# Intelligence and religion... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2000, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059 "2000-11-07T03:28:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Opus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/858c86/32.png) [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/21 "2000-11-07T22:03:45Z")
> [@](#): > > I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. Yes, exactly. Einstein believed that everything was God and that God was everything. He was in short, a pantheist. For the life of me I have been unable to determine the difference between pantheism and atheism, but I’ll let it stand that there is a difference. My qualm is with religious people who like to put Einstein on their side; he most certainly did not believe in the God that 99% of Christian theists claim to believe in. ---
**Author:** ![Crazy\_Boob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@Crazy\_Boob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazy_Boob)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/22 "2000-11-07T22:05:09Z")
Also, there is no comprehensive way to measure or understand intelligence except to compare an individual to preconceived ideals such as a certain type of linguistic or quantitative achievement. But what you seem to be saying is that theist beliefs contradict your atheistic beliefs and since from your perspective atheism (probably humanism) is the ideal of intellectual development, those who believe otherwise are “less intelligent.” So your question is meaningless. You are asking why some people are smarter than others but assuming that to be an atheist necessarily equals being intelligent. ---
**Author:** ![Opus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/858c86/32.png) [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/23 "2000-11-07T22:07:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Atheists are like people who insist, because others have told them, that the Sun revolves around the Earth without being at all willing to test that hypothesis when a certain dedicated observation would show otherwise. My, my. Aren’t we a bit arrogant? I’m going to assume that you mean something other than what you seem to mean in this post, which is that atheists are ignorant fools who blindly ignore evidence against their position which is readily accessible. Please clarify your statement. If this is what you really meant, I’d appreciate an explanation of what “dedication observation” you would suggest to prove the existence of God. ---
**Author:** ![MetropoChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cab0a1/32.png) [@MetropoChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MetropoChris)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/24 "2000-11-07T22:23:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > …Atheists are like people who insist, because others have told them, that the Sun revolves around the Earth without being at all willing to test that hypothesis when a certain dedicated observation would show otherwise… \*\* That is a very unfair and assuming comment. In fact the first of its nature in this thread so far; thus my reply. 99% of all people are initialy brouht into a world of religion. As children the story is put in front of us and in most cases we are to take as we wish. This says that through any indivduals struggle as a child and young adult to become an athiest shows they, at one point found thier religious teachings to be wrong or rediculous. This rarely, if ever happens the other way around. No one is told as a child there is no God only to later “see the light” as they age. Athiests most likely have been on both sides of the fence, as a believer was always that way. Thus making your “Sun around the earth” comment true only for the believers… ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/25 "2000-11-07T22:36:26Z")
> [@](#): > > This rarely, if ever happens the other way around. No one is told as a child there is no God only to later “see the light” as they age. I wouldn’t say the chances are as slim as all that. I believe one of Ms. O’Hare’s children actually became a priest. jmullaney, telling atheists that if they give up all their possessions for all time that they will encounter proof of God is rather akin to telling us that if we give us all our possessions you will give us a perpetual motion machine. You are requiring a big risk on something that seems remarkably unlikely to be true. I may think it is (remotely) possible that someone is correct when they claim the Secret to Happiness is in the depths of the Amazon in a small ceramic teapot, but I ain’t going to actually go there to check, and I don’t think I’m unscientific or close-minded to refuse to make a great personal sacrifice for a apparently remarkably unlikely result. I’d advise you not to sneer so much if some are unwilling to check out your “simple scientific hypothesis”…it seems no more simple or scientific or reasonable than the Secret to Happiness being inside a teapot in the Amazon. