New Theory: Why More Intelligent People Tend to be Less Religious

[fantome profane]

Good spelling has more to do with good visual memory and an attention to details, as English spelling is not always the most rational. Good spellers are people who can see the word in their head and use their "gut" to feel if a word is spelled right. I have no proof of this but I think it is could be possible that overly rational people may have problems with the senselessness of English spelling.

Eye hav ah theiree that badd spelling is a sine of Kreeativettee.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't care much about how intelligent people think I am.

A very beneficial attitude.


Oh, come on, people....
It's a joke!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

A weight of studies over the years have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But if that's the case, then why is it so? A new theory proposes that the reason more intelligent people tend to be less religious is because (1) religiosity is rooted in instinct, and (2) more intelligent people are able to overcome their instinctual religiosity relatively more often than less intelligent people.

Source: The reason why atheists are more intelligent

What do you make of the theory?


At the risk of pointing out the obvious: Just because there is a well established negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity does not mean that all religious people are dumb and all non-religious people are smart, or that all religious people are dumber than all non-religious people. Second, the focus of this discussion should be the notions that (1) religiosity is instinctual and (2) relatively high intelligence allows people to more readily overcome instincts. If you wish to discuss the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, get your own thread.

I take exception to this hypothesis being labeled as a theory! But then again I guess the less clever of us will never know the difference.

 

[BSM1]

A weight of studies over the years have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But if that's the case, then why is it so? A new theory proposes that the reason more intelligent people tend to be less religious is because (1) religiosity is rooted in instinct, and (2) more intelligent people are able to overcome their instinctual religiosity relatively more often than less intelligent people.

Source: The reason why atheists are more intelligent

What do you make of the theory?


At the risk of pointing out the obvious: Just because there is a well established negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity does not mean that all religious people are dumb and all non-religious people are smart, or that all religious people are dumber than all non-religious people. Second, the focus of this discussion should be the notions that (1) religiosity is instinctual and (2) relatively high intelligence allows people to more readily overcome instincts. If you wish to discuss the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, get your own thread.

Man, by definition, has no instincts. Man has intuition and gullibility.

 

[joe1776]

A weight of studies over the years have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But if that's the case, then why is it so? A new theory proposes that the reason more intelligent people tend to be less religious is because (1) religiosity is rooted in instinct, and (2) more intelligent people are able to overcome their instinctual religiosity relatively more often than less intelligent people.

Source: The reason why atheists are more intelligent

What do you make of the theory?


At the risk of pointing out the obvious: Just because there is a well established negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity does not mean that all religious people are dumb and all non-religious people are smart, or that all religious people are dumber than all non-religious people. Second, the focus of this discussion should be the notions that (1) religiosity is instinctual and (2) relatively high intelligence allows people to more readily overcome instincts. If you wish to discuss the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, get your own thread.

I don't like this hypothesis much.

We humans seem to have a favorable bias toward our ability to reason and a unfavorable bias toward instinct and intuition.

For me, religion is an example of men's drive for power over gullible others by pretending knowledge they don't really have. It's a common phenomenon in many areas of life (especially on Wall Street).

However, the intuitive feeling that there are mysterious forces at work in a greater reality derives from the subconscious in all cultures and can't be dismissed that easily, IMO.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I don't like this hypothesis much.

We humans seem to have a favorable bias toward our ability to reason and a unfavorable bias toward instinct and intuition.

For me, religion is an example of men's drive for power over gullible others by pretending knowledge they don't really have. It's a common phenomenon in many areas of life (especially on Wall Street).

However, the intuitive feeling that there are mysterious forces at work in a greater reality derives from the subconscious in all cultures and can't be dismissed that easily, IMO.

"However, the intuitive feeling that there are mysterious forces at work in a greater reality derives from the subconscious in all cultures and can't be dismissed that easily, IMO."

I never had any problems dismissing "mysterious forces" mumbo jumbo. Let's try it and see how hard it is: I dismiss your "mysterious forces" as nothing but rhetoric! Well, that seemed rather easy, so I guess they are not hard to dismiss.

