for not only past sins, but future ones - whether we choose to commit them or not - and then rose again - not three days later as stated by Jesus himself when quoting Jonah - but 1 and a half days?

 

And if they do seem more stupid to you, then by your very own anti-logic, you should believe in those things rather than Christianity, because the more stupid the belief, the more likely it is to be true since God loves to make fools out of those who don't love their own ignorance too much to give it up.

 

and when we become aloofly intelligent, we go to acquire stuff, primarily art, ect. to show how superior our understanding is

 

I am inclined to ask what on earth you are talking about.

 

Do you honestly think that this is why we discuss these things here? Do you honestly think that we are gathered at Ex-C to inflate our egos so that we may sit back and think: "Hah, didn't we show them Christians we're so much smarter than them! HAH!" As a matter of fact no. The apparent "arrogance" that you may encounter here or with any ex-religious person is simply there because they see what you do not (yet) see: That your faith makes no sense at all, and then cannot believe they have been so blind in the past. It's a feeling of disbelief rather than superiority. I don't feel I'm superior to anyone. I leave people's faiths alone so long as they don't try to re-convert me (which, from the Bible's own words, is futile anyway), but if they do want to discuss it, then they should be prepared and realize that I've "been there, done that", I know the maze of theology all too well, and it sits fresh in my memory. It is merely frustrating when people don't see what you have seen, when it really is so blatantly obvious.

[Vigile]

One reason is that it leaves the obvious question: What about believers who "shed" their belief in God? Do they turn intelligent overnight (or however long the process takes for them to do so)?

 

Some of us were indoctrinated from infantcy. I would say that there isn't anything spurious about findings that indicate those with higher intelligence are more likely to shed their indoctrination as they grow old enough to think on their own.

 

Intelligent people are much more likely to be able to process the big picture necessary in unravelling the leviathan of indoctrination. Not every intelligent person does so, but more intelligent people do than unintelligent.

 

This study is about statistical probabilities.

[Antlerman]

But Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College, London, said

it failed to take account of a complex range of social, economic and historical factors

.

 

"Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a

simplistic characterisation

of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response," he said.

I'm going to side strongly with this criticism of the suggested conclusions that higher IQ and non-belief, or religious belief and low IQ are directly casual. These are very complex things, and though to look at the stats and make a conclusion like this may feel good to pat oneself on the back as being part of the crowd of the more intelligent, I find it to be lacking severely. I almost see an inferred conclusion of a direct causal relationship, to be itself driven emotionally and politically, which is anything but rational itself. "Correlation does not imply causation".

 

I've long argued for the EQ as being the factor and not IQ, in allowing someone to move outside the comfort zone of their native religion. But it's even more than that. To just quickly address one thought of my own to the statistic: perhaps one contributing factor seeing "non-belief" as a prominent part of the academic community, may in fact be a social factor, and not a direct relationship of high IQ and critical thinking concluding with disbelief.

 

If those of high IQ find themselves surrounded by others in a community who likewise have the same exposure to other faces of the humanities through the arts and philosophy, there is more language to choose from, and a certain ease of communication and adoption of ideas that can occur in that environment. Those who are less advantaged, by virtue of the level of IQ, have only the more common form of language of the masses which is their native religion, and are more limited to their respective communities. This is why the old adage is true that "Muslim children come from Muslim families; Christian children come from Christian families." (Is speaking English indoctrination, or a native language?)

 

If someone is economically advantaged, it likewise exposes them to alternative lifestyles that they would otherwise not have access to, and what's moreover, participation within other communities that allow for this sort of diversity. Living in a small rural community for instance, never having the means to be a world traveler, or move to New York or London, will limit your life. It's not for lack of your intelligence, critical thinking, good looks, or even your emotional maturity, but simply a matter of economics. It takes money to make money, so to speak. The criticism of religion is more a social criticism, and not an intelligence criticism.

