Intelligent people less likely to believe in God: Study

[otis p. driftwood]

He was Jewish by heritage, did he believe in god?

You forgot this quote from him:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

jes' tryin' to hep out...

That was also from 1945, btw.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

First of all: the accepted term on this board is "wicked smaht."

Secondly, we can find people at the heights of intellectual prowess who believe in the whole spread of religious systems, and who have no religious belief.

So this shows that one of two things are happening:

1) there are forms of religion which are consistent with great intellect; and/or
2) there are forms of intelligence which confer no special understanding of questions of religion, but do confer a great deal of understanding of some other field of study.

I think (2), while having some merit, is insufficient to explain the behavior of embracing religion even while smart.

So, the question become, why is one more likely to eschew religion if smart than if dumb?

I think the answer is that many types of religion are based on premises and/or texts that are in contradiction to the observable universe and/or within themselves.

If a sophisticated effort is made to cover these contradictions, someone with much religious fervor and little curiosity or mental capacity will accept the contradiction. Someone with much curiosity and mental capacity, and no special religious fervor, will be unable to accept the contradiction. So piety without intelligence might draw one to this religious expression, and intelligence would repel one from it.

If, however, a religious expression does not concentrate on denying apparent contradictions, the adherent is free to determine just how and why that contradiction was included in the religion's canon. This form of religious expression is equally accessible both to the man of much faith and little intellectual curiosity and capacity, and the man with great mental acuity but little faith. It is also accessible to the man with both faith and intelligence.

So, while every variety of religious expression is accessible to the great mass of people, the "intellectual elite" are stuck choosing from what would seem like "oddball" or "watered down" versions of religion, if we measure the phenomenon of religion by its most prevalently available form.

In addition, as identified, religion trades specifically with what can not be proven or disproven. To an extent this fact invites the charge of superstition. It is only those expressions of faith which accept the legitimacy of other more objectively oriented forms of inquiry, which can appeal to a man whose life consists of those other forms. To insist that a man who asks questions throughout life accept internally inconsistent answers -- one very base form of religion -- is absurd.

All that to say: If you have no intelligence, any explanation will do. So the faith of one's upbringing is sufficient. If you are picky about answers and the ability to continue questioning, then many faiths - including the one you are raised in - seem idiotic.

So long story short, you end up with MORE religious dumb people, because religious "faith" is merely a matter of coasting on whatever beliefs are passed down for the stupid but pious. It must be a matter of exploration and struggle, for the intelligent believer. In many cases, the religious expression such a person is raised with is inconsistent with his own inquiry. In these cases, wicked smaht people must either go on a long search outside the faiths they are raised in, or ditch the whole endeavor -- which, by virtue of his own experience, is an enormously appealing option.

This explains both the higher incidence of atheism and of religious conversion amongst the wicked smaht - they are also more likely to be "seekers".

Nothing here, by the way, should be read as applying to one "ism" or another; it merely has to do with the openness within one local expression of a religion, perhaps so local as within one household.

PFnV

 

[Lifer]

First of all: the accepted term on this board is "wicked smaht."

Secondly, we can find people at the heights of intellectual prowess who believe in the whole spread of religious systems, and who have no religious belief.

So this shows that one of two things are happening:

1) there are forms of religion which are consistent with great intellect; and/or
2) there are forms of intelligence which confer no special understanding of questions of religion, but do confer a great deal of understanding of some other field of study.

I think (2), while having some merit, is insufficient to explain the behavior of embracing religion even while smart.

So, the question become, why is one more likely to eschew religion if smart than if dumb?

I think the answer is that many types of religion are based on premises and/or texts that are in contradiction to the observable universe and/or within themselves.

If a sophisticated effort is made to cover these contradictions, someone with much religious fervor and little curiosity or mental capacity will accept the contradiction. Someone with much curiosity and mental capacity, and no special religious fervor, will be unable to accept the contradiction. So piety without intelligence might draw one to this religious expression, and intelligence would repel one from it.

If, however, a religious expression does not concentrate on denying apparent contradictions, the adherent is free to determine just how and why that contradiction was included in the religion's canon. This form of religious expression is equally accessible both to the man of much faith and little intellectual curiosity and capacity, and the man with great mental acuity but little faith. It is also accessible to the man with both faith and intelligence.

So, while every variety of religious expression is accessible to the great mass of people, the "intellectual elite" are stuck choosing from what would seem like "oddball" or "watered down" versions of religion, if we measure the phenomenon of religion by its most prevalently available form.