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/26 "2000-11-07T22:55:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Opus1 \* > I’m going to assume that you mean something other than what you seem to mean in this post, which is that atheists are ignorant fools who blindly ignore evidence against their position which is readily accessible. Readily accessible is a rather broad expression. I would say much of scientific testing doesn’t fall under the realm of data being “readily” accessible. I don’t have any tools at my disposal that could tell me the speed of light. I doubt I could just look up at the night sky and understand the implications of the perihelion of Mercury. I don’t think I could dig up the nearest vacant lot and “readily” prove that man evolved from lower lifeforms. I can’t even measure the accerleation of gravity without a stopwatch, a yardstick, and something to drop. > [@](#): > > Please clarify your statement. If this is what you really meant, I’d appreciate an explanation of what “dedication observation” you would suggest to prove the existence of God. Well, I’m still trying to work out any potential kinks in the experiment, and would appreciate any willing volunteers. Valid subjects would need to have an open mind and be “basically good” people, for lack of a better term at this time. Step 1: Go sell all that you have Step 2: Give away all of your money to the poor Step 3: Leave you friends and family Step 4: Without negating Steps one and two in the process (beyond reason), wander off doing whatever you feel moved to do. Step 5: Allow six (or more) weeks for observation as to whether or not there is a God or not. According to my theory, you will have ample evidence that the Christian God exists at the end of this process. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/27 "2000-11-07T23:03:17Z")
I don’t know of _any_ good scientist who requires that _other people_ give up all they have to prove _his_ personal hypotheses. I think it is imperative that in this case the scientist perform the experiment on his own and get back to us with some of the physical evidence of divinity you claimed was produced. Or at the very least, find someone else who has performed the experiment on their own who can conjure pepperoni-rolls for us as you once say you did. As of now, I’m afraid your _hypothesis_ appears to have about as much likely validity as the teapot-in-the-Amazon one. However, should you decide to give all your money to the poor, I’m getting a bit low on cash these days… ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/28 "2000-11-07T23:08:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MetropoChris \* > This rarely, if ever happens the other way around. No one is told as a child there is no God only to later “see the light” as they age. I was in fact, raised as an atheist. I ran my experiment myself fully expecting proof that God did not exist and that the promises of Jesus were false. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > jmullaney, telling atheists that if they give up all their possessions for all time that they will encounter proof of God is rather akin to telling us that if we give us all our possessions you will give us a perpetual motion machine. They are more than willing to accept my results. But in the unlikely event you have an electron microscope, a data link to Hubble, and a proto-humaniod skeleton in your basement, I won’t insinuate that you have ever accepted the scientific research of others at face value. 😛 > [@](#): > > I don’t think I’m unscientific or close-minded to refuse to make a great personal sacrifice for a apparently remarkably unlikely result. So you haven’t spent billions launching your own space telescope? But you do blindly accept what NASA tells you lies in deep space? Without the personal sacrifice involved to independantly verify their results. And you call yourself a scientist. Shame, shame. > [@](#): > > I’d advise you not to sneer so much if some are unwilling to check out your “simple scientific hypothesis”…it seems no more simple or scientific or reasonable than the Secret to Happiness being inside a teapot in the Amazon. ☹ I’m not sneering! If I _had_ found the [Secret to Happiness in the Amazon](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0849930340/o/qid=973638425/sr=8-2/ref=aps_sr_b_1_2/106-4657087-9315659) (apparently not that hard! ;)), and it came up in a thread, I’d gladly share my results though. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/29 "2000-11-07T23:26:29Z")
> [@](#): > > They are more than willing to accept my results. Huh? > [@](#): > > But in the unlikely event you have an electron microscope, a data link to Hubble, and a proto-humaniod skeleton in your basement, I won’t insinuate that you have ever accepted the scientific research of others at face value. Submit a peer-reviewed paper detailing the experiment and your proof of God and I’ll listen. C’mon, just conjure a few pepperoni rolls out of thin air under laboratory conditions under the eye of scienitists and stage magicians…what’s so hard about that? > [@](#): > > So you haven’t spent billions launching your own space telescope? But you do blindly accept what NASA tells you lies in deep space? Without the personal sacrifice involved to independantly verify their results. And you call yourself a scientist. Shame, shame. I trust the scientific method. I trust thousands of scientists trying to pick holes in the latest theory. I have run several scientific experiements, and confirmed that the results had merit. _You_ are an unknown person on a message board who asks people to give up all they have based on his say-so. I would not put any more weight in your bare statements of “give up all your possessions to see proof of God” than I would put in “give up all your possessions to see proof of neutrinos” or “give up all your possessions to see proof of ghosts” or “give up all your possessions to see proof of atheism.” You have no scientifically verfied evidence for your claims. We have a limited amount of time and resources to discover things about this world, and I see no shame in not wasting our efforts on hypothesis that have no scientific support and are amazingly inconvienent for the experimenter. If you would not chop off your pinkies solely because I claim you will receive _dis_proof of God if you do so, do not make sly “shame, shame” comments about those who do not give up all their possessions on _your_ say-so. > [@](#): > > If I had found the Secret to Happiness in the Amazon (apparently not that hard! ), and it came up in a thread, I’d gladly share my results though. Yup, and I’d probably be just as skeptical if you told me you found the Secret to Happiness in a teapot in the Amazon. ---
