osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
It's my assessment of that opinion that atheists are smarter. It's certainly good points to consider a less biased study.
-
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?"
- Thread starter ReluctantMathematician
- Start date
It's my assessment of that opinion that atheists are smarter. It's certainly good points to consider a less biased study.
I didn't read the article, I'm just responding to the question:
Most of the people in the world claim to follow a religion. That means that in general atheists were born into religious homes and then made a choice to leave religion behind. Most of the time, that's not an easy choice to make. It typically goes against the beliefs of the people in the individual's life. Further, atheists are not running towards something. It's not like they're rebellious kids who want to join a biker gang. So the choice to be an atheist is a hard one, with no outward benefits. It would seem to me that it requires a certain degree of thoughtfulness.
Heyo
Veteran Member
1. The difference stated in most studies is about 5 IQ points. The difference between Massachusetts and Florida is about 10 IQ points. So it's not a big deal.
2. Data is still inconclusive but it seems that the difference is lower in countries with a higher rate or long tradition of atheism.
3. Intelligence is linked to curiuousity.
My guess is that intelligent people are more likely to question their beliefs. They are more informed and more able to detect inconsistencies. As most atheists have a religious upbringing the group is self selected, i.e. only curious and intelligent people leave religion.
ReluctantMathematician
Member
I was never suggesting it was a big difference. We are talking about an r of around -.2 from study to study. Which is a weak association.
I might have just been hoping for too much. But there is so much studying going on over this subject, and if people would just look into it, they would see, it is nothing to take offense at. And I kind of hoped that people would take it upon themselves to go and look at some of the research because it is very interesting stuff. Researchers are moving on, they generally agree that this negative association exists and is well replicated, and the question now is understanding it.
And you consider that a reasoned argument?
It would also be possible to see it as a sort of post hoc explanation for an inconvenient observation.
A really hard topic, this is. First of all, of course, because I don't think anybody has tried to establish what the word "intelligent" actually means. Is the ability to think abstractly "more intelligent" than a bent for "common sense?" I'm not sure.
I do think it is true, however, that both sides of the religious divide (religious and non-religious) and both sides of the political divide (conservative and liberal) show some common characteristics.
For example, both conservatives and the religious are much more likely to accept, almost without question, the "wisdom of the ancestors," or the "truths" that have been handed down to them. And may I point out, this typically does NOT require a great deal of reflection. That last point may become more clear in the next paragraph.
Liberals and non-religious are, IMO, more likely to question what they are told, more likely to look for reasons to accept what they've been told, and thus more likely, when they find reasons to the contrary, to reject what they've been told. This, however, does require some effort to figure out how to replace that "received wisdom" which has been rejected. That does suggest a tendency toward more open-mindedness.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that intelligence may not be a complete measure -- I think that we must consider that there are different ways of approaching the questions that our intelligence is evolved to answer. So to say that one side or the other is more or less intelligent may not be as accurate as saying that each has a different approach to evaluating what is important in answering life's conundrums.
I do think it is true, however, that both sides of the religious divide (religious and non-religious) and both sides of the political divide (conservative and liberal) show some common characteristics.
For example, both conservatives and the religious are much more likely to accept, almost without question, the "wisdom of the ancestors," or the "truths" that have been handed down to them. And may I point out, this typically does NOT require a great deal of reflection. That last point may become more clear in the next paragraph.
Liberals and non-religious are, IMO, more likely to question what they are told, more likely to look for reasons to accept what they've been told, and thus more likely, when they find reasons to the contrary, to reject what they've been told. This, however, does require some effort to figure out how to replace that "received wisdom" which has been rejected. That does suggest a tendency toward more open-mindedness.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that intelligence may not be a complete measure -- I think that we must consider that there are different ways of approaching the questions that our intelligence is evolved to answer. So to say that one side or the other is more or less intelligent may not be as accurate as saying that each has a different approach to evaluating what is important in answering life's conundrums.
cladking
Well-Known Member
This is just more Look and See Science.
Anybody in modern times with two brain cells to rub together has been trained in some specialty.
There is a negative correlation between specialization and religious beliefs.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Democrats think Republicans are stupid, and Republicans think Democrats are stupid.
Anyone here old enough to remember when Marxists were considered to be smarter than non-Marxists?
Tumah
Veteran Member
This study claims that atheists aren't smarter per se. Rather, religious people tend to choose the intuitive answer over the logical one when given a choice between the two.
