• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?"

For more than a millennium, scholars have noticed a curious correlation: Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people.

It's unclear why this trend persists, but researchers of a new study have an idea: Religion is an instinct, they say, and people who can rise above instincts are more intelligent than those who rely on them.

said in a statement. [Saint or Spiritual Slacker? Test Your Religious Knowledge]

Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People? | Live Science

The evidence to support this overall general negative association between religion and intelligence keeps building, and such results have been replicated in many studies. I think at this point the evidence is fairly strong that this general negative association between religion and intelligence is real and that the question now is to understand its nature and what it means.

Understand that we are talking about a general overall trend, and not any one person or group, so we are not talking about anyone's religion. Now there are several proposed explanations. Such as suggesting religious people are more in line with intuitive thinking rather than analytical thinking, and this fails to show on a conventional test of intelligence. Others suggest that this negative trend is more closely linked with fundamentalism than all of religion. There seems to be a number of different suggested explanations.

So why do you think this general negative association between religion and intelligence exist? What are your theories?

Feel free to bring in other studies, I have looked at a few and they have interesting ones out there, but keep in mind that the evidence for this negative association has been replicated many times in many different scenarios, so the question of if it actually exists is not the focus of this debate. What we want to do now is understand the nature of this association.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I think atheists like to focus on self more in terms of their brains. This can also lead to things like not passing up that opportunity for extra college courses, etc.

My opinion is that if you use a certain part of your body a lot (get your mind out of the gutter :) ), that it tends to strengthen over time.

So do I think atheists are smarter in general? It's possible.

Do I think that this type of intelligence is that important? Not really. Once we get past this subject, we'll have other subjects to talk - which is the most social, atheists or theists, who has the best sense of humor, who people find most dateable, etc.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People? | Live Science

The evidence to support this overall general negative association between religion and intelligence keeps building, and such results have been replicated in many studies. I think at this point the evidence is fairly strong that this general negative association between religion and intelligence is real and that the question now is to understand its nature and what it means.

Understand that we are talking about a general overall trend, and not any one person or group, so we are not talking about anyone's religion. Now there are several proposed explanations. Such as suggesting religious people are more in line with intuitive thinking rather than analytical thinking, and this fails to show on a conventional test of intelligence. Others suggest that this negative trend is more closely linked with fundamentalism than all of religion. There seems to be a number of different suggested explanations.

So why do you think this general negative association between religion and intelligence exist? What are your theories?

Feel free to bring in other studies, I have looked at a few and they have interesting ones out there, but keep in mind that the evidence for this negative association has been replicated many times in many different scenarios, so the question of if it actually exists is not the focus of this debate. What we want to do now is understand the nature of this association.
Biased left wing socialist researchers don't know what to study except for the flaws of others? Could be.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People? | Live Science

The evidence to support this overall general negative association between religion and intelligence keeps building, and such results have been replicated in many studies. I think at this point the evidence is fairly strong that this general negative association between religion and intelligence is real and that the question now is to understand its nature and what it means.

Understand that we are talking about a general overall trend, and not any one person or group, so we are not talking about anyone's religion. Now there are several proposed explanations. Such as suggesting religious people are more in line with intuitive thinking rather than analytical thinking, and this fails to show on a conventional test of intelligence. Others suggest that this negative trend is more closely linked with fundamentalism than all of religion. There seems to be a number of different suggested explanations.

So why do you think this general negative association between religion and intelligence exist? What are your theories?

Feel free to bring in other studies, I have looked at a few and they have interesting ones out there, but keep in mind that the evidence for this negative association has been replicated many times in many different scenarios, so the question of if it actually exists is not the focus of this debate. What we want to do now is understand the nature of this association.

Duhhh.
1 Cor 1:26 Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are,…
 
Biased left wing socialist researchers don't know what to study except for the flaws of others? Could be.

I have no idea of the political affiliation of the researchers, especially considering we are talking about many studies, by several different groups at various different points in time, but I find it interesting that you consider this negative association a "flaw" in religious people. Care to explain that some more?
 
Duhhh.
1 Cor 1:26 Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are,…

Sorry, but I am not allowed to have my own views on the Bible, as noted in my sig.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I have no idea of the political affiliation of the researchers, especially considering we are talking about many studies, by several different groups at various different points in time, but I find it interesting that you consider this negative association a "flaw" in religious people. Care to explain that some more?
This thread's been done before, and the previous thread got me curious, so I took note when I ran across something in my wanderings.

