The Relationship Between Intelligence and Religiousness

[WWFStern]

Is there an intellectual elite that, in sharp contrast to “Kansas values,” rejects the supernatural, religion and even God himself? Do high levels of education result in a loss of piety? Are believers putting their faith at risk by attending a prestigious American university? In fact, the answer to all those questions seems to be yes. Reading “The God Delusion,” by Richard Dawkins, I was amazed by the statistical evidence indicating that education and intelligence have an inverse relationship with religiosity. In study after study, the most distinguished, renowned minds rejected religion and embraced atheistic naturalism. As you read the following quotations and selections, remember that this doesn’t actually prove the veracity of atheism. However, it raises an interesting question: Do you want to be on the side of eminent intelligentsia, or on the other?

Let’s start with Nobel laureates. Dawkins writes that a “… systematic study by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi ‘found that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from’.” Surely, the prevalent atheism among Nobel laureates must mean something, given atheism’s infrequency among the general public. Could education, knowledge and intelligence lead one toward a faithless worldview?

Dawkins continues, “A study in the leading journal Nature by Larson and Witham in 1998 showed that of those American scientists considered eminent enough by their peers to have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to being a Fellow of the Royal Society in Britain) only about 7 per cent believe in a personal God. This overwhelming preponderance of atheists is almost the exact opposite of the profile of the American population at large, of whom more than 90 per cent are believers in some sort of supernatural being.” Again, I feel compelled to highlight this incredible discrepancy. Is it possible that these eminent scientists have a stronger grasp on reality—on what is possible—than the average person off the street, who might or might not have a solid education in science?

I’ve mentioned the Larson and Witham study in earlier writings. I think it is significant because of the NAS scientists’ outright disbelief in the divine; we’re not talking about wishy-washy agnostics here. Indeed, of the respondents to that survey, 72.2% expressed outright atheism, as compared to 20.8% agnosticism.

Dawkins’ next case in point is equally as dramatic. He refers to research in progress from R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat, which studies religiosity among the Fellows of the Royal Society. Dawkins again:

“All 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society (FRS) who possess an email address (the great majority) were polled, and about 23 per cent responded (a good figure for this kind of study). They were offered various propositions, for example: ‘I believe in a personal God, that is one who takes an interest in individuals, hears and answers prayers, is concerned with sin and transgressions, and passes judgement.’ For each such proposition, they were invited to choose a number from 1 (strong disagreement) to 7 (strong agreement). It is a little hard to compare the results directly with the Larson and Witham study, because Larson and Witham offered their academicians only a three-point scale, not a seven-point scale, but the overall trend is the same. The overwhelming majority of FRS, like the overwhelming majority of US Academicians, are atheists. Only 3.3 per cent of the Fellows agreed strongly with the statement that a personal god exists (i.e. chose 7 on the scale), while 78.8 per cent strongly disagreed (i.e. chose 1 on the scale). If you define ‘believers’ as those who chose 6 or 7, and if you define ‘unbelievers’ as those who chose 1 or 2, there were a massive 213 unbelievers and a mere 12 believers.”

Dawkins hastened to add that there was, “… a small but significant tendency for biological scientists to be even more atheistic than physical scientists.” Apparently, those scientists who deal with life and its natural processes—the individuals most likely to find God’s fingerprints—haven’t yet discovered them.

Now, Dawkins turns to Dr. Michael Shermer, a distinguished defender of science that I’ve quoted on several occasions. Dawkins writes, “Michael Shermer, in How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many interesting results was the discovery that religiosity is indeed negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science and (strongly) with political liberalism.” Once again, our emerging trend is unmistakable.

However, let’s not immediately discount the possibility that the (several) studies which Dawkins cites in his book are anomalous. Perhaps for every one survey that finds an inverse relationship between intelligence and religiousness, there are three that chart a direct relationship; maybe Dawkins is “counting the hits and ignoring the misses.” Alas, this emphatically is not the case. Dawkins once more:

“On the subject of religion and IQ, the only meta-analysis known to me was published by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine in 2002 (Mensa is the society of individuals with a high IQ, and their journal not surprisingly includes articles on the one thing that draws them together). Bell concluded: ‘Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold “beliefs” of any kind’.”

Staying on the subject of Mensa for a moment but reverting back to this article’s statistical roots, let’s look at the relationship between the general public’s religiosity and that of Mensans. One American study laid out the following religious belief figures:

Non-Mensans: 83%
Mensans: 56%
superMensans: 47%

Those results, while not as dramatic, clearly demonstrate the continuation of our pattern.

This information, largely culled from Dawkins’ wonderful tome “The God Delusion,” which I give my very highest recommendation, probably comes as a shock to some. But it shouldn’t. Consider some of the absurdities contained within the popular religions of today. Let’s use Christianity as an example. I will cite just a handful of glaring absurdities.

• A speaking serpent.
• Adam dying at the age of 930.
• Lazarus overcoming brain death in order to return to life.
• Jesus overcoming brain death in order to be resurrected.
• The very notion that we—a single species of animal, on one planet, which is part of a single solar system, which is part of one galaxy, which itself is part of a single galaxy cluster in the universe, which itself might be part of a multiverse—can speak with the creator of the cosmos.

