God makes you stupid, researchers claim

A psychology researcher has controversially claimed that stupidity is causally linked to how likely people are to believe in God. University of Ulster professor Richard Lynn will draw the conclusion in new research due to be published in the journal Intelligence, the Times Higher Education Supplement reports. Lynn and his two …

[Jason The Saj]

When we understand the entire universe, we'll know the answer

Hmm...

"This would be like saying living in states with a warmer more southernly climate is likely to make one more racist. "

When the fact that the indoctrination and mindset of racism, white supremism tends to be stronger in the south. These were after all the slave states. So while most southerners may not be racist, there is likely to be a higher percentage of racist people found in the southern states. This does not mean the climate is the cause of racism.

"Similarly, as average IQ in Western societies increased throught the 20th century, so did rates of atheism, he said."

Clearly, food and health lead to atheism. As said IQ increases are often attributed to a better nourished society. So eat better, believe in God less.

"Lynn pointed out that most children do believe in God, but as their intelligence develops they tend to have doubts or reject religion."

Children find it easier to accept new concepts and to be open. However, as I recall. A child's IQ is usually pretty set. While there can be some fluxuation. A 75 IQ person doesn't grow up to be a 150 IQ person.

***

So apparently, poor academic scholarship can be applied to acclaim oneself smarter than others - while it simultaneously proves you ain't so bright.

Or it might also be the fact that there is strong anti-sentiment in Academia to both religious beliefs, conservatives, and capitalism. Let's be honest - most of our colleges are filled with liberal atheist socialists. (Perhaps because few ever succeeded in the real world of business so the came and taught others their mistakes.)

***

"Lesson 1: don't eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge."

No, it said of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It did not say of just knowledge. Wasn't an Apple either btw.

***

Ironically, I find scientists to often be equally as uncritical. I was introduced to some conjectural physics theories almost 20 yrs ago. Most every atheist and supposedly scientifically minded individual was mocking the concepts. (Like our understanding of light's behavior, speed, etc might not be what we think it is.) Oh, guess what, now these same concepts are being lauded as new revelations. Who was more open-minded.

***

Of course, I'm just one of those dumb religious people with a meager IQ of 144. Questioning a report that is clearly a poor attempt at the utilization of the scientific method.

***

"First, the IQ of the population has shifted over time, with a general upward trend. "

I sometimes wonder if this is a true shift? Or a promotional shift. For example: SAT scores have increased substantially over the years. And each shift corresponds with a major new release of the SAT exam. Obviously, people are getting smarter based on an analysis of SAT scores. Or so the media and government try to tell us, so that we don't see how poorly our public school systems are doing at educating our children.

***

"I would personally advance the opinion that there IS a third variable, and that variable is the external pressure of society in the form of "one does what is most conformist in the society you are in because that uses the least energy" which critically, has a feedback effect. Atheism breeds atheism, religiosity breeds religiosity." - Angus Wood

Very interesting...

This would lead me to believe that the most "intelligent" individuals are neither atheist nor religious. But rather those who grew up in one or the other and chose another of their own choosing.

The one who grows up atheist because his parents and professors around him are atheist. And the one who grows up religious cause they were dragged by their parents to church every week. Both of which, should have their intelligence questioned.

Scripture says "to every man an answer". Sadly, many if not most christians do not have enough understanding of either their own scriptures or the world around them to give such. Likewise, I find most "atheists" to be quite stupid as well. I have very little respect for atheists because they always seem to be egotistical. Where as I have high asteem for the modern agnostic. The one who says, I have not seen any proof of God, so I shall not proclaim God myself. However, I do not have fullness of understanding and knowledge. So I will not dismiss a possibility lies outside of my understanding. This is probably the truest critical thinker of all.

The one who postulates but realizes he is not smart enough to have the answer - is the smartest of us all.

[Garth]

Many a dubious thing has been said in these comments.

Which I suppose goes further to illustrate the point of the original research.

But several have asked what Einstein would have said. Well... here's the link to what he did say. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

I would imagine he would have sympathized quite strongly with the conclusion of the paper. I wonder if in a hundred years from now there won't be people 'of faith' speaking about Dawkins trying to demonstrate to the heathen fellows what a believer he was.

