Is there a correlation between religious beliefs and intelligence?

[Torch]

An exchange with another member prompted this question. Do we think less of others dependent upon their own personal religious beliefs and/or practices? Would a Western Christian consider a practicing Hindu to be less intelligent because of a belief in reincarnation? Do non-Catholics consider those who practice Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy to be off the beam because they believe in transubstantiation i.e. bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

I could give more examples, but I think the picture is clear. Feel free to share your opinions and thoughts.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I have absolutely no issue with those who believe in a God or who have faith. Not a single one, despite the fact that I see no evidence to support that one exists. If having a personal God gives you hope in a better world or whatever, then more power to you. I have no issue with faith in itself.  I do, however, think it's not only logical, but responsible to look at a person's beliefs and determine whether or not someone who holds those beliefs should be considered for a position of power that should be reserved for someone honestly intelligent or even be considered completely sane.

For example... if you read the bible and take it literally. If you believe that Moses actually did part the red sea, or that there was a flood that covered the entire earth and that a man and his family gathered two of EVERY animal in existence on to a boat of all things and waited the flood out, then somehow managed to repopulate the entire planet from that? If you believe that the Jews stated in the bible were actually here in the US and not the middle east. If you think that man and dinosaurs walked together because the bible says the earth is only a few thousand years old...

Then you have no business being in a position of power and/or authority. I'm sorry, but I am absolutely terrified of the idea of a person who completely overlooks all historical evidence presented to us not just by history, but by science, math, etc... and instead chooses to take a book written during the bronze age (or during any age, for that matter) that has absolutely NOTHING backing it up as fact and you decide to look at it as a history lesson? That type of person shouldn't hold a position that gives them any power at all over the lives of others.

Reliably, the majority of intellectuals and those who are at the top of their given field (biology, astrology, physics, etc) are often Atheist or at the very least Agnostic. Why? Because there is nothing logical about religious beliefs. There is NOTHING logical about the bible, or believing it as an actual factual recounting of history. It's the recounting "miracles" that happened thousands of years ago. Re-telling of events witnessed by uneducated, unenlightened poor people in the middle east during a time when the answer to everything we couldn't explain was "Sky Daddy did it". Not just that, it's been verified that most of the retellings were second or third hand! The stories about Jesus? Written LONG after his death. By people who couldn't have possibly been there to witness it. That's how tall tales and fables started.

We know that Jack and the Bean Stalk is a fairy tale. What makes religious texts and stories so different? They were created for the same reason. To teach people morals and how to live. But some people take this stuff LITERALLY. It's when you take it literally, that I question your intelligence (in at the very least the area of common sense), not to mention your sanity.

I wont even get in to the more new age religious beliefs like Mormonism that basically teach that if you disagree with even ONE WORD of their teachings... if you don't take it all completely literally... that you can be excommunicated. And their stuff makes even LESS sense than the older religions do.

[Iniquitous]

Wow.

You open by stating that you have no issue with those who believe in a God or who have faith and then you turn around and tear apart anyone who believes in the bible and everything therein. I do not think you are as tolerant as you think you are.

As for Torch's question - I try very hard to not judge people, especially for their beliefs, and I do not think someone who practices a faith different than mine is less intelligent. As I am human and not perfect I might catch myself wondering how on earth they could believe some of the things they do. With that said, I struggle for the stance of 'what they believe is none of my business so long as it is not negatively affecting me and my beliefs.'

[Lilias]

There may be correlation, but correlation does not equal causation.

Fanaticism is a character trait, and my experience says that a bigot of any stripe who changes their mind and goes to bat for another team, any other team, will be a bigot there as well.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

The issue with what you're saying is that there is a difference in believing in an all powerful, unidentifiable being and believing in a holy text written by men. If people can look at the stories logically and say "maybe this has a more logical and realistic explanation" or "maybe this stands for something else", then it's all good. However... if they look at them and take them literally, word for word, as THE word of God. Not the words of imperfect, FALLIBLE men, that is when I have call to question their intelligence and possibly their sanity.

[Chelemar]

I have found that in my personal experience that in most cases people of faith, unless they are extremists, are tolerant of others and their beliefs.  Because they share one thing in common, and that is faith.   

Where I find that people are the most condescending, insulting or belittling of what they perceive to be my intelligence level are when they do not believe at all, in anything.  They are amazed that someone appears to be intelligent and reasonable can believe in something without proof, and sneeringly demand that I show them some sort of proof of God's existence to them.  What they fail to realize is that they are missing the whole point of faith. 

There are many things in the universe that we can't see, or feel, or experience, but we believe in them.  Science can not prove love, yet we feel it.  It can't prove truth, yet we know it, it can't prove logic, yet we argue it. It can't prove faith, because it must be believed. 

[Hemingway]

If you're asking if there's a correlation between rates of religiosity and intelligence ( as measured in IQ ), then according to Wikipedia, the answer is yes. From the abstract of one of the papers referenced:

Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions.