Surely, it’s only natural that the most educated, the most intelligent and the most knowledgeable among us would reject such silliness in favor of scientific naturalism. Atheism and intelligence seem to have a direct relationship, so to conclude I again must ask: Do you want to be on the side of eminent intelligentsia, or on the other?

[seebs]

Oooh, bandwagon fallacy!

FWIW, I think the key thing missing is analysis of countries where the mainstream position isn't religion.

A few things to consider:
1. Intelligent and well-educated people are more likely to question their assumptions, probably. If this is the case, then in predominately atheistic societies, they may be the only ones who are likely to question the assumption of atheism.
2. Many people are raised in particular variants of religion that are internally inconsistent, which doesn't bug most people, but bugs a lot of smart people. Such people are very likely to leave that particular religion -- but might not have left a more coherent one, and might return to a more coherent one if it's presented to them.

FWIW, I know smart and stupid atheists, and smart and stupid Christians. I think a majority of the genius-level people I've talked to are theistic, but it's not exactly a huge majority, and it's certainly not a huge sample space.

Still... All told, all this tells me is that most Americans are religious, and don't have or need particularly good reasons for their beliefs.

[WWFStern]

Oooh, bandwagon fallacy!

FWIW, I think the key thing missing is analysis of countries where the mainstream position isn't religion.

A few things to consider:
1. Intelligent and well-educated people are more likely to question their assumptions, probably. If this is the case, then in predominately atheistic societies, they may be the only ones who are likely to question the assumption of atheism.
2. Many people are raised in particular variants of religion that are internally inconsistent, which doesn't bug most people, but bugs a lot of smart people. Such people are very likely to leave that particular religion -- but might not have left a more coherent one, and might return to a more coherent one if it's presented to them.

FWIW, I know smart and stupid atheists, and smart and stupid Christians. I think a majority of the genius-level people I've talked to are theistic, but it's not exactly a huge majority, and it's certainly not a huge sample space.

Still... All told, all this tells me is that most Americans are religious, and don't have or need particularly good reasons for their beliefs.

It would be a fallacy to say this: "The smart people mostly are atheists, so therefore atheism is correct." That clearly would be fallacious.

However, all I'm saying is that, according to several studies (and one meta-analysis), there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence (or, if you prefer, a direct relationship between irreligiousness and intelligence).

The rhetorical question is a natural one: On who's side would you rather be?

I mean to prove nothing here about the nature of the world. Rather, I mean to explicate a very interesting and pronounced trend.

[trendkill]

I will cite just a handful of glaring absurdities.

• A speaking serpent.
• Adam dying at the age of 930.
• Lazarus overcoming brain death in order to return to life.
• Jesus overcoming brain death in order to be resurrected.
• The very notion that we—a single species of animal, on one planet, which is part of a single solar system, which is part of one galaxy, which itself is part of a single galaxy cluster in the universe, which itself might be part of a multiverse—can speak with the creator of the cosmos.

Surely, it’s only natural that the most educated, the most intelligent and the most knowledgeable among us would reject such silliness in favor of scientific naturalism.I don't think it's quite as simple as all that. Assuming that obvious, empirically-sensed reality is the only kind (which is what you have to do for your bullet points to really hit their mark) is easy to do, and I think lots of people do it without a great deal of reasoning involved. Once you start getting into philosophy, intelligent people can be and are all over the map. That said, I do give atheism an edge in the realm of intelligent thought, and I think the studies cited by Dawkins are not to be dismissed out of hand when judging this. Of course I'm biased.

Atheism and intelligence seem to have a direct relationship, so to conclude I again must ask: Do you want to be on the side of eminent intelligentsia, or on the other?This is indeed a fallacious ad populum appeal. However, like the ad populum arguments for theism, if we take note of the facts cited, I think they can validly serve as a nomination of the atheistic position for serious consideration.

Still... All told, all this tells me is that most Americans are religious, and don't have or need particularly good reasons for their beliefs.Maybe you missed the bit about the Royal Society in reportedly secular Britain.

A better line of attack, I think, would be to focus on the biases of scientists. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and when your life's work is all about repeatable, empirical observation, maybe you are more likely to have an emotional attachment to scientific assumptions that bleeds over into the rest of your philosophy.

[seebs]

Even Britain still has a default assumption of vague religious belief, so far as I can tell.

It's hard to get all the numbers separated out. I think there's a very big difference between "a majority of stupid people believe X" and "a majority of smart people believe ~X", even though both might lead to the conclusion "Smarter people are more likely to believe ~X".

From my experience, there's a lot of social pressure at every level to conform. Some communities have huge social pressure to be theistic or non-theistic, and most people will tend to bend at least a little based on that pressure.

In America, at least, I think a lot of the relation is adequately explained by creationism. People who are raised creationist, and get educated, have a very sound reason to reject the thing they were raised with. Since many groups actively promote creationism as essential to Christianity, they then give educated people a good reason to leave Christianity.

I've found that a lot of people who might otherwise deconvert, or who do deconvert, end up Christian once they realize that the parts they really did find convincing in no way depend on the creationist thing.