[ben]

God is an multidimensional Alien

We are all information.

[Tom Mason]

Intelligence make you arrogant

My experience would lead me to believe that people who consider themselves intelligent (which often, but not always, correlates with actual intelligence) have to swallow that pride in their intelligence in order to accept that God may exists. Clearly, there are no conclusive, objective reasons to believe God exists. It is scientifically unprovable. However that's not the same thing as saying it's not true. Where Dawkins et al have been very successful is in teaching people that only objective repeatable evidence can be considered, even as an individual. Very often it can be people fear of being called irrational, which stings more if you believe yourself to be intelligent, which will cause people to ignore even quite powerful subjective evidence. The well known psychological experiment in which people standing in a lift (elevator) will face the same way as everyone else shows that people will act irrationally denying their own experiences to avoid looking stupid. In essence they question their own sanity and go with the flow.

Where intelligent people are faced with subjective spiritual experiences they will tend to ignore or discount them as they are too invested and proud to risk being seen as irrational.

There is also the "intelligence trap", where intelligent people become so good at arguing their case that they can successfully defend an incorrect position. Unfortunately because they get such a buzz from winning the arguement the search for the truth becomes secondary to winning. Essentially pride in ones intelligence can lead people to becoming entrenched in incorrect positions, and atheism appeals to intelligent people' sense of superiority.

[redjupiter]

So how come ....

So let me see,

i came from a poor family.

I go to church every Sunday.

Struggled through university fees

bought an apartment

has 2 cars and a motorbike

two children and my wife is 17 years younger than me.

Earn more than 50000/year and I work from home

I play on-line games.

Takes 2 holidays a year

God and Jesus is the centre of our lives and they call me stupid ....

[Luther Blissett]

The argument passed away at Vulture Central on 12 June 2008 at 12.04

Reg readers identified several life-threatening flaws, but a logical autopsy suggests that the patient had a predisposing congenital condition to failure.

This was an inherent inability to distinguish between the common English words - belief and faith. For while even the intellectually challenged can go about their daily business regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not, the question of whether someone has religious faith is not only difficult to establish by observation (requiring a DHS size budget and technology), but has to deal with awkward conceptual matters like hypocrisy.

So tell me again what Professors profess? Faith in reason - or merely belief in the Everlasting Goodness of the Public Teat?

[Anonymous Coward]

god? stupidity? repubelicans?

if its true the usa bible belt is in trouble and it would explain a lot of repubelicans and george bush!

on personal observation and expiriance it does appear to me that religious nut jobs seem to be abit odd and really hate reality as it is. all in all they are not really stupid per say but indoctrination they had been exposed to in their environment had pretty much disabled their ability to deal with reality as is and not as they wish it is and as result they try to push theirt views by force on every one else. what is really scary about them is they can actualy function and damadge the people around them.

on the other hand had any one really thought why these people belive in god?

one of my pet theories is that they belive that god gives them an excuse to act and be an asshole and murderous if they diagree with your version of belif in god because god said so its ok and they are forgiven.

btw who is this god person anyway?

[P. Lee]

Shock Story!

Those who, by definition, are only concerned with the non-supernatural say everything outside of their field of expertise is rubbish.

Ah, good job we're intelligent and not bigoted like them religious peasants!

If life started as an accident and death is certain, then all your above-average intelligence is a brief, random association of electrons and molecules, "Life's ... a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." We definitely need our children to understand this at an earlier age, for the good of society.

The God vs Science debate is fake - you can't prove or disprove God with science because science doesn't deal with the supernatural. The question is, what are your presuppositions? Do you approach the natural world with the view "God doesn't exist - I need a theory which explains all this without him," or "the God who ordered all this gave me a mind so I should be able to understand at least some of this."

To those who believe that organised religion is designed to control the masses, you're probably right - Jesus himself was condemned to death by the organised religion of his day for blasphemy and sedition. He was offered temporal power but he turned it down as it wasn't his way of doing things. Beware of those who do otherwise.

This we believe: We weren't there when life started, we don't know how it works but we're absolutely certain it wasn't designed by someone who knows more than we do.

Paris, because we all like to display our ignorance.