**Author:** ![MetropoChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cab0a1/32.png) [@MetropoChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MetropoChris)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/30 "2000-11-07T23:41:45Z")
This idea that I must proove every scientific theory **myself** and that I must see it with my own eyes is silly. Ive never seen Paris, but I believe whole heartedly it does exist. Believing the moon is X amount of miles away even though Ive yet to personally measure the distance is no comparison to my lack of belief in religion. Telescopes and carbon dating just seem to hold more water than a Book man wrote ages ago based on his insecurities and his fear of the unknown… And this idea that one must give up all his worldly posessions in order for “God” to rear his ugly head is a joke right??? ---
**Author:** ![VileOrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9e8a1a/32.png) [@VileOrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VileOrb)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/31 "2000-11-07T23:42:03Z")
For me, the final kicker is the unethical actions of believers. In my personal experience, the atheists I have known have upheld more rigid ethical systems than the Christians I have known. The Ten Commandments just don’t cut it as a complete ethical system. There are a lot of situations they don’t cover. On top of that, I see Christians fail to follow their own laws. Granted, it may be easier in some ways to follow rules you make yourself than rules imposed by an outside force, but I think that if I genuinely believed in God and in Heaven and Hell, I’d be REAL careful about following the rules. I don’t believe, and therefore have to make my own rules. I have made some pretty loose rules. But, I take personal responsibility for all my actions. I don’t see many Christians doing that. I do know, personally, some intelligent Christians and some intelligent Jews. I haven’t talked religion much with the Jews. They haven’t brought the subject up because they don’t have a burning need to convert me. The intelligent Christians I have spoken to have had profound experiences that they consider to be examples of God speaking directly to them or filling them with the Holy Spirit or whatever. I think that they had an epiphany, or the physical effects of epiphany, and they mistook it for Divine Intervention. But, having had strong epiphanies myself, I understand that the feeling is very powerful. Once, while reading, I suddenly understood a Psychiatric Theory and felt that I would become a Psychiatrist. About a year later I reread the book and realized that my understanding was wrong. I had somehow overlooked the word “not” in the sentence. Still, to this day, I can remember how clear the sentence had been and how Right it had felt. I was wrong. I looked for references all over the place to try to see if others saw it my way. No, it was pretty much established fact. I can’t even remember what the actual theory was anymore, but I can remember how Right it felt. I can completely understand that someone could have a sudden epiphany about God and never be able to give up on that belief. Have you ever tried LSD? It’s my opinion that LSD causes the brain to release chemicals very similar to the chemicals released when you have an epiphany. (It does other stuff too, which clouds this theory a bit.) So, any thought you have could suddenly seem earth shattering and perfectly RIGHT. This is a lot of fun mostly, but it can lead to belief in some odd things. Trying to convince someone they are wrong about God is a waste of time. I would prefer to try to convince them that they need to expand their ethical system beyond the Ten Commandments and to try harder to follow the rules they already have. Generally they are ready to listen to this sort of persuasion. I don’t care what they believe as long as they act responsibly. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/32 "2000-11-07T23:43:30Z")
Speaking of getting crucified, I’m sure I’ll get flamed something awful for posting this, but what the hell. I picked this up around 6 years ago, when BBSes were still king: > [@](#): > > Paraphrased and summarized from The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith, Burnham P. Beckwith, _Free Inquiry_, Spring 1986: > > 1. Thomas Howells, 1927 > Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students “are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability.” > > 2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933 > Study of 215 students showed that “there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward … atheism.” > > 3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934 > Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, 10-16. Negative correlation between religiosity and Terman intelligence test. > > 4. Thomas Symington, 1935 > Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, “there is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability…There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…” > > 