It's also interesting to note some of the social biases; I've noticed that people here tend to keep someone's belief or non-belief very much in mind. The reaction I get to posting a question or idea is much different from the reaction someone known to be non-theistic gets...

People are, in the end, people.

[EarlOfLade]

Well, I have never been anything but an atheist, so I really can't answer. But I have discovered that in order to become a christian, you have to set aside every critical fiber in your body and start accepting as truth, the most absurd and cruel ideas. It is beyond my comprehension how anyone can believe in this crap.

[Stacey Melissa]

In addition to the informative OP, and insightful responses from all, I'd like to add one more salient point: I was a fundie Christian until partway through university. I'm no more or less intelligent now than I was as a fundie. I just have far more education under my belt at this point. Much of that education focused on critical thinking. It wasn't specifically criticism of my religion, but I learned to - and was willing to - do that on my own.

[WWFStern]

In addition to the informative OP, and insightful responses from all, I'd like to add one more salient point: I was a fundie Christian until partway through university. I'm no more or less intelligent now than I was as a fundie. I just have far more education under my belt at this point. Much of that education focused on critical thinking. It wasn't specifically criticism of my religion, but I learned to - and was willing to - do that on my own.


Very interesting point, indeed.

I also was a Christian, albeit not fundamentalist in any way, until college, at which point I deconverted. After taking classes in biology, anthropology, philosophy, etc., my deconversion was a natural move.

I think a large part of my deconversion was simply decompartmentalizing my mind. When my mind was compartmentalized, I could separate my knowledge about the irreversibility of brain death from my "knowledge" about Jesus' resurrection. Once I decompartmentalized, I had to reconcile those things. Very quickly, miraculous resurrection went by the wayside and ever since I've been enamoured of science.

Subsequent readings of Dawkins, Pinker, Sagan, Harris and Shermer have hardened my atheism and scientism.

[trendkill]

Some communities have huge social pressure to be theistic or non-theistic, and most people will tend to bend at least a little based on that pressure.And by all accounts I've heard, the UK as a whole isn't one of them.

In addition to the informative OP, and insightful responses from all, I'd like to add one more salient point: I was a fundie Christian until partway through university. I'm no more or less intelligent now than I was as a fundie. I just have far more education under my belt at this point. Much of that education focused on critical thinking. It wasn't specifically criticism of my religion, but I learned to - and was willing to - do that on my own.I can say essentially the same about myself, although I think for the purposes of this topic, I'd count learning to think critically as an increase in intelligence. The point is whether atheism or theism is a "smarter" position, isn't it? If an improvement in your thinking causes a change, I think that's more relevant than your innate potential for good thinking.

[seebs]

Oddly, for me, critical thinking was what got me to move from "these particular Christians are kooks" to "wow, there's a whole lot of different beliefs here, and some of them are more sensible than others".

[WWFStern]

Oddly, for me, critical thinking was what got me to move from "these particular Christians are kooks" to "wow, there's a whole lot of different beliefs here, and some of them are more sensible than others".

I'm not convinced that--religious or not--any beliefs that invoke the supernatural could be considered sensible. The very notion of the supernatural, considering the absolute dearth of evidence, seems grotesquely irrational.

[seebs]

I'm not convinced that--religious or not--any beliefs that invoke the supernatural could be considered sensible. The very notion of the supernatural, considering the absolute dearth of evidence, seems grotesquely irrational.

Well, I started on the non-supernaturalist beliefs.

That said, I have no inherent objection to the supernatural. I don't have any problem with the idea of things orthogonal to my usual experience.

I think it comes of reading Flatland at an impressionable age. It is quite easy for me to speculate that my current awareness is only partial.

[Doug Shaver]

Atheism and intelligence seem to have a direct relationship
I have never observed a direct relationship, and I have seen no scientific data suggesting there is one.

[EthnAlln]

I have never observed a direct relationship, and I have seen no scientific data suggesting there is one.

Unless I misread, the OP cites quite a bit of such data.

However, I think the critical link with intelligence is the ability to assume a point of view different from one's own. Anybody looking at the world as a whole can see that his own culture, with its many theological and moral assumptions, is a tiny minority compared with the whole experience of humanity. From a logical point of view, everybody has to discount the beliefs of billions of other people, knowing full well that one would probably adhere strongly to those beliefs if one had been born in another time and place. To look at those obvious facts and deduce that some divinity had revealed the truth to be---by enormously improbable good fortune---the beliefs inculcated by one's parents and neighbors is almost impossible. The only way to preserve the beliefs one grew up with is to confine one's attention to one's own society and never dare look outside it. Intelligent people can't do that.

[WWFStern]

I have never observed a direct relationship, and I have seen no scientific data suggesting there is one.


What about the several studies cited in my OP? Don't they, at the very least, count as data, if not convincing evidence?

[Vitalstatistix]

FWIW, I think the key thing missing is analysis of countries where the mainstream position isn't religion.

A few things to consider:
1. Intelligent and well-educated people are more likely to question their assumptions, probably. If this is the case, then in predominately atheistic societies, they may be the only ones who are likely to question the assumption of atheism.One of these days you'll have to show me the assumptions of not believing in gods. You're making a rather subtle mistake by assuming someone who questions prevailing assumptions is an atheist. Suppose it's true that intelligence/education is correlated with being a contrarian. From that argument, you'd expect muslims & pastafarians just as much as you'd expect atheists.

