I was sitting back and thinking about religion for a bit. I began to wonder if a person’s I.Q. has ever been correlated with their religious beliefs. I’m curious as to if generally a Genius IQ person would have less or more belief in religion. Any ideas, previous test data?
There are many studies that have researched this.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-thinkingchristians.htm
John
There are also debates in Mensa’s national magazine about the correlation between religious beliefs and I.Q. I have actually read someone write that he didn’t see how anyone in the top 1% could possibly not be an atheist. This amused a close friend and me because both of us are very religious (he’s a Wiccan, I’m a Christian), and both of had met the 1% criteria.
Just my 2 cents.
CJ
“”"""""There are also debates in Mensa’s national magazine about the correlation between religious beliefs and I.Q. I have actually read someone write that he didn’t see how anyone in the top 1% could possibly not be an atheist. This amused a close friend and me because both of us are very religious (he’s a Wiccan, I’m a Christian), and both of had met the 1% criteria.
Just my 2 cents.
CJ"""""""
Someone who connotates their worth in the value of a bullet does not strike me as deeply religious.
-Justhink
I am skeptical of the above-linked “Liberal FAQ” site’s claim that those studies prove “those with the most logic” are rejecting religion. Education and/or intelligence alone is not any indication that ALL of a given person/social group’s beliefs were derived through logic. Smart people can have dumb beliefs.
Ironically, I think a quote from an atheist, Michael Shermer, articulates my view on this quite well:
From http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002F4E6-8CF7-1D49-90FB809EC5880000&catID=2
Another thing that I think makes it difficult to answer this question is: Which religion are you looking at? Most of these studies seemed to be relying on “conservative Christianity” as their measuring stick for religiosity. Obviously, though, Christianity isn’t the only game in town. Personally, I would be inclined to suspect that certain views like new age, paganism and Buddhism are more prevalent among well-educated people. However, I don’t believe that has anything to do with the actual validity of a given religious viewpoint.
And someone who draws invalid inferences and posts them using made up meanings for misspelled words does not strike me as one who has actually contributed to the discussion.
If I may:
“Ninety-nine percent of everything that goes on in most Christian churches has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual religion. Intelligent people all notice this sooner or later, and they conclude that the entire 100% is bullshit, which is why atheism is being connected with intelligence in people’s minds.”
Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
Hell, look around. We’ve got plenty of smart religious dopers.
There was an article in Nature surveying the members of the National Academy of Science of the USA. The NAS is the utmost elite organization for scientific acheivement. The survey was conducted in 1916 and again in 1997. In 1916, 40% of NAS members had belief in some deity. This decreased to 7% in 1997. The numbers were similar for belief in life after death. I will try to dig up a cite. Do with these numbers what you will. I don’t think that endogenous intelligence and religious beliefs are correlated, but I do think that advanced scientific training tends to diminish one’s faith in the supernatural. Also, I think that traditional aspects of some religions, i.e. Judaism with its emphasis on personal study and understanding, pushes an education system. So intelligence may find some correlation in religion but this has nothing to do with the core tenets of that religion.
Slight hijack:
See
http://www.weeden.info/research/index.htm
for someone who thinks that your particular moral and religious beliefs may be dictated (well, influenced) not by your IQ but by . . . your genetics. Lots of work would have to be done on this so far very academic theory, though no less a sociobiologist than Jesse Ventura recently opined to the effect that “religion is for losers,” an assertion that seems like it might be fruitfully explored in the rubric of linking genetic traits like attractiveness or lack thereof to a stronger or weaker interest in particular religious doctrines. I am not holding my breath for the Governor to undertake such an investigation.
quote:
Someone who connotates their worth in the value of a bullet does not strike me as deeply religious.
And someone who draws invalid inferences and posts them using made up meanings for misspelled words does not strike me as one who has actually contributed to the discussion.
It’s one of those WW11 catch phrases like “the whole 9 yards” and such for describing bullets, death, murder. Bullets were manufactured mass-productively at 2 cents a pop, hence the emergence of this cynical philosophically oriented expression.
Both thought viruses are from the same conceptual corruption; so it’s really not that much of a distinction.
Although, religious people strike me as using cliff notes, association techniques to help them along with the test; unfortunately the tests haven’t been modified for this corruption - most of them are to confused to realize that using these negates the test score and any further value they render from it shrug – you’ll always have a few slip in through the cracks that way.
quote:
I do not think it means what you think it means.
That is your right… although, you did make a point against my word usage and conceptual mapping in regards to standardization. I’m not Mensa material, so you can certainly take appreciation in that fact. My memory recall is not photographic/audiographic; without using association techniques, I score in the 1-2 percentile.
I was stating that someone religiously (christian) inclined would not sign out with such a form of philosophic cynicism, and that this person was misrepresenting the population in question – I can’t deny that the two diametricly oppose each other; there is definately religious patterning in there - counter-intelligence.
It slips through the cracks…
-Justhink
That is so true.
Atheists fondly (and correctly) point out that many theists don’t really think about the reasons for their beliefs. By the same token though, we often hear otherwise intelligent atheists spout tenets which bespeak more of sloganism than logic. Heck, how often do we hear hear otherwise intelligent, well educated individuals spew self-refuting vitriol such as “There is no absolute truth” or “We should never impose our moral rules on other people”? For that matter, what about the oft-repeated claims that “Faith means the complete absence of evidence” or “All truth should be testable by science”?
Atheist Michael Shermer was correct. We shouldn’t pretend that atheists are choosing logic, while theists choose to eschew it. As Shermer pointed out, atheist beliefs are seldom motivated by step-by-step logic, just as theistic beliefs are seldom motivated in that manner.
[hijack]
Justhink, my reply last night was dropped.
