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

[Sunstone]

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.

 

[Mindmaster]

What do you make of the theory?

I think many of the atheists are part of the "last winner" generation, in that they need to feel smarter, special, and unique even when they're basic as all hell or simply as dumb as anyone else. The generations before us were devote religious people for the most part, and they have done more than any recent generation. We could argue they would have to be smarter than us because they didn't have Google, or many other resources that we take for granted.

Your beliefs don't indicate your IQ, nor does the stuff you memorize. Most people simply memorize the talking points of something and since it sounds good just go along. To argue that makes someone smarter than someone else is silly.

 

[Sunstone]

I think many of the atheists are part of the "last winner" generation, in that they need to feel smarter, special, and unique even when they're basic as all hell or simply as dumb as anyone else. The generations before us were devote religious people for the most part, and they have done more than any recent generation. We could argue they would have to be smarter than us because they didn't have Google, or many other resources that we take for granted.

Your beliefs don't indicate your IQ, nor does the stuff you memorize. Most people simply memorize the talking points of something and since it sounds good just go along. To argue that makes someone smarter than someone else is silly.

Have you ever met a theory you understood, MM? Ever?

 

[FutureFaith]

Growing up I never had the inclination to have the instinctual bias towards any particular religion, as I was not grown in a religious household. I investigated various faiths very briefly during my teenage years and when I came across secularist thought, it made much more sense to me than most religions. Most religions can only touch base with their own constituents, but the message of atheism was clear and did not feel like it warranted biased pretenses. In any case, I don't believe that everybody has this "instinctual religiosity" you so claim. Many people are happy without religion and find value in life in other ways. My own "instinctual religiosity" flickers from time to time, but never to the point to become wholly renounced and entrenched into one particular belief preset. Faith nor doubt is completely instinctual; they both have to be introduced to us before we could to our conclusion.

 

[Deathbydefault]

What do you make of the theory?

I don't make much of it.
There's probably some valid argument in there somewhere, but I can't be bothered to find it.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Intelligent people tend to be more analytical, and religious stuff tends to quickly crumble beneath any sort of examination and scrutiny.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Regarding point 1, that religiosity is rooted in instinct, it seems a problematic issue. At least from my own experience, it's something that's taught from a very young age. I don't think I felt any religious "instinct." Many of my instincts probably pulled me in a direction contrary to what religions teach.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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.

What is their basis for this theory? I hope it is not just the supposed negative correlation.

Btw, the study is the same meta-analysis I started a thread about awhile back; I don't put a lot of stock in it myself. The study listed other explanations others have offered for the supposed correlation but without any supporting evidence that is all they are: just suggested explanations. You know what else is an suggested explanation? Religion.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think many of the atheists are part of the "last winner" generation, in that they need to feel smarter, special, and unique even when they're basic as all hell or simply as dumb as anyone else. The generations before us were devote religious people for the most part, and they have done more than any recent generation. We could argue they would have to be smarter than us because they didn't have Google, or many other resources that we take for granted.

Your beliefs don't indicate your IQ, nor does the stuff you memorize. Most people simply memorize the talking points of something and since it sounds good just go along. To argue that makes someone smarter than someone else is silly.

Mars is a planet and it clearly proves atheist are smarter.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I would think an intelligent person would know how to spell intelligent in the title of a thread??

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.

 

[sun rise]

It makes sense to me that more intelligent people would be a bit more questioning of doctrine and dogma as the studies show. But what studies ignore as far as I know is emotional intelligence and spiritual seeking (spiritual but not religious). So to me the findings while apparently accurate are limited.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

Who knows, to be honest. But it's not even close to my supposition (based on nothing but anecdotal evidence as it is).
I think in many societies currently, religiousness is a 'default'. In some cases this is a very mild form of religion. 'Cultural Christianity' for a very simple, somewhat inaccurate example.

To push back on that takes consideration. Not to say that everyone who pushes back on that will become atheists, and not to say that everyone who pushes back is intelligent, but I think it could lead to a skew of enough relevance to be statistically visible.

So, somehow, I'd like to see comparisons between societies where atheism is the norm vs mean intelligence, and also societies where atheism is not the norm vs mean intelligence. My suspicion (or bald-arsed guess) is that the variance in mean iq would be higher in the societies where atheism is not the norm.

 

[Skwim]

I can easily see a negative correlation between intelligence and religion, but considering the definition of "instinct"

instinct

1: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity

2: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason​

I wouldn't say "religious people are less intelligent on average than atheists because faith is an instinct." And lacking any support for their contention---none is given in the article---it's impossible to accept their claim that "if religion is an evolved domain then it is an instinct."

I think the reason atheists as a whole are more intelligent than religious people as a whole is because religion isn't as intellectually demanding as atheism. To be an atheist often requires sifting through apologetics, and finding reason to deny the claims so many others take on faith. On the other hand, to be a "believer" only requires an "I do"; although, some do give it considered thought.

.

 

[Lyndon]

I think its because intelligent people tend to be lacking in common sense, have there head in the clouds, and have a really high opinion of themselves, all these things are contrary to perceiving the importance of God.

 

[corynski]

It's a bad theory, because there is no proof of any instinct towards religion or gods, and there is no proof of anyone 'overcoming' an instinct, whatever that could mean. We do know that humans create gods, as there are encyclopedias listing the gods of myth and mythology. Notice that anthropology and mythology are not taught to children. That is because the leaders of a group use their particular religion for a reason. One myth and one religion are used by groups of humans as an identification, as only the group members know in depth their peculiar religion. No one can pretend to be of a group if they have not been instilled with the group's beliefs from birth. A punishment of human groups until modern times was banishment from the group, and one could not pretend to be of another group because he's not been indoctrinated from birth with that group's belief. Gods and religions are products of the hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, beginning with spirits of wind and rain and earth, each group creating their own deities.......

 

[Mindmaster]

Mars is a planet and it clearly proves atheist are smarter.

Galileo was a devout Catholic, so much for that argument. He really was the first person to observe Mars in any sort of detail.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

It could also be phone-based auto-correct. My posts have some shocking mis-words when using my phone.
And the title is the wrong word, rather than bad spelling.

Just a guess. Also @Sunstone is ancient. He's probably speaking ye olde English, or something.

 

[Lyndon]

This ridiculous thread is based on the mistaken hypothesis that intelligent people are superior to less intelligent or normal intelligence people, nothing could be further from the truth, its akin to the capitalist philosophy that rich people are more valuable than poor people or middle class. If there were to be a trait of superiority I would think it would be wisdom, or good heartedness. Being a good person is much more important than being intelligent or rich, and 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.

 

[Father Heathen]

Galileo was a devout Catholic, so much for that argument. He really was the first person to observe Mars in any sort of detail.

To be fair, in those days anyone openly questioning the church, much less denying it outright, probably wouldn't have lasted very long.

 

[Kapalika]

This ridiculous thread is based on the mistaken hypothesis that intelligent people are superior to less intelligent or normal intelligence people, nothing could be further from the truth, its akin to the capitalist philosophy that rich people are more valuable than poor people or middle class. If there were to be a trait of superiority I would think it would be wisdom, or good heartedness. Being a good person is much more important than being intelligent or rich, and 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.

Highly intelligent people are at least superior to dumb people in terms of intelligence.

Also in my experience there are lots of bad hearted religious people and irreligious people. Most people suck.