5. Vernon Jones, 1938 > Tested 381 stydents, concluding “a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together.” > > 6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940 > At variance with all other studies, found “little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god.” > > 7. Donald Gragg, 1942 > Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone “reality of god” scores. > > 8. Brown and Love, 1951 > At U. of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. Mean test scores of non-believers = 119, believers = 100. Percentile NBs = 80, BBs = 50. Their findings “strongly corroborate those of Howells.” > > 9. Michael Argyle, 1958 > Concluded that “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.” > > 10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963 > Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the U. of Wisconsin. > > 11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966 > Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose. > > 12. James Trent, 1967 > Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented. > > 13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967 > The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college. > > 14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978 > Of 532 students, 37% of christians, 58% of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs. > > 15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974 > Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations. > > 16. Norman Poythress, 1975 > Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti- religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022). > > 17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980 > Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. The reported “nonreligious S’s tended to be strongly intelligent” and "more intelligent than religious S’s. > > Student Body Comparisons- > > 1. Rose Goldsen, Student belief in a divine god, percentages 1952. > Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; N. Carolina 68. > > 2. National Review Study, 1970 > Students Belief in Spirit or Divine God. Percentages: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77. > > 3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977 > Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5% in “low” ranked schools to 17% in “high” ranked schools. > > Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978 > In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26%, compared with 44% of all students. > > Studies of Very-High-IQ groups. > > 1. Terman, 1959 > Studied group with IQ \> 140. Of men, 10% held strong religious belief, of women 18%. 62% of men and 57% if women claimed “little religious inclination” while 28% men and 23% of women claimed it was “not at all important.” > > 2. Warren and Heist, 1960 > Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on “leadership” and such like. > > 3. Southern and Plant, 1968 > 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumni or adult. > > 4. William S. Ament, 1927 > C. C. Little, president U. of Michigan, checked persons listed in _Who’s Who in America_: “Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians are … far more numerous in _Who’s Who_ than would be expercted on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous.” > > Ament confirmed Little’s conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in _W’sW_ as in the U.S. population. > > 1. Lehman and Witty, 1931 > Identified 1189 scientists found in both _Who’s Who_ (1927) and _American Men of Science_ (1927). Only 25% in _AM of S_ and 50% of those listed in _W’sW_ reported their religious denomination despite the specific requests to do so, “religious denomination (if any).” Well over 90% of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25% suggest far less religiosity among scientists. > > Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists than the general population. > > 1. Kelley and Fisk, 1951 > Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured I have no idea.] > > 2. Ann Roe, 1953 > Interviewed 64 “eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, ‘now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend… All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives…A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.’” > > 3. Francis Bello, 1954 > Questionaired or interviewed 107 young (\<= 40) nonindustrial scientists judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. 87 responded. 45% claimed to be “agnostic or atheistic” and an additional 22% claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, “the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group.” > > 4. Jack Chambers, 1964 > Questionaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, “the highly creative men [jft- assume no women included] … significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion.” Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40% no preference, 16% for the most eminent chemists. > > 5. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965 > Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in _American Men of Science_ (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. 