Reminds me of pascal's wager. It's painting with an awfully broad brush to think you can lump all religions together.

[Vitalstatistix]

I don't think it's quite as simple as all that. Assuming that obvious, empirically-sensed reality is the only kind (which is what you have to do for your bullet points to really hit their mark) is easy to do, and I think lots of people do it without a great deal of reasoning involved.Nonsense. There is no such assumption. What there is is a refusal to accept assertions (that go against all known facts) without a very good reason.

[trendkill]

Nonsense. There is no such assumption. What there is is a refusal to accept assertions (that go against all known facts) without a very good reason."Miracles are scientifically impossible" is not a refutation of the existence of miracles, it's the definition of a miracle. Belief in miracles is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are not immutable. Without strict empiricist assumptions, miracles are not automatically impossible events or "glaring absurdities" that disqualify any reasonable person from believing in them; they could simply be uncommon.

[Vitalstatistix]

"Miracles are scientifically impossible" is not a refutation of the existence of miracles, it's the definition of a miracle. Belief in miracles is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are not immutable. Without strict empiricist assumptions, miracles are not automatically impossible events or "glaring absurdities" that disqualify any reasonable person from believing in them; they could simply be uncommon.It's a free country. Make assumptions & definitions as you see fit. That doesn't mean they correspond to anything in reality. Do you really think you can define irrationality on the scientists' part into existence?

Last I heard the definition of a miracle was "an event that cannot be explained by the known laws of nature and is therefore attributed to a supernatural or divine power." It's really too bad you have absolutely no justification for your claim that "laws of physics are not immutable" or "miracles might just be uncommon." I might suggest running an experiment by jumping off a roof because you don't believe in the immutability of the laws of physics.

Is this the first time you've seen induction in science & is that why you confuse it with dogma?

From my experience, there's a lot of social pressure at every level to conform. Some communities have huge social pressure to be theistic or non-theistic, and most people will tend to bend at least a little based on that pressure.Lets ignore the irony for a second here. Even if true, that still doesn't explain why there's that pressure to be non-theistic in the sciences. I wonder if you'll admit that history has shown naturalism to be effective/powerful/successful, while supernaturalism has always been positively ineffective and counter-productive, especially in attempts to understand the natural world.

I assume you're saying the pressure is just arbitrary. Maybe intelligent or educated people just like being atheists because that's just what they do. The study doesn't contradict you because it simply demonstrates a correlation, but your conclusion seems like intellectual cowardice to me.

[Doug Shaver]

What about the several studies cited in my OP?
Are you saying that a correlation and a direct relationship are the same thing?

[trendkill]

It's a free country. Make assumptions & definitions as you see fit. That doesn't mean they correspond to anything in reality. Do you really think you can define irrationality on the scientists' part into existence?I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Last I heard the definition of a miracle was "an event that cannot be explained by the known laws of nature and is therefore attributed to a supernatural or divine power."I don't see a substantial difference between that and what I said.

It's really too bad you have absolutely no justification for your claim that "laws of physics are not immutable" or "miracles might just be uncommon."I made no such claim, I merely pointed out various relevant relationships between beliefs and assumptions.

I might suggest running an experiment by jumping off a roof because you don't believe in the immutability of the laws of physics.And if you think that's a fair test, might I suggest betting everything you own on your chances of winning with a single lottery ticket?

Just because something's possible doesn't mean it's likely. But of course, since you're going to school me in induction, you already know that induction only justifies tentative beliefs, and not absolute certainties. So why the silly, antagonistic comments?

[abaddon]

Unfortunately, throughout the OP, every time "religiosity" is mentioned, it's unclear if the writer intends "supernaturalism" or "theism" or not. Religion isn't limited to these. The assumption seems to be that religion = theism, but there are religious atheists in the world.

Also, the polls seem to focus only on scientists. I'd be interested in polls among highly educated professors of literature, history, philosophy, and other. I'm betting you'll get different results, not because non-scientists are soft-headed but because they'll accept different standards of what qualifies as "real."

I don't think either atheism or irreligious sentiments are a necessary consequence of education, reason/logic or intelligence. And I don't know that scientists are our smartest or best-educated people. It's what the content of your education is; scientists tend to emphasize public verification, and to whatever degree they lean toward positivism (or are positivists) they'll lean toward distrust of subjectivity, imagination, emotions, metaphoric thought. Probably also the personality types that choose certain fields of study may be more literal-minded and prefer public verification over personal experience. (Look at the list of "glaring absurdities" at the end of the OP, and the assumption that these things are "absurd", to understand what I mean by "literal-minded").

Being irreligious isn't a necessary conclusion of "the evidence." Rather, what you consider "the evidence" is a necessary conclusion of your personality's choice of assumptions about reality, and which education you get can influence that.

[Vitalstatistix]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
[...]
I don't see a substantial difference between that and what I said.I'm replying to both of those statements. You tried to define miracles in such a way as rational decisions based on induction look like dogma. There are no "strict empiricist assumptions" that you can freely disregard. You actually do need a good reason to go against all available evidence.


