Religion and intelligence

[NonIndigenous]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/religious-p...3.html#0DkGw1t

These sorts of things interest me. Just wanted to put this article out there.

Get the avalanche rolling people.

*sits back with popcorn*

Makes me feel a bit smug for rejecting all the religion that was being shoved in my face at by the age of 7/8. It just simply never added up to make any sense then. Although being older now... I do see some sense in religion, but from a different angle.

[dr2005]

Well, I'm a Catholic and I got a 1st in my Law degree and averaged 81% on my most recent postgrad course taught at Masters level. So I'm calling bullshit on this one.

On a more serious note, the review does undermine its own conclusion by basically saying "we need to do more research on this" - there's a lot of caveats in there, and as with any claim regarding "X group of people less intelligent than Y" I'm taking it with a sizeable pinch of salt. Not least because, with all due respect to present company, I've known some pretty dumb atheists in my time so I doubt the connection is that strong...

[Adam the Fish]

Maybe this is true as an average.

But (non-)religious people hold views for different reasons and these don't always necessarily correlate with one thing.

As such, I'd never automatically assume a religious person less intelligent than a non-religious person and vice versa.

In terms of my personal observations, most of my friends are highly intelligent, however it might be fair to say that those indoctrinated with religion who have not yet got past the bull might seem less outgoing and intelligent.
I wonder whether this is correlated in less intelligent -> religious, religious -> less curious, not seeking alternative answers, or not at all correlated.

Whatever, I'd never judge a person on their religion.
What they do in the name of it (blowing up innocent people, etc.) or its influence on their personality (being narrow-minded, etc.) is something I might judge them on more.

[Brandon]

I find this article to be pretty bias. At the end of the day, the article says that it's a little bit more complex, and it may be because of this or it may be because of that. Essentially, it leaves much information to be desired and I really can't trust something like that. I'm not going to exclude it from possibility, but until then...like Dave said, I'm gonna take it with a pinch of salt.

I've encountered many religious teachers who are religious and very intelligent, there's also religious theologists that are religious, religious scholars, etc. I believe that an intelligent non-religious individual is an individual who doesn't argue about religion. For intelligent religious individuals, I believe that they are intelligent when they don't argue about religion. If there's an Atheist who argues to a Christian about why their religion is not true, I believe the Atheist is an idiot, and vice versa. I know there are people over the internet who are well educated about religions and know many religious terms, argumentative terms, etc (like slippery-slope argument, etc), but just because someone may have a large vocabulary doesn't mean they're automatically good writers. Just because you have extensive knowledge about a subject doesn't automatically mean you're a good teacher. Shit like that.

I'm sure there's a lot of ignorant Atheists out there with hard-ons right now because of that article, but I'm not gonna jump to conclusions based on that article which provides a little bit less information than to be desired.

[NonIndigenous]

Originally Posted by Brandon

I believe that an intelligent non-religious individual is an individual who doesn't argue about religion. For intelligent religious individuals, I believe that they are intelligent when they don't argue about religion. If there's an Atheist who argues to a Christian about why their religion is not true, I believe the Atheist is an idiot, and vice versa.

I wouldn't call such a person an "idiot", implying low intelligence. Such behaviour is really more correlated with someone's character rather than intelligence. Some people are just jerks and can't help it much, because they don't even realise that they're jerks. They can't see very far past their own little bubble of interests, usually because they don't care to see things from other people's perspective.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by BDF

I wouldn't call such a person an "idiot", implying low intelligence. Such behaviour is really more correlated with someone's character rather than intelligence. Some people are just jerks and can't help it much, because they don't even realise that they're jerks.They can't see very far past their own little bubble of interests, usually because they don't care to see things from other people's perspective.

