Religious People Are Less Intelligent than Atheists, Concludes New Study

[MattDoe]

I'm unable to post links as I'm a few posts short, but you can google the exact title and if anyone can provide the link, that'd be appreciated. According to the Huffington Post:

"A review of 63 scientific studies dating back to 1928 has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers. Only 10 of the 63 studies showed a positive correlation between intelligence and religiosity.

The paper, entitled The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations, was led by Professor Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester, and was published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review on 6 August.
Zuckerman’s team studied decades worth of analysis, noting many atheism and intellect studies “share one central theme – the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable, and therefore unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better’.”

The study defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.” (The study comes after renowned atheist Richard Dawkins' apparently anti-Muslim tweets sparked fury.)

Religiosity is defined as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion, which includes belief in the supernatural, offering gifts to this supernatural, and performing rituals affirming their beliefs.

Further signs were measured using surveys, church attendance, and membership in religious organisations, Ars Technica writes.



Among the young, the study found more intelligent children were more likely to turn away from religion – as were those among the very elderly, with the vast volume of data giving some insight into why that seems to be the case. The report adds:


“Intelligent people typically spend more time in school—a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits… More intelligent people get higher level jobs [which] may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs… more intelligent people are more likely to get and stay married… though for intelligent people, that too comes later in life. We therefore suggest that as intelligent people move from young adulthood to adulthood and then to middle age, the benefits of intelligence may continue to accrue.”

[Alan OldStudent]

I actually am an atheist and a materialist, but I think the idea that religious people are less intelligent than we atheists are is is hogwash. It seems to me that both the criteria used for "intelligence" and "religiosity" are ambiguous.

I've known people who are religious who are more intelligent than others who are atheists.

For one thing, what is an atheist? To me, an atheist is one who does not believe in the god of the Abrahamic religions. But several major religions are atheistic by that criterion.

I've met people who are Christians and Jews who I suspect are more intelligent than I. I just disagree with their world view.

I don't think that intelligence can be measured by or necessarily correlates what one's ideology is.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[liberlict]

Probably, but so what? should we just lynch less than average IQ's? Workers have lower IQ's than capitalists, let's all sign up for social darwinism.

[Tim Cornelis]

I actually am an atheist and a materialist, but I think the idea that religious people are less intelligent than we atheists are is is hogwash. It seems to me that both the criteria used for "intelligence" and "religiosity" are ambiguous.

I've known people who are religious who are more intelligent than others who are atheists.

This is a misreading of the finding. The conclusion is that the more intelligent a person is the less likely it is that that person is religious. It doesn't mean all atheists are smarter than all religious people, it means that if you take 10 explicit atheists and 10 committed Christians and 10 non-practicing Christians you are more likely to find intelligent people in the group of explicit atheists, followed by the non-practicing Christians, followed by the committed Christians. Of course, there are intelligent Christian fundamentalists -- creationist Phd's, lawyers -- but their intelligence does not outweigh the lower intelligence of Christian fundamentalists -- the gullible people you see in those Evangelical TV shows, stereotypically.


For one thing, what is an atheist? To me, an atheist is one who does not believe in the god of the Abrahamic religions. But several major religions are atheistic by that criterion.

The study is about religiousity vs. irreligiousness, not atheism per se (which is also measured, but alongside various gradations of religiosity). For instance Christians who aren't Biblical literalists, don't practice their religion through rituals, but still believe in God are more likely to be intelligent than Biblical literalists.


I've met people who are Christians and Jews who I suspect are more intelligent than I. I just disagree with their world view.

Anecdotal evidence does not override systematic research and data, and 'atheists' means 'average atheist' (the average atheist is more intelligent than the average religioud person).


I don't think that intelligence can be measured by or necessarily correlates what one's ideology is.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates


Probably, but so what? should we just lynch less than average IQ's? Workers have lower IQ's than capitalists, let's all sign up for social darwinism.

