# New Study: Liberal Atheists = Smartest People **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354 "2010-02-25T03:04:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/81 "2010-03-01T17:07:48Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) > Sounds pretty widespread. Citing a Wikipedia article covered in claims _they_ have no cites for is fucking HILARIOUS! In my mind **LeMay** your level of critical thinking is seriously deficient. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/82 "2010-03-01T22:22:56Z")
Why wouldn’t liberal atheists be smarter? You think it takes a whole lot of brains to read a thousand year old book filled with magic and say it’s true? Every time a debate about the intelligence between liberals and conservatives pop up, the conservatives complain about getting the shaft. What’s so intelligent about wanting everything to stay the way things are? How do you progress in science, math, art, and other industries if you cannot think outside the box and just want to sit on your butt and say everything’s great, everything should be the way it always is. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/83 "2010-03-01T23:27:31Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Every time a debate about the intelligence between liberals and conservatives pop up, the conservatives complain about getting the shaft. What’s so intelligent about wanting everything to stay the way things are? It isn’t that conservatives want things to stay the way they are, it’s that they want things to change in a sensible, logical and beneficial manner. This is an approach vastly more intelligent than the toss-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater, do-something-even-if-it’s-wrong approach so beloved by liberals and which has resulted in many of the problems that exist in this country today. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/84 "2010-03-01T23:29:43Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > It isn’t that conservatives want things to stay the way they are, it’s that they want things to change in a sensible, logical and beneficial manner. This is an approach vastly more intelligent than the toss-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater, do-something-even-if-it’s-wrong approach so beloved by liberals and which has resulted in many of the problems that exist in this country today. Depends on the conservative - many are reluctant to _consider_ change. Not to mention the _definition_ of conservative is techincally one who wishes to maintain the status quo - that “want things to change in a sensible, logical and beneficial manner” is progressive. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/85 "2010-03-02T00:44:28Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > It isn’t that conservatives want things to stay the way they are, it’s that they want things to change in a sensible, logical and beneficial manner. This is an approach vastly more intelligent than the toss-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater, do-something-even-if-it’s-wrong approach so beloved by liberals and which has resulted in many of the problems that exist in this country today. What examples can you give where conservatives backed a sensible change to the status quo when liberals pushed for radical change? Everything that I can think of, be it abolition, welfare, medicare/medicaid, minimum wage, anti-trust laws, and civil rights are progressive and idealogically liberal ideas that were necessary and have been proven correct through time; ideas that were attacked by the conservatives of their day as radical, extreme, and socialistic. And whether you want to call it global warming or climate change, I feel confident that liberals will once again be proven right on this issue as well: we need to do something massive and immediate, or else the planet’s in real danger. Instead we hear idiots like DeMint claiming snowstorms means global warming is false, school board members reaching into their time machines and trying to teach creationism in schools, and obstructing any reform at all in health care. It’s not “different intelligence” backing those propositions. It’s stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/86 "2010-03-02T01:08:36Z")
FWIW, [P.Z. Meyers](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_yourselves_on_the.php), who is an outspoken atheist, a liberal, and an evolutionary biologist, says this study (the one in the OP) is is bullshit, and its author is a scientifically incompetent loon, who has advocated, amongst other things, [carpet bombing the Middle East with nuclear weapons](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_yourselves_on_the.php). ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/87 "2010-03-02T03:51:10Z")
> [@](#): > > But it is far less well-established what IQ is, whether the characteristic measures is innate or learned, whether it is culture-bound or transcultural, how valuable it is, whether it is merely a set of “secretarial skills,” or whether there even is such thing as g, a general intelligence factor. The general intelligence factor or ‘g’ as measured on tests has strong predictive value for a number of socio-economic outcomes. These include, academics, income, health, and at the low end, crime and welfare dependency. Certainly, the army continues to use psychometric tests as they predict how well people will be able to pick up new skills. People who score below a certain level are screened out as they will be too difficult to train. For a nice summary, see ‘Why g matters: the complexity of ordinary life’ by psychologist Linda Gottfredson. > **[1997whygmatters.pdf](https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf)** > > 3.82 