However, that doesn't answer the question of why that's the case. It's not, after all, as simple as saying that this difference exists and therefore religious people are all unintelligent and religion is obviously wrong. And, having a basic idea of what the geographies of income, religiosity, education and so on look like, I doubt that it's as simple as smarter people being less religios - or less intelligent people being more religious.

Not to mention how complex intelligence is, how cultural differences affect IQ scores, and so on.

To answer the question according to what I think, I'd say religious probably are not less intelligent ( or at least that's not what separates the believers from the non-believers ). They are, I would say, less critical, at least in that particular area. I don't think it would be very controversial of me to suggest that the more dogmatic and literal-minded a person is in their approach to religion, the less critical they are. When you believe things that are demonstrably false - such as the age of our planet being somewhere around 6000 years - you have more or less discarded your critical faculties. And this goes all the way up to religious agnostics - people who aren't certain there's a god, who don't "know" and "feel" their alleged creator, but who still believe in one way or another.

The same may be said of atheists, though I'm not convinced even the most dogmatic atheists can quite be compared to the most dogmatic religious people.

[Will]

There are many things in the universe that we can't see, or feel, or experience, but we believe in them.  Science can not prove love, yet we feel it.  It can't prove truth, yet we know it, it can't prove logic, yet we argue it. It can't prove faith, because it must be believed.

Just because something can't be proven or explained at this present moment doesn't mean it will never be.  There's no reason to jump from "I don't know" to "God did it."

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Just because something can't be proven or explained at this present moment doesn't mean it will never be.  There's no reason to jump from "I don't know" to "God did it."

^^ This.

[Vekseid]

Authoritarianism is linked to less exposure to outside ideas, less logical ability, and less education, and authoritarianism is, in the United States, linked with religious fundamentalists. However in the Soviet Union it was just as linked with 'faith in the Party'. Hardcore Soviet communist atheists turned out to be very much like their free-market fundamentalist brethren in the United States. 

You can be an authoritarian atheist just as you can be an authoritarian Christian. It's just that, in the US, about half of Christians have some degree of authoritarian leanings, and about half of those are very strongly authoritarian.

I don't think that, after correcting for this, you'd see much difference in intelligence. I recall seeing similar tests to the one Hemingway linked to that corrected for educational achievement and other factors, and the difference vanished, but I can't find that study unfortunately.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I am a practicing Roman Catholic who believes in a higher power that I call God.  I have faith.  Everyone has faith of some sort.  Even Aetheists have faith there is no god or higher power or karma or guiding spirit.  That's okay.  As long as you let me believe how and what I want to believe I'll do the same for you.  My interpretation of the bible is not the same as the one above and while I don't disagree that there are some who take a literal translation too far not everyone does.

Now, if a person can have faith in some sort of higher power and use that faith to guide them through life and as a source of inspiration and courage to build standards, ethics and morals to live by I'm not going to throw rocks at them.  I actually think that some sort of faith in a guiding force is necessary to be an upstanding person because I don't know how you can have a conscience without it.  Atheists with consciences have a moral code they live up to as well and the few good ones I've encountered use that as a guide for living their lives.

I've worked with atheists, volunteered along side them and have supported them in elections and one thing I must say is that the best of them are the ones who are capable of living in a world with all sorts of people and understanding that their belief system is theirs, mine is mine and that of everyone else is unique to them as well and that there is no need to tear down or debase another person who does good just because they don't agree with us.

There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of the higher power so many of us acknowledge so I choose to believe in my God.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Believing, or not believing in a god is not a matter of intelligence. There are plenty of folks who are both religious and intelligent.  I would say that in most cases, people believe in a god because its something they learned from their environment.

If I prove to someone that there is no god, and they continue to cling to their belief, then its not that they are unintelligent, rather its that they don't wish to let go of that belief. On one hand I say, "To each his own", but when people start imposing their religious beliefs by making laws and policies that are based on those beliefs, I am forced to protest.

[Beguile's Mistress]

But that can be said of all of us.  Stupid is as stupid does and intelligence comes in many different packages.  It usually works best when coupled with some wisdom and common sense, though.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I have faith.  Everyone has faith of some sort. Even Aetheists have faith there is no god or higher power or karma or guiding spirit. 

You're kind of missing the entire point of being Atheist... it requires no faith whatsoever to be an Atheist... it's kind of anti-faith. I do not believe in something there is no evidence for, period. Faith implies belief. For me to "believe" in something, there must be evidence. If there is evidence, then it's no longer faith, it's knowledge. Faith is believing in something without evidence, I have a distinct lack of faith due to the lack of evidence.

This is rambly because I'm tired, but I think I made my point.

[Beguile's Mistress]

You're kind of missing the entire point of being Atheist... it requires no faith whatsoever to be an Atheist... it's kind of anti-faith. I do not believe in something there is no evidence for, period. Faith implies belief. For me to "believe" in something, there must be evidence. If there is evidence, then it's no longer faith, it's knowledge. Faith is believing in something without evidence, I have a distinct lack of faith due to the lack of evidence.

This is rambly because I'm tired, but I think I made my point.