No, it has implications for the perpetuation of organised religion, from another thread:

Admittedly, this is a mere hypothesis from observation, but what I have in mind is that religious beliefs will not die out. Organised religion will gradually disappear over multiple generations, but unorganised religion will continue for much longer. What I anticipate is that a generation into communism, the majority of workers are secular but subscribe to organised religion at least nominally, and don't practice it as extensive as they would have under capitalism. Eventually, the majority of people will subscribe to apatheism, deism, and atheism (say, circa 50%) and unorganised religion (say, 30%) and to organised religion (say, 20%). Religiosity is associated with lower intelligence, and those with less cognitive ability will still uphold the belief in a deity, and superstition as well as ghosts -- annoyingly. But I don't regard it as detrimental that someone foolishly believes in ghosts, and it certainly isn't a "task of communism" to "aid" them in stopping them believing in it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-ban-t185775/index5.html

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I smell bullshit.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

This plays to my silly prejudices about the religious, but I doubt it's as stright forward as religious people are dumb and atheists are smart. And even if it were true...not sure what we can do with this info save some awful form of re-education / eugenics :crying:

[Yuppie Grinder]

Elitist atheism is a way for neckbeards who've accomplished nothing with their lives to feel like their better than people. "Look at all the pathetic sheeple thinking and doing things that have no effect on my life, pitiful."

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

New? I've been reading studies like this for years.

I think it's true, but so what? Seriously, so fucking what?

[Tim Cornelis]

New? I've been reading studies like this for years.

Those studies you've been reading for years have now been subject to a meta-study, apparently.

[liberlict]

No, it has implications for the perpetuation of organised religion, from another thread:

Admittedly, this is a mere hypothesis from observation, but what I have in mind is that religious beliefs will not die out. Organised religion will gradually disappear over multiple generations, but unorganised religion will continue for much longer. What I anticipate is that a generation into communism, the majority of workers are secular but subscribe to organised religion at least nominally, and don't practice it as extensive as they would have under capitalism. Eventually, the majority of people will subscribe to apatheism, deism, and atheism (say, circa 50%) and unorganised religion (say, 30%) and to organised religion (say, 20%). Religiosity is associated with lower intelligence, and those with less cognitive ability will still uphold the belief in a deity, and superstition as well as ghosts -- annoyingly. But I don't regard it as detrimental that someone foolishly believes in ghosts, and it certainly isn't a "task of communism" to "aid" them in stopping them believing in it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-ban-t185775/index5.html

Whoever wrote that is very intuitive and I go along with most of it, sans people with high intelligence will futuristically be athiests. Far smarter people than all of us have been ferociously deistic. Take for example, one of my intellectual heroes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del). This is a man who Eeinstein thought of as a superior. I don't agree with him btw, but I don't think people will ever outgrow the belief in something bigger. It's part and parcel of being born into ignorance.

[Dave B]

Some things never change, thus from Celsus in “Contra Celsum” circa 220AD;


"only foolish and low individuals... [the working class]...and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children……… the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts."

Chapter 49

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04163.htm

Some things do;

Celsus urges [early Christians] to;



“take office in the government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion.”

The [Early ‘anti parliamentary’ and anti vanguardist anarcho- Christian] Origen responds;


Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject……………and.. [Early Christians].. ..never suffer themselves to be led astray by worldly policy. And it is.. [therefore].. not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices.

Chapter 75


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm


I cannot see how you can speak of the ignorance of the masses in Germany after the brilliant evidence of political maturity shown by the workers in their victorious struggle against the Anti-Socialist Law. The patronizing and errant lecturing of our so-called intellectuals seems to me a far greater impediment. We are still in need of technicians, agronomists, engineers, chemists, architects, etc., it is true ………
………….. But apart from the specialists, among whom I also include schoolteachers, we can get along perfectly well without the other “intellectuals.” The present influx of literati and students into the party, for example, may be quite damaging if these gentlemen are not properly kept in check.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm

[Oulian]