I think it has everything to do with intelligence. Religious debates are nothing new to our civilization. They've been going on for a long time. If you're really that intelligent, you would know what kind of arguments the other person is going to say because of your extensive knowledge about the other side of the argument. If you can't look past your own point of view, you are only limiting your own capabilities and you're not fully understanding other perspectives. An intelligent person knows that they don't know everything but strives to know everything; it doesn't matter whether it's completely illogical to them or not. Everything is information and information is neither bad or good in itself; it's just knowledge. If you refuse to seek knowledge, are you really that intelligent? Perhaps you have the capacity of extensive learning, but if you intentionally deprive yourself of knowledge, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Shooting yourself in the foot is, of course, a stupid thing to do. If it's habitual, people would look at you as an idiot. So yes...if someone is religious/non-religious and argues while not being able to see past their own views, they're pretty much an idiot. At least in my eyes.

[Coffee.]

I agree with the article. I don't see a bias in the article at all. The article had no implication that religion makes people stupid, or that stupid people pick up religion because they're too "dumb" to think around it. Instead, the article talked about how many people pick up religion out of unhappiness, and intelligent people tend to be more happy. That says it all; it's a correlation, not a causation. Intelligence leads to happiness. Happiness leads to content. Content people typically do not feel the need to convert into a religion. This does not say that those who grew up religious won't stay religious and happy, this also does not say that those who are happy and content won't ever convert into a religion, it just states that it's less likely, and that they found that unintelligent people tended to be religious.

Originally Posted by Brandon

I think it has everything to do with intelligence. Religious debates are nothing new to our civilization. They've been going on for a long time. If you're really that intelligent, you would know what kind of arguments the other person is going to say because of your extensive knowledge about the other side of the argument. If you can't look past your own point of view, you are only limiting your own capabilities and you're not fully understanding other perspectives. An intelligent person knows that they don't know everything but strives to know everything; it doesn't matter whether it's completely illogical to them or not. Everything is information and information is neither bad or good in itself; it's just knowledge. If you refuse to seek knowledge, are you really that intelligent? Perhaps you have the capacity of extensive learning, but if you intentionally deprive yourself of knowledge, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Shooting yourself in the foot is, of course, a stupid thing to do. If it's habitual, people would look at you as an idiot. So yes...if someone is religious/non-religious and argues while not being able to see past their own views, they're pretty much an idiot. At least in my eyes.

I 100% see your point, but I disagree as well. While I think that "arguing" about religion is irritating, I don't consider the Mormons coming to my door asking me to convert are unintelligent, nor do I consider my Christian friends debating me. I believe that their sense of character and respect for other views is different than mine.

With that, I could think of circumstances where I believe that everybody has problems looking at the "other side" in an unbiased way. For myself, I have a hard time looking at those against gay marriage in an unbiased way because I think it's utterly ridiculous to reject somebody's rights to anything. You probably have your own issues (maybe drugs, since I've seen you argue in a few of those) where your opinion is very strong and you have a hard time accepting information on another point-of-view. For some people, religion is like that. They cannot accept that somebody believes/does not believe the same way as they do.

I see where they may be coming from, but based on personal experience, I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that. I know plenty of people who are devoutly religious as well as extremely intelligent, with doctorates and successful marriages of 35+ years, if we are going by some of the criteria in the article. My cousin, one of the most religious people I know (almost irritatingly so to me), just graduated with honors from the business school of a prominent, world-renowned university.

It's true, people who live in poverty and are less-educated are more likely to turn to religion, because they "need" it, as the study said. But that doesn't mean all who choose a religious life are less intelligent than atheists. That's like saying people who listen to hip-hop are less intelligent than those who listen to classical music. In some cases that's probably true, but not in all of them.

In the end, it may not be so much about religion as it is about societal and educational opportunities.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Coexist.

With that, I could think of circumstances where I believe that everybody has problems looking at the "other side" in an unbiased way. For myself, I have a hard time looking at those against gay marriage in an unbiased way because I think it's utterly ridiculous to reject somebody's rights to anything. You probably have your own issues (maybe drugs, since I've seen you argue in a few of those) where your opinion is very strong and you have a hard time accepting information on another point-of-view. For some people, religion is like that. They cannot accept that somebody believes/does not believe the same way as they do.