MB Also, neuroscientists are uncovering the neurobiological basis for intelligence. UCLA neuroscientist Paul Thompson & Yale Psychologist Jeremy Grey discuss some of these here. They include grey matter volume, cortical thickness and myelination quality (which insulates the neurons). [http://www.yale.edu/scan/GT\_2004\_NRN.pdf](http://www.yale.edu/scan/GT_2004_NRN.pdf) More recently Thompson has shown that myelination is substantially heritable. > [@](#): > > By comparing the brain scans of twins, scientists discovered that the quality of the fatty tissue that insulates neural wires is largely inherited. The parietal lobe, which is involved in logic and mathematics, is 85 percent genetically determined, whereas the visual cortex is about 76 percent, and the temporal lobe, which is involved in learning and memory, is only 45 percent genetically determined. > > Credit: David Shattuck, Arthur Toga, Paul Thompson/UCLA [http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22333/page1/](http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22333/page1/) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/88 "2010-03-02T04:00:48Z")
> [@](#): > > The contention which you are confusedly attributing to liberals is actually that “race” is a social construct rather than a biological category. For purposes of discussing affirmative action, race is relevant, because it is a social construct, not because it is a biological category, and the purpose of affirmative action is to correct for the social effects of social discrimination and prejudice based on race as socially perceived. Actually, it is both just like gender or adolescence - it has a cultural aspect and a biological component. > [@](#): > > From the conclusions of the Risch paper (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:268–275, 2005): > > Attention has recently focused on genetic structure in the human population. Some have argued that the amount of genetic variation within populations dwarfs the variation between populations, suggesting that discrete genetic categories are not useful (Lewontin 1972; Cooper et al. 2003; Haga and Venter 2003). On the other hand, several studies have shown that individuals tend to cluster genetically with others of the same ancestral geographic origins (Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Stephens et al. 2001; Bamshad et al. 2003). Prior studies have generally been performed on a relatively small number of individuals and/or markers. A recent study (Rosenberg et al. 2002) examined 377 autosomal micro-satellite markers in 1,056 individuals from a global sample of 52 populations and found significant evidence of genetic clustering, largely along geographic (continental) lines. Consistent with prior studies, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%. > **[Metric on the space of genomes and the scientific basis for race](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html)** > > \[Note: the science has advanced considerably since I wrote this post. See here for a nice picture of clustering by ethnicity. I've added so... > [@](#): > > Represent each individual human by their DNA sequence. When aggregated, they cluster into readily identifiable groups. This has been known for 40 years now, although the technology and methods of analysis continue to improve. Below are results from 1966, 1978 and 2008. [Information Processing: Genetic clustering: 40 years of progress](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/06/genetic-clustering-40-years-of-progress.html) ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/89 "2010-03-02T04:32:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t think it’s any surprise that the more intelligent people are the more skeptical they’re likely to be, and the more critical in their thinking – also the more iconoclastic, and the more complex in their ethical thinking. > > The less intelligent thy are, the more likely they are to stay entrenched in tribalism, religionism and simplistic ethical thinking. > > I saw a new study a few days ago that also showed a correlation between religion and racism. the more religious someone is, the more racist they are likely to be. > > I’ve always liked the observation by John Stuart Mill that not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. I’d have to say that the whole conservative hate that seems so common among liberals these days, especially those that consider conservatives stupid simply because they have differing opinions, should fall somewhere next to Sexism and Racism. A man saying that women are inferior is morally wrong (true). A white man saying that blacks are inferior is morally wrong (true). But a liberal saying that conservatives are more likely to be stupid is perfectly fine? Excuse me? If that comment right there was about African Americans, or Asians, or women, everyone would be in uproar. But since it’s about conservatives, everything’s fine. Regards, Babale. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/90 "2010-03-02T06:41:30Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Why wouldn’t liberal atheists be smarter? You think it takes a whole lot of brains to read a thousand year old book filled with magic and say it’s true? No, but describing the text in question as “a thousand year old book filled with magic” is (how do I put this politely?)… an unnuanced stance that lacks a certain level of scholarly rigor. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/91 "2010-03-02T06:45:49Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > And whether you want to call it global warming or climate change, I feel confident that liberals will once again be proven right on this issue as well: we need to do something massive and immediate, or else the planet’s in real danger. Instead we hear idiots like DeMint claiming snowstorms means global warming is false, school board members reaching into their time machines and trying to teach creationism in schools, and obstructing any reform at all in health care. > > It’s not “different intelligence” backing those propositions. It’s stupidity. Not saying that I agree with the above people. I’m not Conservative. Independent here, liberal on some issues and conservative on others. But just because you disagree with someone does NOT make them stupid. ---