[Mark]

"Pity for the theory that piracy is on the rise"

Not PROPER pirates. Ones with a peg leg, saying "Yaarrgh!" and "Me Hearties!".

[Anonymous Coward]

<no title>

Not sure what the point is supopsed to be.

So if you lack intelligence you are probably more likely to accept belief, without thinking too deeply about it. And this is one of a number of things that will skew the figures when comparing belief and intelligence.

It has no effect on whether there is a spiritual element to existence, or not. It just gives non-believers the opportunity to take the piss out of the rest. Have fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I do exist - OK?

All this debating has made me manifest myself, which I have avoided for thousands of years. That has made me quite annoyed and frankly a bit tetchy.

Anyway:

- I *will* play dice with the universe if I want to.

- Would everybody please stop wanking? You know I don't like it.

- Dawkins has got it coming when I get hold of him, I can tell you.

- Where's my special Reg icon? Don't make me smite you...

Thank you and good afternoon.

[Anonymous Coward]

IQ tests don't really mean much

Most religion is about control. Sorry am I for folks who are brainwashed and feel they have no choice in what they can or cannot believe. Oh, Great Dread Cthulhu, your minions await you.

[Popofla]

Bad Science Alert!

As with most of these so-called social "science" studies we see a total lack of the multi-variable nature of human interaction and thinking. This is quite obviously a study creating a hypothesis and examining a limited number of variables to prove the hypothesis. Most readers of the Reg can see through this shabby research.

Maybe what would be a better experiment would question the "peer pressure effect on people with higher IQ" and it's effect on their beliefs. ("God", global warming- that is sure to get a rise) Most of these people don't want to be called "stupid". So what impact does their own self esteem have on beliefs in areas that they are non-specialist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Boffins prove boffinry does not improve statistical ability.

Hmm, someone has read a 2 page article on statistics and think they have a degree in the subject. Let's take apart your arguments one by one:

> "Similarly, as average IQ in Western societies increased throught the 20th

> century, so did rates of atheism, he said."

>

> The average IQ is by definition 100.

>

> How did they manage to measure an increase in 100?

There are various ways that this could be the case, the most obvious is that they were holding the world average at 100, and comparing intelligence in western countries with other countries, at which point the average could very well have risen. Of course, we can't be sure this is the case without reading the actual scientific article, rather than some El-Reg polemic.

> Regardless, their statistical correlation between the rise in average

> *intelligence* (not IQ) and in western Europe suffers under the same

> problems as climate modelling: our sample set is one. One world, one

> climate; one Europe, one population. Do they have any data showing the

> converse of this, ie that increasing religiousness in Western Europe

> correlates with decreasing intelligence?

>

> This is not statistically significant data!

Ok, you clearly don't understand the differences between what is being studied here and climate modelling, and also the concept of in sample and out of sample. I'll try and keep it short. In climate modelling we are taking a set of input data and trying to come up with a complex model which predicts a set of output variables. In this type of model, overfitting is a big issue. What overfitting means is that your model is so complex that it exactly predicts what is currently happening, but this is an artifact of the model, and when you test it on other data you find the model doesn't work. This means you build a model on "in-sample" data and test it on "out-of-sample" data. If you do too much testing on the out-of-sample data then you begin to use the structure of that data to construct your model, and are likely to overfit. An example of this type of overfitting is simple to construct. Let's say you are building a model trying to predict the number of people who die in a given year using the different types of munitions expended as your input parameters. You try fitting that model using 1900-1918 as your in-sample period, and manage to get an extremely good fit. Then you take it out of sample in 1919 and discover your model is rubbish (due to avian flu killing more people than the whole first world war).

In this case, the scientists have stated that there is a correlation between intelligence and belief in a supreme being. The fact that a correlation exists is just that, a fact, not a model. Now they have also proposed a basic model that says that intelligence can predict belief. Because they have tested this model on a number of data sets (US Academy of Science and UK Royal Academy studies; average IQ in western societies; likelihood to become unbeliever as children mature), they have ample argument to say that they have created a model and tested it out of sample - something which climate researchers are more reluctant to do.