As was explain to me by several atheists you need to believe in the nonexistence of something in order to talk about it.  They have faith that they are right.  Atheism is a belief that there is no god or whatever you or someone else chose to call it.  It is much more complex that a simple denial of a god.  There are many aspects of atheism and even atheists have trouble coming to a concensus.

[TaintedAndDelish]

You're kind of missing the entire point of being Atheist... it requires no faith whatsoever to be an Atheist... it's kind of anti-faith. I do not believe in something there is no evidence for, period. Faith implies belief. For me to "believe" in something, there must be evidence. If there is evidence, then it's no longer faith, it's knowledge. Faith is believing in something without evidence, I have a distinct lack of faith due to the lack of evidence.

This is rambly because I'm tired, but I think I made my point.

I think of faith as more of a personal quality than a divine gift. In that sense, faith is indeed independent of one's beliefs. In the bible there was a passage where Jesus praised a roman soldier for his faith, and scolded his apostles for their lack of faith - suggesting that they aspire to have faith as this particular soldier did.

I have faith in myself, my ability to work through problems, and in the people in whom I place my trust. Without it, I would be a worrisome mess.

As for atheism being an admission of faith in god, I disagree. If I claim that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe, and you denied it - writing off my claim off as foolishness, would that denial or rejection be a veiled admission too?

[Bloodied Porcelain]

As for atheism being an admission of faith in god, I disagree. If I claim that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe, and you denied it - writing off my claim off as foolishness, would that denial or rejection be a veiled admission too?

This.

[Will]

As was explain to me by several atheists you need to believe in the nonexistence of something in order to talk about it.  They have faith that they are right.  Atheism is a belief that there is no god or whatever you or someone else chose to call it.  It is much more complex that a simple denial of a god.  There are many aspects of atheism and even atheists have trouble coming to a concensus.

If even atheists can't really agree on what it means to be atheists, then it seems problematic to claim one thing about all atheists, i.e., all atheists have faith.  For myself, it's more an assumption of nonexistence than a belief.  I don't believe with all my heart that there is no god, but the total lack of evidence means that I assume that there's no god and act accordingly.  It's a subtle difference, I know, but it's a very real one.  It's not at all the same as a dogmatic belief, so I do tend to look a little sideways at the notion that atheism is just a "religion of non-religion" or whatever.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Do you believe the proof is there and that it is valid? 

[Will]

What proof?  Proof of what?

[TaintedAndDelish]

The burden of proof belongs to the one making the claim. Atheists do not need to prove the non existence of god, rather its the other way around. 

[Beguile's Mistress]

What proof?  Proof of what?

Do you believe there is proof there is no god?  The point is that among the atheists of my acquaintance there are those who profess belief that god does not exist and that the proof of such is available and valid.  Discussions with them are interesting and entertaining.

The thing I'm trying to say is that faith is more that a belief in god or the teachings of a religion.  We have faith in many things or want to like parents, teachers, the sun rising in the morning.  It's individualistic.  Your system works for you.  It doesn't work for most of the atheists I've talked to.

The burden of proof belongs to the one making the claim. Atheists do not need to prove the non existence of god, rather its the other way around. 

Yet atheists claim there is no god.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Faith means believing in something without evidence. I do not understand why this has to be repeated so much, but it does. In order to have faith, one must look at the lack of evidence for something (in this case, God) and still chose to believe in it. Atheists look at the lack of evidence and say "there's no evidence, therefore I have no faith."

There is no evidence for unicorns, leprechauns, dragons, etc either, but you do not imply that because an Atheist does not believe in them, that we have to have faith to do so. It's called being rational, and faith is completely irrational

[TaintedAndDelish]

If I claim that the flying spaghetti monster exists, you are under no burden to prove that it does not exist, likewise atheists are under no burden to prove that this god does not exist. If  I insist that the FSM or god is real, but I provide no proof, then what business have I to expect others to disprove these beliefs?

I could make up a million fictional entities, but that doesn't make them true. Without proof, how can one say that this god is any more real than the FSM? For that matter, why was the bible loaded with tall tales about miracles? Perhaps its writers too believed that without proof, their fictional god was as real as the pagan's false gods?

[Will]

Do you believe there is proof there is no god?  The point is that among the atheists of my acquaintance there are those who profess belief that god does not exist and that the proof of such is available and valid.  Discussions with them are interesting and entertaining.

The thing I'm trying to say is that faith is more that a belief in god or the teachings of a religion.  We have faith in many things or want to like parents, teachers, the sun rising in the morning.  It's individualistic.  Your system works for you.  It doesn't work for most of the atheists I've talked to.

Yet atheists claim there is no god.

Well, maybe I am the exception rather than the rule.  It sounds like I would find those conversations just as interesting and entertaining as you do, heh.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I suppose within the boundaries you've all professed you have some validity.

My boundaries extend beyond a denial of something because I've encountered minds that have facets that are never discussed here.  One group I belong to has members from a broad cross-section of faith based communities, medicine, academia and other professions.  Our main purposes is education and self-exploration so when I say the matters discussed here are individualistic that is what I see.  Each of us has a way of looking at things and a desire to understand the points of view of others rather than try to proselytize or convert the others. 