In addition, as identified, religion trades specifically with what can not be proven or disproven. To an extent this fact invites the charge of superstition. It is only those expressions of faith which accept the legitimacy of other more objectively oriented forms of inquiry, which can appeal to a man whose life consists of those other forms. To insist that a man who asks questions throughout life accept internally inconsistent answers -- one very base form of religion -- is absurd.

All that to say: If you have no intelligence, any explanation will do. So the faith of one's upbringing is sufficient. If you are picky about answers and the ability to continue questioning, then many faiths - including the one you are raised in - seem idiotic.

So long story short, you end up with MORE religious dumb people, because religious "faith" is merely a matter of coasting on whatever beliefs are passed down for the stupid but pious. It must be a matter of exploration and struggle, for the intelligent believer. In many cases, the religious expression such a person is raised with is inconsistent with his own inquiry. In these cases, wicked smaht people must either go on a long search outside the faiths they are raised in, or ditch the whole endeavor -- which, by virtue of his own experience, is an enormously appealing option.

This explains both the higher incidence of atheism and of religious conversion amongst the wicked smaht - they are also more likely to be "seekers".

Nothing here, by the way, should be read as applying to one "ism" or another; it merely has to do with the openness within one local expression of a religion, perhaps so local as within one household.

PFnV

or it could be that all humans worship something. Even non-believers in God worship something, themselves and their own intelligence. So very smart people get so wrapped up in their genius that the idea of faith undermines their foundation of self worship.

So how did life begin? Anyone?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

or it could be that all humans worship something. Even non-believers in God worship something, themselves and their own intelligence. So very smart people get so wrapped up in their genius that the idea of faith undermines their foundation of self worship.

Yet you have no study parallel to the topic of the thread establishing that:

1) either all humans worship something, or that
2) very smart people "self-worship."

In fact, you have not defined "worship." I admire, for example, how NE plays football. Does that rise to the definition of worship? If I admire and in fact am awestruck by a Bach concerto, or for that matter, some hiphop act, is that worship?

I would argue that it is not; but again, we need to define "worship" to have such a conversation.

I think there's a difference between my own meanderings and this aside, in that both are speculative, but my own blathering had to do with explaining the study at hand.

Your rejoinder argues that

1) everybody must worship (unproven);
2) atheists must therefore worship themselves, since they worship no god; and
3) Since intelligent people tend more than less intelligent people not to believe in God, they are worshipping their own intelligence.

Since (1) is unfounded, and in fact definitionally fuzzy, I don't think we can go to (2) and (3).

What proof do you have that everybody must worship something?

So how did life begin? Anyone?

If you believe that the above would not hijack this thread if responded to head-on, your capacity to believe is stronger than I thought Great question for another thread.

 

[Lifer]

Yet you have no study parallel to the topic of the thread establishing that:

1) either all humans worship something, or that
2) very smart people "self-worship."

In fact, you have not defined "worship." I admire, for example, how NE plays football. Does that rise to the definition of worship? If I admire and in fact am awestruck by a Bach concerto, or for that matter, some hiphop act, is that worship?

I would argue that it is not; but again, we need to define "worship" to have such a conversation.

I think there's a difference between my own meanderings and this aside, in that both are speculative, but my own blathering had to do with explaining the study at hand.

Your rejoinder argues that

1) everybody must worship (unproven);
2) atheists must therefore worship themselves, since they worship no god; and
3) Since intelligent people tend more than less intelligent people not to believe in God, they are worshipping their own intelligence.

Since (1) is unfounded, and in fact definitionally fuzzy, I don't think we can go to (2) and (3).

What proof do you have that everybody must worship something?



If you believe that the above would not hijack this thread if responded to head-on, your capacity to believe is stronger than I thought Great question for another thread.

Its very a connected question to the topic because even the most intelligent people cannot fully answer that question. They may go on the offensive and take a swipe at Creationism or get on a jag about Intelligent Design being really a cover for a pack of Jesus freaks or go on a Evolution diatribe, but the question doesnt get answered.

My point is that reliance on intellect alone leaves many questions unanswered. And that reliance is a form of worship.

 

[Wildo7]

Its very a connected question to the topic because even the most intelligent people cannot fully answer that question. They may go on the offensive and take a swipe at Creationism or get on a jag about Intelligent Design being really a cover for a pack of Jesus freaks or go on a Evolution diatribe, but the question doesnt get answered.