I don't mean to sound like I do things perfectly all the time because I do make mistakes. It's harder to understand someone in reality when they talk about things you are highly against because it's the heat of the moment and you don't really have time to think of a response. But when it comes to the internet, I do my best to try and understand because I'm not obligated to send a response at any point as long as I just send a response. So I try to take my time. If someone provides evidence, I'll look at it to see if it's credible and I'll look at the content of it (in that order). I do understand the other perspective, but even if you understand the perspective doesn't mean you agree with it. Throughout my years at TH, I have changed my mind on things. Originally I was against the legalization of marijuana. However, there are some things that I'm going to agree with and some things that I'm not going to agree with, but I'll always make an attempt to understand it because you got all the time to respond to someone...why not be patient and provide a well thought out response, you know?

I do see your point, though. My beef is with poly-amorous relationships because that's something that I really don't understand and it does frustrate me. But the important thing is that while I don't agree with it or understand it doesn't mean that I can ridicule them. I will get heated and question a lot of things about it, but I won't escalate into calling them names, consider them less intelligent, or anything along those lines.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Coexist.

and intelligent people tend to be more happy. That says it all; it's a correlation, not a causation. Intelligence leads to happiness. Happiness leads to content.

I'm going to focus on this specifically, because I don't think that's what going on here. Intelligent people aren't necessarily more happy, in fact I'd wager the opposite is true because being intelligent means being more aware, especially of all of the bullshit in life. Hemingway put it best- "happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." Inversely, less intelligent people would be less aware about things not immediately surrounding themselves, and would be content in what little they do know, because less negativity has a chance of getting into their respective realities.

I would argue that the difference between those of higher and lower intelligence (which is incredibly relative) has less to do with happiness and more to do with perception, more importantly the ""why". Intelligent people are more likely to know why something went wrong, and how to fix/deal with it. People with less intelligence would be left with more questions then answers, and certain aspects of religion, especially the community oriented part of it, would help them overcome the lack of resolution and accept their situation with the help of like minded individuals. I would even hypothesize that that sort of thing is a method of artificial resolution via a social safety net.

That being said, religion and spirituality aren't mutually inclusive, and I've personally found that the smarter a person is, the more spiritual they are. Hell, the more I learn, the more spiritual and closer to nature I feel.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Let's keep in mind this is a meta-analysis. With a significant amount of research findings included. It's a correlative, not a causative, effect, that's being concluded from its findings.
It's also not respresentative of critical thinking skills to count your own personal examples or incredulity as something to be of any evidential weight.
I myself can't say I'm surprised by the results, albeit there exists a dogma known as "Atheism +" in this day an age that calls for almost as much doctrinal behaviour as a religion would.

[Snufkin]

It's hard to be smug over a statement like this because it isn't a blanket label. You aren't automatically intelligent for being an athiest, and you aren't automatically stupid for being part of a religion. Statistics barely matter to individuals. I've met plenty of stupid athiests and intelligent religious types.

Being slightly spiritual, but not belonging to a religion, I've no idea where I'm supposed to fall into that.

I also agree with Ben on the happiness thing. I'd say more intelligent people are less likely to be happy.

[NonIndigenous]

Originally Posted by Brandon

I think it has everything to do with intelligence. Religious debates are nothing new to our civilization. They've been going on for a long time. If you're really that intelligent, you would know what kind of arguments the other person is going to say because of your extensive knowledge about the other side of the argument. If you can't look past your own point of view, you are only limiting your own capabilities and you're not fully understanding other perspectives. An intelligent person knows that they don't know everything but strives to know everything; it doesn't matter whether it's completely illogical to them or not. Everything is information and information is neither bad or good in itself; it's just knowledge. If you refuse to seek knowledge, are you really that intelligent? Perhaps you have the capacity of extensive learning, but if you intentionally deprive yourself of knowledge, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Shooting yourself in the foot is, of course, a stupid thing to do. If it's habitual, people would look at you as an idiot. So yes...if someone is religious/non-religious and argues while not being able to see past their own views, they're pretty much an idiot. At least in my eyes.