Recently I encounted a 6 minute video by John Stossel and his commentary he called The Left's War on Science. He shows clips of an interview with John Tierney who goes through some of the opposition to Science by political leftists in the USA, including what looks like the silencing of scientific opposition to leftist positions. Its clear he doesn't agree with various leftist points of view. At minute 4 he comments that socialist departments at universities are dominated by leftists including Marxists and that Democrats outnumber Republicans by "At least 8 to 1." I haven't verified anything in the video any more than what is in the OP. At minute 4:47 Stossil comments that is why (in his opinion) that there are studies attempting to show that science shows conservatives are more closed minded than liberals. Tierney then foils by saying that its been show in later studies not to be the case more than it is for liberals, and he goes through some of the ridiculous survey methods that these leftist studies have used to introduce a glamorous biased result.

So, yes, I think that it could be that this is all just political mumbo jumbo that sounds glamorous and is aimed at getting mentioned in Huffpost to frame conservatives and by extension religious people. Now, I like Huffpost. I don't have anything against it, but like all media its got to make a profit and has to pick things that are entertaining. I like studies, but they aren't always repeatable or reliable.
 
This thread's been done before, and the previous thread got me curious, so I took note when I ran across something in my wanderings.

Recently I encounted a 6 minute video by John Stossel and his commentary he called The Left's War on Science. He shows clips of an interview with John Tierney who goes through some of the opposition to Science by political leftists in the USA, including what looks like the silencing of scientific opposition to leftist positions. Its clear he doesn't agree with various leftist points of view. At minute 4 he comments that socialist departments at universities are dominated by leftists including Marxists and that Democrats outnumber Republicans by "At least 8 to 1." I haven't verified anything in the video any more than what is in the OP. At minute 4:47 Stossil comments that is why (in his opinion) that there are studies attempting to show that science shows conservatives are more closed minded than liberals. Tierney then foils by saying that its been show in later studies not to be the case more than it is for liberals, and he goes through some of the ridiculous survey methods that these leftist studies have used to introduce a glamorous biased result.

So, yes, I think that it could be that this is all just political mumbo jumbo that sounds glamorous and is aimed at getting mentioned in Huffpost to frame conservatives and by extension religious people. Now, I like Huffpost. I don't have anything against it, but like all media its got to make a profit and has to pick things that are entertaining. I like studies, but they aren't always repeatable or reliable.

I am not seeing actual criticism of any of the actual studies here. Have you ever even looked at them?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People? | Live Science

The evidence to support this overall general negative association between religion and intelligence keeps building, and such results have been replicated in many studies. I think at this point the evidence is fairly strong that this general negative association between religion and intelligence is real and that the question now is to understand its nature and what it means.

Understand that we are talking about a general overall trend, and not any one person or group, so we are not talking about anyone's religion. Now there are several proposed explanations. Such as suggesting religious people are more in line with intuitive thinking rather than analytical thinking, and this fails to show on a conventional test of intelligence. Others suggest that this negative trend is more closely linked with fundamentalism than all of religion. There seems to be a number of different suggested explanations.

So why do you think this general negative association between religion and intelligence exist? What are your theories?

Feel free to bring in other studies, I have looked at a few and they have interesting ones out there, but keep in mind that the evidence for this negative association has been replicated many times in many different scenarios, so the question of if it actually exists is not the focus of this debate. What we want to do now is understand the nature of this association.
By the way this is probably off topic, but I don't think telling someone you are smarter than them even in general will win many folks over. As such I think the time to pull out such studies is in rebuttal to the claims of arrogant theists rather than leading a conversation with it.

Just as soon as all the people that insist God is real face the same harassment.
Yes they are supposed to add the same to their sentences and according to my understanding you can report it if you think it is productive to do so.
 
By the way this is probably off topic, but I don't think telling someone you are smarter than them even in general will win many folks over. As such I think the time to pull out such studies is in rebuttal to the claims of arrogant theists rather than leading a conversation with it.

I am not interested in showing something that has already been shown. The results have been replicated many times over: There is a general negative association between religion and intelligence. That does not mean, that anyone here is either smarter or dumber than anyone else. It just means there is an association, and I would like to explore that association a bit deeper and try to understand it. I can't change the results, they are what they are, the next step here is to understand them.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
It is two separate languages in describing reality between the religious and non religious.

Religious focuses on introspection as evidence of a reality beyond the physical.

And non religious people are obsessed with naturalism and tangible evidence.

There's no reason people can't wear both hats methodologically. And they do.

Intelligence is a matter of experiencial access, and good education exposures. Nothing more then that.

Non religious vs. religious is two different faiths that have nothing to do with intelligence. The philosophical naturalist is every bit a faith as is religion.

So it's a bias toward atheist information and thinking that people write such articles.

Intuition is as valid as objective observation without relying on intuition.

Naturalist scientists use their own philosophy all the time incorporated into their work.

So all this stuff is bias!
 
Top