So, Are Atheists Actually Smarter Than Believers??

[c0de]

.



I think I came across a thread here a while back which cited (the now famous) Stankov study which calculated that atheists tend to have higher IQs than those of believers. Well, I found an article which puts things back into proper perspective. The following excerpt is taken from the recent article titled "Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives" by the American Enterprise Institute:

...As long as smarter people are more likely to be skeptical of tradition, then full-blown rejection of tradition will almost inevitably be correlated with higher IQ, even if a majority of smart people still favor traditionalism. Consider the example of religious belief, which is a major component of the “syndrome.” Let’s say that the bottom half of the IQ distribution never questions the religion of their upbringing, while the top half is skeptical. Now, just among that skeptical top half, let’s say that 80 percent end up affirming their faith and remain religious, while the rest reject faith and become atheists.

Religion would seem to be the clear choice of smart people in this hypothetical example, but there would still be a positive correlation between IQ and atheism. The correlation exists not because smart people have necessarily rejected religion, but because religion is the “default” position for most of our society.

This same principle works in places where the default and iconoclastic beliefs are reversed. Japan, for example, has no tradition of monotheistic religion, but the few Japanese Christians tend to be much more educated than non-Christians in Japan. By the logic of someone who wants to read a lot into the Stankov study, Christianity must be the wave of the future, perhaps even the one true faith! But, of course, the vast majority of educated Japanese are not Christians. Just as with atheism in the West, the correctness of Christianity cannot be inferred from the traits of the minority who subscribe to it in Japan.

To reiterate, people who subscribe to non-traditional ideas probably have above-average intellects, but that does not mean other smart people will like those ideas. This is a point often lost on liberals who work in universities or in the news media. They observe, usually correctly, that friends and acquaintances in their social circle are smarter than the average (and likely more conservative) people they encounter on the street. But too many elites see this correlation between smartness and liberalism as somehow a validation of their political views. They seem unaware that the wider world features plenty of intelligent people who are not professors or movie critics or government bureaucrats. Even among the nation’s smartest people, liberal elites could easily be in the minority politically, but different social circles keep them insulated from finding that out. The result is a convenient but damaging political meme that circulates among some people on the Left—the belief that their opponents simply can’t understand what makes for good policy.




Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? The American, A Magazine of Ideas

I would just like to add a couple of things if I may:

1: According to the suggestions of cognitive/evolutionary psychology of religion, the reason why humans are the only species which have religion is due to the fact that it is a purely higher order area of development. This is why many an atheist has been offended by its conclusions, which basically suggest that their own beliefs are something less than fully human. (yea, i said it! : P)

2: Don't feel too bad though (ya damn heathens,) and don't get too exited "believers", cuz according to the logical conclusions of this same article (+ even some scripture) technically, the atheists are not actually a minority, there never were. In fact, most of humanity is, and always has been, agnostic at its core, with most believers just pretending to believe, mostly due to tradition, with little or no care or understanding of what they actually believe in.

3: I am sure in this millennium, the atheists will finally come out of the woodwork and have their time to shine. Let us see how they act when they are (officially) running the show. I would advise all future astronauts in the coming centuries to take a good supply of marshmallows with 'em up in orbit.... It would be quite an experience roasting them on the camp-fire that is, sure to be, "our" former planet.

 

[Eclectic Mystic]

It's quite a bold statement to say that people pretend to believe due to tradition. It can just as easily be asserted that traditions form as a necessary result of God's existence.

Many stereotypes are brought up in this topic. People are told that God is "beyond reason." This is sometimes confused to mean that it is sub-rational to believe in God (when it is actually super-rational).

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Um, the American Enterprise Institute is essentially a right wing think tank, so of course they're gonna redefine intellectualism as liberal elitism and kiss the fundies asses by defending superstition in the name of Tradition. And of course this sense of "tradition" is co-opted to serve as a vehicle for the repackaging of corporatism and predatory capitalism as "conservative values." What utter crap!

That said, most atheists are "believers" as well, just believers in some other permutation of identity idolatry. Everyone compartmentalizes to some extent. Everyone regurgitates to some extent. Atheism is no moral high ground.

Chris

 

[c0de]

.

EM + CCS

It's quite a bold statement to say that people pretend to believe due to tradition. It can just as easily be asserted that traditions form as a necessary result of God's existence.

I don't think how religions formed necessarily has much bearing on whether belief in them is genuine or not.

Many stereotypes are brought up in this topic. People are told that God is "beyond reason." This is sometimes confused to mean that it is sub-rational to believe in God (when it is actually super-rational).

I agree.

