Is There a Correlation Between Atheism and IQ?

[loseyourname]

Also, anyone consider that there might be more important things that IQ doesn't measure that relate to theism? Since most human populations believed in some form of religion for most of human history, does that mean our ancestors were idiots?

One of the leaders of the new Brights movement, Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker, admits to being sympathetic to the argument from design as presented by William Paley. Before Darwin, there was nothing intellectually deficient about throwing up your hands and appealing to a creator to explain the origins of man (although Empedocles first proposed a theory of evolution 2000 years earlier). It is only in light of the ability of modern science and natural law to explain virtually all natural phenomena (and its seeming ability, in principle, to explain every last one) that it becomes less intellectually pleasing to appeal to a creator. Once you can see that everything we observe could easily have come about without a creator, what reason is there, intellectually speaking, to believe in one? There are other reasons, but these are mostly emotional reasons, which becomes less convincing with increased intelligence. Our ancestors could not see that all observed phenomena were explainable through natural law alone and so, in their era, belief in a creator was a reasonable belief.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I wasn't actually saying they were scientifically/factually valid beliefs, I was putting forth religion's other merits. Religion originated more in the creation of culture than as an actual, true explanation (which are pretty hard to differentiate at times, esp from an ethnocentric perspective).

 

[Joel]

You don't need a theory to make legitimate experimental observations. Thats not how science works. You don't write the theory then test it. You make observations, explain them afterwards, then continue testing them. To make the initial observation without some theory is perfectly fine.

Yeah, that's true. But I was not objecting to the making of observations (or statistics about the social world in this case). I was objecting to their conclusions, in which they claimed to explain the statistics. Without a theory, such explanations are only speculations, not something you can generalize or call 'based on good scientific research'.

 

[franznietzsche]

Yeah, that's true. But I was not objecting to the making of observations (or statistics about the social world in this case). I was objecting to their conclusions, in which they claimed to explain the statistics. Without a theory, such explanations are only speculations, not something you can generalize or call 'based on good scientific research'.

All anyone said was a correlation. Thats just an observation. I haven't read anything different in all of this. The obervation that people of higher IQ on average are less religious. Its right there in the data.

 

[Joel]

All anyone said was a correlation. Thats just an observation. I haven't read anything different in all of this. The obervation that people of higher IQ on average are less religious. Its right there in the data.

Not, really. The observation is not that people of higher IQ on average are less religious. The observation is, as I have tried to point out, that more data sets show a correlation between indicators of religiosity and intelligence. There is a difference between a correlation of the statistical indicators and an actual correlation between the phenomenon. (It is this difference that hasn't been clear in this discussion). And to say something about the actual correlation based on the statistical correlation we need a theory (preferable well based on existing research, not just 'what comes to mind'), which in this case is lacking. Otherwise, we may conclude ridiculous things, like in my example of ice-cream consumtion and frequency of drownings.

 

[hitssquad]

"more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion" [...] implies a generalization from the samples

It does not, if you mean by "generalization" causation.

 

[hitssquad]

to say something about the actual correlation based on the statistical correlation

If you mean causation, could you please use that term instead of code-phrases like actual correlation?

 

[Joel]

It does not, if you mean by "generalization" causation.

Yeah, but I didn't mean causation. I meant generalization, which it indeed implies, wouldn't you say?

(And it's very good it doesn't imply a causation, based on the presented studies).

If you mean causation, could you please use that term instead of code-phrases like actual correlation?

I admit 'actual correlation' is a bit fuzzy, but I didn't mean causation with it either. I meant the 'correlation' between the phenomenon, if they would be observable directly. Of course they are not, so we need to relay on statistical indicators. And I think that to explain why and how the indicators are used should also need to be done before a general conclusion like, "more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion" could be made.

 

[loseyourname]

I admit 'actual correlation' is a bit fuzzy, but I didn't mean causation with it either. I meant the 'correlation' between the phenomenon, if they would be observable directly. Of course they are not, so we need to relay on statistical indicators. And I think that to explain why and how the indicators are used should also need to be done before a general conclusion like, "more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion" could be made.