 

I do not believe the motives for religious belief are the pursuit of rational knowledge, so it's not rational knowledge that would cause someone to change or abandon them. I personally believe it is simply matters of having suitable languages of expression, and having a higher IQ means greater access to higher education and greater vocabulary. In essence, in this sense, the role that religion has played in socialization and a framework for world views, has not been abandoned by those with academic advantage, but expanded to include a greater word vocabulary. With greater words, greater perspectives open and the more flexible and mobile one becomes^*.

 

And this is only one possibly strong factor in why the suggested conclusions of these statistic are "overly-simplistic".

 

As a word of caution from the great 20th Century philosophy Karl Popper who gave us the insights of Critical Rationalism in our approach to knowledge and understanding in science, he warned scholars to only offer tentative indications for their theories which may be proven false. There is a danger in the use of statistics that requires more than just a simple conclusion. Statistics are a favorite tool of politicians. "Correlation does not imply causation."

 

 

 

^*(footnote) With more words, perspectives open. Not to sound arrogant, but imagine how one relates to the world having only 500 words to choose from (which would necessitate a lot of hand movements and grunting in the hope of communicating) versus someone with a college level vocabulary of 10's of thousands of words? But the point is it's all functioning for the same ends. Whether it's the language of science, art, philosophy, or religion, where it functions as a means of talking about ourselves and the world we live in. The vocabulary you use if you have it available will depend on what you're trying to relate to.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman,

 

LOL...I think you said essentially the same thing I did only with more technical linkage and more words....LOL......

Yes I caught that. You posted yours before I finished writing mine and I saw it after I posted. I quickly read it before heading out the door. It was saying very much the same thing I was. This ties into so many other areas of thought for me it was worth the time to spend fleshing it out like that. I could have kept going all over the place with this, but needed to do so errands. One of these days I may write that book, but the way I write it will probably be 50,000 pages long, and I still need to work out a couple more billion details in my thoughts first.

[florduh]

While I agree that there are many factors involved, the bottom line is that the least educated people are the most superstitious. People in the professions, for example, aren't likely to carry a rabbit's foot, practice Voodoo, or believe their horoscopes. The less educated one is, the more likely magical thinking influences their life. No, not always, but that is generally how it works.

 

Also, generally, intelligent people value education more, and academic endeavors are where one learns to think critically, and usually that education also involves exposure to ideas quite different from the local experience with family and friends.

 

That is what leads to rational rejection of illogical and conflict-ridden religious dogma and doctrine learned in childhood by most.

 

A drive through any city or small town will find the poorest areas (least educated) rife with storefront churches and religious symbols. A college town (educated professors and students) offers comparatively little in the area of "houses of God." Upscale communities anywhere always have some traditional churches for social purposes, but few fanatics.

 

The more one learns to think clearly, the more one values reason. It is NOT thinking clearly that allows emotions and wishful thinking (horoscopes, lottery tickets, god) to rule lives.

 

So my conclusion is that learning critical thinking through education is the key, and smarter people are the ones getting educated. One can certainly lead a happy, fulfilled life based on emotionalism, but that loses some of its allure when one can reason as well as feel.

[florduh]

Yes, Burned, I know. Earlier in postings I said there were intelligent theologians. The point I tried to make is that IN GENERAL among people who don't make a living at religion, the conclusion that atheists GENERALLY are more intelligent (because the intelligent value education) is valid.

 

I think a casual look around in most areas of the country makes that evident. I don't assert that one must be stupid to believe in god, just that it turns out that intelligent, educated (sophisticated, if you will) people are more LIKELY to not have a god belief. I can accept that as a fact just from observation.

 

I also think the phenomenon can be seen in degrees. You won't see a scientist or engineer handling snakes for Jesus, but you do see ignorant bumpkins doing it. Sophisticated Christians, who are smarter and better educated, abhor the practice of handling snakes. The dumber the Christian, the more "faith" he has. It's always Joe Six-Pack who's writin' the newspaper or being interviewed on TV supporting the teaching of Creationism, not doctors, lawyers, and Nobel prize winners.