I made no such claim, I merely pointed out various relevant relationships between beliefs and assumptions.
Feel free to distance yourself from it, but my point still stands. There's absolutely no justification for the assumptions that the "laws of physics are not immutable" or "miracles might just be uncommon."


And if you think that's a fair test, might I suggest betting everything you own on your chances of winning with a single lottery ticket?

Just because something's possible doesn't mean it's likely. But of course, since you're going to school me in induction, you already know that induction only justifies tentative beliefs, and not absolute certainties. So why the silly, antagonistic comments?False analogy. That lottery ticket experiment has been done & yes we have very good reasons to think it is possible to win. Can you name any justification for thinking that someone wouldn't fall if he jumped off a roof?

Of course scientific knowledge is tentative. Do you understand why that doesn't justify taking the opposite stance?

[Clivedurdle]

Well, I started on the non-supernaturalist beliefs.

That said, I have no inherent objection to the supernatural. I don't have any problem with the idea of things orthogonal to my usual experience.

I think it comes of reading Flatland at an impressionable age. It is quite easy for me to speculate that my current awareness is only partial.

Once upon a time i could differentiate and integrate in n dimensions. Those dimensions logically followed from mathematical procedures.

A supernatural dimension is by definition disconnected from reason and logic - if there were a connection it would no longer be supernatural!

I have an inherent objection to the supernatural, and so should you, - this is not personal but a matter of logic!

[seebs]

Once upon a time i could differentiate and integrate in n dimensions. Those dimensions logically followed from mathematical procedures.

A supernatural dimension is by definition disconnected from reason and logic - if there were a connection it would no longer be supernatural!

I don't see how this follows. I can quite easily imagine things which are not disconnected from reason, but merely orthogonal to our physical experience.

[trendkill]

I'm replying to both of those statements. You tried to define miracles in such a way as rational decisions based on induction look like dogma.No I didn't. I tried to make dogmatic assertions look like dogma. Just because one person can come to believe a proposition inductively doesn't mean someone else can't believe the same proposition by simply assuming it dogmatically. Your responses seem so emotional, it appears you are missing this distinction.

There are no "strict empiricist assumptions" that you can freely disregard.Oh really? What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head? :P

You actually do need a good reason to go against all available evidence.What you need is a framework of some kind in order to judge evidence in the first place. And that framework must be based on--that's right--assumptions. Like the strict empiricist ones you wanted to insist that everyone assume dogmatically in the previous quote. :P

There's absolutely no justification for the assumptionsIt sounds like you're saying assumptions need justification in the same way that conclusions do. That would be a very confused position to take.

False analogy. That lottery ticket experiment has been done & yes we have very good reasons to think it is possible to win.For someone who touts his rationality, you seem to have difficulty with such simple arguments. Let me try to explain. The point is, the fact that someone thinks something is possible, is no basis for telling them to stake a great deal on it actually occurring. It must not only be possible, but probable, for that to make sense. So if someone said "the laws of physics hardly ever work", then you might be right to suggest jumping off a roof. But if they said "the laws of physics appear to hold the majority of the time, but there may be rare cases where they fail", your suggestion would be simply inane. As it happens, the latter example is much closer to what has occurred in this thread.

Can you name any justification for thinking that someone wouldn't fall if he jumped off a roof?I suppose you mean "justification for thinking that not everyone everywhere at every time would fall or has fallen if and when he jumped off a roof". I could list several such justifications, especially if I didn't restrict myself to basing them on a single set of assumptions. But I'll stand on the limitations of induction. We have only probabilistic reasons to believe that people will fall when they jump off roofs, not airtight proofs that they will fall.

Of course scientific knowledge is tentative. Do you understand why that doesn't justify taking the opposite stance?Irrelevant. A relevant question would be, do you understand that tentative knowledge can't definitively preclude opposing stances?

[steamer]

I think a large part of my deconversion was simply decompartmentalizing my mind.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by decompartmentalizing your mind. Can you give a non-religious example for those of us too lightly indoctrinatied in religion to know what that might be like?

[Tigers!]

Surely, it’s only natural that the most educated, the most intelligent and the most knowledgeable among us would reject such silliness in favor of scientific naturalism. Atheism and intelligence seem to have a direct relationship, so to conclude I again must ask: Do you want to be on the side of eminent intelligentsia, or on the other?
Me, I like to be on the wining side if at all possible. So for the moment I'll stick with God.

[chasborne]

It is only my experience, but I find it is those with marginally medium to high intelligence that try too hard to sound intellectual that espouse atheism. Those, like myself, outside the 3rd standard deviation seem to be comfortable with both intellectual and spiritual pursuits. I have no trouble rationally understanding a creator, a genesis, a god that interacts with the creation.

[Vitalstatistix]

No I didn't. I tried to make dogmatic assertions look like dogma. Just because one person can come to believe a proposition inductively doesn't mean someone else can't believe the same proposition by simply assuming it dogmatically. Your responses seem so emotional, it appears you are missing this distinction.No I did get that you were making a strawman, which is what you just admitted to. We're talking about the proposition here, not the character of people who believe it. There are good reasons why miracles aren't taken seriously & it's not because of "strict empiricist assumptions."