Among the atheists in our group those who think as you do are respected and give respect as much as everyone else and they accept that there are atheists who see their position as belief in the non-existence of a higher power.

In my opinion demonstrating that people of differing opinions can come together and discuss these things without attacking or becoming defensive is evidence of intelligence. 

Well, maybe I am the exception rather than the rule.  It sounds like I would find those conversations just as interesting and entertaining as you do, heh.

I think you would and that you would add a lot to it as well.

[Will]

In my opinion demonstrating that people of differing opinions can come together and discuss these things without attacking or becoming defensive is evidence of intelligence.

I couldn't agree with that more.  And you managed to steer us back on topic, hah.  I'm impressed.

I don't question anyone's intelligence because of their beliefs.  I can't walk in your shoes, I can't experience your life, and I can't know what you've felt or seen.  Maybe you know something I don't.  But if someone can't understand why I find their beliefs far-fetched, then I'm going to wonder about them.  If they can't understand why it's unfair to force their experiences on the rest of the country/world, I'm going to question whether they're in touch with reality.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

In my opinion demonstrating that people of differing opinions can come together and discuss these things without attacking or becoming defensive is evidence of intelligence. 
I think you would and that you would add a lot to it as well.

I don't view calling it like I see it as attacking, but most religious folk would think it is. Do I think that believing that, say, a guy literally parted the Red Sea and not simply that he crossed it, that he just waved his hand, mumbled a prayer, and the sea literally split so he and his fellows could walk across unhindered implies a probable lack of intelligence? Yes, but I also think that part of being intelligent is looking at things critically and at least realizing that there is something incredibly irrational about thinking something like that actually happened. It's not a hard thought process to follow. If you read the bible and say "all of this happened exactly as it is stated, no exceptions" and ignore all the evidence that scientists and historians, geologists and archaeologists have provided to the contrary, then I believe that denotes a lack of intelligence at the best, willful ignorance at the worst.

Do I think that believing in God means you're less intelligent? No. Do I think that believing books written by men with less than a 3rd grade level amount of knowledge are completely factual and not allegorical, mistranslated, or simply fable-based does? Yes.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I don't question anyone's intelligence because of their beliefs.  I can't walk in your shoes, I can't experience your life, and I can't know what you've felt or seen.  Maybe you know something I don't.  But if someone can't understand why I find their beliefs far-fetched, then I'm going to wonder about them.  If they can't understand why it's unfair to force their experiences on the rest of the country/world, I'm going to question whether they're in touch with reality.

Maybe it's not so much being able to understand why but accepting that you do.  What you think and feel is as much a part of you as my thoughts and feelings are a part of me.  To coexist we need to acknowledge that.  In a perfect world we would all be able to express our beliefs without using them to convert people or convince them we are right.  The only wrong would be that which would diminish our humanity or hold someone up to ridicule.  The intelligent office holder is one who sees the people in his constituency as individuals with common needs and purposes and does his best to address that rather than change it.

Whether a politician believes it or not the job is to represent everyone not just the ones who are in agreement with their opinions.  The sad thing is that elected and appointed officials see their office as a position of power rather than one of responsibility and service. 

And you managed to steer us back on topic, hah.  I'm impressed.

*grins*  My own steering wheel was fighting me.


@Bloodied Porcelain ~ As long as you are willing to acknowledge that your statements describe a segment rather than a whole that's fine.  As in all things where opinions differ understanding needs to come from both sides.  I think this thread isn't so much about what we believe or don't believe but about whether people of any belief are capable of doing the job they are elected to without allowing those beliefs to influence them. 

[TaintedAndDelish]

Do I think that believing in God means you're less intelligent? No. Do I think that believing books written by men with less than a 3rd grade level amount of knowledge are completely factual and not allegorical, mistranslated, or simply fable-based does? Yes.

Amen!

Worth mentioning, those who wrote the bible and torah ( which are actually volumes of individual books ) were from completely different cultures and times. One can't assume that they all wrote in the factual, literal style that text books are written in today. As for interpreting them, one needs to do a hell of a lot of research study first. This is partly why those folks who bang on your door and take the bible literally seem so horribly ignorant.

[Will]

Maybe it's not so much being able to understand why but accepting that you do.  What you think and feel is as much a part of you as my thoughts and feelings are a part of me.  To coexist we need to acknowledge that.  In a perfect world we would all be able to express our beliefs without using them to convert people or convince them we are right.  The only wrong would be that which would diminish our humanity or hold someone up to ridicule.  The intelligent office holder is one who sees the people in his constituency as individuals with common needs and purposes and does his best to address that rather than change it.

I would agree with that as well.  I'll be up front about this; I think the world would be a better place if more folks believed like I do.  I think the same could be said of most atheists, as well as most Christians, if they're honest.  We all think we know best, to some degree or another.  But the fact is, these kinds of things are so very personal in nature that it doesn't do any good to proselytize or throw arguments at people.  You're only going to alienate people by doing so.  So yeah, I think it's a mark of an intelligent person to be able to have a conversation without feeling honor-bound and determined to change someone's mind.  Because you can't.  It's their mind, and they have to change it.