Intelligence is linked to rationalism and obviously atheists are more rationalists than religious people.
This, and education encourages rationalism, once you studied the theory of evolution by Darwin it's hard for you to believe in creationist theories.
A lot of religions are based on fears, once you get educated it's easier to think that you are the master of your destiny.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well from what was quoted in the first post, I think it'd be intelligent to be highly skeptical of the generalizations made here. Frankly I think it's news because it fits into an established narrative about religious people that's common in North America and maybe elsewhere. But my knee-jerk feeling is that it's an elitist generalization. First "intelligence" is a loaded term made even more vague because this is a study of other studies... Do they all evaluate intelligence in the same way, how does socio-economic background fit in, etc?

I'd speculate that if there is a correlation here it's because people with higher education and degrees tend to go into professions which offered a different kind of relationship to work and therefore life. Do surgeons or researchers or engineers work all day and then wonder about the meaning of life or if there's a plan for them? No doubt any human thinks this, but if you are a doctor, it's much more likely that you would feel your life does have meaning, which then changes the way you view these sorts of questions; your work goes to something fufilling that can potentially greatly and directly help people. If you are an architect or artist, you don't have to look for extra ways to "give back" or leave a legacy after you've gone. But if you are a worker, alienated by your own daily efforts... Wouldn't it be appealing to think your life has some supernatural value, that your efforts are building towards something greater, that your deeds can do more than just keep yourself going and your bosses rich? If you are poor in the u.s., who are you going to turn to for help and community, underfunded and poorly staffed governmental agencies, support from therapists or networks that you can't afford unlike professionals... Or is the church your non-market community, is your preacher or lay-people in your church your support group and therapy?

If the conclusions of this study were correct, then I think we'd probably see more steady rates of religious views rather than ups and downs. The u.s. Is much less religious than just 10 years ago, is that because people suddenly got innate problem solving skills? Or is it that social things are much more of a determining factor than "intelligence"?

[Comrade Jacob]

This debate has been made so many times. I don't consider the average theist less intelligent than I am, they just came to what I think is a wrong conclusion.
What's next, the old "Religion is a mental-illness" bullshit? Don't get me started on that bigoted pile shit.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Based on the last 10 years I find that statisticians are capable of only 4 types of studies: Athiest intelligence vs. Religious intelligence, marijuana causing/not causing psychosis, videogames causing/not causing violence, and liberal intelligence vs. conservative intelligence. Apparently there has been nothing else to study.

[Oulian]

Based on the last 10 years I find that statisticians are capable of only 4 types of studies: Athiest intelligence vs. Religious intelligence, marijuana causing/not causing psychosis, videogames causing/not causing violence, and liberal intelligence vs. conservative intelligence. Apparently there has been nothing else to study.

Don't forget studies claiming that Oreos/junk food are addictive. :lol:

Anyway, don't you think that leaving behing religion can only have a positive effect on scientific research?

[Ocean Seal]

You haven't been around here a long time, so I'll go easy on you.

These exams which compare and contrast massive groups of people worldwide tend to be based in privileged analyses. And they usually end up concluding that the type of people who are making the test are "smarter" than everyone else. It is deeply associated with racism, national chauvinism, among other things.

[adipocere]

Yes, of course. Bad science as a way of being self-affirming.
"A review of 63 scientific studies dating back to 1928"
So back when crap like this was considered science? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism)
http://robbieshilliam.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/phrenology.jpg?w=321&h=192

[Tenka]

It is only natural that people with less of a habit of critical thinking are more likely to believe nonsense. Ergo, less "intelligent" are more likely to be religious/supernatural believers (new agers probably...). It starts to seem a little classist at the end though. Science is confined by the existence of classes.

P.S. I went to primary school for less than five years, received no higher education, and am never going to get married. I'm also not religious.

[Tim Cornelis]

Whoever wrote that is very intuitive and I go along with most of it, sans people with high intelligence will futuristically be athiests. Far smarter people than all of us have been ferociously deistic. Take for example, one of my intellectual heroes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del). This is a man who Eeinstein thought of as a superior. I don't agree with him btw, but I don't think people will ever outgrow the belief in something bigger. It's part and parcel of being born into ignorance.

