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.

"I go to church and am intelligent"

Why didn't you say so? That definitely invalidates all the scientific studies and meta-analyses.

My mind, which loves congruence, has been truly blown by people who 'go to church' or equivalent, but do not actually practice their faith with any particular fidelity to doctrine in their normal lives.

But she is not saying it invalidates meta analyses. She is saying that she is an intelligent believer. If there are people who are both intelligent and religious believers, then it can not be the case that believing in God means you are unintelligent. By certain limited measures, there are studies demonstrating an inverse correlation between certain forms of intelligence and a predisposition towards belief. The belief it's self does not make you unintelligent.As OP is at great pains to point out, she wanted to find out why people think /don't think that religious people are intelligent. Not prove the point with studies or otherwise.

The network thing is both trust and community in this case. Relatives business is constantly getting referrals from church people. I see the emails as I work there. It's mind boggling how many there are. Most employees are recruited from there as well (except me!!) by word of mouth.

The wealth I think, is due to conservative upbringing so they never spent anything (while we travelled etc.).

Just a theory, though.

I don't think they are less intelligent.

Just less rational and logical.

I wonder why some people with no religious faith get so arsey with those that do - is it FOMO?

If it’s a matter of sincere belief I think the answer is yes. Those with the highest IQs are not likely to believe in God. But to be “religious” in the sense that it a cultural expression (not presupposing any belief) then no. There are also intelligent people in unfree countries where you would be risking life to renounce a religion.

@shouldntbeonhereagain - re your reply to my post below;

"IQ is a narrow categorisation/measure of intelligence"

It doesn't sound like you have ever taken a real IQ test administered by a professional.

What part of the IQ test should be removed and what should be added in its place in order to test better for intelligence, in your opinion?

"so called 'scientific consensus' on a inverse correlation between religious belief/practices, is mistaken as a sort of secular gospel"

The results of a meta-analysis is not "scientific consensus" and it is not "so called" because nobody calls it that. This is not the Council of Nicea voting to agree that Jesus is God.

"IQ measures one sort of intelligence."

How exactly do you define intelligence to accommodate for your belief that it involves something other than what is measured by the Intelligence Quotient?

"I could set up a study to measure religious intelligence for the sake of argument"

Sure you could, if there were such a thing. But there isn't.

On the other hand, intelligence is an actual thing with an actual definition and aspects that are observed, defined, and measured.

"the debate on how intelligence and religious faith were related is unhelpfully framed in an oppositional framework"

No. Not at all. These are merely two characteristics that are compared. Studies could have also found them to be correlated or completely unrelated.

"If there are people who are both intelligent and religious believers, then it can not be the case that believing in God means you are unintelligent."

Nobody, literally not a single person on here or in any of the studies quoted has claimed that.

"I go to church and am intelligent"

How is that relevant to the findings that ON AVERAGE religious people are less intelligent. And how do you know how intelligent you are compared to others?

I don't dispute the findings of such studies. I do, however think that IQ is a narrow categorisation/measure of intelligence

What, in your opinion, is missing in these measurements of intelligence? Have you ever taken one yourself i. e. do you know what they include?

I find it fascinating how many people quite cheerfully categorise virtually everybody with any kind of religious faith as one homogenous group - even though there are billions of people worldwide who claim some kind of religious faith, and there are many different faiths and shades and nuances thereof.

I do wonder if there's any correlation in some people in their prejudices against people of faith with their prejudices based on race. I can't think how else you could so easily assign billions of people whom you will never meet into your own personal 'must be of low intelligence' category in your head, based on just one single aspect of the whole tapestry of their lives, and be satisfied with the gross simplicity of that.

After all, on a global scale, what proportion of non-white people hold a religious faith, compared to the white population?

Maybe, probably mostly subconsciously, you can add in another step which then slightly obscures your true innate prejudice. By way of simplistic analogy, suppose you were of the declared opinion that, whilst people born and/or living in Yorkshire were (on average) obviously every bit as intelligent as folk from elsewhere in the country, people with a Yorkshire accent are 'clearly not very bright at all'.

