The Link Between IQ, Religiosity and Academic Subjects

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It might not embarrass you, but I know that it embarrasses some people, because it once embarrassed me.

Not sure embarrassed is the right term, but it could be with some people.

Likely why there are so many denominations of Christianity for example, people who want to believe because they have a need to, also work hard to make their belief something they can live with.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I seems more like he was embarrassed by the fact he had never bothered to investigate religion from an objective point of view, as a scientist would with any other subject. If he was once a doctor it seems unlikely that talking to a dying patient would have affected him that much.


That's the same conclusion mentioned in arstechnica.com - having higher intelligence proves people with a sense of comfort that others find in religion.

I think there is far more to it than that: it seems that most non-religious people seem to think people believe in God primarily for emotional reasons. While that is probably true, it often ignores the idea that people's religious beliefs might actually stem from a great deal of self-reflection and thought.

Additionally, people who have high intelligence are also known for being more prone to depression, alcoholism and drug addiction. Having a higher-than-average IQ doesn't seem to provide a lot of emotional stability.

Are you sure that he never investigated religion objectively?

And just for fun, how would you do that?
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Subduction Zone said:
Are you sure that he never investigated religion objectively?
No, I'm just going by what lesliedellow wrote.

Subduction Zone said:
And just for fun, how would you do that
For me personally, studying religion from an objective point of view would involve looking at its history (including archeological evidence), the figures which helped shape it, its theology, facts and studies about the religion itself, and even the languages used.

Studying it from a subjective point of view would probably involve researching the emotions and experiences of individual believers.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No, I'm just going by what lesliedellow wrote.


For me personally, studying religion from an objective point of view would involve looking at its history (including archeological evidence), the figures which helped shape it, its theology, facts and studies about the religion itself, and even the languages used.

Studying it from a subjective point of view would probably involve researching the emotions and experiences of individual believers.

Even that sounds rather subjective.

The languages used could lead you to clues as to why there were particular errors in a religion. Sometimes words and phrases or even concepts do not translate well. I still don't see how it could give very much in the way of objective evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Subduction Zone said:
Even that sounds rather subjective. The languages used could lead you to clues as to why there were particular errors in a religion. Sometimes words and phrases or even concepts do not translate well. I still don't see how it could give very much in the way of objective evidence.

I'm guessing by objective evidence you mean any definitive proof that God Himself actually exists. The only answer I can give to that is any evidence of God's existance depends on our concept of "God" itself - and for that all we have to go on are religious works, such as holy books.

Random example: I have heard several atheists (both online and in real life) say that they'd required something miraculous as proof of God's existance. Yet according to the Bible, God rarely produced miracles to impress people - and He did so at His own discrecion. So expecting Him to produce a miracle just to convert people seems unreasonable.

I don't think this idea applies exclusively to God either. Another random example: people have been digging up dinosaur bones for thousands of years, yet they did not recognise them as dinosaurs - they thought they were the bones of monsters, such as giants or dragons. The whole concept of "dinosaurs", giant reptile-like animals which lived on Earth millions of years before we did, is only about 200 years old.

So the evidence was always there - it just didn't make sense until we stumbled upon the right idea.
 
Upvote 0

FuzzyBunnySlippers

Once was lost but now I'm found
Mar 28, 2014
508
26
34
✟783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I always feel sorry for those who hope to publish some study that, while sounding highly intellectual consistently attempts to deliver the same lowbrow message; if you're religious you're stupid.

For studies like that to pass muster there would have to be no religious persons in Mensa. No genius IQ's in the sciences who profess faith in a higher power. And not a single name in recorded history wherein the person was religious, Christian as it appears that is the faith community these type studies target most, and known to be highly intelligent.

Those figures do not exist. Which puts studies like this described in the OP in their proper perspective.
 
Upvote 0

Seipai

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2014
954
11
✟1,266.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
I always feel sorry for those who hope to publish some study that, while sounding highly intellectual consistently attempts to deliver the same lowbrow message; if you're religious you're stupid.

For studies like that to pass muster there would have to be no religious persons in Mensa. No genius IQ's in the sciences who profess faith in a higher power. And not a single name in recorded history wherein the person was religious, Christian as it appears that is the faith community these type studies target most, and known to be highly intelligent.

Those figures do not exist. Which puts studies like this described in the OP in their proper perspective.