Again, high intelligence is no guarantee for atheism. I never said people will outgrow the belief in something bigger, quite the opposite. I said unorganised religion and organised religion will continue to exist because I do not deem religion to be a sole product of the socio-economic situation of a person. Of course, if everyone had a high intelligence then, yes I believe that religion would die out in communism.

[Alan OldStudent]

This is a misreading of the finding. The conclusion is that the more intelligent a person is the less likely it is that that person is religious. It doesn't mean all atheists are smarter than all religious people, it means that if you take 10 explicit atheists and 10 committed Christians and 10 non-practicing Christians you are more likely to find intelligent people in the group of explicit atheists, followed by the non-practicing Christians, followed by the committed Christians.....

The study is about religiousity vs. irreligiousness, not atheism per se (which is also measured, but alongside various gradations of religiosity). For instance Christians who aren't Biblical literalists, don't practice their religion through rituals, but still believe in God are more likely to be intelligent than Biblical literalists.
......
You made some very good observations on my post. Thanks for the challenge.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[liberlict]

Looking forward to Remus weighing in on this one.

[Yuppie Grinder]

For one thing, what is an atheist? To me, an atheist is one who does not believe in the god of the Abrahamic religions. But several major religions are atheistic by that criterion.


The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

First off, I agree with what you have to say for the most part and think it's very well worded, but do you really think that's a very sturdy definition of Atheism?
Do you think many Hindus or Scientoligists would self-identify as atheists?
I see atheism as disbelief in gods or divine figures.

[Alan OldStudent]

First off, I agree with what you have to say for the most part and think it's very well worded, but do you really think that's a very sturdy definition of Atheism?
Do you think many Hindus or Scientoligists would self-identify as atheists?
I see atheism as disbelief in gods or divine figures.

Thanks for your kind words, Comrade Kim.

Believers consider the God of the Abrahamic religions to be the conscious creator of the universe, separate from it, not a part of it. That's quite different from the Dharmic ideas of divine beings.

I don't believe in any kind of god. I suspect (but don't know) that most Scientologists would believe in something like the Abrahamic god and most Hindus and Buddhists would not.

I think of myself as being an atheist in the broadest sense that you mean because I do not believe that a creator brought the universe into existence. Neither do I believe that the material universe is an illusion or that reality is one big pool of consciousness. I do not believe in any divine or immaterial beings. So my atheism is more fundamental than the atheism of so many Buddhists or Hindus.

I am a materialist because I do not believe that the universe is the product of some kind of conscious process, nor do I believe that the universe as a whole is a conscious being.

Moreover I think our individual consciousness does not survive our physical death. Our sense of self, our "soul" if you will, is the product of the dynamic and dialectical interplay of physical, chemical, biological, and historical social processes, and the role we play in our culture. As I have lived most of my life already, I'm acutely aware of how short our existence is.

In the words of Andrew Marvell

But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found,
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song;...

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[liberlict]

The "intelligence" correlations open up bad cans of worms. Africans and African Americans have lower IQ's than Whites, and Whites have lower IQ's than Asians. Then you have the correlations between these races and their inventions. And then, well you might as well go join Stormfront.

[Ritzy Cat]

I think its obvious by now that theist religions have attempted to debunk much science theory that has large amounts of evidence, all to no avail...

While most "religious" people, or, those who identify with a certain religion, may not actively participate in that faith in particular, are sort of lead by the "Evolution is wrong" by religions, and such like that.

While Catholics for example, may understand the topic of evolution, some who fanatically do not believe in it could possibly answer wrong on a test regarding that subject, even if its 'proven', evidence that has a lot of support (I phrase it like this because nothing in science is 'proven').

I guess what I'm trying to say is religion is only a cripple to any intelligence in general. It can't really teach you more, it can only really limit one's understanding of the world. Some may not be limited at all.