Oh really? What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head? :PYou took the wrong meaning from my statement & your frivolous statements didn't help.

It sounds like you're saying assumptions need justification in the same way that conclusions do. That would be a very confused position to take.Yes I see why you would think that. Welcome to science. Even first principles always have evidence behind them. Check out the subsection on Metahypotheses in this (http://freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html) article. In fact I highly recommend the whole article.

For someone who touts his rationality, you seem to have difficulty with such simple arguments. Let me try to explain. The point is, the fact that someone thinks something is possible, is no basis for telling them to stake a great deal on it actually occurring. It must not only be possible, but probable, for that to make sense. So if someone said "the laws of physics hardly ever work", then you might be right to suggest jumping off a roof. But if they said "the laws of physics appear to hold the majority of the time, but there may be rare cases where they fail", your suggestion would be simply inane. As it happens, the latter example is much closer to what has occurred in this thread.Again, you seem to have missed my point. When I said jump off a roof, I meant to emphasize the bit on having to performing an experiment in order to justify believing in flying.

You seem to be trying to defend a failed conclusion even before you perform the experiment. I wonder why.

I suppose you mean "justification for thinking that not everyone everywhere at every time would fall or has fallen if and when he jumped off a roof".No I said exactly what I meant. More on this at the end.
I could list several such justifications, especially if I didn't restrict myself to basing them on a single set of assumptions. But I'll stand on the limitations of induction. We have only probabilistic reasons to believe that people will fall when they jump off roofs, not airtight proofs that they will fall.

Irrelevant. A relevant question would be, do you understand that tentative knowledge can't definitively preclude opposing stances?We seem to be going around in circles. Of course I do understand that. I said as much in my previous post. What you don't get is why that doesn't matter.

All knowledge outside a formal system (logic, math) is tentative. Belief in miracles (apparently because knowledge of reality is tentative) really is just opening the gates to belief in anything & everything. You can justify anything with that argument, which is why it's useless as a discriminator.

An example. If I know anything at all, I know my car is parked outside. Of course there's the mere possibility of fairies having taken it out for a ride. Nothing precludes that. Even when i'm in my car, you could say those same fairies have cooked up an illusion for me. There are an infinite number of scenarios around each situation & you might say that's why you need a reason to pick one of them.

You should wonder why you need to argue belief in anything in order to fit your god in.

[WWFStern]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by decompartmentalizing your mind. Can you give a non-religious example for those of us too lightly indoctrinatied in religion to know what that might be like?

I'm sure a non-religious example is possible, however none immediately pops into my head. So, rather than do precisely what you asked for, I'll just further explicate the example I already gave.

In the science compartment of my mind, I always knew the facts about brain death. I knew that brain death was irreversible and thus could not, by definition, be recovered from.

However, in the Catholic compartment of my mind, I knew the resurrection story. That story features Jesus being dead for dozens of hours and then returning to life. Naturally, that would necessitate brain death reversing itself.

I suppose, when I was a Catholic, I consciously decided that religion was a special category of knowledge which did not have to mesh with the rest of the knowledge categories, such as science and history. Since religious truth is discovered by way of revelation as opposed to scientific study, I didn't see why the two should have to be reconciled. In other words, I accepted the idea of a sky daddy coming down and changing the physical laws, as necessary, for biblical truths to be accurate.

College taught me that such compartmentalization is unwise. Science doesn't ever cease to be relevant. The historical record doesn't ever cease to be relevant. Neither do the laws of logic. If science says brain death is irreversible, then that's the case. Whereas I previously would accept the "It was a miracle" explanation, now I was beginning to demand evidence that "miracle" is a coherent and real concept. I began to discover the myriad contradictions in the Bible, as well as its outright absurdities (Adam living to 930, speaking serpents, et al.).

Once I decided that religion was not a "special category of knowledge," but instead had the same burden of evidence as all other knowledge categories, my atheism came very quickly and since has hardened considerably.

Hope that helps you. ;)

[seebs]

Compartmentalization is very, very, common in most human experience. Think of all the racists who have black friends, but they're not THAT sort of black, they're really okay people.

[WWFStern]

Compartmentalization is very, very, common in most human experience. Think of all the racists who have black friends, but they're not THAT sort of black, they're really okay people.


That's a better non-religious example than any of the ones that I was kicking around prior to my reply. Hopefully, in tandem, we've answered the question.

[Mr Carcer]

Even if these samples prove that atheists are on the whole more intelligent than theists, what good does that do anyone? It seems to be somewhat like a pissing contest.

Atheist: We've got more scientists.
Theists: We live longer.
Atheist: We're smarter
Theists: We're happier.
Atheist: We're better dancers
Theists: We've got bigger biceps
Atheist: Our dads are bigger than your dads.
Theists: Our dads can beat your dads up.

Being one of those rare atheist who have an IQ under 190, I'm at a loss as to how this information regarding the supposed relationship between intelligence and religiousness is of any use.

I also think we as atheists do ourselves a great disservice when we take a few examples of atheism as it is now under very specific conditions and from that create an eternal and universal example of what it means to be an atheist. History is replete with theists who are easily as smart, if not smarter, than most atheists (I dare say that this remains true today). Before we start claiming some hollow victory in this meaningless pissing contest, we need to ask how is this information helpful, does it have any significance beyond the here and now, and do theists really have bigger biceps than us.