My point is that reliance on intellect alone leaves many questions unanswered. And that reliance is a form of worship.

If lack of belief is worship, then bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Everytime religion says "science/intellect cannot answer this" it eventually does. The fact is that there's a very good amount of evidence for how life began and evolved on this planet (abiogenesis etc.) but it contradicts religious stories from a book and therefore you reject them. The utter ignorance with which you summarize Darwinism and then conflate it with the big bang and the hot dilute soup theories shows that you haven't looked at any of it in an objective light whatsoever and will dismiss any scientific answer that you don't like.

The point is there is no evidence for the existence of god.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

To save us time, I think it would be savvy to say "no objective evidence."

Lifer, I agree with Wildo here.

There are a great many phenomena that I can point to and say "Aha! Here is the long-sought proof..."

People will do this by pointing out anything from the number of coincidences that have occured versus how many "should" occur, to the complex beauty of a snowflake, and typically come to conclusions that just do not hold water when closely examined.

Hence my belief that religion is a matter of what can not and has not been proven (and hence the term "faith.")

Wildo you're a snot nosed little supercillious bastard, but you happen to be right on this particular subject.

 

[godef]

But as Lifer has also identified, although it amounts to a challenge to prove a negative (a notoriously difficult if not impossible task,) nobody has conclusively proven God's nonexistence.

blah blah blah yadda yadda

Sorry, that simply doesn't cut it. To say someone has proven a nonexistent is nothing more than logical nonsense. And this is cemented by the need to continue with more logical gobbledy-gook to try to explain what that meant. Spin of the highest order it seems.

Now, wouldn't it just be easier to prove that God exists? Unless, of course, you can't.

 

[Wildo7]

To save us time, I think it would be savvy to say "no objective evidence."

Lifer, I agree with Wildo here.

There are a great many phenomena that I can point to and say "Aha! Here is the long-sought proof..."

People will do this by pointing out anything from the number of coincidences that have occured versus how many "should" occur, to the complex beauty of a snowflake, and typically come to conclusions that just do not hold water when closely examined.

Hence my belief that religion is a matter of what can not and has not been proven (and hence the term "faith.")

Wildo you're a snot nosed little supercillious bastard, but you happen to be right on this particular subject.

One word: concision. Find it.

Glad to have your approval though

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yep, two for two. Ironic to encounter the charge of overly dense discourse, on threads purporting to delve into questions regarding intelligence.

Namecalling is faster, as I have discovered.

Since I've got at least 3 complaints about trying to treat the subject with "gobbledegook," I will take it that any point I was making has been made elsewhere, although it appears nowhere.

I will take it that the content of what I've said has been effectively laid to rest, although nobody here has an argument against it.

And naturally we will all assume that what I said could have been said more briefly... although all I see here are less nuanced, more black-and-white repeats of beloved positions: "You're superstitious." "You can't prove it."

Religion ain't rocket science. It ain't science at all. And it ain't sound-bites.

Well, if that's all we can do, we may as well just say tell it to your church. Or tell it to your atheist buddies. They're the ones who want to hear it. We're just saying we have no interest in the phenomenon we're discussing, i.e., the relationship between religious expression and intelligence.

As far as any of my own contributions, you might want to look into patience if you hope to get through them. It is just possible that if I'm using more words, it's because I'm treating more, or God forbid more complex points of view.

It's also possible that it's 100% content-free verbosity for its own sake.

But that would seem such a terrible waste of my time.

PFnV

 

[Wildo7]

Yep, two for two. Ironic to encounter the charge of overly dense discourse, on threads purporting to delve into questions regarding intelligence.

Namecalling is faster, as I have discovered.

Wildo you're a snot nosed little supercillious bastard

Conflating density with verbosity are we?

Since I've got at least 3 complaints about trying to treat the subject with "gobbledegook," I will take it that any point I was making has been made elsewhere, although it appears nowhere.

I will take it that the content of what I've said has been effectively laid to rest, although nobody here has an argument against it.

And naturally we will all assume that what I said could have been said more briefly... although all I see here are less nuanced, more black-and-white repeats of beloved positions: "You're superstitious." "You can't prove it."

Religion ain't rocket science. It ain't science at all. And it ain't sound-bites.

Well, if that's all we can do, we may as well just say tell it to your church. Or tell it to your atheist buddies. They're the ones who want to hear it. We're just saying we have no interest in the phenomenon we're discussing, i.e., the relationship between religious expression and intelligence.