It's a parasitic influence, it can have no effect, very little effect, or a strong effect, depending on how fanatical they are about their religion. It can't really have a positive effect, since I can't really see how religion would improve your intelligence/IQ score, etc.

In my opinion, religion was created and still exists because of a lack of understanding of the world. For example, Greek pantheons were made to explain natural phenomenon because they had no other way to explain why the seasons happened, why time went by, etc. God exists because the question of "What created us, why are we here, etc." was risen. Jesus supposedly gave them that answer in very ambiguous, vague terms, and Pop! Christianity is born.

I personally feel religion will exponentially decrease at some point in the next few hundred years. Since science and discovery, technology will become such a wide part of our lives, religious viewpoints on these things will become so outdated, archaic because of their refusal to adapt to the new age, thus its adherents draining out as generations go by. Yet, there will always be that small, zealous group that will not give up their religion, no matter the cost.

Some of the smartest people I know are atheists, and I know religious folk who are just as smart, but they seem crippled by their beliefs in these heathen fallacies...

To summarize my worldview, I am an antitheist - not to the point of actively dehumanizing and discriminating those who follow religion, but in the belief that the world would be much better off without religion, and religion is a surrogate for the bourgeois, ie. Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Vatican. What bourgeois would not want to become the Throne king of over a billion people? Religion has only had a detrimental effect on the world in the general class struggle and impairments on quality of life. While it has served as personal fulfillment, reconciliation, and security for some, it is debatable if it has been worth religion's cruel effects on people.

[Alan OldStudent]

The "intelligence" correlations open up bad cans of worms. Africans and African Americans have lower IQ's than Whites, and Whites have lower IQ's than Asians. Then you have the correlations between these races and their inventions. And then, well you might as well go join Stormfront.

Which is why I'm suspicious of "intelligence" tests. Back at the turn of the 19th-to-20th century, IQ tests were used to "prove" that Jewish immigrants to the United States were inferior to Anglo Saxons. Bear in mind that was during the golden age of the Yiddish theater and Sholem Aleichem.

I don't think intelligence can be defined with enough precision to allow for meaningful tests measuring ethnic groups against each other. Intelligence, like obscenity, is something we all know when we see it but have difficulty defining.

Having said that, I do think religious doctrine does not lead to knowledge of the real world. Religion is based on the folklore of various societies and no doubt sometimes encompasses some psychological insights. Since neolithic times, religion has also provided a strong ideological support for class rule.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[liberlict]

Which is why I'm suspicious of "intelligence" tests. Back at the turn of the 19th-to-20th century, IQ tests were used to "prove" that Jewish immigrants to the United States were inferior to Anglo Saxons. Bear in mind that was during the golden age of the Yiddish theater and Sholem Aleichem.

I don't think intelligence can be defined with enough precision to allow for meaningful tests measuring ethnic groups against each other. Intelligence, like obscenity, is something we all know when we see it but have difficulty defining.

Having said that, I do think religious doctrine does not lead to knowledge of the real world. Religion is based on the folklore of various societies and no doubt sometimes encompasses some psychological insights. Since neolithic times, religion has also provided a strong ideological support for class rule.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Allan (as I do a lot of the time btw). I think IQ is one factor among many that make up a person, and I personally rank it below morals and creativity as qualities I'd look for in a friend.

[Dave B]

I think it is as daft to associate seven day creationism with religion as it is to associate Stalinism with Marxism.

Apart from the what should be obvious fact that Darwin was a Christian himself.

Al-Jahiz a muslim from circa 800AD was also a natural selection evolutionist, thus;

“Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz

As you can read from the rest of that wiki example there wasn’t always a contradiction between scientific investigation and religion.

What we are actually talking about is dogmatism ie believing in something against which the evidence is overwhelming; which can plague any sort of ideology.

So we have had self described ‘rational Marxists’ for the past 90 years believing that Bolshevik Russia was not state capitalism in say 1922. Irrespective of the fact that their own ‘prophets’ said it was.

