Study claims intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

[Temporal Renegade]

Let the debating begin:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...t-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html

 

[westprog]

Let the debating begin:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...t-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html

Call the belief "opinion X". Then say to anyone holding that opinion "A study has shown that intelligent people (as defined by our survey) don't hold that opinion. Do you still think X is true?"

There will be people who, for example, will want to think the same way as Tom Cruise, or Einstein. Others will recognise that it's not a matter of a majority vote, and the significant thing is whether it's possible for intelligent people to honestly disagree on the matter.

 

[cj.23]

The author of the research has previously published controversial studies on gender and race and intelligence. Interesting. Anyone know more?

His claim here is simple "...in the intellectual elite." Well yes, I would imagine a goodly percentage of FRS are atheists. I wonder what his inclusion criteria were though?

cj x

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

I only skimmed the article, but it looks like the correlation was with academics, not IQ. The IQ was assumed, and it may be so, but...

Perhaps the real correlation is with education. Several reasons why more education might mean less likely to believe in God:

1. Greater exposure to contrasting beliefs in a neutral setting.

2. Greater exposure to a wider variety of people holding those beliefs.

3. Greater emphasis on reason, logic, critical thinking and evidence.

4. Greater emphasis on questioning authority / disaproval of dogmatism.

I'm sure there are others. In fact, if anybody wants to pose some kind of "liberal indoctrination" theory, I'd love to hear that spelled out.

 

[Denver]

Call the belief "opinion X". Then say to anyone holding that opinion "A study has shown that intelligent people (as defined by our survey) don't hold that opinion. Do you still think X is true?"

There will be people who, for example, will want to think the same way as Tom Cruise, or Einstein. Others will recognise that it's not a matter of a majority vote, and the significant thing is whether it's possible for intelligent people to honestly disagree on the matter.

I felt a twinge of the Emperor's New Clothes

“Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!” Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid.

 

[Dysphemist]

@ thread title:

Nevertheless, I've known many wise people who do believe in a higher power...

Dr Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at Leeds University, said the conclusion had "a slight tinge of Western cultural imperialism as well as an anti-religious sentiment".

I agree with Alistair.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

I find this quote from the article most interesting:

But Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College, London, said it failed to take account of a complex range of social, economic and historical factors.
"Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response," he said.

(bolding mine)

It's not characterized as such, IT IS PRIMITIVE.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primitive

1 a: not derived : original, primary

Isn't that what every dogmatic religous adherent believes? that they hold the TRUTH and everything else is wrong?

b: assumed as a basis; especially : axiomatic <primitive concepts>

Again, isn't the basis of one's religion taken for granted once accepted as true? That any basis for proof and/or argument is axiomatically based on some enlightened book?

2 a: of or relating to the earliest age or period : primeval <the primitive church>

Using the "BIG 3", Christianity, Judaism and Islam....yes.

b: closely approximating an early ancestral type : little evolved <primitive mammals>

N/A

c: belonging to or characteristic of an early stage of development : crude, rudimentary <primitive technology>

Creationism? Ignoring science?

d: of, relating to, or constituting the assumed parent speech of related languages <primitive Germanic>

N/A

3 a: elemental, natural <our primitive feelings of vengeance — John Mackwood>

N/A

b: of, relating to, or produced by a people or culture that is nonindustrial and often nonliterate and tribal <primitive art>

With the big 3, no doubt.

c: naive d

YES.


I am sure that buggy-whip manufacturers in the very early years of the 20th century were acting in the same manner about the automobile. Religious leaders everywhere will do whatever to stay employed.


I tend to agree with what Ryan wrote above. There is obviously a correlation between education and IQ, but I feel that being smart isn't really the only requisite. You could have an individual who tests as a genius, but has never left his little corner of the earth. If he was only taught a single religious dogma and had no exposure to other ideas, might have a very tightly held belief in the supernatural.

But I would draw the line at a belief in God or a higher power. No one with any modicum of intellect and/or reasoning skills can read the bible and believe it as literal.

 

[Sunstealer]

Mmmmn, this smacks of self satisfaction and an air of superciliousness. I fail to see how a given child is less intelligent at primary school, but the same child is more intelligent at secondary school. Better informed, more experienced, more independent to develop that intelligence surely? Do IQ tests show significant improvements as children get older? (I don't know). There is controversy over IQ tests and whether they do accurately measure "intelligence" or whether they measure being good at IQ tests.

The article is a bit shabby, I'd like to see a link to the paper, because there are, what seems to me, multiple reasons given. (Further) developed countries have become (further) developed because of science and the scientific method and the way in which society has allowed/grown/adapted (to) those ideas in order to influence itself. The embrace of the scientific method and therefore the subsequent discoveries explain what was previously explained by religion and this knowledge (and method) is disseminated amongst children in schools. The opposite is also true if the school system is poor irrespective of whether those learning in that school are in a further developed country.

I only think that someone's intelligence can be utilised through their own experiences (which obviously includes learning aswell as schooling) and therefore it's the schooling part that is key. Whilst one learns practical physics by falling on one's butt whilst learning to walk aged 2 it is only through schooling does one understand why one falls over (when losing their balance). Obviously being fortunate to have a brain that is able to comprehend many varied and complex concepts better than the average is of great benefit, however, I've met a good few intelligent academics who have some trouble tying their own shoe laces, if you get my drift.