Then and only then will be able to move on to more pressing issues such as the relationship between the ability to coordinate colours and religiousness or the relationship between skill at Streets of Rage II and religiousness. Personally I'm thinking about becoming a scientologist because attractiveness is far more important to me than intelligence and the only woman scientologist that I know (Christine Bell) is extremely fit. Do I need any more excuses for buying a copy of dianetics?

[trendkill]

Even if these samples prove that atheists are on the whole more intelligent than theists, what good does that do anyone? I gave a possible answer to that earlier. Often, theists dismiss atheism as obviously wrong or absurd without giving it much thought. If atheists are generally smarter than theists, that is a valid reason for theists to give atheism more serious consideration than they otherwise might.

[trendkill]

No I did get that you were making a strawman, which is what you just admitted to.Nonsense on both counts.

You took the wrong meaning from my statement & your frivolous statements didn't help.I was trying to get you to think about what it would mean for me to be somehow bound to accept the assumptions you say I should. It is now clear the attempt to get you to think about what you are saying was pointless.

Yes I see why you would think that. Welcome to science. Even first principles always have evidence behind them. Check out the subsection on Metahypotheses in this (http://freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html) article. In fact I highly recommend the whole article.*sigh* What a juvenile article. Anyway, being "backed up with evidence" is not always the same as being deduced from a valid chain of logic. Welcome to induction. The evidence is in front of the assumption, not behind it.

Again, you seem to have missed my point. When I said jump off a roof, I meant to emphasize the bit on having to performing an experiment in order to justify believing in flying.I guess I did miss your point, and am still missing it. I hope it's better than the rest of your points. Please don't tell me to base all of my beliefs on experimentation, for instance. That would be silly.

You seem to be trying to defend a failed conclusion even before you perform the experiment. I wonder why.You seem to be setting up an odd strawman which I can't quite see the point of.

All knowledge outside a formal system (logic, math) is tentative. Belief in miracles (apparently because knowledge of reality is tentative) really is just opening the gates to belief in anything & everything. You can justify anything with that argument, which is why it's useless as a discriminator.:banghead:

Pointing out that induction can't ever definitively preclude belief in miracles is not a positive argument for belief in miracles, it's a rebuttal to the OP suggestion that miracles are defintively precluded.

An example. If I know anything at all, I know my car is parked outside. Of course there's the mere possibility of fairies having taken it out for a ride. Nothing precludes that.So you agree that the quote from the OP you jumped in to defend was wrong after all. Glad that's settled. :rolleyes:

You should wonder why you need to argue belief in anything in order to fit your god in.I haven't got a god, which you would already know if you were paying attention.

[show_no_mercy]

As someone already mentioned on the first page, I think "intelligence" is the wrong word, and that's what irked me about the OP title.

In my experience, it seems that education is what leads people to atheism - not intelligence. Especially education in the hard sciences, and not so much in the soft sciences (though there's also the Salem hypothesis :p ).

Education also has a strange correlation with lower birth rates and more liberal worldviews. Ignorance seems to have a strong relationship with theism, racism, sexism, and high birth rates.

Wow... that sounds pretty bad - though it's only my observation, I have no idea why they correlate the way they do.

[Mr Carcer]

I gave a possible answer to that earlier. Often, theists dismiss atheism as obviously wrong or absurd without giving it much thought. If atheists are generally smarter than theists, that is a valid reason for theists to give atheism more serious consideration than they otherwise might.
And if atheists are generally unhappier than theists, would that also be a valid reason for theists to give atheism less serious consideration than they might otherwise?

I consider intelligence to be a valuable quality (probably because I don't have much of this particular quality myself). But I won't assume that other people feel the same way as I do. Angling for serious consideration requires using the right kind of bait. Not everyone is going to place such a high value on intelligence as you or I might do.

Atheists have too long been on the defensive. Theists accuse us of being immoral so we bring out statistics showing the ratio of theists to atheists in prison or divorce rates. We are accused of not being smart enough to accept the truth of God so we run off to collect data showing just how many clever people are atheists. Has it really come down to this? Can't we move beyond feeling the need to prove we aren't stupid and/or immoral simply because we're atheists?

Moreover 99% of atheists could be geniuses and it still wouldn't change the fact that I am not a genius no matter how committed I am to my atheism.

We can dispense with the notion that atheists are general smarter than theists and it will do us no harm. As soon as we back the idea that atheism is right because more atheists are X we open up the door to the counter claim that atheism is wrong because more theists are Y.

[Vitalstatistix]

cutting out irrelevant sections..

Pointing out that induction can't ever definitively preclude belief in miracles is not a positive argument for belief in miracles, it's a rebuttal to the OP suggestion that miracles are defintively precluded.Well why didn't you say so in the beginning? Can you point out where he said miracles are definitively precluded? AFAIK he said they are "glaring absurdities." That's what they are based on everything we know. Your statement isn't much of a rebuttal.
*sigh* What a juvenile article. Anyway, being "backed up with evidence" is not always the same as being deduced from a valid chain of logic. Welcome to induction. The evidence is in front of the assumption, not behind it.We're talking science here, not logic. Empiricism doesn't work like that. Maybe you should re-read that juvenile article. Maybe look up empiricism on wiki.