*grins*  My own steering wheel was fighting me.

Can I make a "Jesus take the wheel" joke?  Is that appropriate?  >.>

[Beguile's Mistress]

ge it.
Can I make a "Jesus take the wheel" joke?  Is that appropriate?  >.>

It's fine with me. :-)

[Hemingway]

I feel the need to chime in one the "atheists have faith, too" debate. I think it results from a conflation of terms. The agnostic atheist position is not that there's no god because so and so, but rather that there's no evidence to support the theist claim, and so there's no reason to suppose it's true. I think Bertrand Russell's famous teapot argument illustrates the difference quite well.

To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice.

If faith is "belief without evidence", then it sounds, at least to me, absurd to say that atheists have "faith". Faith in what? Faith that there is no evidence supporting the existence of god? Years and years of debate have failed to yield anything compelling in support of god's existence, so there's no faith necessary to believe that. Only looking critically at the supposed evidence. So, again, critical thinking is, so it seems to me, the key.

[Silk]

Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. However there is a certain level of causation of intelligence and certain religious practices, because the nature of the religion itself hampers the educational development of the individual, leading to a lower intelligence overall.

[Hemingway]

I'm trying to respond to what you wrote, Silk, but I just keep getting dragged deeper and deeper into the underlying questions.

Because I don't think that intelligence is really the correct word to use. Not if you're talking about religious fundamentalism, and how, for instance, fundamentalist parents homeschool their children in order to teach them their own non reality-based world view. If you're talking about things like what's shown in that infamous Jesus Camp documentary, I think it has more to do with stifling critical thinking and intellectual honesty, and teaching closemindedness, than intelligence. It's no less problematic given how difficult it is to define intelligence.

But, as I see it, you can't stop people from learning facts. And if you tell someone the earth is 4.5 billion years old, they can't un-know that. If you show them the evidence for this claim, they can't un-see the evidence. You have to teach them to think in a very closeminded way, and not to listen to reason. How you do that, I have no idea. Personally, I think the cognitive dissonance would drive me crazy.

[Silk]

Problem is hemmingway, it happens. Look at creationists for example. They ignore all evidence of the contrary and still hold their veiw of 7 day light before sun.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Look at life as a series of circles with the circumference of each circle the boundary between one life experience and the next.  We cross a boundary, encounter new ideas and new people and change.  Every boundary crossed changes us in some way and the farther we move from the center point of our life the more we change, adapt and evolve.

This is why sects segregate themselves.  It reduces outside influence on the members.  Some sects recognize the need for knowledge of these influences and the need for self-determination.  The Amish have rumspringa to encourage their younger people to experience the world for example. 

More knowledge is more widely available than ever before.  I read a lot about ideas, science, philosophies of life and the points of view of others.  I know I can't begin to comprehend everything but I also know that closing myself off from something is going to limit me.  I don't like limits.  I've never been a person who made a decision and then looked for supporting evidence.  I've hypothesized and looked for information for and against that idea.  I really don't know any other way to do things intelligently. 

The OP asked:

Do we think less of others dependent upon their own personal religious beliefs and/or practices?

I can't think less of a person because of what they believe or for not believing in anything.  I don't feel that it's right to judge that.

I don't like the hypocrisy in people who say they believe one thing and do something that goes against that belief because it's expedient.  I don't like a person who denigrates my belief or my faith in order to prove a point.  I don't like a group or individual who uses a religious belief to impose their will on others. 

My faith and religion are personal choices and actually are not the business of others.  The faith I was taught as a child still holds true for me today because it is a faith of love, compassion and patience.  How I practice my faith and it's teachings grows, evolves and changes as I do.  As I move from circle to circle and my life and the lives of others impact on us I gain perspective and my point of view can change.  One thing that hasn't changed so far is the knowledge that in order to live rationally and intelligently in this world today I have to take into account other people, what they need and what my influence on them could be.

[Will]

Problem is hemmingway, it happens. Look at creationists for example. They ignore all evidence of the contrary and still hold their veiw of 7 day light before sun.

But, the question isn't "Are there stupid religious people?"  Because that's a no-brainer.  Of course there are.  There are also stupid people who aren't religious.  So you aren't really proving anything.

The question is whether religious people as a whole are statistically less intelligent.

[Silk]

But, the question isn't "Are there stupid religious people?"  Because that's a no-brainer.  Of course there are.  There are also stupid people who aren't religious.  So you aren't really proving anything.

The question is whether religious people as a whole are statistically less intelligent.

Actually the question is, is their religion one of the key cause's of their stupidity.

[Hemingway]

Problem is hemmingway, it happens. Look at creationists for example. They ignore all evidence of the contrary and still hold their veiw of 7 day light before sun.

Yes, they ignore evidence. It's not that they don't know about the evidence, or don't understand it. I don't think that's a sign of a lack of intelligence. I hate to say this, but I think a lot of these fundamentalist types are highly intelligent, only they use their intelligence for the wrong purpose ( i.e. spreading misinformation, and sometimes outright fraud ).