> It is pretty obvious that human beings will show more intelligence as human

> knowledge and schooling increase and improve. Anything that occurs at the

> same time as this may be a) related or b) coincidental. We do not have

> anywhere near enough data to prove either of these.

This is why you look at such things as relative levels of religious belief as different countries improve at different rates. Or at specific parts of society, like children, or academics. I haven't read the study, so I can't argue whether the researchers have done this or not, but it is relatively easy in cases like this to compare the level of correlation you get testing your hypothesis, with the level of correlation you would get in various test scenarios. There are plenty of standard statistical tests for this sort of thing. We actually probably have plenty of data to prove beyond a level of statistical certainty that there is a link.

> Statistics for Dummies is available in all good bookshops on the High Street

> and on-line.

>

> (And they say it's religion that makes people stupid.)

Statistics for Dummies is not a good starting point for understanding modelling and prediction in statistics which is one of the trickier parts of the subject.

[Hedley Phillips]

I knew it

My wife is thick as shit and heavily into Catholicism

[Khaptain]

God as we know it.

If I understand correctly, God in his current context only exists from the writing of the bible, or the Torah for those that want to go a little further back.

What this basically boils down to is that the common troglodyte has always had some belief in some form of Deity or other. These beliefs were almost certainly defined( read manipulated) by his more Intelligent counterparts, who knew wholeheartedly that they could achieve domination over the Troglodytes by using their "apparently" superior knowledge of the God/Deity character....

The intelligent people have always understood that the notion off God/Religion is a means of control. ( Strike the Fear Factor into the populace, Hell, Plagues, Miseries etc...... ).

Due to the fact the even the most basic Westerner has access to endless amounts of documentation their lack of knowledge must be slowly subsiding. Hence, less ignorance, hence less believers due to the increased awareness of Religion as a instrument of control.

Therefore the theory is probably correct, people are in general becoming less ignorant.. Although this is not often noticeable by their acts.

[amanfromMars]

If you were a GOD, would you be a Devil? :-) or something QuITe Alien?

"When you put your finger in the flame, as all children do, you burnt your finger. That knowledge had gone from recieved to percieved." ...By Paul Smith Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 11:39 GMT

Actually it is surely more reinforced as perception is Semantic and has no tangible presence/physical effect.

"The more intelligent person is also more likely to answer a question in a way that reduces potential embaressment." ... because there are only questions with answers being Temporal Aberrations/Present Conveniences.

"Most of the erudite people the world has known have beleived in some form of Devine Entity." .... By Dark Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 11:42 GMT

Some of them even hear their voices, Dark. :-)

"Didn't Einstein say God does not play dice with the universe?" .... By James Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 11:46 GMT

Because they're always onto a dead cert, James? Or are we to assume there is only One? Animal, Vegetable, Mineral or Imaginative?

"Do I believe that extraterrestrial intelligence has ever been in contact with humans? No." ..... By Andrew Oakley Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 11:49 GMT

You must be new to El Reg, Andrew. Welcome.

[D]

There's quite a few claiming high IQs who don't even seem to have a grasp of basic maths

.... you may be a very smart person with a high IQ. However, as this study is making claims about trends within a population rather than individual absolute rules, the fact that you worship god/mohammed/sky pixies or whatever ridiculous bronze age superstition that you've latched onto because you can't cope with reality/your own mortality has no bearing on this other than to remind us that people can have a high IQ and still be gullible.

Mines the one with "heretic" on the back.

[Lee Whitfield]

@ Jonathan

"Personally though, I'm not surprised at all. Look at the US - its full of people who vote for Bush and think evolution is a lie. Coincidentally, most of those are Christian."

Glad to see that ignorance is not limited to just us religious types - what a comment to make. People like you make me ashamed to be British.

[Hunter Barrington]

What about all the intelligent religious people?

I readily admit up front that this comes from a Christian perspective so if any bias is suggested i would agree that bias is possible.

It has been my experience that the more intelligent you are the better you can appreciate religion. For instance I know a few chemists (who work for DuPont), lawyers (Skadden Arps), molecular biologists, etc. who all appreciate God in a very real way because they attribute the universe and everything in their field of study to Him and after seeing how extremely complex and amazing it is they can't help but be wowed that there is something intelligent enough to envision all of that let alone create it.

and what about all the great leaders, intellects, and world changers who were religious. I would argue that the non-religious are in the minority in this category (leaders, intellects, etc.) and that it was only in the last century or two that this paradigm has shifted at all.