The way I see it is that some people have the intelligence, but don't use it fully in every way. Some are able to score 90% or more in some exams, but harbour some very stupid, backward and narrow minded opinions with regards to other things, mostly inherited from other people feeding them the stuff, and regard themselves as someone better than almost everyone around them.

Originally Posted by Snufkin

It's hard to be smug over a statement like this because it isn't a blanket label. You aren't automatically intelligent for being an athiest, and you aren't automatically stupid for being part of a religion. Statistics barely matter to individuals. I've met plenty of stupid athiests and intelligent religious types.

Yea well... it was the immature spiteful side of me that showed itself there. I'm still stomping it out. Give it a few more years at most I hope.

I still sometimes feel irrational anger towards all the people, and the religion associated with them, who by means of threats and even intimidation sometimes (mild at best) would try to "make me" a Christian. Some teachers at school putting out punishments and humiliating students for stupid shit on the grounds of something religious. Pft. Pfffffft. Achieved f/all.

[Agony]

Originally Posted by Coexist.

I agree with the article. I don't see a bias in the article at all. The article had no implication that religion makes people stupid, or that stupid people pick up religion because they're too "dumb" to think around it.

I agree with this; although I disagree that intelligence leads to happiness. It doesn't always lead to happiness, it can make things more complicated. So I don't agree that intelligence automatically means happiness, because that is mot always te case. But I do believe that the article was not bias and I also believe that the article didn't say that religion makes people stupid.

[Coffee.]

Okay, backup. There is a correlation with happiness and intelligence according to statistical analysis. I jumped the gun on cause, although the link may hint for this.

[Ghost On The Highway]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I'm going to focus on this specifically, because I don't think that's what going on here. Intelligent people aren't necessarily more happy, in fact I'd wager the opposite is true because being intelligent means being more aware, especially of all of the bullshit in life. Hemingway put it best- "happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." Inversely, less intelligent people would be less aware about things not immediately surrounding themselves, and would be content in what little they do know, because less negativity has a chance of getting into their respective realities.

I would argue that the difference between those of higher and lower intelligence (which is incredibly relative) has less to do with happiness and more to do with perception, more importantly the ""why". Intelligent people are more likely to know why something went wrong, and how to fix/deal with it. People with less intelligence would be left with more questions then answers, and certain aspects of religion, especially the community oriented part of it, would help them overcome the lack of resolution and accept their situation with the help of like minded individuals. I would even hypothesize that that sort of thing is a method of artificial resolution via a social safety net.

Fantastic insight here. I can't imagine unhappiness is a strong driving force towards religious devotion. If anything, wouldn't the unhappy man be equally likely to reject God in favor of a rationalist or nihilistic view? Religion does seem to appeal to those who feel they have been "wronged" by the world or that their circumstances are the result of others' wrongdoing. Consider the Beatitudes, which basically say "If you've been fucked in this life, it will get better in the next."

As for low intelligence driving religious affiliation, I think you're right on with the notion of community. I can imagine that many impoverished people feel vulnerable and abused by society, and thus need to band together with similar individuals to cope. The concept of an all-powerful being who values them over the rich is in their case a source of great comfort.

[NevermindMe]

And, I would argue that less-intelligent people flock to religion because it provides explanation for things that may otherwise be hard to understand. That's why there are people who claim evolution never happened, and that fossils are the work of the devil.

I think most religious people are of average intelligence, just like the general population. HOWEVER, religion also attracts extremely unintelligent people, who just lower the average.

-Justin

[Alexisdominique]

I'm sorry that's dumb. Whether you believe in a higher power or not peanut determine how smart an individual is. There are plenty o intelligent religious people who also do believe in evolution n the Big Bang theory and so on, other theories of our existence.
They just believe that God is behind it but even if they do that's not a good enough excuse to judge someone's intelligence.