 

I believe the dividing line is self-evident.

[Antlerman]

Yes, Burned, I know. Earlier in postings I said there were intelligent theologians. The point I tried to make is that IN GENERAL among people who don't make a living at religion, the conclusion that atheists GENERALLY are more intelligent (because the intelligent value education) is valid.

 

I think a casual look around in most areas of the country makes that evident. I don't assert that one must be stupid to believe in god, just that it turns out that intelligent, educated (sophisticated, if you will) people are more LIKELY to not have a god belief. I can accept that as a fact just from observation.

 

I also think the phenomenon can be seen in degrees. You won't see a scientist or engineer handling snakes for Jesus, but you do see ignorant bumpkins doing it. Sophisticated Christians, who are smarter and better educated, abhor the practice of handling snakes. The dumber the Christian, the more "faith" he has. It's always Joe Six-Pack who's writin' the newspaper or being interviewed on TV supporting the teaching of Creationism, not doctors, lawyers, and Nobel prize winners.

 

I believe the dividing line is self-evident.

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. Back to this fallacy here: "Correlation does not imply causation" You are looking at one characteristic and making huge assumptions to connect dot A to dot B. Frankly the same sorts of superficial comparisons that ignore socio-economic, regional, and cultural contributions has also been done to argue for lesser intelligence amongst minority races in this country, citing the controversial 3 chapters in the book The Bell Curve that came out in 1994.

 

I realize you don't think like this, and the reason I'm citing it because of the caution that has to be exercised in making linkages that don't go far enough. I thought of that book as I read the OP article that did the same sort of connection while ignoring the greater complexities of socio-economics. Which BTW, the likes of Stephen Jay Gould took issue with their approach, which I see as very much the same in the OP. It's not careful science.

 

As far as statistics and relating the majority of high IQ being atheists, I would challenge that without a second thought. Just looking at the percentages of atheists in the population, and the raw numbers per capita, just off the top of my head I'd say that religious people with the same IQ numbers probably outnumber atheists a few thousand to one.

 

Back to the bell curve (not the book, but statistical standard normal distribution curve), you would have to have the median IQ for religious people to be at around 70 for it to level out at the top end of around 110, which would essentially have the churches filled with huge numbers of people with borderline retardation, and a majority as a D grade level education. This is simply not factual.

 

As it stands right now, the average IQ median is between 90-110 with 50% of the population in the range. Above that you have 20% at 110-125, the above that you have 5% at greater that 125. The opposite end you have 20% between 75-90, then below that 5% at less than 75. If as you propose that smarter people in the 120 and higher IQ's are generally atheists, you have artificially deflated the curve and made religious people have a lower average. You have also added numbers that don't exist in the population that consider themselves to be atheists.

 

I'll leave it at that for now, rather that dissecting the errors of superficial comparisons I saw in the rest of the argument (such as the snake handlers). If you look over what I posted before, I feel it goes a whole lot further as a model to fit what we see, than smarter = non-religious. Why I make an issue of this is because socially, I agree with the Professor I quoted in my previous post, that this sort of 'analysis' is less than helpful. It not only doesn't fit, it doesn't do much helpful in way of understanding and dialog in dealing with it. That's why I make an issue of it. It sounds too much like classism and elitism for my tastes. It's less about knowledge, and more about politics.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm not entirely sure that religious believers are likely to be less intellgient than atheists are. Speaking from my own personal experience, I'm an atheist but I've always done rather poorly in school, especially in math and science and only barely passed the majority of my classes. On the other hand, my dad is a fundamentalist Christian and yet he's an engineer and also very intelligent when it comes to things like math and technology. But then he can be painfully ignorant when it comes to common sense things like he actually thinks that bats are birds, that Tokyo is in China, and that the theory of evolution states that monkeys magically poofed into humans by chance, so, I don't think IQ is necessarily a factor. Of course, they say there's exceptions to everything, but I still there's obviously something more at work here. What it is exactly I have no idea, but I agree we need a more detailed study on this.