It's interesting how few keen Darwinists nowadays ever seem to touch on (or even acknowledge the existence of) the second part of the title of 'On the Origin of Species' - and genuinely critically grapple with Darwin's expressed views on black people being 'less favoured' and 'less developed' than white people.

@MaybeRevisitYourWipingT3chnique No, if you look at the details of the studies, race has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

Some explanations, however, include the following:

First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma.

Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs.

Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

I am (I hope) intelligent (I have a science PhD), religious (we go to a fairly traditional - but not "conservative Bible type" - Anglican church) and was not indoctrinated as a child (parents didn't go to church, I happened to go to Sunday School for some reason lost in the mists of time and made my own mind up aged 10, which is apparently quite common.

Hi. In answer to your questions

1. When I say narrow measure of intelligence, I mean the system of IQ is constructed as a means to guage a person's ability to use logic and make prediction. I hold that this is not the only form of intelligence. I hold that this is not a useful measure when looking at religious belief , because the two are not comparable terms. They are different forms of knowledge. You ask what I would change about the test. You miss the point; I do not wish to broaden the concept of IQ, I am challenging the limitations of a scientific approach to a non scientific entity. In terms of the op'a question then, I am suggesting that people open their minds to the possibility that there are other ways of looking at intelligence, and that they do not only value quantitative studies. I am wary of people using data studies to 'prove' other people's beliefs are foolish. It is futile.
2. You ask how I define intelligence to 'accommodate my belief that it includes things not covered in the IQ test' I am not really concerned in definite intelligence so much as to point out that scientific knowledge is only one form of it. By way of example though, some ideas : Emotional intelligence, artistic sense and creative impulse , practical and technical accomplishments (those not achieved through reason) sensitivity to others and empathy, musical, poetic, or culinary ability, aesthetic understanding ,culturally received and discerned knowledge, intuition, tribal or first people wisdom, spiritual, mystical, understanding of the narrative tradition, experience of all kinds...shall I go on? You will say these are not markers of intelligence because you understand logic to be synonymous with intelligence. I disagree. You can hold that IQ tests are the best possible way to measure intelligence. I think they are the best way to measure IQ, which is not the same thing. You say "intelligence is an actual thing with an actual definition and aspects that are observed, defined, and measured" I agree that certain aspects of intelligence can be quantified as I have said and I think scientific studies are essential and fascinating. I just don't accept that IQ is necessarily the best definition of intelligence; I maintain that many of the most nuanced and useful accounts of intelligence and human experience are not quantifyable.
3. I did not claim that the studies presupposed a negative oppositional relationship in terms of their data.i understand that the studies could in theory have drawn different data and thereby reached different conclusions. They would still have only measures limited forms of intelligence, and those conclusions would.not in my opinion have added much to the debate. What I mean by saying the argument is set up in an oppositional framework is that the Science Vs Faith debate all to often resorts to using a quantitative study to answer questions relating to faith and this is in my opinion, at best limited.

What I mean by saying the argument is set up in an oppositional framework is that the Science Vs Faith debate all to often resorts to using a quantitative study to answer questions relating to faith and this is in my opinion, at best limited.

Religion and science both offer explanations for why life and the universe exist. Science relies on testable empirical evidence and observation. Religion relies on subjective belief in a creator. Only one explanation is correct. The other must be discarded. Explanations require evidence. None exists for a creator outside the human mind, whereas the evidence for evolution and the origins of life mounts every day.

It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant and hypocritical this position is. I do not tell you that your position "must be discarded". I am not a religious person, and have no particular agenda here. However, I do not think it fair or reasonable (and certainly not intelligent) to dismiss the belief and experience of all people of faith ever, and all forms of knowledge which do not correlate directly with your own. This is dangerous and offensive. If you really are interested in looking at all forms of evidence before you draw conclusions, may I direct you to the work of John Polkinghorne, renowned astrophysicist, theologian and priest.

