Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's an entire Wikipedia page outlining all the studies around religiosity and intelligence.
Viewed objectively, the jury seems to be out. There are as many claims as there are disputed claims because you have to also take into account so many other factors such as poverty and environment and culture.
If you are going to claim that religious people are less intelligent, you have to back it up with scientific study.
Just on the other side of things...we are free to have opinions.
"Researcher Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, compared belief in God and IQs. Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than the average IQ of non-atheists."
I'm aware there are many different shades of gray to this issue. Lots of extremely intelligent people are raging Christian fundamentalists; lots of atheists dumb as a fence-post. What I am referring to is a trend--that generally speaking, Christians tend to be the more gullible, don't ask questions, believe everything you're told-types. Way more atheists started out as theists and over a course of time gradually lost their beliefs than atheists who started believing in Jesus after years of being atheist.
I was reading the other day that a factor the often fails to be considered is that some people simply have no internal dialog, impairing things like curiosity, empathy, the ability to self-reflect, intuition, innovation, etc. It can be broad or somewhat selective. It is not a function of intelligence as such, so much as to realize the potential of intelligence via readily making connections. The basic abilities ar all there, but the free interaction of these abilities are gummed up.
My own theory has been that religion has a tendency to place strong inhibitions on certain lines of inquiry or the ability to question certain things, since it strongly tends to be based on the acceptance of dogma and the rejection of evidence contrary to dogma, and often is anti-intellect ("lean not on your own understanding"). This in turn produces habits of mind that narrow the scope of inquiry right out of the gate.
I feel that this ia a more nuanced way to discuss the matter than to speak of relative levels of intelligence, which seems inherently elitist and disacknowledging. To me, religion doesn't mean people are stupid; it just makes them ACT stupidly by inhibiting the expression or exploration of native intelligence. Either way it comes out the same on an IQ test to an extent but I think it allows you to view the religious with more empathy and compassion rather than simply dismiss them as dumb.
Also, it explains people like me who can be "dumb" enough to earnestly embrace authoritarian religious ideation like young earth creationism and then go on to break free of that (or simply go on to be intellectually accomplished in areas that don't conflict with their dogma of choice).
I was reading the other day that a factor the often fails to be considered is that some people simply have no internal dialog, impairing things like curiosity, empathy, the ability to self-reflect, intuition, innovation, etc. It can be broad or somewhat selective. It is not a function of intelligence as such, so much as to realize the potential of intelligence via readily making connections. The basic abilities ar all there, but the free interaction of these abilities are gummed up.
My own theory has been that religion has a tendency to place strong inhibitions on certain lines of inquiry or the ability to question certain things, since it strongly tends to be based on the acceptance of dogma and the rejection of evidence contrary to dogma, and often is anti-intellect ("lean not on your own understanding"). This in turn produces habits of mind that narrow the scope of inquiry right out of the gate.
I feel that this ia a more nuanced way to discuss the matter than to speak of relative levels of intelligence, which seems inherently elitist and disacknowledging. To me, religion doesn't mean people are stupid; it just makes them ACT stupidly by inhibiting the expression or exploration of native intelligence. Either way it comes out the same on an IQ test to an extent but I think it allows you to view the religious with more empathy and compassion rather than simply dismiss them as dumb.
Also, it explains people like me who can be "dumb" enough to earnestly embrace authoritarian religious ideation like young earth creationism and then go on to break free of that (or simply go on to be intellectually accomplished in areas that don't conflict with their dogma of choice).
Great post, well articulated. Thanks Mordant.
We are all in the end a result of our experience.
I used to have opinions more like Thrill but I have since mellowed on this issue.
My brother announced he was atheist at about the age of 10 after watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos on TV. I guess this planted the seed for me to go in the same direction.
I wonder if I had been raised in fundamentalist Christianity how things would have turned out? Would I still have ended up an atheist? I have no way of knowing. I know that I never believed in the whole Jesus, life after death / relationship with Jesus thing, ever. I was freaked out by that. But maybe some more intense pushing of god might have eventually got me believing?
But my point is, my brain would have been the same (at least I think it would) and no more or less 'intelligent'.
Is there some kind of term used to describe this 'brain limiting' phenomena you describe. Brainwashing is the usual one thrown around. That doesn't seem to hit the right mark with me because more than half the world can't all be brainwashed?
"Researcher Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, compared belief in God and IQs. Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than the average IQ of non-atheists."
I'm aware there are many different shades of gray to this issue. Lots of extremely intelligent people are raging Christian fundamentalists; lots of atheists dumb as a fence-post. What I am referring to is a trend--that generally speaking, Christians tend to be the more gullible, don't ask questions, believe everything you're told-types. Way more atheists started out as theists and over a course of time gradually lost their beliefs than atheists who started believing in Jesus after years of being atheist.
Your post implies that this is a big deal.
It isn't.
It's true that, statistically speaking, atheists have been measured with a slightly higher IQ than theists. BUT, the difference is so small that it means very little.
I've taken a few IQ tests, and have read a little about them (although that was many years ago). Reputable IQ tests often show results with a 5 point range. This is because there are many reasons that a person's score may vary. Maybe he/she was worried about something on test day. Maybe he/she didn't sleep well the night before the test was administered. Maybe he/she was a little sick that day.
What those statistics show is that, generally speaking over a large sampling size, atheists tend to be slightly better at reasoning and problem solving than theists are. Slightly.