Another study quoted in the above linked study has shown that training religious people in exercises that strengthen analytical thinking also led to a reduction in dogmatism.
I found these two studies particularly interesting as an Orthodox Jew where Talmud study is highly emphasized.
Another study quoted in the above linked study has shown that training religious people in exercises that strengthen analytical thinking also led to a reduction in dogmatism.
I found these two studies particularly interesting as an Orthodox Jew where Talmud study is highly emphasized.
ReluctantMathematician
Member
Some of us like to learn about the world around us.
Studies such as these are not conclusive. I would add that generalisation cannot reflect reality as we are all different. Some religious people will be much smarter than atheists and vice versa.
But to me, the object of life on earth is to find and connect with the Source of All Knowledge, the All Knowing God. Now can a person who turns away from that which is All Knowing in truth be called intelligent or knowledgeable? I doubt it. It’s like saying one loves knowledge but hates books and all schools, teachers and universities, a contradiction in terms.
Was Peter who recognised Jesus more knowledgeable or the high priest Caiphas who was blind to His Reality?
It doesn’t mean the atheist is not knowledgeable about worldly affairs. Just that he hasn’t yet attained to the acme of knowledge which is to know God.
But to me, the object of life on earth is to find and connect with the Source of All Knowledge, the All Knowing God. Now can a person who turns away from that which is All Knowing in truth be called intelligent or knowledgeable? I doubt it. It’s like saying one loves knowledge but hates books and all schools, teachers and universities, a contradiction in terms.
Was Peter who recognised Jesus more knowledgeable or the high priest Caiphas who was blind to His Reality?
It doesn’t mean the atheist is not knowledgeable about worldly affairs. Just that he hasn’t yet attained to the acme of knowledge which is to know God.
Ahh...interesting way to frame things.
I don't think anyone who knows me would claim I'm uninterested in learning.
So I say again...what's the point of THIS particular piece of 'learning'?
Cooky
Veteran Member
What a crude thread.
They begin with "Religion is an instinct." and end where they have started, and they get an entire Livescience article about their paper on it. Not only is the title misleading but this is speculative science, not testable; and its an article about that speculative science not a direct link to a study. Everything comes down to the speculation that religion is an instinct! That's it.
Your article also undermined your thread title and its own down in its inner paragraphs despite its sensational title. It said "...set out to find answer, thinking that perhaps it was because nonreligious people were more rational than their religious brethren...more recently, I started to wonder if I'd got it wrong, actually,...I found evidence that intelligence is positively associated with certain kinds of bias." So the article wasn't claiming what the OP said. It was, instead, written like a pork filled congressional bill the title intended to mislead about its content, but you must have assumed it would support your thread without reading it yourself. It seems like either that or you were hoping nobody else would read it or didn't care.
The article cited has a sensational title that has zero to do with its content or the OP title, either. Its simply taking a poke at religious people. I responded with material related to the title, and you simply insisted without support that you had something related to your OP, but you didn't. You had nothing except a title. Garbage.
Dutton found intelligence was associated with certain kinds of bias and that intelligent people tended to be unaware of their own bias, somewhat opposite of the thread title. Even so it was only one study, hardly worth founding anything upon.
ReluctantMathematician
Member
Well from reading, over the past week, various related articles to the observation of this negative association I have learned that, at least in the US, there is a slowly moving departure from traditional religious practices to a more "spiritual" or free form take on religion. This may be linked to a decrease in church attendance, and interestingly enough, there is some evidence that church attendance may slow cognitive decline, which could lead to greater cognitive abilities in the later age of life. And I just wonder, are these linked and if so how are they linked. But understanding this negative association is a well-replicated observation, that we should consider seriously, is the first step to exploring what that means and understanding it.
But if you just stop and decide there is nothing else to learn, well then you won't learn anything more.
SeekerOnThePath
On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
Which Atheists?
Also, I thought Atheists were against people generalizing Atheists?
Cooky
Veteran Member
In many ways, intelligence is mostly genetic, and cannot be increased or decreased by religion or lack there of. So this thread is basically a smear campaign, with nothing of any value to learn.
So what if many low IQ people are religious? So what if the crippled, deaf, blind and poor also have religious faith? Who cares?
...Maybe they need it.
Last edited:
ReluctantMathematician
Member
So you didn't like the journal article. What about the actual studies themselves? You do realize that a press release is not the actual research itself?
ReluctantMathematician
Member
Which Atheists?
Also, I thought Atheists were against people generalizing Atheists?
If they are against being generalized, then why call themselves Atheists?