**Author:** ![footballisplayedwithyourfeet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9f8e36/32.png) [@footballisplayedwithyourfeet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/footballisplayedwithyourfeet)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/92 "2010-03-02T10:44:58Z")
OK, I couldn’t get access to the article, but there are a few things that need to be mentioned. As said before, a correlation doesn’t say anything about causality. It might be the _theory_\* that intelligence influences certain attitudes and beliefs, but all a correlation can tell us is that they are related and ‘move’ together. I also haven’t heard anything about the size of the effects, if the sample is large enough very small correlations (and correlations are usually quite small in psychology, as far as I’ve heard) can still be significant, without having a lot of substantial meaning.\*\* I personally am not really surprised if these are the findings - might also depend on where he sampled, the US or the UK - I would imagine that education can make people reconsider religion (when talking about evolution, how long the earth has been here, how we understand natural phenomena, etc.). These people would probably be also better at testing (related to education) and thus do better at IQ tests. Anyhow, nothing I know for sure, but definately plausible. On a personal note, I am not religious and in american terms not even a liberal but a socialist (and not like Obama); and these results 9if the study is of quality) only confirm what I in general would’ve expected. - I’m assuming here the article uses correlational techniques, as said before I coulndt read it. \*\* Again, I’m not sure this is the case, but should be looked in to. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/93 "2010-03-02T11:21:05Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > If that comment right there was about African Americans, or Asians, or women, everyone would be in uproar. But since it’s about conservatives, everything’s fine. Get back to us when “conservative” is an inborn trait and not a matter of choice, then you can make this argument. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/94 "2010-03-02T17:15:42Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > I’d have to say that the whole conservative hate that seems so common among liberals these days, especially those that consider conservatives stupid simply because they have differing opinions, should fall somewhere next to Sexism and Racism. A man saying that women are inferior is morally wrong (true). A white man saying that blacks are inferior is morally wrong (true). But a liberal saying that conservatives are more likely to be stupid is perfectly fine? Excuse me? > > If that comment right there was about African Americans, or Asians, or women, everyone would be in uproar. But since it’s about conservatives, everything’s fine. > > Regards, Babale. Morally, black people can’t help what they are, thus blaming them for something like that is immoral. Accusing them of being stupid when they are biologically identical to whites is asinine, thus stupid. However, a conservative is that way by virtue of what he believes and how he acts. It is certainly ok to judge people by their beliefs and actions. > [@JThunder](#): > > No, but describing the text in question as “a thousand year old book filled with magic” is (how do I put this politely?)… an unnuanced stance that lacks a certain level of scholarly rigor. Any book that posits a magical being creating things out of nothing and violating every known law of the universe is a fairy tale to me. The onus is on those believing in it to prove it, and so far they’ve failed miserably > [@Babale](#): > > Not saying that I agree with the above people. I’m not Conservative. Independent here, liberal on some issues and conservative on others. But just because you disagree with someone does NOT make them stupid. True, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I only think it’s stupid of them to not listen to actual science when they base their beliefs. I’m not judging them because they disagree with me, I’m judging them because they lack a fundamental understanding of how proof, evidence, and science works. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/95 "2010-03-02T17:35:28Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > I’d have to say that the whole conservative hate that seems so common among liberals these days, especially those that consider conservatives stupid simply because they have differing opinions, should fall somewhere next to Sexism and Racism. A man saying that women are inferior is morally wrong (true). A white man saying that blacks are inferior is morally wrong (true). But a liberal saying that conservatives are more likely to be stupid is perfectly fine? Excuse me? 1. What’s being said is that stupid people are more likely to be conservative. It’s a statement about stupid people, not conservatives. 