I was reading the other day that a factor the often fails to be considered is that some people simply have no internal dialog, impairing things like curiosity, empathy, the ability to self-reflect, intuition, innovation, etc. It can be broad or somewhat selective. It is not a function of intelligence as such, so much as to realize the potential of intelligence via readily making connections. The basic abilities ar all there, but the free interaction of these abilities are gummed up.
My own theory has been that religion has a tendency to place strong inhibitions on certain lines of inquiry or the ability to question certain things, since it strongly tends to be based on the acceptance of dogma and the rejection of evidence contrary to dogma, and often is anti-intellect ("lean not on your own understanding"). This in turn produces habits of mind that narrow the scope of inquiry right out of the gate.
I feel that this ia a more nuanced way to discuss the matter than to speak of relative levels of intelligence, which seems inherently elitist and disacknowledging. To me, religion doesn't mean people are stupid; it just makes them ACT stupidly by inhibiting the expression or exploration of native intelligence. Either way it comes out the same on an IQ test to an extent but I think it allows you to view the religious with more empathy and compassion rather than simply dismiss them as dumb.
Also, it explains people like me who can be "dumb" enough to earnestly embrace authoritarian religious ideation like young earth creationism and then go on to break free of that (or simply go on to be intellectually accomplished in areas that don't conflict with their dogma of choice).
That is/was true for me. There were lots of thought-stopping and phobias around using your own mind.
I was reading the other day that a factor the often fails to be considered is that some people simply have no internal dialog, impairing things like curiosity, empathy, the ability to self-reflect, intuition, innovation, etc. It can be broad or somewhat selective. It is not a function of intelligence as such, so much as to realize the potential of intelligence via readily making connections. The basic abilities ar all there, but the free interaction of these abilities are gummed up.
My own theory has been that religion has a tendency to place strong inhibitions on certain lines of inquiry or the ability to question certain things, since it strongly tends to be based on the acceptance of dogma and the rejection of evidence contrary to dogma, and often is anti-intellect ("lean not on your own understanding"). This in turn produces habits of mind that narrow the scope of inquiry right out of the gate.
I feel that this ia a more nuanced way to discuss the matter than to speak of relative levels of intelligence, which seems inherently elitist and disacknowledging. To me, religion doesn't mean people are stupid; it just makes them ACT stupidly by inhibiting the expression or exploration of native intelligence. Either way it comes out the same on an IQ test to an extent but I think it allows you to view the religious with more empathy and compassion rather than simply dismiss them as dumb.
Also, it explains people like me who can be "dumb" enough to earnestly embrace authoritarian religious ideation like young earth creationism and then go on to break free of that (or simply go on to be intellectually accomplished in areas that don't conflict with their dogma of choice).
The lack of "internal dialog" as you call it is undoubtedly the main factor but ironically not in the way you envision. Yes, it does foster atheism as my own prior atheism attests but that is primarily because the extant religions and speculations about God are irrational. They SHOULD be recognized as such by anyone with your proposed "internal dialog" and rejected. Fortunately, as I inadvertently discovered, they have NOTHING to do with the existence of God! The irony is that to my utter consternation, it is within our consciousness that the existence of God can be discovered as I found after my encounter.
I was reading the other day that a factor the often fails to be considered is that some people simply have no internal dialog, impairing things like curiosity, empathy, the ability to self-reflect, intuition, innovation, etc. It can be broad or somewhat selective. It is not a function of intelligence as such, so much as to realize the potential of intelligence via readily making connections. The basic abilities ar all there, but the free interaction of these abilities are gummed up.
.
Not having an inner dialog has no relationship to intelligence although some people like to think so. Even if one lacks inner dialog, everyone has inner thoughts. Some people just like to talk and hear themselves talk. I live with a retired engineer with a doctorate who constantly has to talk, giving instructions to himself. Sometimes he even scolds himself, and would have to be shushed so I can think.
Meditation is a means to silence this inner dialog which can be destructive depending on what it is telling you about you.
It is also not a sign of lack of empathy and introspection.
We are all in the end a result of our experience.
I used to have opinions more like Thrill but I have since mellowed on this issue.
My brother announced he was atheist at about the age of 10 after watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos on TV. I guess this planted the seed for me to go in the same direction.
I wonder if I had been raised in fundamentalist Christianity how things would have turned out? Would I still have ended up an atheist? I have no way of knowing. I know that I never believed in the whole Jesus, life after death / relationship with Jesus thing, ever. I was freaked out by that. But maybe some more intense pushing of god might have eventually got me believing?
But my point is, my brain would have been the same (at least I think it would) and no more or less 'intelligent'.
Is there some kind of term used to describe this 'brain limiting' phenomena you describe. Brainwashing is the usual one thrown around. That doesn't seem to hit the right mark with me because more than half the world can't all be brainwashed?
Yeah, brainwashing is too strong a term. Maybe acculturation? You don't really need brainwashing when everyone around you believes the same thing, since there are no alternatives offering a competing vision.
Yeah, brainwashing is too strong a term. Maybe acculturation? You don't really need brainwashing when everyone around you believes the same thing, since there are no alternatives offering a competing vision.
The brainwashing starts from before Christians can crawl.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The lack of "internal dialog" as you call it is undoubtedly the main factor but ironically not in the way you envision. Yes, it does foster atheism as my own prior atheism attests but that is primarily because the extant religions and speculations about God are irrational. They SHOULD be recognized as such by anyone with your proposed "internal dialog" and rejected. Fortunately, as I inadvertently discovered, they have NOTHING to do with the existence of God! The irony is that to my utter consternation, it is within our consciousness that the existence of God can be discovered as I found after my encounter.