Richard Dawkins illustrates this sort of thinking with the story of Harvard-educated geologist Kurt Wise. He apparently went through the bible, literally cutting out every part of it that conflicted with his education, the end result of which was a bible so mangled that he couldn't pick it up without it falling apart. But rather than discard his religion, or at least the literal view of it, he decided to believe in spite of all evidence that the bible was literally true.

A quote from Kurt Wise taken from the text:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

I think it's very obvious in light of this that lack of intelligence, at least the way we usually think of intelligence, is not the reason Kurt Wise decided he'd rather be a fundamentalist christian than a scientist. He made a conscious choice to ignore what he knew to be true. That's not a lack of intelligence. That's a serious case of doublethink.

[Will]

Actually the question is, is their religion one of the key cause's of their stupidity.

Religion can't cause stupidity.  Atheism can't cause intelligence.  Or the other way around.

That doesn't even make sense.

[TaintedAndDelish]

I'm trying to respond to what you wrote, Silk, but I just keep getting dragged deeper and deeper into the underlying questions.

Because I don't think that intelligence is really the correct word to use. Not if you're talking about religious fundamentalism, and how, for instance, fundamentalist parents homeschool their children in order to teach them their own non reality-based world view. If you're talking about things like what's shown in that infamous Jesus Camp documentary, I think it has more to do with stifling critical thinking and intellectual honesty, and teaching closemindedness, than intelligence. It's no less problematic given how difficult it is to define intelligence.

But, as I see it, you can't stop people from learning facts. And if you tell someone the earth is 4.5 billion years old, they can't un-know that. If you show them the evidence for this claim, they can't un-see the evidence. You have to teach them to think in a very closeminded way, and not to listen to reason. How you do that, I have no idea. Personally, I think the cognitive dissonance would drive me crazy.

When you are not emotionally and psychologically attached to an idea, its much easier to dispose of it. For Christians in general, the consequences of disposing of their belief in god is absolutely devastating.  When you are taught from a young age that believing in Jesus will effectively make you immortal, when you are taught to focus your entire life around this, that to disobey his teachings, ( actually, the church's interpretation of his teachings ), will put you farther away from him and your community, disposing your belief in god will cause your entire house of cards to crumble.  I know, I used to be a roman catholic, it it was devastating when I disposed of this belief.

I look at it like this, we have piles of ideas and beliefs that are all interlinked like small houses of cards. One idea supports another. When we see that certain ideas can stand, we give them a little more weight. When those piles are smaller. The consequences  of collapse are much smaller.  Scientists are prepared to let the house crumble and start over. Religious folks, however, are taught that this is absolute truth and that letting this house crumble is not an option. The intelligent religious person is left with a terrible contradiction that will gnaw at them until they either find a way to justify it or dispose of it.

"Seek the truth, and the truth will set you free"

[Trieste]

Ummmmm... Shit got crazy up in here. >.>; Not touching you guys with a ten foot pole, although it's been interesting reading.

Torch, you've kind of got two questions going, here. The title of the thread seems to ask an objective question, while the first post seems to ask a subjective question:

Do we think less of others dependent upon their own personal religious beliefs and/or practices?

I think the objective question has been put to bed (is there a correlation? Yes, but correlation is not causation and correcting for religious background shows that the correlation disappears, as far as I can tell), so that leaves the subjective question.

I'm a little unclear on whether you're talking about spirituality as a whole or just specifically religion as a facet of spirituality. All the examples you listed were examples of organized religion but it can be a little difficult to come up with examples from the spiritual-but-not-religious crowd. Going to give it a shot anyway.

I don't know that we do inherently. I think that when we take others' beliefs in the context that they place them in - that is, if we have them explain their beliefs - they usually make a fair amount of sense. The idea of transubstantiation grosses me out a little and I've made my fair share of jokes about it ("Today we're having body of Christ meatballs! Don't want to miss dinner!") but I don't think that believing in it automatically makes someone less intelligent. Intelligent people believe illogical things all the time. It happens and it doesn't inherently mean they are stupid.

I think that generally there is a tendency to reduce others' beliefs down to something that sounds ridiculous. "Sky Daddy did it" is a perfect example of that - although I wonder if the person wasn't getting their religious dogma confused since the SkyFather is generally not a Christian concept. I've seen reference to Paul Ryan's "magic underwear". I'm sure that's now how he would describe it, but if you boil it down to a few deliberately ludicrous words, of course you're going to think that the person's intelligence must be compromised. It's inherent in the "us vs. them" mentality that humans are prone to. In war, in sports, in religion, all through history, we have thought of people in the 'opposite' camp as being mentally incompetent in some way (and often physically, especially sexually, incompetent) and it helps us to win conflict because we dehumanize opponents.

So,

Do we think less of others dependent upon their own personal religious beliefs and/or practices?

Individually, not always. In groups, hell yeah.

[TaintedAndDelish]

In all fairness, how many of us would be willing to ditch our agnostic/atheist/scientific beliefs if some Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Jehova Witness, or Scientologist  was able to offer unshakable, theoretical proof that their God and religion was real?

Would we take up this new religion and all its restrictions, practices, customs and god(s) as quickly as we would expect religious folks to abandon their gods and beliefs?

