Do you believe those who are religious

[Toobluntt]

have lower intelligence, in general because they believe in a God, than non believers/non religious people?

I ask because I saw a comment as such on another thread in AIBU, and it's something I've heard/read before, that some people (obviously non-believers) question the intelligence of those who believe in God, or follow an organised religion.

I am not saying this is what I believe, I'm just genuinely interested to know if this is a commonly held view, or not, and if so, why you think this way.

No
Next question..,

Exactly

Yep

I am am atheist and I don’t think people that are religious are unintelligent. I don’t understand how someone can believe in God but I also sort of envy those that have the comfort that comes from their faith. Each to their own. I don’t have a problem with religion and am actually quite fascinated with it. The only issue I have with religion is evil people using religion to justify their bad deeds, things like the catholic nuns in the mother and baby units years ago, Isis etc.

@CoteDAzur @KarstRegion A final thought, as this thread seems to be heading for nastiness. I will use your own words CoteDAzur to try to explain my position as clearly as I possibly can. You write :
"On the other hand, intelligence is an actual thing with an actual definition and aspects that are observed, defined, and measured" I agree. Someone has to make that definition, someone has to decide how to qualify the term, someone has to be selective in which aspects they include, or don't include in their chosen definition. The groups behind the studies don't even claim that IQ is identical with intelligence. IQ is ONE possible measure of ONE possible interpretation of intelligence. Despite your claim, I do fully appreciate and understand the process of scientific studies. I am familiar with the details and content, analysis of and variables within IQ tests, and am aware of some of the challenges to them in counter studies and within the process of peer review etc. What's more, the very fact that this all goes on, serves to demonstrate my point; that is to say IQ is not a definitive answer to "what is intelligence". Ofcourse the scientific process relies on a measureable evidence base. But the term intelligence is not an absolute category like, say, gravity. It is a concept. Religious BEHAVIOUR similarly can also be understood and interpreted by a number of anthropological and sociocultural measures, and, to use your term, it can be seen as an 'actual thing'.As the study reviews point out any definition is open to interpretation. It can be measured by any number of frame-factors for eg. visiting mosques or praying. Faith, however is not so easily measured. I am fully aware that various studies have attempted to categorise faith by the same various measures, and that is understandable, as per the process of research and for quantitative purposes. I am NOT saying these studies are flawed, in and of themselves. They may be useful and interesting, but they are not, in my opinion particularly helpful in understanding the debate which the OP set up. IQ is not, as I have repeated up thread ad nauseam, the same thing as intelligence. Therefore, any study which looks at the correlation between IQ and a particular definition of religiosity (however nuanced) can not conclusively answer the question whether religiosity is inversely correlated to intelligence; It only ever draw conclusions in those same terms as the study sets out.
You accept that religious belief is a 'thing', in the sense that the studies presuppose.Yes, aspects of religious behaviour are it are quantifiable, otherwise what would be the point of measuring it. BUT, if you do not allow for a position which entertains the validity of faith in something that is not proven you dismiss front the outset a position which you apparently want to discuss. This seems to me to be the opposite of inquiry. You also claim that faith is meaningless, because it can't be measured or proven. That position renders any attempt to quantify it futile. It is precisely because it can't be measured, or proven that I argue a statistical study can not be used to demonstrate anything conclusive about it.
To paraphrase your post- Religious belief IS an actual thing, with a definition (several of these definitions were chosen as working principles in order to construct the terms of the studies you quote). Religious belief also has certain, variant aspects that can observed, defined, and measured. However, a lot of what it actually means to be a believer, can not and does not aim to be understood or defined in this way. Lying outside the remit of a collection of scientific studies, does not mean it doesn't exist. Even if you both choose to dismiss it.

It's your belief that you are objective about everything that I am asking about."

I don't believe that and I don't find it amusing that you are bringing down the intellectual level of this discussion by trying such a cheap trick... ...My exact words were that I have no beliefs or convictions that I can't explain the rational basis for.

I have quoted your exact words above @CoteDAzur. Perhaps you forgot or got confused.

This is a Chat thread on Mnet @CoteDAzur, and not a particularly intellectual one at that.

Here are some quotes from your posts:
I do not mind it as long as they don't require me to believe in their imaginary friend in the sky, put me in a black curtain with a slit for eyes, or stone me because I had sex outside of wedlock.

You know some... words. And you manage to put them together in long sentences that seem respectable and credible. However, there is no real understanding behind them.

And I hold a cup of coffee.

Look up what WAIS-IV tests for. It doesn't give you a bunch of tea leaves to predict stuff with.
**
"I go to church and am intelligent" Why didn't you say so? That definitely invalidates all the scientific studies and meta-analyses.

Do you think they demonstrate intellectual discourse on your part?

Why do we base somebody's worth on their intelligence level? Is low intelligence worthy of ridicule or even abuse? Is laughing at peoples' beliefs and accusing them of having low intelligence somehow a worthy activity?

These threads always descend into sneering and insults from atheists. We get it, you're rational and logical and there is no proof of God. It's frustrating that we don't come to our senses, lose our faith right away and step into those rational and logical shoes and take our place beside those who are right. Is it our faith that stops us from sneering and scoffing back? Maybe. My faith accepts anyone, even a person of clinically evaluated low IQ. Are they less worthy than the educated and erudite atheists?