Um, the American Enterprise Institute is essentially a right wing think tank,

I only posted this for its perspective on the Stankov study. I am apolitical.

That said, most atheists are "believers" as well, just believers in some other permutation of identity idolatry. Everyone compartmentalizes to some extent. Everyone regurgitates to some extent. Atheism is no moral high ground.

True.

 

[17th Angel]

IQ isn't everything (coming from a person with a high IQ.)

Having a higher IQ than the next man, doesn't.... Really.... Account for anything...

Man A says the moon is made of cheese, this man has an IQ of 228.

Man B with an IQ of 120 says it's rock.

Are we to believe, accept, as fact, that the moon is indeed made of cheese because a man with a higher IQ has made this claim? No of course not, because besides it being an insane claim, having a higher IQ doesn't necessarily mean he has knowledge of science or space.

So if my example stands to reason, then wouldn't it be that any spiritual matter would fall in kind? Just because perhaps on average atheists have a higher IQ doesn't mean that they have knowledge or accurate understanding of a spiritual realm or an entity some name god.

Someone (forget who D'oh!) once said (or something to this degree... D'oh!)

Intelligence is knowing others, Wisdom is knowing yourself....

Something to think about? *shrugs*

 

[nitelite]

It appears to me that the purpose of the assertion is questionable. As a believer you have to justify your self to yourself. And reading your other posts the past couple of days you are good at googling and reading things so that they fit your required interpretation of how things should be. Digging up 30 year old theories that went nowhere in the hope your bluff would not be called for example. As 17 says it is wrong to confuse IQ with intelligence. These days very few businesses do, opting instead for far more wide ranging aptitude tests. Atheists do not set themselves apart by what they believe but by what they do not believe. Which, if you want to use rationality as the indicator of raw intelligence, is an inherently honest start point. You are quick to point out what science does not yet understand and twist that lack of knowledge into a solace for the many, many instances in which the evidence points to human-kinds flirtation with the arcane being nothing but nonsense. You yourself wish to use when it suits your purpose, and distance yourself when the source is revealed. As is seen with your response to CCS. There is nothing honest about your question. Regardless it does reveal a lot about your own internal need to justify yourself to yourself. On the whole someone who declares themselves an atheist has thought through the evidence quite carefully and found on balance the evidence does not support superstition. On the whole people who declare themselves religious have not begun to consider the question from that vantage point. That speaks volumes.

 

[17th Angel]

On the whole someone who declares themselves an atheist has thought through the evidence quite carefully and found on balance the evidence does not support superstition.

Or they haven't found the "right" evidence. Perhaps the majority of those whom declare themself an atheist are just... Waiting for the right evidence. They could still be open to the possibility of a divine entity and/or force.

 

[Paladin]

@Chris-

Hey! So good to see you!

@Code-
The whole idea of comparing IQ with believers and non believers is, I think an incorrect pathway to take. My personal feeling (and I frame it that way for a reason) is that any conceptual model of reality must inherently be lacking, that includes religion, and any final assertion derived from current scientific research.
If something truly trancends reason, it must embrace it first, that is the only way to go beyond. If a model, idea or concept violates reason, it cannot go beyond and belongs in the realm of magical thinking.
This is explained quite well by Wilber's theory of the Pre-Trans Fallacy

 

[Victor]

Hi: May I join the 'quest'?
Permit me to note that, I am a Believer. I practice a chosen walk of faith which I have been led to by 'life experience'! I have been tested 14 times for IQ and to date, due to the ineffectiveness of man's ability to score a meaningful examination, I have none assigned to me..... does this mean I am jealous? NO! It is just a fact... I aced the tests!

I pick on the quote below:
["According to the suggestions of cognitive/evolutionary psychology of religion, the reason why humans are the only species which have religion is due to the fact that it is a purely higher order area of development."]

How do they know that humans are the only species that have religion? Is it because squirrels do not build churches? Cardinals do not have a choir? Snow Leopards do not have a Pastor, Priest, or Rabbi? And why would anyone conceive of the idea that religion has to do with intellect? Consider this: Religion in its true forms, eliminates intellect, common sense, and reason. It is an act of nature that demands our 'letting go' of our civilized selves and permit a Spirit of undefined nature to possess the very basic part of our human condition. Eventually, 'religion' elevates itself to a 'spiritual' realm' where our faith reaches a higher understanding of the universe and existence. Unlike the 'lower forms of life' who already practice a child-like acceptance of 'nature' and all its elements, and exist within the natural order of things, we have yet to reach that level of civility, or should I use the term, 'recapture' it!

I would suggest that anyone who would connect intellect with religion... has a lot of catching up to do with Mourning Doves.