642 replies. > > 38.5% did not believe in afterlife, 31.8% did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The contemporaneous Gallup poll showed 2/3 of US population believed in afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than typical adult. > > \>From Beckwith’s concluding remarks: > > Conclusions > In this essay I have reviewed: (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 much less religious than inferior student bodies;(3)three studies reporting that geniuses (IQ 150+) are much less religious than the general public (Average IQ, 100), 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 115) are much less religious in belief than are grade-school pollees. > > I have also noted that many studies have shown that students become less religious as they proceed through college, probably in part because average IQ rises. > > All but four of the forty-three polls I have reviewed 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. It is easy to find fault with the studies I have reviewed, for all were imperfect. But the fact that all but four of them supported the general conclusion provides overwhelming evidence that, among American students and adults, the amount of religious faith tends to vary inversely and appreciably with intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![MetropoChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cab0a1/32.png) [@MetropoChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MetropoChris)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2000, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/33 "2000-11-08T00:01:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by VileOrb \* > \*\*…every thing he said above… \*\* Right on and well put. The LSD comments especially. Fortunatly with that drug the “other” effects you mention tend to allow you to forget the discoveries you made while under the influence, as not to let the false rightiousness continue. It covers its own tracks in a way. Leaves all the “profund” ideas behind you like it were a dream… You are also absolutly right about the declined sense of morality the devout have. Which is funny, because this is one of the main reasons the less spiritual parents give religion to thier children; to make them “better people”. The firmly religious find themselves in a win/win way of life. When you have an unseen ruler who is higher than even the greatest powers on Earth (police, govt, etc…) who alway loves you, always forgives you and will always reward you with the greatest pleasures ever concieved with a simple appology before death; its hard to find a need to hold yourself responsible to the less powerful entities that surround you in life… “God is man’s most glorified scape-goat” CG ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2000, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/34 "2000-11-08T00:26:27Z")
Eh, I wouldn’t go nattering on about the “declined sense of morality the devout have” unless you want _them_ assuring you that atheists are all immoral. Just becuase some people use the “get out of jail free” card of forgiveness as an excuse to be complete bastards doesn’t mean all, or even most or many do. Claiming that the devout are overall more immoral than atheists without any evidence cited is not terribly convincing. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2000, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/35 "2000-11-08T00:40:28Z")
Regarding > [@](#): > > I know what you’re getting at, MetropoChris, but I think there’s every chance the number of faithful will stay around the same or increase. and > [@](#): > > Not sure about “intelligence” but I have of wondered if religion would wane in the face of ever increasing scientific knowledge. But it does not appear to be the case. and maybe a few other remarks in this thread. As London\_Calling already pointed out, there is good evidence that religious belief _has_ waned in importance, if you take into consideration the fact that the U.S. is evidently idiosyncratic as industrialized nations go with regards to religious belief. See, for example, [What Americans Really Believe, and Why Faith Isn’t as Universal as They Think](http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/bishop_19_3.html) by George Bishop from [_Free Inquiry_](http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/index.htm). (Which is, of course, an avowedly secular humanist magazine.) As Bishop says in the opening of his article: > [@](#): > > Public opinion polls in the United States have repeatedly demonstrated that Americans are a highly religious people…So pervasive has the impression of this religiosity in our society become that various scholars and folk psychologists have theorized there may be an evolutionary biological basis for religious belief and that religion must therefore satisfy a universal human need for hope, comfort, and a sense of purpose in facing the inevitability of our mortality. Such is the power of the religious impulse in > American thought…This impression of the universality of religious belief, however, becomes much less solid when we look at survey data from other developed nations, comparing findings on religious beliefs from two cross-national surveys conducted in 1991 and 1993 for the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), which is currently based at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), University of Chicago. > [@](#): > > I have seen about a gazillion idiotic religious zealots out there, with weird cults and nonsensical beliefs that fly in the face of the evidence. It’s insidiously tempting to think those folks are representative of the rest of the religious believers, but it really isn’t so. I’m certainly not denying the existence of very smart theists, including on this message board, but I wonder which is really more “representative” of American believers, the smart theists we see around here, or the nonsensical beliefs of religious zealots. According to Gallup polls, [“47% of Americans believe that God created human