"Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?"

[stvdv]

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

IF God does exist THEN I would argue that the Theist is the smarter one
IF goal of life is religious/spiritual life THEN I would argue that the Theist is not less smart
IF goal of life is material THEN the Atheist is the smarter one (I believe the OP in this)

Atheism is associated with worldly/scientific knowledge
Theism is associated with spiritual knowledge
Theists have different priorities
Not less intelligent
Different Goals

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think I shall start a new path for investigating this question about being "smart" and being "religious."

Maybe, just maybe, one of the hallmarks of intelligence is the propensity to ask questions -- to notice what's happening around one, and wonder why it should be so.

Okay, all kids do that (as every exasperated parent knows without me telling them )! But let's take it one step further -- I suspect that there are some people (for reasons I cannot tell you about, because I don't know) who will hear an answer to a question, and accept it without further ado. And there are others who will hear the answer, reflect on how that fits with what they think they already know, and then say, "wait a minute, what about...?"

Maybe one of the things that we're talking about here is that difference between types of people: those who are willing to accept what "authority" teaches them, and those who insist that the questions that puzzle them be answered in a way that satisfies -- that legitimately seems to answer the question.

That may not signal a difference in IQ per se, but rather a difference in how information is processed.

I'd be really interested if members would respond to this post directly.

 

[Heyo]

Maybe one of the things that we're talking about here is that difference between types of people: those who are willing to accept what "authority" teaches them, and those who insist that the questions that puzzle them be answered in a way that satisfies -- that legitimately seems to answer the question.

That may not signal a difference in IQ per se, but rather a difference in how information is processed.

I'd be really interested if members would respond to this post directly.

Maybe it has to do with memory. When you get two different answers from two different authorities but you don't remember the first, it is easy to accept both answers.
Or it is the ability to "double-think", holding two contrary opinions at the same time without suffering cognitive dissonance.

 

[firedragon]

I think I shall start a new path for investigating this question about being "smart" and being "religious."

Maybe, just maybe, one of the hallmarks of intelligence is the propensity to ask questions -- to notice what's happening around one, and wonder why it should be so.

Okay, all kids do that (as every exasperated parent knows without me telling them )! But let's take it one step further -- I suspect that there are some people (for reasons I cannot tell you about, because I don't know) who will hear an answer to a question, and accept it without further ado. And there are others who will hear the answer, reflect on how that fits with what they think they already know, and then say, "wait a minute, what about...?"

Maybe one of the things that we're talking about here is that difference between types of people: those who are willing to accept what "authority" teaches them, and those who insist that the questions that puzzle them be answered in a way that satisfies -- that legitimately seems to answer the question.

That may not signal a difference in IQ per se, but rather a difference in how information is processed.

I'd be really interested if members would respond to this post directly.

The OP has given sources to so much research. So it might answer most of these questions in our minds if followed through with.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe it has to do with memory. When you get two different answers from two different authorities but you don't remember the first, it is easy to accept both answers.
Or it is the ability to "double-think", holding two contrary opinions at the same time without suffering cognitive dissonance.

According to the research provided in the OP, none of what you say is correct. Although your points are great to think of.

 

[Cooky]

I think I shall start a new path for investigating this question about being "smart" and being "religious."

Maybe, just maybe, one of the hallmarks of intelligence is the propensity to ask questions -- to notice what's happening around one, and wonder why it should be so.

Okay, all kids do that (as every exasperated parent knows without me telling them )! But let's take it one step further -- I suspect that there are some people (for reasons I cannot tell you about, because I don't know) who will hear an answer to a question, and accept it without further ado. And there are others who will hear the answer, reflect on how that fits with what they think they already know, and then say, "wait a minute, what about...?"

Maybe one of the things that we're talking about here is that difference between types of people: those who are willing to accept what "authority" teaches them, and those who insist that the questions that puzzle them be answered in a way that satisfies -- that legitimately seems to answer the question.

That may not signal a difference in IQ per se, but rather a difference in how information is processed.

I'd be really interested if members would respond to this post directly.

It can go both ways depending on what you're drawn to. For me, I'm drawn toward the idea of a great consciousness (Creator), because I feel drawn to it, so I would be biased toward a different kind of "authority" than someone who for example rejects that idea, and chooses a more practical thinking path. Practical people will choose a different "authority" based on their perceptions.

Surely there are some on both sides who run the course out of habit, and might not truly belong where they end up. Others switch sides, halfway through life. It goes both ways. Humanity is massively complex.

 

[Cooky]

Maybe it has to do with memory. When you get two different answers from two different authorities but you don't remember the first, it is easy to accept both answers.
Or it is the ability to "double-think", holding two contrary opinions at the same time without suffering cognitive dissonance.

Realistically, if science is a method for solving complex questions about what we see in nature, it's not that hard to keep it held to what it merely is -- a method. Religion is not a method, so the two can be accepted without suffering cognitive dissonance.

 

[Cooky]

The OP has given sources to so much research. So it might answer most of these questions in our minds if followed through with.

It seems difficult for anyone to layout a solid argument from the research. It seems like many questions remain with few answers provided, judging by the responses in this thread.

Maybe it's a tough read..? Overly complicated..?

 

[Heyo]

According to the research provided in the OP, none of what you say is correct. Although your points are great to think of.

To be honest, I didn't read the article. I had no reason to doubt it's message as I have read multiple studies with the same conclusions in the past.
And while I concur that the research doesn't support my hypothesis, I don't think it contradicts them. If you have found contradictions, please cite them.