No one expects to see such results. What is seen is that the higher someones education level is, which is not quite the same as intelligence, the more likely he is to be atheist. I don't think even the harshest of atheists is saying that religious people are stupid.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Seipai said:
I don't think even the harshest of atheists is saying that religious people are stupid.
Unfortunately that's not true. From this very thread:

Stanlee2 said:
can anyone tell me that a Muslim who truly believes that Muhammad flew up to heaven on a winged horse has not had their brain damaged in some way?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sarsath

Active Member
Feb 20, 2018
92
95
Wisconsin
✟51,471.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Experience has taught me that controversial threads such as these eventually get closed or deleted by the Mods, so to keep this it going as long as possible, please keep your comments civil. That means no "Religion is for idiots!" or "Scientists are going to hell!"-type comments.

Thanks. ;)
---

Several studies have shown that there is a negative link between religiosity, IQ and academia. That is, the more intelligent and / or well-educated a person is, the less likely they are to be religious and vice-versa. Several arguments have been put forth to explain why this is, the most peopular being that people who have high IQs are better at critical thinking and therefore reject concepts which are based on intuition or cannot be emphirically tested.


Many studies looking at the link however have noted several things which may affect the results, including:
  • The link between academia and religiosity is weaker than originally thought - several studies have found that people with high IQs rejected the concept of God long before they recieved any higher education:
  • The demographics of the people these surveys were taken from (even in worldwide studies) were very similar - namely that they tend to be white, male and politically liberal or left-wing. The majority of studies were also conducted in Western nations:

Interestingly the same pattern (being white, male and left-wing) is seen among Western atheists and scientists in general.
  • The correlations between IQ, religiosity and academia varies widely within the scientific world. For example, 41% of Biologists and 40% of physicists said they did not believe in God compared to 26% of Chemists and 27% of Political Scientists. Similarly, social scientists were more likely to say they had no doubts about God existance than natural scientists, with the exception of Chemists (source: religjournal.com Page 17, Table 3).
---

So what do you think? Is there is link between religiosity and intelligence? Or do the studies only relflect how religion and science correlate in the Western world? Why do you think certain sciences (such as Chemistry) have more religious people than others?
I feel like there are other factors that aren’t taken into account, like did they experience a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of Christianity and have any experiences with good philosophers and theologians.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Experience has taught me that controversial threads such as these eventually get closed or deleted by the Mods, so to keep this it going as long as possible, please keep your comments civil. That means no "Religion is for idiots!" or "Scientists are going to hell!"-type comments.

Thanks. ;)
---

Several studies have shown that there is a negative link between religiosity, IQ and academia. That is, the more intelligent and / or well-educated a person is, the less likely they are to be religious and vice-versa. Several arguments have been put forth to explain why this is, the most peopular being that people who have high IQs are better at critical thinking and therefore reject concepts which are based on intuition or cannot be emphirically tested.


Many studies looking at the link however have noted several things which may affect the results, including:
  • The link between academia and religiosity is weaker than originally thought - several studies have found that people with high IQs rejected the concept of God long before they recieved any higher education:
  • The demographics of the people these surveys were taken from (even in worldwide studies) were very similar - namely that they tend to be white, male and politically liberal or left-wing. The majority of studies were also conducted in Western nations:
Interestingly the same pattern (being white, male and left-wing) is seen among Western atheists and scientists in general.
  • The correlations between IQ, religiosity and academia varies widely within the scientific world. For example, 41% of Biologists and 40% of physicists said they did not believe in God compared to 26% of Chemists and 27% of Political Scientists. Similarly, social scientists were more likely to say they had no doubts about God existance than natural scientists, with the exception of Chemists (source: religjournal.com Page 17, Table 3).
---

So what do you think? Is there is link between religiosity and intelligence? Or do the studies only relflect how religion and science correlate in the Western world? Why do you think certain sciences (such as Chemistry) have more religious people than others?
First let's understand that the reason controversial posts get stopped is because some people think insults are an actual accepted response to questions regarding science.... Which in 99.9% of the cases are started by evolutionists, not creationists.... So, when the evolutionists stop with the insults we wont have to worry about threads being closed. And yes, I am the first to admit I will happily fight fire with fire when first attacked...

That said, did you ever stop to consider that the more educated by institutions (versus self taught) are taught only one system of belief and must conform to that system of belief in order to pass. Any challenging that system from within the institution would not pass. So those people are confined to little boxes unable to think outside of their programmed responses.... IQ tests designed for those having passed the box confining institutional one sided verbiage....