 

[Paladin]

Consider this: Religion in its true forms, eliminates intellect, common sense, and reason

There are quite a few atheists who would agree.

 

[c0de]

.


@ All

I will reply to all individually, but i need to go out like in 10 mins
i just wanna quickly deal with this "nitlite" dude for now.

@ Nitelite
​

stepping up to the plate, are we???

This should be fun !

Let the games begin !!!!!!
​

It appears to me that the purpose of the assertion is questionable.

I think that the purpose of YOUR response is dubious.

As a believer you have to justify your self to yourself.

lolz, yea, I am sure only believers have that dilemma

And reading your other posts the past couple of days you are good at googling and reading things so that they fit your required interpretation of how things should be.

Newsflash: that is what EVERYONE does.
The only difference is that some people (like me)
are aware of it and are unapologetic.

People like you, who actually consider yourself "unbiased"
are just plain sad.

Digging up 30 year old theories that went nowhere in the hope your bluff would not be called for example.

Yes, please, call my "bluff"...

(before I call yours... oh noes!!! too late!)

As 17 says it is wrong to confuse IQ with intelligence.

When EXACTLY did I make that "confusion" ??

The thread is about the assertions of the Stankov study.

Atheists do not set themselves apart by what they believe but by what they do not believe. Which, if you want to use rationality as the indicator of raw intelligence, is an inherently honest start point.

Wrong. That is the core of your misconception
and the heart of their self-appeasement.

Intellectual honesty can be shown (at most) to
favor an AGNOSTIC point of view, never an atheistic one.

The fact that you think atheism is at any point justified via
reason, shows your own lack of "rationality".

You are quick to point out what science does not yet understand and twist that lack of knowledge into a solace for the many, many instances in which the evidence points to human-kinds flirtation with the arcane being nothing but nonsense.

Yea, I am sooooo sorry for pointing out BASIC FACTS!!

How dare I !!!

You yourself wish to use when it suits your purpose, and distance yourself when the source is revealed. As is seen with your response to CCS.

Are you serious???

Did you even read my response to CCS?
I am not "distancing" myself from the conclusion of the article
with regards to the STANKOV study alone.
As I stated, I didn't post the article for its political bias
of which I take no share in.

There is nothing honest about your question.

What "question" am I asking here?

Regardless it does reveal a lot about your own internal need to justify yourself to yourself.

DAMN RITE!

And FYI: I AM PROUD OF THAT NEED to justify myself to myself.

Unlike people like you who use mindless auto-justification,
I actually have an ongoing war against myself all the time
which requires a constant influx of new intell to support/defeat
my own arguments. Because I am my own greatest opponent,
and this is why people like you are a joke to me.

On the whole someone who declares themselves an atheist has thought through the evidence quite carefully and found on balance the evidence does not support superstition.

Clearly, a delusional case you are.

As I already stated, atheism is just as non-rational a point of view
as superstition. If you knew anything about the subject on which you
are arguing, you would know this already.

On the whole people who declare themselves religious have not begun to consider the question from that vantage point. That speaks volumes.

Lets play a game. You like games nitelite??
This one is called word substitution:

"On the whole people who declare themselves atheist have not begun to consider the question from that vantage point. That speaks volumes."




------------



.... anythin' else??

don't let me down now cupcake

i hope you come back with the reply worth at least another 10 minutes!!

 

[shawn]

sounds like a pissing contest to me

 

[juantoo3]

Which is a shame really. I saw a few good talking points thrown out there, particularly from Victor.

 

[shawn]

Which is a shame really. I saw a few good talking points thrown out there, particularly from Victor.

Have to agree as some comments are quite insightful.
But the basic premise is just a pissing contest, or, my brain is bigger than your brain, type of idea, which is absurd.
Does having a religious belief then infer inferior intellects?
That is what the OP seems to be all about, which is just more atheist arrogance....to be expected, as they are (typically) in denial and are (mostly) very full of themselves, thereby obscuring the greater part which would incline them to be more open minded about such things as a spiritual reality.
Given the flakey nature of the majority of religions and religious types though, one can hardly fault atheists for being so obstinate about this issue.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi to Paladin and Juan!

...................................................

I think that it's important to see religion as the cultural phenomenon that it is. I cracked up today when I was driving and saw the tail end of the SUV in front of me adorned with secular logos for the local football team (Phoenix Cardinals), a sticker that eluded to a Nike sports equipment ad campaign (Just Do It), a permutation of another ad campaign ("Got Milk?", only it was " Got Sand?"), and a bumper sticker from the local hard rock radio station. Along with all of that corporatism was a window decal with the initials NOTW, which stands for "Not Of This World." Not of this world? What could be more "of this world" than sports franchise and equipment brand affiliation?