As far as any of my own contributions, you might want to look into patience if you hope to get through them. It is just possible that if I'm using more words, it's because I'm treating more, or God forbid more complex points of view.

Would "we" be referring to the royal "we" ala, an interruption in the conversation between a certain someones' ego and intellect? If the discussion is too stupid for you, by all means, stoop to "our" level and bless us with your unembellished original perspective. I'm certain your style is much more conducive to the "sound bite" discussion than is my primitive summation of Dawkins and Hitchens but your "complexity" will provoke a vastly superior discussion if spoken in proletariat-speak.

It's also possible that it's 100% content-free verbosity for its own sake.

But that would seem such a terrible waste of my time.

PFnV

As in including your online alias at the end of every post when it's expressly clear you posted it?

How about a break from the embarrassingly inflated language and convoluted syntax for a moment: it's not what your point is, it's how you make it. Camoflauging your arguments in ten feet of verbal diarrhea that Shakespeare would have trouble deciphering doesn't mean your thoughts are above the fray, it just means your goal is to stupefy rather than provoke. And this is coming from someone who agrees with you 90% of the time.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Hey, you ALMOST figured one part out, the bolded part. The "as I have recently discoved" in the namecalling bit, you may note, follows very closely upon my own calling you names! Gee! Think it's possible that's the point of its inclusion?

Conflating density with verbosity are we?

Who's "we"?

Would "we" be referring to the royal "we" ala, an interruption in the conversation between a certain someones' ego and intellect?

Evidently. Wait, who do you mean again? It's so hard to understand...

If the discussion is too stupid for you, by all means, stoop to "our" level and bless us with your unembellished original perspective. I'm certain your style is much more conducive to the "sound bite" discussion than is my primitive summation of Dawkins and Hitchens but your "complexity" will provoke a vastly superior discussion if spoken in proletariat-speak.

Ah the nut of the matter. Let's see.

I am now to understand that you are summarizing Hitchens and Dawkins, and therefore the level of the discussion is fine and dandy as is, because you like said writers.

Two problems: although both are well known names, it is possible that even taken together, their perspectives do not cover the entirety of thought on the subject of intellect and religion; and

You might just plain suck at representing said opinions.

Nonetheless, you extend a condescending invitation to an "unembellished original perspective." Lest bits and pieces of what I am typing here be looked at and fit into one or another preexistent source...

I have read a good deal on the subject from a variety of perspectives, and would like to point out that this idea that I am presenting an "unembellished original perspective" is your notion, not mine. While not writing with a particular book in mind right now, I am sure each argument I've made has been made sometimes during the long history of man. So, consider me inocculated from the particular "gotcha!" of letting your description of my own contribution slide.

Then there's something called "proletariat-speak", which is supposed to improve my style. Huh. Tell you what. Given that I'm a professional writer, and having written for several national publications, I'll just continue to insist you follow said style to the best of your ability. I edit it less here and I worry less about word count. Sue me. Don't have the time.

I will admit it's dense, and you may have fun with the idea that it is verbose and without content. I take a fair amount of time getting my verbosity onto the page, and would take a good deal more to rephrase said verbosity.

As in including your online alias at the end of every post when it's expressly clear you posted it?

Yeah been doing that for years. Do I care what you think of it? Nahhh. Do I think it means a damn thing that I sign my posts? Nahhh. Is it your business to dictate what others use to sign posts? Nahhhhh.

How about a break from the embarrassingly inflated language and convoluted syntax for a moment: it's not what your point is, it's how you make it. Camoflauging your arguments in ten feet of verbal diarrhea that Shakespeare would have trouble deciphering doesn't mean your thoughts are above the fray, it just means your goal is to stupefy rather than provoke. And this is coming from someone who agrees with you 90% of the time.

See above. My convoluted pools of "ten feet of verbal diarrhea" are simply not the issue. Figure out what's in the "ten feet of verbal diarrhea" or just don't respond. Your wonderful compilation of modifiers aside, what you have in my posts is a lot like what you have in other posts: the draft you write when you know the audience is dozens, tops, and you just want to get across what's on your mind at a particular moment.

I don't have time to re-write/edit bulletin board posts - edited to say: well I do give them the once-over; in fact I'm sure you want to use that as some sort of proof of my overwrought writing. But I do not have time to rewrite them thoroughly.

If they are of no greater depth, or touch on no more information, than you are seeing elsewhere, they are of no value.

If they do, address the points raised.

PFnV