 

[joe1776]

I never had any problems dismissing "mysterious forces" mumbo jumbo. Let's try it and see how hard it is: I dismiss your "mysterious forces" as nothing but rhetoric! Well, that seemed rather easy, so I guess they are not hard to dismiss.

Right. Well, that's my fault. I should have been more specific and said "intelligently dismiss."

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Right. Well, that's my fault. I should have been more specific and said "intelligently dismiss."

I "intelligently dismiss" your mumbo jumbo. Nope that was easy as well; I can dismiss things all day long.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A weight of studies over the years have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But if that's the case, then why is it so? A new theory proposes that the reason more intelligent people tend to be less religious is because (1) religiosity is rooted in instinct, and (2) more intelligent people are able to overcome their instinctual religiosity relatively more often than less intelligent people.

Source: The reason why atheists are more intelligent

What do you make of the theory?


At the risk of pointing out the obvious: Just because there is a well established negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity does not mean that all religious people are dumb and all non-religious people are smart, or that all religious people are dumber than all non-religious people. Second, the focus of this discussion should be the notions that (1) religiosity is instinctual and (2) relatively high intelligence allows people to more readily overcome instincts. If you wish to discuss the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, get your own thread.

With education comes critical thinking skills - a major impediment to selling faith.

There's a reason that the church wants to get into the elementary schools. It wants access to the children of parents that don't indoctrinate their children with religion or take the to church to let somebody else do it. Once they can evaluate claims on their merit, religiosity as understood in the West becomes unlikely:

• "Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man." - source disputed.

Or, if you prefer, as a famous Mormon once said,

• "Bring 'em young."

 

[eldios]

A weight of studies over the years have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But if that's the case, then why is it so? A new theory proposes that the reason more intelligent people tend to be less religious is because (1) religiosity is rooted in instinct, and (2) more intelligent people are able to overcome their instinctual religiosity relatively more often than less intelligent people.

Source: The reason why atheists are more intelligent

What do you make of the theory?


At the risk of pointing out the obvious: Just because there is a well established negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity does not mean that all religious people are dumb and all non-religious people are smart, or that all religious people are dumber than all non-religious people. Second, the focus of this discussion should be the notions that (1) religiosity is instinctual and (2) relatively high intelligence allows people to more readily overcome instincts. If you wish to discuss the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, get your own thread.

I have met many stupid atheists and theists who reject the knowledge of God called Christ. Intelligence has nothing to do whether you believe that God has a voice or not.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

A weight of studies over the years have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. But if that's the case, then why is it so? A new theory proposes that the reason more intelligent people tend to be less religious is because (1) religiosity is rooted in instinct, and (2) more intelligent people are able to overcome their instinctual religiosity relatively more often than less intelligent people.

Source: The reason why atheists are more intelligent

What do you make of the theory?


At the risk of pointing out the obvious: Just because there is a well established negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity does not mean that all religious people are dumb and all non-religious people are smart, or that all religious people are dumber than all non-religious people. Second, the focus of this discussion should be the notions that (1) religiosity is instinctual and (2) relatively high intelligence allows people to more readily overcome instincts. If you wish to discuss the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, get your own thread.

Religious people are usually told not to question things, and will tell not to question things, and as a result the rebels reject everything the religious say.

Of course, not all religious people or atheists are like this. I have known some very smart but religious Christians, and I met atheists who couldn't think straight 9 times out of 10. Religion or even lack of it becomes very harmful if you make it instinct. And many people don't know how to balance the rational with their instinct.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I have met many stupid atheists and theists who reject the knowledge of God called Christ. Intelligence has nothing to do whether you believe that God has a voice or not.

So anyone that rejects your "knowledge of the God called Christ" is stupid?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would venture to guess if you rated how many really good hearted people there are that are religious, and how many that are not religious, the religious people would have the advantage.

Secular humanists consistently outperform Christians in this area.

In the last American presidential election, white evangelical Christian voters overwhelmingly (81%) supported a presidential candidate who is morally challenged. We have evidence that he is a fraud (Trump university), a cheat (stiffs employees and contractors), a liar (do I need to give examples?), a bully, vengeful, and a sexual predator.

Secular humanists overwhelmingly rejected what these Christians embraced. And they reject Christian homophobia, atheophobia, and misogyny as well.