See, it's all mixed up. Religion and secularity are absolutely interpenetrative. There's no clear line where one stops and the other begins. It's all part of the same set of cultural stimulatives. The notion that we can segregate religion off into a corner where it is a separate phenomenon from the rest of the cultural milieu is untenable. In this sense those who contend that atheism is itself a religion are correct in the sense that sports, academics, and politics are too "religious" in nature. That is, what religion does in terms of facilitating an arena for status creation and identity reinforcing is present redundantly in all of these other cultural vehicles.

It's all part of the same thing. What is left unrecognized, I think, is the function of all of these social mechanisms as an enabler for the creation of class strata. IOW, it's all about pacifying the peasants. The Tao says "keep the people's bellies full, and their minds empty." Good advice for any ruler. But if entire classes of citizens must be maintained on near empty stomachs their minds have to filled with something. Bread and circuses. Sports and politics... and of course, religion: the low cost alternative to cultural equity.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

One more thing, and this goes directly to the OP: The "average" person is no one that we know. There aren't any families that actually have 2.38 kids, or whatever it is. Quitting smoking may "statistically" improve your longevity without actually prolonging your life. Gotta be careful about putting too much stock in statistics.

Chris

 

[17th Angel]

sounds like a pissing contest to me

I liked this post.

One more thing, and this goes directly to the OP: The "average" person is no one that we know. There aren't any families that actually have 2.38 kids, or whatever it is. Quitting smoking may "statistically" improve your longevity without actually prolonging your life. Gotta be careful about putting too much stock in statistics.

Chris

There are more religious people than atheists. And high IQ's are not a common place.

So on average. Religious people will be a group of less IQ :/ That's how I see it anyway. Think fish in a barrel. Smoking is an -individual- stat. Average IQ's isn't. As previously said though, it doesn't really mean ship.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In fact, most of humanity is, and always has been, agnostic at its core, with most believers just pretending to believe, mostly due to tradition, with little or no care or understanding of what they actually believe in.

I do not accept this as a fact. Is there any evidence which might lead me to do so? I'd be curious to know what it is.

No one needs "care or understanding" to believe in something. Carelessly poor belief is still belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[c0de]

.


@ Paladin + Victor + Shawn

@Code-
The whole idea of comparing IQ with believers and non believers is, I think an incorrect pathway to take. My personal feeling (and I frame it that way for a reason) is that any conceptual model of reality must inherently be lacking, that includes religion, and any final assertion derived from current scientific research.
If something truly trancends reason, it must embrace it first, that is the only way to go beyond. If a model, idea or concept violates reason, it cannot go beyond and belongs in the realm of magical thinking.
This is explained quite well by Wilber's theory of the Pre-Trans Fallacy

I think IQ tests are a joke. But even considering that, I still took personal offense at the Stankov study. That is the only reason I started the thread (to piss off the atheists who used the study to deride religion).

Hi: May I join the 'quest'?

I don't know, can you? : P

How do they know that humans are the only species that have religion? Is it because squirrels do not build churches?

err... yea, actually. Exactly for that reason.

Listen bud, I appreciate your romantic notions,
but let's try and stick to some semblance of reality, k?

Still though, if you see a squirrel church, let me know...
I would definitely like to attend those services!!

And why would anyone conceive of the idea that religion has to do with intellect?

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Pascal Boyer.

Consider this: Religion in its true forms, eliminates intellect, common sense, and reason. It is an act of nature that demands our 'letting go' of our civilized selves and permit a Spirit of undefined nature to possess the very basic part of our human condition. Eventually, 'religion' elevates itself to a 'spiritual' realm' where our faith reaches a higher understanding of the universe and existence. Unlike the 'lower forms of life' who already practice a child-like acceptance of 'nature' and all its elements, and exist within the natural order of things, we have yet to reach that level of civility, or should I use the term, 'recapture' it!

Dude... that "higher understanding" that you are talking about, requires higher order cognitive functions.

I would suggest that anyone who would connect intellect with religion... has a lot of catching up to do with Mourning Doves.

"doves" ??? lolz

some1 is in s3rious N33D of an xbox !!

sounds like a pissing contest to me

c'est la vie !!

 

[c0de]

.
p.s.

missed this post while posting

I do not accept this as a fact. Is there any evidence which might lead me to do so? I'd be curious to know what it is.

No one needs "care or understanding" to believe in something. Carelessly poor belief is still belief.

LoLz... are you serious???

Have you ever heard of the term "paying lip service" ???