Or hey, don't take my word for it. Go to S&S right now & ask them if the axioms of (say) Special Relativity are subject to evidence/verification/falsification. In fact one of the main reasons they are axioms is because they have been heavily corroborated.

I was trying to get you to think about what it would mean for me to be somehow bound to accept the assumptions you say I should. It is now clear the attempt to get you to think about what you are saying was pointless.I didn't say you should accept the assumptions. I said the assumptions don't exist. Like I said, you took the wrong meaning from what I said. I've been trying to tell you all along that there's a good train of reasoning behind them. You can't just call them assumptions/dogma then disregard them. In fact, you can't pull out one guy who believes in them dogmatically & say they are assumptions therefore you'll disregard them. I believe that would be a strawman.

[Stacey Melissa]

It is only my experience, but I find it is those with marginally medium to high intelligence that try too hard to sound intellectual that espouse atheism. Those, like myself, outside the 3rd standard deviation seem to be comfortable with both intellectual and spiritual pursuits. I have no trouble rationally understanding a creator, a genesis, a god that interacts with the creation.
To which side of the third standard deviation do you refer? >145 or <55?

Sorry, but you were just begging for that comeback. :p


While I can't quite include myself in the esteemed group of persons wearing the "genius" label, I have not found it difficult to imagine and understand a hypothetical creator, genesis, or intercessory god, while simultaneously exploring hard science and deep philosophical conundrums. Chalk one up to imagination. Also, prior to becoming an atheist, I never found it it difficult to believe in and understand a creator, genesis, and intercessory god, while simultaneously exploring hard science and deep philosophical conundrums. Chalk one up to mental compartmentalization.

[WWFStern]

As someone already mentioned on the first page, I think "intelligence" is the wrong word, and that's what irked me about the OP title.

In my experience, it seems that education is what leads people to atheism - not intelligence. Especially education in the hard sciences, and not so much in the soft sciences (though there's also the Wikipedia reference-linkSalem hypothesis ).


Intelligence or education both would have been appropriate in the OP title, because the studies I cite (by way of Dawkins) relate both to education and intelligence. I didn't exclusively focus on one or the other, but rather both. I think that presents the strongest, most convincing case.

That said, I think education is a more critical factor than innate intelligence. I consider myself intelligent, but I once was a Catholic. I just became much more educated.

In any event, I didn't mean to offend anybody with the title. It was supposed to be an attention-grabber for sure.

[trendkill]

Well why didn't you say so in the beginning?Why don't you read what you reply to?

Can you point out where he said miracles are definitively precluded? AFAIK he said they are "glaring absurdities."Well, if he just meant "absurdities" in the colloquial sense of "things that strike me as peculiar", then yeah. But that was not the implication of the post. It was set out in a form resembling logical argumentation, implying strongly that he meant "absurdities" in the logical sense, things that can't possibly be true and that no one can reasonably believe, period.

I didn't say you should accept the assumptions. I said the assumptions don't exist.And yet you've spent an inordinate amount of time in this thread arguing that not only do they exist, but they are "justified". :banghead:

[Soul Invictus]

Well, I started on the non-supernaturalist beliefs.
That said, I have no inherent objection to the supernatural. I don't have any problem with the idea of things orthogonal to my usual experience.


I have no inherent objection to the supernatural. I don't think most people who don't believe in a supernatural have an agenda to not want to believe in it. I think we are in agreement that finding no sensibility in something doesn't translate into having an inherent objection to something.

[Soul Invictus]

Well, I started on the non-supernaturalist beliefs.
That said, I have no inherent objection to the supernatural. I don't have any problem with the idea of things orthogonal to my usual experience.


I have no inherent objection to the supernatural. I don't think most people who don't believe in a supernatural have an agenda to not want to believe in it. I think we are in agreement that finding no sensibility in something doesn't translate into having an inherent objection to something.

[Vitalstatistix]

Why don't you read what you reply to?Show me where you said or implied that.

Well, if he just meant "absurdities" in the colloquial sense of "things that strike me as peculiar", then yeah. But that was not the implication of the post. It was set out in a form resembling logical argumentation, implying strongly that he meant "absurdities" in the logical sense, things that can't possibly be true and that no one can reasonably believe, period.Fair enough. We should probably ask him what he meant seeing as we're reading different things.

And yet you've spent an inordinate amount of time in this thread arguing that not only do they exist, but they are "justified". :banghead:In what sense are they assumptions if they need justification? You chose to use that word. You're using it in the logical sense, I'm using it in the scientific sense. I was a little tired of trying to distinguish between the two so I figured maybe abandoning the whole thing would help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principles

[abaddon]

That said, I think education is a more critical factor than innate intelligence. I consider myself intelligent, but I once was a Catholic. I just became much more educated.

And if you'd been a non-believer as a teen, then attended seminary and came out at the end a Catholic, you'd have become much more educated and a Catholic, with the same innate intelligence. I still say it's the content of the education influencing these scientists (and these polls), not that their education has caused them to know what is the ultimate nature of reality better than non-scientists.