It was the same recently in long debate(s) on libcom concerning the relatively modern dogma that the opening chapter of Das Capital was about capitalism rather than ‘simple commodity production’.

IQ tests test the ability to do IQ tests and therefore it is not surprising that people’s “IQ” increases the more IQ tests they perform.

Even if they do test for some particular kind of intelligence then at the very least it must be in part be capable of being acquired rather than innate.

The alleged correlations between “IQ” and various ‘ethnic’ or social groups is clearly a product of racist economic deprivation etc.

There was a recent extensive study of the socio economic constituency of English fascists including their reading age and academic achievements etc .

The results were as unflattering as they were unequivocal; the researchers strenuously denied bias; which you have to expect from university sociology departments I suppose.

But then you realize how easy it is to get sucked into the value systems of ‘intellectualism’ which is as far as the working class is concerned is mostly a modern historical product of the economic privileges associated with the present high market value for mental labour power.


I don’t rank intellectuals as humans very highly at all either.

As a category they are the biggest bunch of cowardly, sycophantic and reactionary lickspittles you are likely to find, both right and left.

To call them elitist is a tautology.

When you feel you have to jump into their own cesspits to engage with them you can almost feel the sucking effect of the aggrandizing self importance.

[ckaihatsu]

Theory of multiple intelligences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

[Sea]

It seems to me that both the criteria used for "intelligence" and "religiosity" are ambiguous.One study I read (this was quite some time ago) used, as a measure of "religiosity", the answer to the question "How important is religion in your life?" and for intelligence, raw IQ.

So yeah. The study the OP linked is a review, so it's only as good as the studies reviewed, some of which (like the example I mentioned) are terribly vulgar. In other breaking news, the stupidest half of the population is stupider than the smartest half!!!
Theory of multiple intelligences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligencesCool, it's exponentially more unfalsifiable than the theory that IQ = intelligence. :laugh:

[Art Vandelay]

For one thing, what is an atheist? To me, an atheist is one who does not believe in the god of the Abrahamic religions. But several major religions are atheistic by that criterion.

An atheist is any individual who rejects theism. The prefix 'a' is used in the same way as 'apolitical' or 'asexual.'

[Alan OldStudent]

An atheist is any individual who rejects theism. The prefix 'a' is used in the same way as 'apolitical' or 'asexual.'

I quite agree with that, comrade. And yet, it's not so easy to define theism. There is an interesting and thought-provoking article on theism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) in Wikipedia and one on atheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) as well.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

(The study comes after renowned atheist Richard Dawkins' apparently anti-Muslim tweets sparked fury.)

If he didn't periodically act like a doucher, how would we know he's still alive?


Religiosity is defined as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion, which includes belief in the supernatural, offering gifts to this supernatural, and performing rituals affirming their beliefs. This is a pretty vague and shitty definition. I could extend this to virtually any area of human life.

I could easily say, for examples, metalheads are, in general, less intelligent then non-metalheads or persons not exposed to the general metal milieu. They follow and believe these artists, sometimes without question, they offer their idols tributes such as undergarments, drugs, alcohol and virginities in hopes this will appease and please them; make weird pilgrimages to far off lands to get just a glimpse of their idols, hear just a second of their holiest of hymns and engage in bizarre, gatherings in which they gather in a crowd whereupon they flail their limbs violently and go into a trance state of euphoria there by affirming the brutality of their convictions. See?


“Intelligent people typically spend more time in school—a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits… More intelligent people get higher level jobs [which] may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs… more intelligent people are more likely to get and stay married… though for intelligent people, that too comes later in life. We therefore suggest that as intelligent people move from young adulthood to adulthood and then to middle age, the benefits of intelligence may continue to accrue.”This is so silly, shoddy and simplistic it's like if I assigned a 4th grader to write a short essay on people with 'smarts.'