My point is not to speculate about the possibility that they could be real, but to highlight the difficulty in changing one's core beliefs.

[Hemingway]

In all fairness, how many of us would be willing to ditch our agnostic/atheist/scientific beliefs if some Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Jehova Witness, or Scientologist  was able to offer unshakable, theoretical proof that their God and religion was real?

Would we take up this new religion and all its restrictions, practices, customs and god(s) as quickly as we would expect religious folks to abandon their gods and beliefs?

My point is not to speculate about the possibility that they could be real, but to highlight the difficulty in changing one's core beliefs.

If it were somehow proven that one particular religion were true - let's not get into how that would happen - I would have no choice but to accept it as true. I suspect this would be the case with most people who are conscious of their atheism and take part in this sort of debate, too. I think it would be far easier, if you had the evidence, to convince atheists to become theists, than the other way around. If you believe in religious dogmas, then you believe the natural order can be suspended. Once you believe that - if you believe it strongly enough - no amount of evidence could convince you. Nevermind the fact we can never conclusively disprove the existence of a god or gods, but even if we could, the religious could always claim the evidence was a clever satanic deception, or something like that. Again, critical thinking.

On that note, I can't say how many atheists would become practicing believers. I know I wouldn't. I think Christopher Hitchens had it right, and I won't go into the whole argument here, but if you're curious you can look up what he had to say about the "Celestial Dictatorship", or the "Divine North Korea".

[Bloodied Porcelain]

In all fairness, how many of us would be willing to ditch our agnostic/atheist/scientific beliefs if some Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Jehova Witness, or Scientologist  was able to offer unshakable, theoretical proof that their God and religion was real?

That's the thing... most Atheists don't believe because there is no proof or evidence to support the claim that there is a God or Gods. If you could provide proof that a given religion's God exists and that their religion was the "right" one to worship under, it would no longer be belief or faith. It would be fact, at which point nearly any atheist would accept it as such and thus it would become part of their knowledge and most would simply fall in line (for lack of a better term) as needed. Granted many of us might fight against said divine power. Not by denying it's existence, but basically arguing that it's teachings are inhumane or wrong on some level. Hemingway already referenced one of my idols talking about it, but I'm inclined to agree with Hitchens when he said that heaven by the biblical standards is little more than a celestial North Korea so even if it was real, I wouldn't want to go.

Plus... based on pictures, Hell looks more interesting than that other place anyway. ;)

[vtboy]

Hemingway already referenced one of my idols talking about it, but I'm inclined to agree with Hitchens when he said that heaven by the biblical standards is little more than a celestial North Korea so even if it was real, I wouldn't want to go.

Plus... based on pictures, Hell looks more interesting than that other place anyway. ;)

There is also Twain's Letters from Earth, in which Satan's observations to his fellow archangels on man's stupidity and other failings include the following:

Now then, you have the facts. You know what the human race enjoys and what it doesn't enjoy. It has invented a heaven out of its own head, all by itself: guess what it is like! In fifteen hundred eternities you couldn't do it. The ablest mind known to you or me in fifty million aeons couldn't do it. Very well, I will tell you about it.

First of all, I recall to your attention the extraordinary fact with which I began. To wit, that the human being, like the immortals, naturally places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys -- yet he has left it out of his heaven! The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything -- even his queer heaven itself -- to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax. From youth to middle age all men and all women prize copulation above all other pleasures combined, yet it is actually as I have said: it is not in their heaven; prayer takes its place.

Earlier in the passage Satan has noted man's distaste for prayer.

[MasterMischief]

It is easy to vilify those we disagree with.  Claiming they are 'less intelligent' is just another way to separate them from us.  It makes us feel superior and justifies our anger at them.  In the end, they are us and we are simply doing ourselves harm.

[Moraline]

As to the simple question of do others often judge others that do not believe/practice the same types of religion (or lack thereof) as being of lesser intelligence? The simple answer is, Yes.   

People judge others all the time. Heck, some people think that others are less intelligent because of the food they eat or the color of their skin.  Prejudice is all around us and very few of us don't suffer from at least some form of prejudice no matter how enlightened we think we are.


We need to define how we define intelligence first.

Intelligence has been defined in many different ways- including, but not limited to abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving.  ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

In different studies that have been conducted it's been shown that people with higher levels of education usually possess a less likely hood of following a religious belief or follow one far less strictly.

It should be noted that education is not directly related to intelligence. While it is true that those of higher education often possess a greater capacity to learn and indirectly results in a higher intellect and intelligence quotient we should also note that there are far more intelligent non-educated people then there are educated ones. This is a direct result of a lack of educational social equality throughout the world. This inequality is a result of money, prejudice, government intervention etc etc...

*edit: see below for differing thoughts on the subject of religion *


My opinion is that there are many very intelligent people of strong religious beliefs. There are also many of very low intelligence.




*Edit / Update:   Here is an article in Science + Religion Today that says 73% of educated people (those with a degree) believe in a "personal God."  Small addendum to that though, that sampling comes from the general degree fields. When analyzed across specific studies - those in science background fall into only a fraction of that number and far fewer have religious beliefs.