"Statistical correlation" and "correlation" mean exactly the same thing. We observe two things together more often than we observe them apart. That's all it means. In this case, those two things are high intelligence and lack of religious belief.

 

[Joel]

"Statistical correlation" and "correlation" mean exactly the same thing. We observe two things together more often than we observe them apart. That's all it means. In this case, those two things are high intelligence and lack of religious belief.

I beg to differ, you can not observe religiosity like you can observe an electron, you are always dependant on better or worse indicators. That is why physical observations can be meaningful as such, but 'observations' about social phenomenon always require a theory of how the indicators relate to the actual phenomenon and the tested hypothesis. And since that's lacking, I can not determine if the statistics support the general conclusion made on the site.

But I feel I am repeating myself. Maybe I'm wrong, I only have two years of pol. sci. studies under my belt. Any social scientists around to give an expert opinion on this?

 

[loseyourname]

I beg to differ, you can not observe religiosity like you can observe an electron, you are always dependant on better or worse indicators. That is why physical observations can be meaningful as such, but 'observations' about social phenomenon always require a theory of how the indicators relate to the actual phenomenon and the tested hypothesis. And since that's lacking, I can not determine if the statistics support the general conclusion made on the site.

But I feel I am repeating myself. Maybe I'm wrong, I only have two years of pol. sci. studies under my belt. Any social scientists around to give an expert opinion on this?

Is this better for you: We observe a correlation between tested intelligence and self-stated religious belief. I suppose you're right to say that we can't actually observe the belief. But when the survey respondent says that he considers himself religious, we can generally take his word for it, unless you think these things are unreliable because people are lying. If that is the case, they sure lie an awful lot, as every study conducted seems to indicate a negative correlation between intelligence and people saying that they hold religious beliefs.

 

[Joel]

Is this better for you: We observe a correlation between tested intelligence and self-stated religious belief. I suppose you're right to say that we can't actually observe the belief. But when the survey respondent says that he considers himself religious, we can generally take his word for it, unless you think these things are unreliable because people are lying. If that is the case, they sure lie an awful lot, as every study conducted seems to indicate a negative correlation between intelligence and people saying that they hold religious beliefs.

Much better, thank you. And while I don't think they are lying too much, I have two other remarks.

1) Most of the studies had small samples of quite specific groups, so I don't think they are representative of a general population. The biggest sample was this one:

Francis (1979)(using fequency of prayer and chruch attendence) 2272 school children between 9-11,"found no relationship between school assigned IQ's and religious behavior after controling for paternal social class."

Francis'('86 replication) findings replicated in second study among 6955 students.

2) Not all studies showed a negative correlation, one showed non after checking for socioeconomic factors.

 

[loseyourname]

The studies that showed no correlation were in children. There are beliefs at that point are mostly not their own. The whole point of those ones was to corroborate the hypothesis that religious belief in children is not the result of either intelligence or lack of it, it is simply that their parents are religious.

 

[Joel]

The studies that showed no correlation were in children. There are beliefs at that point are mostly not their own. The whole point of those ones was to corroborate the hypothesis that religious belief in children is not the result of either intelligence or lack of it, it is simply that their parents are religious.

(My bolding).

Okay, maybe, I don't know. But I can not stress enough the point that there is still nothing that suggest a causation in any way.

 

[loseyourname]

(My bolding).

Okay, maybe, I don't know. But I can not stress enough the point that there is still nothing that suggest a causation in any way.

It is certainly one hypothesis that can explain the correlation. What alternative hypothesis would you propose?

 

[Joel]

It is certainly one hypothesis that can explain the correlation. What alternative hypothesis would you propose?

I do not think I have an alternative hypothesis for that. I agree that church attendance of children would probably have more to do with their parents religious habits than intelligence. I apologize if you only where refereing to this, I misunderstood.

But let me ask you a question in return to clarify, what do you think explain the correlation in the studies about college students? To this I can think of many reasons.