beings at one time within the last 10,000 years pretty much in their present form”](http://www.gallup.com//poll/releases/pr990830.asp) . I’ve seen various depressingly high percentages for belief in astrology (though generally substantially less than half). I don’t think we can just write off this kind of wackiness as being part of an unimportant fringe, no matter how smart and articulate the religious people who hang around here are. I’d also point out that there are some people out there who are not apparently stupid, but who hold religious ideas which I find logically or factually ludicrous or ethically abhorrent. With many religious extremists–at least among the leaders–it seems less a question of “stupidity” and more of a kind of insanity. (Understand that at this point I’m no longer talking about mere belief in God, but stuff like [geocentrism](http://www.biblicalastronomer.org) or [Christian Reconstructionism](http://www.chalcedon.edu). Unlike creationism or astrology, these are genuinely fringe beliefs; I guess I’m just saying that I don’t think “stupidity” or lack of intelligence per se is the right way to get at what’s wrong with the mental processes which lead to religion.) ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2000, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/36 "2000-11-08T01:53:00Z")
What did those studies mean by religious? I got a IQ of 1570 on one of my PSATS(havent taken the sat yet) and i am religious but you wouldent know it from my every day activities. I follow what is said in the bible, I don’t go to church regurally(and have gone braindead on how to spell that word) I don’t feel like I know im right simply that the evidence points to god. However my belief is pretty unshakable. And every evidence ive seen against it doesen’t even touch the bible, just common misconceptions and traditions, except for ones covering the bible which very few do. IMHO the majority of stupid atheists are stupid because they believe that science does not require faith. And with that assumption they have the ability to think that their group is smarter than any other. Science is not the beginning and end of human existance and might be discarded at some time in the future. Faith is a requirement to believe what your eyes see before you or what any other sense sees. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2000, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/37 "2000-11-08T03:14:04Z")
Hmmm… No scientific evidence to back this but… Some of the most devastating intellects I’ve run into are either atheists or agnostics. Of the religious (mainly Christian) folk I know (I’m speaking of general tendencies here, this is by no means universally true) it seems that the more ritual, and the stronger the emphasis on tradition, the more intelligent the followers. Thus Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, High Church Anglicans, et al tend to be more intelligent, and frequently more highly educated. At the bottom of the scale are the hardcore fundamentalist protestants who dismiss “empty” ritual and sneer at “manmade traditions”. Of course, the more ritualistic and tradition-bound denoms also tend to have more complex theologies, which I imagine makes them more attractive to people who have brains that need something to do. Also, there’s the “use it or lose it” school of thought- if you have a good catechist or religion teacher who doesn’t tell you to go sit in the back of the room when you ask the difficult questions, you get more information, more concepts for the mind to mull over, thus the synapses get more of a workout. The hardcore fundies basically just accept Jesus as their Savior and don’t do anything their pastor says is a sin don’t really think about their religion because there’s not really much to think about. Also figure that the faiths that have more ritual and traditions and more complex theologies make more allowances for the huanity of their followers- they don’t necessarily define everything that’s fun as a sin, and if you do something really bad wrong, at least with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, you have recourse to the confessional. Fundies demand that you refrain from even moderate drinking, dancing, listening to music that actually has a beat, going to movies… And no way to receive absolution if you break the rules, so you’re in a constant state of feeling guilty and apologizing to God. Less intelligent people are more inclined to blindly follow rules, so are less likely to get themselves into trouble with their fundamentalist beliefs. Of course, there are some truly wacko Catholics (anybody got a link to the Feenyite site?) but that’s another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2000, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/38 "2000-11-08T14:20:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Asmodean \* > **I got a IQ of 1570 on one of my PSATS…** An IQ of 1570!!??!! You ought to be able to bend Uri Geller with the power of your mind! ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2000, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/39 "2000-11-08T16:38:42Z")