"Smart people are smart and do smart shit and hangout in smart hidey holes such as libraries, schools, and anywhere with free wifi and do smart shit and marry old smart people and smarts and oh, did I mention smart people? Oh, well, yes, they're awesome (and smart) we urge you to hold on, smarter times are ahead where there will be inhalers and smarties everywhere for everyone."

http://img.pandawhale.com/26597-Science-Be-Praised-qulv.png

[RedWaves]

You see these types of arguments all the time among atheists and Christians. They can be just as bad as one another in those aspects.
I don't believe you can determine one group is smarter than the other group just because they aren't religious.

[waqob]

Well it was religious people who made the Renaissance art. And it was a Christian who created the theory of the Big Bang

[Tim Cornelis]

This is a pretty vague and shitty definition. I could extend this to virtually any area of human life.

I could easily say, for examples, metalheads are, in general, less intelligent then non-metalheads or persons not exposed to the general metal milieu. They follow and believe these artists, sometimes without question, they offer their idols tributes such as undergarments, drugs, alcohol and virginities in hopes this will appease and please them; make weird pilgrimages to far off lands to get just a glimpse of their idols, hear just a second of their holiest of hymns and engage in bizarre, gatherings in which they gather in a crowd whereupon they flail their limbs violently and go into a trance state of euphoria there by affirming the brutality of their convictions. See?

You don't actually get what the study was about. You seem to think it was about the definition of religiousity. Think it over again because this doesn't make any sense.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You don't actually get what the study was about.

How? These "studies," seem like a joke.



You seem to think it was about the definition of religiousity.


No, I don't? The only time I mentioned this is when I was commenting on how shoddy of a definition it is and if said studies are premised upon this and results in even more convoluted fuckery; why would I not then assume that these "studies," are ridiculous?

That's what I was getting at, I think.


Think it over again because this doesn't make any sense.How does it not?

[Tim Cornelis]

Maybe you don't think it was about the definition of religiosity, however take this:
I could easily say, for examples, metalheads are, in general, less intelligent then non-metalheads or persons not exposed to the general metal milieu. They follow and believe these artists, sometimes without question, they offer their idols tributes such as undergarments, drugs, alcohol and virginities in hopes this will appease and please them; make weird pilgrimages to far off lands to get just a glimpse of their idols, hear just a second of their holiest of hymns and engage in bizarre, gatherings in which they gather in a crowd whereupon they flail their limbs violently and go into a trance state of euphoria there by affirming the brutality of their convictions. See?

You seem to think that religious people are deemed less intelligent on account of following rituals, following without question, offering tribute to their idols, etc. This is not the subject of the meta-study.

They measured the religiosity of people based on "involvement in some (or all) facets of religion, which includes belief in the supernatural, offering gifts to this supernatural, and performing rituals affirming their beliefs.
Further signs were measured using surveys, church attendance, and membership in religious organisations, Ars Technica writes."

And then have their intelligence measured. Those who were less religious (and thus less involved in all facets of religion) were found to be, on average, more intelligent.

So your analogy is false.

If we were to measure the intelligence of metalheads compared to non-metalheads we'd need some definition of metalheads, the involvement in the metal scene as defined by clothing, hairstyle, festival and concert attendance, etc. Non-metalheads would score low on these facets, metalheads high. Then have their intelligence measured and we may find that metalheads are on average more intelligent.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You seem to think that religious people are deemed less intelligent on account of following rituals, following without question, offering tribute to their idols, etc. This is not the subject of the meta-study.

Actually, I don't think originally I was thinking all that exactly like that per se but I have headache so idk, I forget.

This being said...


If we were to measure the intelligence of metalheads compared to non-metalheads we'd need some definition of metalheads, the involvement in the metal scene as defined by clothing, hairstyle, festival and concert attendance, etc. Non-metalheads would score low on these facets, metalheads high. Then have their intelligence measured and we may find that metalheads are on average more intelligent.*^See, it's virtually the same premise, is it not? Maybe I'm just further proving the study, lol, but imjustsayin.

* :lol: oh you