I'm an atheist. No, I don't think people who do have a faith are less intelligent than those who don't. That woukd be absurd.

It might sound absurd to you, but there are many studies showing a negative correlation between intelligence and religiousness. These studies have been conducted in many different countries and among different age groups and seem to consistently show this negative correlation.

Of course these findings are based on averages and there will be many exceptions!

Why do we base somebody's worth on their intelligence level?

Where has such a thing been suggested??

Are you.really asking why the poster has connected the numerous snied and sometimes aggressive content of some posters on here towards people of faith, with a sense that they have less worth? Do you really not have the imagination to see that insults belittle and engender a culture of abuse? Lower worth of believers has been implied throughout this thread, by the insulting comments made about people of faith, by many ( though by no means all ) of the posters who support the idea that intelligence is lower in religious people. Ofcourse it is possible to attempt to create a hierarchy of worth, when people.of faith are being characterised variously as inferior, gullible, ignorant, mentally ill (as an insult not a descriptive term), vulnerable, manipulated (weak) in need of 'sources of certainty' where more 'objective sensible' people do not. If you make out less people are less.intelligent, and by that token they are worthy of ridicule, it is clear ton see how you are devaluing their worth.

Because indicating those who are religious have low intelligence is obviously making a value judgement about them or why mention it in the first place?

Atheists = higher intelligence = a person worthy of respect

Theists = lower intelligence = a person worthy of ridicule and derision

If the studies find that theists have lower intelligence than atheists how would that make a material difference? Does higher intelligence mean someone is more worthy of respect and should be deferred to on all matters? Or is everyone of equal value? Shouldn't people be judged on their actions and conduct towards others?

I have known some very intelligent people who are religious, and I have to say it does puzzle me that that is the case in light of the lack of evidence for their beliefs.

There's one person in particular who comes to mind who sadly developed Alzheimer's: she had always had a wonderful memory and prided herself on it, being able to recite large chunks of poetry or Shakespeare at will or recite facts in her main subject, History. Her attitude to her Alzheimer's was "It is what it is" and she took some comfort from her religion, which I was glad about. But it always puzzled me how she reconciled that with there being a god at all: how could a supposedly beneficent and omnipotent god let her develop a condition which was so particularly cruel and painful for her? She presumably accepted it all as God's plan, but why would you worship a god who would plan something like that for you?

so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous - Matthew 5:45

I'm just utterly baffled by anyone who claims to believe in a god of any sort. Even more baffled by the people working in scientific professions who are religious, people who's critical thinking should imo rule out an all seeing, all being whatever .... Organised religion has always been used to make the masses toe the line,I just can't understand why people blindly follow what is such an obvious control system.

to be sure, having to love other people is a bit of an effort at times . . .

Seems impossible to me to imagine subscribing to a position in which the physical laws by which the universe functions are used by atheists to describe how it all happened by accident, rather than recognising such laws as components of God’s design, especially the multitude of biological environmental adaptions extrapolated by Darwin and many of his subsequent protégés to formulate his offensively erroneous theory.

rather than recognising such laws as components of God’s design, especially the multitude of biological environmental adaptions

God's design? Could you please provide some evidence for that?

There's plenty of evidence for evolution explaining these adaptations, but I've seen none at all for a 'God' designing and building anything?

Once you accept that people are different, your bafflement will subside.

I agree that religion is man made & used for human purposes, but that doesn't necessarily mean there are no deities- depending on how we are defining deities of course.
Has that been covered yet? What are the necessary & sufficient qualities that a being must possess in order to qualify as a deity?

Maybe the fact that she found comfort in her faith was the whole point of it for her? Maybe she knew that life is a bloody long slog and that something that has been invented over and over again by humans since humans existed must have some kind of mental and emotional purpose that ' logic' cannot explain? There may have been studies that say atheists are more intelligent, but there are also studies that say that they are more unhappy and more prone to mental illness and general ill health. There have been many attempts to recreate the benefits of bringing to an organised religion by atheists, but they have never succeeded because they are not logical. If you look atvthe NHS 5 ways to mental wellbeing, 3 of them are conveniently provided by belonging to religious communities- belonging to a community, giving to others and mindfulness ( through prayer). I am agnostic. I've spent a lot of time in church this weekend as I do every Easter weekend, ferrying various relatives to various masses. I took DS as well, as part of his RE revision. Sitting somewhere, doing nothing and listening to some stories was incredibly calming. My brother belongs to an evangelical church. They had various community events which my children helped out at, including handing food and Easter eggs to refugees and helping out at a community event. Yes there are people who use religion for evil or to harrass and abuse others but to imagine that these prople, without religion would all be happy living together in a communal paradise if it wasn't for religion is naive and goes against everything we know about all life on earth- human and animal. My conclusion, as someone who has turned away from religion, is that it doesn't really matter if God exists or not. Man made God because Man needs something that is provided by a belief in God.

Man made God because Man needs something that is provided by a belief in God.

What, in your opinion, is provided by believing in a man made god?

In other words, what are non believers missing out on?

This article for one

There are many, many studies that have found that people who have a faith belief have better physical and mental health. Its not as if non faith groups have not tried to replicate this. They have, but the results have not been the same. No one knows why.

God made Man because he needed someone to believe in him. And God saw what he had done and said, 'Hmmm.'