There are many intelligent atheists in the world. However, atheism itself does not require intelligence. The common assumption that atheism derives only from deep analysis of evidentiary merit of controlled observations on reality is as much a myth as Gaudere’s teapot. Some people in the world are very intelligent. Most are of more modest intellect, and much more likely to make their theological decisions on the basis of personal experience. The fact is that many atheists are as much “antitheists” as atheists. The use of logic to support deeply emotional rejection of religion is not based on intelligence, any more than is the deeply emotional faith based on an epiphany. A very large number, billions in fact, of the people in the world are of less than average intelligence, and reach most of the philosophical beliefs they have by accepting the beliefs of others they find either admirable, or authoritative. That is not a function of intelligence, it is a pragmatic outcome of the nature of human experience. The topology of a social model where each member is a leader would be . . . complicated. Humans don’t follow that sort of pattern for long. But then, I must admit the intelligence of Atheists, Christians, Muslims, or Teapotians is of almost no importance to me. Intelligence is a useful thing, in some areas of life. It certainly has very little correlation with decency, kindness, courage, honesty, or any of a thousand other human character elements I find much more important. Christ did not seek to save the bright, the strong, the clever, or the educated. He came for each and all. I am but His joyful servant, and my clumsy stupidity does not make me less, in His eyes. If that comforts me, perhaps it means that I chose faith because of a failing of intelligence. I am untroubled by that assessment. Tris ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2000, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/40 "2000-11-08T17:20:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > I don’t know of _any_ good scientist who requires that _other people_ [perform an experiment] to prove [an] hypotheses. Really? I was under the impression that is how science worked. > [@](#): > > [Bring me] physical evidence of divinity Unfortunately, this is not a physics experiment. I realize you might be troubled by the parameters under which such an experiment would have to take place. It is more akin to a biology experiment. I can’t prove to you that if you rub your eyes real hard you’ll see colored lights, right? > [@](#): > > Or at the very least, find someone else who has performed the experiment on their own. Do historical figures count? > [@](#): > > As of now, I’m afraid your _hypothesis_ appears to have about as much likely validity as the teapot-in-the-Amazon one. Right. And don’t rub your eyes either, I’m obviously making that part up too. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I’m getting a bit low on cash these days… If you are hitting me up for a loan, my APR is very reasonable. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > They are more than willing to accept my results. > > Huh? Should have said: they are more than free to accept my results. Free will, free wheeling, switch glitch. > [@](#): > > Submit a peer-reviewed paper detailing the experiment and your proof of God and I’ll listen. I continue to search for peers willing to repeat my experiment. Didn’t we meet once in a past life? “Let me get this straight, Og. You banged two flint rocks together over some kindling and created fire. Uh huh. Well, everyone knows it would anger the gods to steal fire from them, so no one is going to verify your results, but submit a peer-reviewed clay tablet and I’ll listen to this wacky ‘fire’ idea of yours.” Hey, yeah, that _was_ you! (A flawed analogy to a physics experiment again, mind you.) > [@](#): > > I trust the scientific method. I trust thousands of scientists trying to pick holes in the latest theory. I have run several scientific experiements, and confirmed that the results had merit. _You_ are an unknown person on a message board who asks people to give up all they have based on his say-so. Only trying to fight ignorance here. “Don’t have a cow, man,” to quote the Bart. > [@](#): > > You have no scientifically verfied evidence for your claims. Nor any which counterdicts my hypothesis! If I discovered the secret to cold fusion and the next day my lab burnt down and I didn’t have the time and resources to repeat my experiment, but the scientists I went to with my results and experimental parameters responded thusly: > [@](#): > > We have a limited amount of time and resources to discover things about this world, and I see no shame in not wasting our efforts on hypothesis that have no scientific support and are amazingly inconvienent for the experimenter. That would be a shame on them. Their unwillingness to invest the resources to repeat my experiment would be understandable, but what a loss for humanity. What could possibly be the investment involved? Let’s say a person’s net worth is $220,000 dollars and they earn $125 an hour. With a six week experiment, that would be a net cost of a quarter of a million dollars. To paraphrase Jesus, exactly what price do you put on a soul? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MetropoChris \* > Believing the moon is X amount of miles away even though Ive yet to personally measure the distance is no comparison to my lack of belief in religion. Perfect correllation if you ask me. > [@](#): > > Telescopes and carbon dating just seem to hold more water than a Book man wrote ages ago based on his insecurities and his fear of the unknown… Who said anything about a book? I’m providing you with an experiment you yourself can perform right now which would verify that God exists based on my own results. > [@](#): > > this idea … is a joke right??? Nope. But I can understand why less intelligent and unscientific people would blindly ignore any opportunity to gather evidence of God’s existance. Sad, really. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059.md?page=3)