 

[firedragon]

It seems difficult for anyone to layout a solid argument from the research. It seems like many questions remain with few answers provided, judging by the responses in this thread.

Maybe it's a tough read..? Overly complicated..?

Not at all. You should go to the article, ignore the article because the article doesnt really represent the research but there is a link in the article (I think its was the second link) which directs you to Personality and Social Psychology Review 2013. Now that's a good source and it quotes many studies done by many. And they are valid studies, not just assumptions.

And its a simple read. It might get complicated if you go to the root sources quoted in the review and read their books on it. But at least you would find what they really found, how small the variances are, and why they think the variances are due to, and how much it has changed just within 4 years. Seriously its an interesting read.

 

[firedragon]

To be honest, I didn't read the article. I had no reason to doubt it's message as I have read multiple studies with the same conclusions in the past.
And while I concur that the research doesn't support my hypothesis, I don't think it contradicts them. If you have found contradictions, please cite them.

Article in itself is useless. Go to the sources they have cited and the sources cited in the source. They have some insight you might find useful.

For example, one of the studies showed Christian societies who reject education as perceived in society and that their closed type of societies with small networks makes it what is called a geography of its own. I remembered a man called David Bell who did a research for Wharton where he speaks of geography. Pretty interesting.

 

[Cooky]

Not at all. You should go to the article, ignore the article because the article doesnt really represent the research but there is a link in the article (I think its was the second link) which directs you to Personality and Social Psychology Review 2013. Now that's a good source and it quotes many studies done by many. And they are valid studies, not just assumptions.

And its a simple read. It might get complicated if you go to the root sources quoted in the review and read their books on it. But at least you would find what they really found, how small the variances are, and why they think the variances are due to, and how much it has changed just within 4 years. Seriously its an interesting read.

It's still 30 pages on a topic I'm not interested in. If you read it, then I tip my hat to you.

 

[firedragon]

It's still 30 pages on a topic I'm not interested in. If you read it, then I tip my hat to you.

Haha. Okay okay I get it. Sometimes we get intrigued by some topics. Whats could one do? Human nature I think to find the gossip of society at large yet we show a different face. Just kidding mate.

Cheers.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think I shall start a new path for investigating this question about being "smart" and being "religious."

Maybe, just maybe, one of the hallmarks of intelligence is the propensity to ask questions -- to notice what's happening around one, and wonder why it should be so.

Okay, all kids do that (as every exasperated parent knows without me telling them )! But let's take it one step further -- I suspect that there are some people (for reasons I cannot tell you about, because I don't know) who will hear an answer to a question, and accept it without further ado. And there are others who will hear the answer, reflect on how that fits with what they think they already know, and then say, "wait a minute, what about...?"

Maybe one of the things that we're talking about here is that difference between types of people: those who are willing to accept what "authority" teaches them, and those who insist that the questions that puzzle them be answered in a way that satisfies -- that legitimately seems to answer the question.

That may not signal a difference in IQ per se, but rather a difference in how information is processed.

I'd be really interested if members would respond to this post directly.

I don't know if intelligence is negatively related to religiosity, perhaps as the evidence suggests, but as you mention, I think the ability to question authority is an important one, and one which will no doubt be variable in individuals. It does take a certain mindset to 'wipe the slate clean' and to look as impartially as possible at certain things that have so long a history and standing amongst humans in general. And it also might be that some will not place as much weight on some things as others might - the veracity of religious texts and such, or in personal experiences for example. Such that these might not necessarily be associated with intelligence but more to do with aspects of one's character.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It can go both ways depending on what you're drawn to. For me, I'm drawn toward the idea of a great consciousness (Creator), because I feel drawn to it, so I would be biased toward a different kind of "authority" than someone who for example rejects that idea, and chooses a more practical thinking path. Practical people will choose a different "authority" based on their perceptions.

Surely there are some on both sides who run the course out of habit, and might not truly belong where they end up. Others switch sides, halfway through life. It goes both ways. Humanity is massively complex.

Isn't the problem of being drawn to anything an issue - when we should try to be impartial if we want any truth?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Isn't the problem of being drawn to anything an issue - when we should try to be impartial if we want any truth?

And then learn that truth has a limit and you can't be impartial for all aspects of the world, only some?

 

[Mock Turtle]

And then learn that truth has a limit and you can't be impartial for all aspects of the world, only some?

Impartial or not, being drawn to anything and possibly then finding evidence to support any belief is a surefire way not to get any truth. Even if something is unappetizing it should be treated as equally as something that appeals, and all too often (to me) it seems that many just choose a religious belief because it appeals rather than being 'the truth'. OK, that is fair enough and I don't begrudge them such, but at least they should be honest as to why they believe what they believe.

 

[Yerda]

My main aim on here is to be a living demonstration that being an atheist doesn't make you smart.

Also, being a bit dim doesn't stop you understanding, and even enjoying, science and mathematics.

 

[Cooky]

Isn't the problem of being drawn to anything an issue - when we should try to be impartial if we want any truth?

That negates the possibility of supernatural intervention. I believe in the supernatural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That negates the possibility of supernatural intervention. I believe in the supernatural.

You can't assign a possibility to an unknown. You have faith, but that tells you nothing about the metaphysical status of the world one way or another. So claim that the world is natural requires as much faith as your position and neither tell us, what the world is in the metaphysical and there is no known probability of the one or the other.