👏🏻
Well said, I agree with this!

People don’t dwell on the differences in intelligence between different groups as it is politically radioactive and ethically difficult, and that fact that it has been used by racist ideologies to uphold white supremacy.

But it IS possible to draw conclusions about intelligence at a group level. Facts are facts, whether it’s politically convenient or not. The research on this has been done (of course, it’s an interesting ethical question about whether we should be looking into these questions in the first place and whether there is any conceivably ethical application of this knowledge. Possibly not).

Of course, the differences within groups are much larger than between groups. And IQ has nothing to do with human worth, and should have no relationship to political rights and equalities. The prejudice you refer to undoubtedly goes some way to explaining some opinions that people will form. But it is not the case that everyone is equally intelligent, just as it’s true that not everyone is equally tall.

Would you say all Jews and Muslims are thick ?

Most people I hang around with respect others culture and beliefs and would not think to question their intelligence !

Priests do 7 years study and are very learned

You tell yourself that if it makes you feel better to make up stories

@shouldntbeonhereagain - You haven't answered any of my questions and instead tried to confuse some well-known and well-understood concepts such as intelligence with what I can only assume is your personal philosophy.

"I mean the system of IQ is constructed as a means to guage [sic] a person's ability to use logic and make prediction."

It is not. Again, you do not sound like you have ever taken a real IQ test administered by a professional. Look up what WAIS-IV tests for. It doesn't give you a bunch of tea leaves to predict stuff with.

"I hold that this is not the only form of intelligence. I hold that this is not a useful measure when looking at religious belief..."

And I hold a cup of coffee. Do you really think a thought in your head has any bearing on the question of whether or not intelligence and religiosity are inversely correlated?

"... because the two are not comparable terms. They are different forms of knowledge."

Intelligence is NOT knowledge. Neither is religious belief. You can't hope to have an intellectual discussion while confounding concepts in this manner.

"You ask what I would change about the test. You miss the point; I do not wish to broaden the concept of IQ..."

Yes, you do. Your exact words were IQ measures one sort of intelligence so do share. What are the other sorts of intelligence, in your opinion, and how would you change the WAIS-IV test to measure them?

"I am challenging the limitations of a scientific approach to a non scientific entity."

What is a "non-scientific entity"? Is it a magical unicorn? Is it an imaginary friend? Is it a baseless conviction in your head for which there is zero proof?

"I am not really concerned in definite intelligence so much as to point out that scientific knowledge is only one form of it. "

You are confounding these concepts again. Knowledge is not intelligence. Learning some information through experience, memorisation, or study doesn't mean you are intelligent. Look up what the word means before you start arguing about it.

"some ideas : Emotional intelligence, artistic sense and creative impulse , practical and technical accomplishments (those not achieved through reason) sensitivity to others and empathy, musical, poetic, or culinary ability, aesthetic understanding ,culturally received and discerned knowledge, intuition, tribal or first people wisdom, spiritual, mystical, understanding of the narrative tradition, experience of all kinds...shall I go on?"

Feel free to list all admirable human qualities you can think of. But they are not intelligence. Some of the above could arguably correlate with high intelligence but, really... cooking?

"you understand logic to be synonymous with intelligence"

No I don't. Logic is simple. Everyone above a certain minimum IQ can understand logic and employ it in their decisions. Intelligence is multi-faceted and involves far more than logic.

You really need to read up about what intelligence is and how it is measured before you cook up (ha!) an opinion on this subject.

Why does it bother some atheists that some people have a faith?

As long as they aren't terrorists or evangelise to the unconverted what is wrong with live and let live?

Why does it bother some religious people that others have no faith or believe in a different God/spiritual leader? Why do people literally engage in wars over it? Hard to understand if you are non religious why we can't all live and let live as you say.

Wars aside, and lack of logical advice from religious people i’ve met, i’m unhappy about religion being a man-made concept to control women and treat them as second to men.