2. Being politically conservative is not a genetic trait. The comparison is asinine. Judging a person to be stupid because of that individual’s own, unforced _opinions_ is perfectly fair and reasonable, and is not an assumption based on anything but that person’s won expressed thinking. If you can’t call _thinking_ stupid, then what _can_ you call stupid? Incidentally, anyone crying about liberals hating conservatives is not paying attention to anything in the news these days. There’s no comparison to the organized, mass hatred that liberals are getting from the right. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/96 "2010-03-02T17:39:28Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > No, but describing the text in question as “a thousand year old book filled with magic” is (how do I put this politely?)… an unnuanced stance that lacks a certain level of scholarly rigor. Well, he was off on the age. It’s actually 2000 years old. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/97 "2010-03-02T17:53:37Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > My guess is that his brilliance was despite, and not because of his religion. His brilliance was in spite of a lot of things. He also believed hard as a rock in Alchemy (in fact he considered himself an alchemist first, a natural philosopher second), Atlantis, was into a number of “mystical” secret societies (well, “secret” societies), studied the whens and hows of the Apocalypse, was embroiled in petty politics not to mention his ongoing feud with Leibniz… Thankfully, the guy seemed like an endless font of curiosity and energy and didn’t stop there. Still, one wonders what he could have achieved with a little bit more rigour. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/98 "2010-03-02T18:26:23Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > It was a setup. It is also the correct answer. Then prove it. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/99 "2010-03-02T18:27:01Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > So is it your hypothesis, **Dio** , that belief in God largely = stupid? > [@Babale](#): > > …But a liberal saying that conservatives are more likely to be stupid is perfectly fine? Whatever my feeling about the argument, I wanted to point out that both of you are using fallacious reasoning here. Specifically, **Dio** repeated J.S. Mill’s jibe “_that not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives_”. Yet, both of you have flipped your ever-logical _p_’s and _q_’s in what I believe is a case of _commutation of conditionals_. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s a statement about stupid people, not conservatives. Exactly right. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354/100 "2010-03-02T19:35:49Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > Whatever my feeling about the argument, I wanted to point out that both of you are using fallacious reasoning here. Specifically, **Dio** repeated J.S. Mill’s jibe “_that not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives_”. Yet, both of you have flipped your ever-logical _p_’s and _q_’s in what I believe is a case of _commutation of conditionals_. Not at all. It seems pretty clear to me that his post is using belief in God to define conservative stupidity, even though he includes the caveat that this does not apply to all conservatives. When he says stupid people are more inclined toward tribalism, etc., what he’s really saying is that stupid people are more inclined toward belief in God. I happen to be of the opinion that belief in God happens to be an indicator of intelligence. It is an attempt to make sense of that which appears to make no sense. (I’m speaking historically here.) A stupid person would look at the world the way it is and just accept it that way. An intelligent person would look at the world the way it is and be curious and try to find explanations for it, and that’s what believers have always done. Frankly, it makes little more sense to me to believe that evolution alone accounts for life as we know it than to believe it was created by God in whatever way he created it (I don’t think most believers, even Christians, truly believe God created man instantly and out of whole cloth). No one has ever been to explain to my satisfaction how matter and the universe came into being in the first place or how, even if one were to accept the hypothesis that some protein or another over some vast period of time managed to be able to replicate itself and eventually morph into what we now know as living creatures, separate and highly sophisticated reproductive systems, requiring the participation of of both sexes and long, complicated gestation periods, ever managed to develop without killing off the creatures to begin with. And yet all this is taken on faith by atheists and those who believe that evolution only is the explanation for life. So in essense you have two competing types of faith, neither of which can be proven absolutely at this time, even though physical evidence shows that evolution plays at least a modifying or adaptive role in creating psysiological change as time goes by. (And then again there’s the notion that God created evolution, so even evolution doesn’t necessarily disprove the existence of God but only certain Biblical versions of past events.) So again, we’re back to the observation that any one group of people or beliefs is really not that much different than any other. Human beings throughout history, all over the globe and in virtually all cultures, have come to believe in God in one way or the other. So unless you want to posit that virtually all of humanity save for today’s liberal atheists has been stupid, it’s a difficult argument to make that people who believe in God do so primarily out of nothing but sheer stupidity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-study-liberal-atheists-smartest-people/530354.md?page=6)