Do you still not see which are the good-hearted people and which are not?

• "You were hungry and thirsty, so I eliminated funding for Meals on Wheels and food banks. You were a stranger, so I vilified you and demanded that you be deported. You were naked, so I called you an evil liberal who hates conservative family values. You were sick, so I repealed your only hope for health care. You were in prison, so I tortured you." - Matthew 25: 42-43 in The Conservative Bible

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You know what I find stupid and taken on faith, the people here who are assuming this study is actually right without knowing anything about it. I mean honestly who here (besides myself) can explain: what Pearson's R is and when it is significant and how it can be misleading, what the difference is between fixed and random-effects models or what a type I error is and why it is an issue with this study?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Religious instinct," I think, isn't so much an innate religiosity but, rather, a cluster of psychological characteristics that pave the way, or confer a predilection for, the development of religious belief.

Dawkins agrees and makes a compelling argument that religiosity is merely the co-opting by opportunists of a childhood instinct analogous to the way that the moth's instinct to use moonlight as a navigational aid leads to their demise in the age of light bulbs.

From What Use is Religion? at http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_10_DEFINITION/What-Use-is-Religion.htm (I apologize for the tiny font size here) Here's an excerpt:

"If I have done my softening up work well, you will already have completed the argument about child brains and religion. Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. And this very quality automatically makes them vulnerable to infection by mind viruses. For excellent survival reasons, child brains need to trust parents and trust elders whom their parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the “truster” has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad. The child cannot tell that “If you swim in the river you’ll be eaten by crocodiles” is good advice but “If you don’t sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, the crops will fail” is bad advice. They both sound the same. Both are advice from a trusted source, and both are delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and demands obedience."

The instinct is not toward religiosity any more than for moths to spiral to their demise near a flame.

 

[Kemosloby]

Which ones tend to spell correctly?

 

[joe1776]

Dawkins agrees and makes a compelling argument that religiosity is merely the co-opting by opportunists of a childhood instinct analogous to the way that the moth's instinct to use moonlight as a navigational aid leads to their demise in the age of light bulbs.

From What Use is Religion? at http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_10_DEFINITION/What-Use-is-Religion.htm (I apologize for the tiny font size here) Here's an excerpt:

"If I have done my softening up work well, you will already have completed the argument about child brains and religion. Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. And this very quality automatically makes them vulnerable to infection by mind viruses. For excellent survival reasons, child brains need to trust parents and trust elders whom their parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the “truster” has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad. The child cannot tell that “If you swim in the river you’ll be eaten by crocodiles” is good advice but “If you don’t sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, the crops will fail” is bad advice. They both sound the same. Both are advice from a trusted source, and both are delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and demands obedience."

The instinct is not toward religiosity any more than for moths to spiral to their demise near a flame.

You have explained why the child would trust religious beliefs, and tradition would explain how they perpetuate themselves, but you haven't identified the cause that started them in the first place. Or, have I missed it?

 

[Sha'irullah]

If you can break molds like religion you can free your mind and analyze more things. Nothing is off limits to me until it is proven as detrimental. As an atheist or more precise an anti-theist I find the world to be something I must understand and acknowledge in order to succeed and achieve. This life is all that I can pray to and this universe is the only thing worthy of my worship. No god, no masters and no restrictions on wisdom stand in my way.

It is natural for the atheist or even the religious skeptic to have higher intelligence considering the nature of religion is to offer restrictions on basic human behavior.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

To be an atheist often requires sifting through apologetics, and finding reason to deny the claims so many others take on faith.
.

Saaaaay what?

And here I thought all that was required was to not be convinced one particular and quite peculiar superstition was true.

Nobody mentioned that there would be homework....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You have explained why the child would trust religious beliefs, and tradition would explain how they perpetuate themselves, but you haven't identified the cause that started them in the first place. Or, have I missed it?

People first started believing in spirits for a number of reasons such as an instinct to assume agenticity (a conscious agent with thoughts and volition) behind unexplained phenomena, but soon, presumably, opportunists learned how to exploit them, and developed a priesthood. Look at all the advantages of such a job both then and now.