 

[loseyourname]

I do not think I have an alternative hypothesis for that. I agree that church attendance of children would probably have more to do with their parents religious habits than intelligence. I apologize if you only where refereing to this, I misunderstood.

But let me ask you a question in return to clarify, what do you think explain the correlation in the studies about college students? To this I can think of many reasons.

The hypothesis to explain the negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief in the adult population (whether in college or not) is that religious belief generally does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. The more intelligent a given person is, the more likely she is to realize this.

 

[Joel]

The hypothesis to explain the negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief in the adult population (whether in college or not) is that religious belief generally does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. The more intelligent a given person is, the more likely she is to realize this.

Maybe, but I find that another hypothesis is that people with high IQ may have more time consuming jobs that prevent them from practicing their religion, thus loosing their faith. Another hypothesis is that religion may be more common among people with a poor socioeconomic background, who may also be less likely to receive intellectual stimulation in their youth, that in turn may affect their IQ.

I also think it is questionable weather religiosity doesn't stand up to intellectual scrunity, because, as you said, it has provided an excellent way to understand our existence. And for scientifically unanswered questions it still provides some answer, as opposed to no answer. I'd say it is intellectually perfectly sound to chose weather to leave an unanswered question up to faith or without an answer, all depending on the situation.

So, how does the statistics presented in the link support any of our hypothesis? I do not think it does and I think it is hasty to make conclusions in one way or the other.

 

[omagdon7]

Perhaps because many truly devout religious people eschew logic and analysis for feeling and faith they have lower test scores. Religion can cripple your mental faculties if you are the type of person who counts the number of days from the time the Earth was created in the Bible to determine the age of the planet. Its kind of shocking that there would be people who argue being religious has no relation to logical intelligence (which is what tests measure) since this is such an obvious correlation to me.

 

[selfAdjoint]

All of the just-so story explanations being put forth here ignore the fact that the correlation is weak. There are some extremely smart theists, and some dead dumb atheists.

 

[MrMorden]

i like to think that I am an intelligent person, or least not a dumb one, yet I am also a creationist. i would love to explain why, as i believe i have a logical explanation, but I've already done so in numerous other posts.

let me just say for clarification, that believing in God and being religious are two totally separate things, and in fact can be argued that they are antagonistic towards each other. i don't think that God expects humans to believe in him through blind faith alone, but i do think that if a person allows God to reveal himself he will. and i believe that this is universally true regardless of a person's knowledge of the Bible. of course its hard for me to argue this because i don't have mathematical or scientific proof, and i know that its the reason that you won't be convinced by anything i say, but nonetheless, i believe in God for other reasons then the simple, brainwashing teaching of the church.

 

[loseyourname]

Belief in God is one thing, but any man that has studied the alternatives in the least bit and is still a creationist is at the very least extremely unreasonable, if not unintelligent, despite what he would like to think about himself.

 

[noobie]

I'm a theists who does not believe in macroevolution. I studying to get a PHD in chemistry and I'm surrounded by people who often will talk of proteins and other biomolecules as the product of evolution. I'm not surprised if there is a negative correlation between those who are religious and so called intelligence for it says clearly in scripture:

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

1 Cor 1:20-21

I know a great number of highly intelligent creationist (all of them who are in some scientific or engineering field) because I've had the privilege of studying at the best universities. They are all certainly much more intelligent than myself. But unfortunately, many of these people are mild mannered and do not like to get into heated debates so you may not get to know them.

 

[Andrew Mason]

The hypothesis to explain the negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief in the adult population (whether in college or not) is that religious belief generally does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. The more intelligent a given person is, the more likely she is to realize this.

And how do you know this? How do you explain the very strong religious beliefs of Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Joule, Kelvin? These were not people with high intellect?

So the issue is not whether religious belief and high intellect can coexist. That seems to take a very narrow view of the nature of religious belief. Religion is based on the unknown and, perhaps, unknowable. Science is based on the known or knowable. Religion is an expression of one's spiritual nature. (Try defining 'human spirit' in terms of physics). Science is a result of humanity's desire for knowledge. The two seem to have co-existed for many centuries.