First of all, you have no right to judge my worth or my degree of religiousity. Second, the “two cents” referred to the content of my post, which was anecdotal and without cites to back it up. IMHO, your remark was insulting and contributed nothing to the debate at hand.
[/hijack]
[nitpick]
Second, technically, “connotate” is a word, according to dictionary.com, but it is essentially synonymous with “connote.” “Denote” might be a better choice for what Justhink meant to say, given it’s meaning and how often it’s used in everyday English.
[/nitpick]
CJ
Approaching spiritual questions from an entirely rational basis is like hunting butterflies with a hammer. You might suceed, but it won’t be worth it.
Aint that the truth! - there seems just as much controversy about the origin of this expression as there is about ‘the whole nine yards’ , the origin of which is obscure to say the least.
Personally, I had always (without reason to believe otherwise) assumed it (the ‘two cents’ thing) was something to do with the Biblical story of The Widow’s Offering:
- in this context ‘my two cents’ could be taken to mean “I know this isn’t much, but it’s all I have”.
Was there a reason for your bizzare pointed comment toward cjhoworth?
Out of curisoty, are there statistics on this?
On second thought, Mangetout, let’s not ask J to explain it, we don’t need the thread hijacked into 3500-word (half of them custom-defined in a nonstandard way) expositions on how “counter-intelligent thought” permeates America…
Back to the thread: To begin with the OP title, I.Q. is kind of iffy as a measure in this case – it is at best an indicator related to a form or a component of “intelligence”, and not really an absolute scale or a deterministic variable. (Educational level in and of itself does not necessarily represent broad-spectrum “intelligence”, either.) An individual “genius” based on IQ number may, at the same time, have such deep emotional needs/voids in his/her life that a Jack Chick tract may look good, even if for a moment
Secondly, spathiphyllum has a good point: there are myriad forms of religiosity and spirituality wherein a person could find an answer that satisfies them and is compatible with their intellectual understanding of life and the universe. There is a rich tradition of religious intellectuals, philosophers, scientists, writers, etc. who would be in the high percentiles. The idea that a highly intelligent, rational analysis of the universe must lead to abandonment of all religiosity/spirituality may be something of a false inference based on observations of abandonment of orthodox, traditionalist worldviews. Not every Christian is Jack Chick; not every New Ager does past-lives regression of his houseplants.
On second thought, Mangetout, let’s not ask J to explain it, we don’t need the thread hijacked into 3500-word (half of them custom-defined in a nonstandard way) expositions on how “counter-intelligent thought” permeates America…
Back to the thread: To begin with the OP title, I.Q. is kind of iffy as a measure in this case – it is at best an indicator related to a form or a component of “intelligence”, and not really an absolute scale or a deterministic variable. (Educational level in and of itself does not necessarily represent broad-spectrum “intelligence”, either.) An individual “genius” based on IQ number may, at the same time, have such deep emotional needs/voids in his/her life that a Jack Chick tract may look good, even if for a moment
Secondly, spathiphyllum has a good point: there are myriad forms of religiosity and spirituality wherein a person could find an answer that satisfies them and is compatible with their intellectual understanding of life and the universe. There is a rich tradition of religious intellectuals, philosophers, scientists, writers, etc. who would be in the high percentiles. The idea that a highly intelligent, rational analysis of the universe must lead to abandonment of all religiosity/spirituality may be something of a false inference based on observations of abandonment of orthodox, traditionalist worldviews. Not every Christian is Jack Chick; not every New Ager does past-lives regression of his houseplants.
On second thought, Mangetout, let’s not ask J to explain it, we don’t need the thread hijacked into 3500-word (half of them custom-defined in a nonstandard way) expositions on how “counter-intelligent thought” permeates America…
Back to the thread: To begin with the OP title, I.Q. is kind of iffy as a measure in this case – it is at best an indicator related to a form or a component of “intelligence”, and not really an absolute scale or a deterministic variable. (Educational level in and of itself does not necessarily represent broad-spectrum “intelligence”, either.) An individual “genius” based on IQ number may, at the same time, have such deep emotional needs/voids in his/her life that a Jack Chick tract may look good, even if for a moment
Secondly, spathiphyllum has a good point: there are myriad forms of religiosity and spirituality wherein a person could find an answer that satisfies them and is compatible with their intellectual understanding of life and the universe. There is a rich tradition of religious intellectuals, philosophers, scientists, writers, etc. who would be in the high percentiles. The idea that a highly intelligent, rational analysis of the universe must lead to abandonment of all religiosity/spirituality may be something of a false inference based on observations of abandonment of orthodox, traditionalist worldviews. Not every Christian is Jack Chick; not every New Ager does past-lives regression of his houseplants.
It seems to me (and it’s been said much better by others) that true intelligence lies in knowing that you do not know everything, and what is more, in knowing that you cannot ever know everything.
Given that, how can it possibly follow that one could ever acquire enough knowledge to prove or disprove the existence of God?
I would think that rational thought based on our current understanding of the universe, along with a consious effort to exclude any Cause beyond pure chance would leave one at best an agnostic.
On the other hand, having thoughfully considered the human condition open to the possiblity of a higher Power, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that the existence of God is the only rational explanation for the universe as we know it and exist in it. That does not mean that I am positing the existence of God as “proven”; only that it is the explanation that I feel best explains the circumstances of life.
Frankly, as a practicing Catholic with a tested “IQ” (whatever that signifies) higher than 99% of the population, I find the implication that I am willfully ignorant or just of inferior intelligence both laughable and insulting.
The person who said it better than you was Socrates 
I also agree that intelligence really has little impact on belief in a particular theology. It probably does have an impact on the willingness to participate in dumb surveys though…