Another interesting Article about "Why people believe..."  ~ ScientificAmerican

A chart that shows the drastic change in religious beliefs between 1998 - 2008:
Is Atheism Increasing at the Expense of Theism?  ((Interestingly there was very little change in the US but most other countries had drastic changes/drops in belief.))

[kckolbe]

While I am not sure if this ties in at all, I can say that one could compare average IQs of different religions and see some significant differences, though a more likely explanation would be the overall technological level of the region.  Christians, for example, would have an average IQ about or over twenty points higher than the average Muslim, though that would more likely be attributed to the fact that Christianity is practiced in more developed nations.  However, one could flip that logic and say that those nations have progressed more because the dominant religion in those now-developed nations were more compatible with critical thought.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Intelligence is something we are born possessing.  The measure of our intelligence is our ability to learn, comprehend and use information and knowledge gained from teachers, experience and exposure to various media.  Learning and comprehension require listening and being able to grasp the fact that unless you listen you have no idea what other people are saying.

Whether they are religious or not, whether they believe there is a god or not the intelligent person has some capacity to recognize the differences between their point of view and another and they should possess the curiosity to learn about the other point of view.  How well you do that and how well you manage to respect the views of others demonstrates your level of intelligence as does acknowledging that you must keep on listening and learning.

Do I agree with you?  Maybe; maybe not.
Do I respect your right to your opinion/belief/non-belief? Yes. 
Do I argue my point in opposition to you?  No. 
Why?  I respect your right to your opinion and I’m not seeking to convert you.
Why?  I want you to respect me whether you agree with me or not.

Having faith or belief in a higher power does not presuppose intelligence; neither does any form of atheism or agnosticism.  How someone handles their belief and that of others says much more about how intelligent a person is.  Look for facts, all the facts, any fact, every fact and I respect your intelligence.  Close yourself off to all that does not support your position and you lose credence. 

We don't create intelligence but we do create prejudice.  Enlightenment and intelligence should reduce the prejudice we feel not enhance. 

[vtboy]

Christians, for example, would have an average IQ about or over twenty points higher than the average Muslim, though that would more likely be attributed to the fact that Christianity is practiced in more developed nations.  However, one could flip that logic and say that those nations have progressed more because the dominant religion in those now-developed nations were more compatible with critical thought.

On what, if anything, do you base your assertion that "the average Muslim" would score twenty or more IQ points lower than the average among Christians? On what, if anything, do you base your view that the claimed disparity is attributable to Christianity being more compatible than Islam with "critical thought" (conspicuous in your post only by its absence)?

You may wish to consider, before further indulging your assumptions, that during the Dark Ages, when the "average" European Christian never travelled more than 5 miles from the spot he was born, and led a short and brutish life dominated by superstition, fear, and avoidance of reason, Muslims were governing far flung empires, enjoying the fruits of robust trade, inventing algebra, studying the classics, practicing medicine, and writing verse.

You may also wish to consider the effect on your conclusions of the stereotypes and prejudices to which you evidently subscribe. 

[kckolbe]

@vtboy: Please note that the claim of compatibility was not the one that I said would be more likely.  I said that the likely cause was that Christianity happened to be common in more developed countries.  As for evidence, I based it solely on average IQ by country.  So while the average Christian American and average Muslim American could have identical IQs, the truth is that the majority of Muslims live in nations with lower national IQs and the majority of Christians live in countries with higher IQs. 

I offered two separate, opposed conclusions to show that the evidence could be interpreted multiple ways, but the information did seem relevant to the discussion.

[Moraline]

Just because the reference above about IQ scores and regions of the world made me think of something else.

National IQ Scores Vs Average Penis Size:
http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4923

Oh the crazy things that statisticians come up with.

[kckolbe]

So *that's* why women aren't fleeing the Congo, good to know.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Just because the reference above about IQ scores and regions of the world made me think of something else.

National IQ Scores Vs Average Penis Size:
http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4923

Oh the crazy things that statisticians come up with.

Yes, yes, a bit off topic I suppose - but I would think that that range of IQ scores tells more about possible cultural biases of the test than people's intelligence.  Just saying.

That and only Moraline would have links like this handy :-)

[TaintedAndDelish]

How about Ashkenazi Jews?  They tend to score around 8-15% higher than average on the IQ scale and they are religious....


http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/4828
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

[Moraline]

Yes, yes, a bit off topic I suppose - but I would think that that range of IQ scores tells more about possible cultural biases of the test than people's intelligence.  Just saying.

That and only Moraline would have links like this handy :-)

Mr B, you are correct. Intelligence is unfortunately something that we have only weak means to measure and the tests are extremely biased, not just culturally but in a number of other ways. I won't get into it here but it's very psychosocial in nature.

[Oniya]

Does anyone remember the kerfuffle about ethnic differences on IQ tests, that were shown to have roots in the different levels of society that people lived in?  It was highlighted in a 'Very Special Episode' ^(TM) of Diff'rent Strokes.  ([noembed]Here's[/noembed] part one - they got uploaded in reverse order.)