Even if one could explain how and why the universe originated and why the laws of physics are the way they are, one would still not be able to prove or disprove the essential principles of most of the world's religions.

AM

 

[selfAdjoint]

And how do you know this? How do you explain the very strong religious beliefs of Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Joule, Kelvin? These were not people with high intellect?

This post is a mixed bag; some good arguments and some weak ones. Citing scientists of the past doesn't work in my opinion, because scientific knowledge was less and such things as biblical criticism were also nonexistent or in their infancy. But there are modern scientists who can be scientists who can be cited, such as Polkinghorne who is a good quantum field physicist and a cleric of the Church of England.

So the issue is not whether religious belief and high intellect can coexist.

Quite so.

That seems to take a very narrow view of the nature of religious belief. Religion is based on the unknown and, perhaps, unknowable. Science is based on the known or knowable. Religion is an expression of one's spiritual nature. (Try defining 'human spirit' in terms of physics). Science is a result of humanity's desire for knowledge. The two seem to have co-existed for many centuries.

Again, many centuries is not a good argument. Kepler practiced astrology and Newton practiced alchemy; does that prove those pseudosciences are correct?

Even if one could explain how and why the universe originated and why the laws of physics are the way they are, one would still not be able to prove or disprove the essential principles of most of the world's religions.

AM

I don't know, the Abrahamic religions all have miracles performed by their founders, and those miracles violate basic physics. So you have to posit some force or energy to do that miraculous work, and science says momentum and energy are conserved, at least locally, so you can't put those postulated things under the scientific umbrella. Crank science has also coexisted with real science for centuries.

 

[loseyourname]

And how do you know this? How do you explain the very strong religious beliefs of Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Joule, Kelvin? These were not people with high intellect?

Read the whole thread before you post. I already addressed this.

Another thing: People need to quit acting live I've said an intelligent person cannot be religious. I never said anything of the sort.

 

[Janitor]

...Citing scientists of the past doesn't work in my opinion, because scientific knowledge was less ...

Yes. It has been pointed out in various items that I have read over the years that it was extremely hard to be a nonbeliever prior to Darwin's publications, because in those days there simply was no plausible nontheistic answer to the "Who made us?" question.

 

[Mazuz]

People aren't totally rational. Intelligence often corresponds with rationality, but not always. I've seen highly intelligent people who fundamentally are not rational in one of two ways. Either they only use reason to prove what they want. Or they simply believe something contrary to what is reasonable, often fully knowing they are doing this (I have actually heard a "I don't believe the universe is rational" defense). You can be fantastically intelligent and be completely irrational in the sense that while you have the ability to use and understand reason you don't trust its conclusions. Reason can be much like a tool that serves us, but clearly which does not define us. We know and believe what we feel, we all do. Some of us, with more faith in reason, are able to correlate how we feel more often than not what is reasonable.

This I believe helps towards explaining why people with so much intelligence can often believe and act in some of the ways that they do.

 

[MrMorden]

Belief in God is one thing, but any man that has studied the alternatives in the least bit and is still a creationist is at the very least extremely unreasonable, if not unintelligent, despite what he would like to think about himself.

pardon me, but i can't see where you get this logic from. i frequently state my beliefs as just that, beliefs. i am aware that they have no scientific proof. that however, does not prove anything, because what God be if he could be proven by scientific means. perhaps i don't share your point of view, but that doesn't make me any less intelligent

 

[loseyourname]

pardon me, but i can't see where you get this logic from. i frequently state my beliefs as just that, beliefs. i am aware that they have no scientific proof. that however, does not prove anything, because what God be if he could be proven by scientific means. perhaps i don't share your point of view, but that doesn't make me any less intelligent

I suppose this strongly depends on what you mean by "creationism." I'm assuming that you mean what is generally claimed by "creationists," namely, that all of the planet and all of its life was created in a six day span roughly 10,000 years ago. If you believe that, it isn't the lack of scientific proof that convinces me you are holding an unintelligent belief. It is the fact that this hypothesis has been completely disproven. Continuing to believe in this falsified hypothesis is complete foolishness.