Then ask yourself how many simply do not profess their belief for fear of being ostracized or excluded.... For example, the first person to find soft tissue which then simply questioned its age based upon known science, was fired. Despite his performing his job adequately and even praised for it. The next person to find it who didn't question age was instead congratulated.... So as long as the answers fit into the box, and the box was not called into question.... So being the state of mind set today, why would anyone want to loose their entire careers by voicing beliefs that would lead to loosing those careers? Intolerance is a viscous self-perpetuating cycle.

Perhaps because chemists, versus biologists, etc, have a better understanding of what it would take to create life from non-life and simply admit to themselves the impossibility..... without outside intervention.... except those restricted to the box ideology implanted into them....

Notice no insults in this post, but I expect them to come in return at any time.... and the thread to begin its downward spiral into closure....
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
That as well, although chemistry has a share in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which so many people incorrectly use when they argue for creationism it makes my head want to explode.
Isn't that the other way around since creationists understand that those laws were formulated and found to hold true right here in this "open system". It is usually the evolutionists wanting to make a distinction between closed and open systems... despite those laws holding true in this open system where they were formulated to fit what was observed, not in any closed system that never existed...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,493
✟236,358.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That said, did you ever stop to consider that the more educated by institutions (versus self taught) are taught only one system of belief and must conform to that system of belief in order to pass. Any challenging that system from within the institution would not pass. So those people are confined to little boxes unable to think outside of their programmed responses.... IQ tests designed for those having passed the box confining institutional one sided verbiage....
You assert later that there were no insults in your post. I suspect you may actually believe that, however, you are mistaken.

Rather than being taught a system of belief, one is taught a system of critical thinking, quantitative observation, systematic analysis, and hypothesis formation and testing. To suggest that universities turn out virtual automatons, incapable of independent thought is not only ludicrous, but deeply offensive. It is insulting.

Autodidacts can acquire the same level of critical thinking, analytical skills and experimental ability, but they are more likely to acquire biased and incomplete perceptions, with viewpoints that are resistant to adaptation to new data, or new interpretations.

If you are sincere about not trading insults, then please exercise more restraint in future posts.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
... did you ever stop to consider that the more educated by institutions (versus self taught) are taught only one system of belief and must conform to that system of belief in order to pass. Any challenging that system from within the institution would not pass. So those people are confined to little boxes unable to think outside of their programmed responses.... IQ tests designed for those having passed the box confining institutional one sided verbiage....
Maybe education institutions where you are teach that way, but my experience of university science courses in the UK was very different. I don't see how any public educational institution could achieve or maintain a reasonable reputation or attract students with such a blinkered approach.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Experience has taught me that controversial threads such as these eventually get closed or deleted by the Mods, so to keep this it going as long as possible, please keep your comments civil. That means no "Religion is for idiots!" or "Scientists are going to hell!"-type comments.

Thanks. ;)
---

Several studies have shown that there is a negative link between religiosity, IQ and academia. That is, the more intelligent and / or well-educated a person is, the less likely they are to be religious and vice-versa. Several arguments have been put forth to explain why this is, the most peopular being that people who have high IQs are better at critical thinking and therefore reject concepts which are based on intuition or cannot be emphirically tested.


Many studies looking at the link however have noted several things which may affect the results, including:
  • The link between academia and religiosity is weaker than originally thought - several studies have found that people with high IQs rejected the concept of God long before they recieved any higher education:
  • The demographics of the people these surveys were taken from (even in worldwide studies) were very similar - namely that they tend to be white, male and politically liberal or left-wing. The majority of studies were also conducted in Western nations:

Interestingly the same pattern (being white, male and left-wing) is seen among Western atheists and scientists in general.
  • The correlations between IQ, religiosity and academia varies widely within the scientific world. For example, 41% of Biologists and 40% of physicists said they did not believe in God compared to 26% of Chemists and 27% of Political Scientists. Similarly, social scientists were more likely to say they had no doubts about God existance than natural scientists, with the exception of Chemists (source: religjournal.com Page 17, Table 3).
---

So what do you think? Is there is link between religiosity and intelligence? Or do the studies only relflect how religion and science correlate in the Western world? Why do you think certain sciences (such as Chemistry) have more religious people than others?

The brightest people in the world are Christians. It is the ones who think they are smart but are actually only above average who are non religious.

Of 10 highest IQ’s on earth, at least 8 are Theists, at least 6 are Christians: Examiner.com. | Eternal Vigilance
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0