The article stated that many children believe in God but as they get older they start to doubt. This could be attributed to an increase in intelligence, but it could also be attributed to an elevation of pride, self-consciousness, and decrease in child-like trust (faith). In todays world where it is becoming more and more intellectually chic to be atheist there are fewer and fewer adults teaching children how religion can be very intellectually stimulating in my opinion.

anyways... just my 2 cents

[Steven Goddard]

North Korea - the land of innovation

This theory proves that North Korea is the smartest country in the world. Millions of poor, starving, uneducated atheists. Cuba can't be far behind. The average income in Cuba is $20 per month.

On the other hand, 50% of the worlds' Nobel Prizes come out of the US - the land of ignorant, right-wing, Christian fundamentalists.

[Tom]

@combatwombat

148 eh? Still can't use the correct tense of 'Their' though can you... Maybe go back and do some more online quotation testing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiocracy

Anybody ever see the movie?

It was a bit obscure, but quite good, in an appalling sort of way.

The dummies in that movie weren't religious at all. I suspect that the producers deliberately avoided mentioning it because of the flame potential.

However, if they had, the movie would have been a great deal less obscure. The Golden Compass was a crappy movie, but the Pope panned it, so everyone went to see it.

Kind of like this study and this article.

[Anonymous Coward]

scammers

Why do you think scam artists so frequently target church congregations.

Those suckers have already been through quality pre-screening.

[Matt Clary]

It's education, not IQ

Education is a primary influence on religious beliefs, not IQ. Most people in academia have more EDUCATION than the general populace, it is questionable that in general they have higher IQs.

The statement about how "intelligence has risen in the 20th century" seems to reinforce my point. Makes me question the researcher's abilities. Do they really think IQ has increased in the 20th century? Do they attribute this to better nutrition or to evolution?

[Keith Doyle]

Well, it proves one thing...

That there are likely as many (percentage-wise) atheists willing to open their mouth and insert-foot making bogus claims as there are in religious communities.

For years, I've racked my brain trying to comprehend just what it is about religious believers that (apparently) makes them unable to countenance the glaring inconsistencies about it that I find all too obvious. But I've come to realize that people believe in supernatural things for a wide variety of reasons and in a wide variety of circumstances, and the idea that it can be strictly tied to a single factor like intelligence or education is a totally naive one.

On the other hand, I still can't help hoping that some day, a simple, factual, and completely incontrovertable statement can be identified that is both undeniably true and totally at odds with religious belief such that its usage would cause a complete cognitive meltdown in believers minds. A statement that would give everyone the same feeling I had in 1st grade when a teacher told the class that Santa Claus didn't exist and it was all your parents doings (my feeling was simply, "oh, yeah, of course, now that you point it out, it's obvious!"). A tantalizing idea, but I have little hope for it-- compartmentalization has long been known to trump cognition, an explanation that believers probably similarly apply to skeptics.

It's just the "brave new world" we live in. I do wish there were outspoken atheists that behaved more like Carl Sagan and less like Richard Dawkins, showing more quiet confidence in their ideas and less of axes to grind.

[Mark]

Re: So how come ....

Yes, you ARE stupid. How?

TWO cars *and* a motorbike???

Dump at least one car.

[Anonymous Coward]

@redjupiter - It's a jolly good smiting for you

Unfortunately you have committed the 7th deadly sin - "pride".

Schoolboy error I know, but I am quite a vengeful sort of God and I'm afraid I can't let it slide. Sorry about that, but if I show leniency once then they all expect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Prompts a far more interesting question

Now I'm interested to know if stupidity is linked to how likely people are to believe in psychology.

[Garth]

RE: Various Can't disprove God comments

Many have made the claim that one cannot disprove God. This is untrue. God is certainly examinable once one has am interpretation to explore. The Christian God is manifestly provable or disprovable by examining the traits 'He' is supposed to possess and whether they A) necessary in operate the universe or B) evidenced in its operation. As this has generally not been the case since we're still arguing about it, and since Epicurus logically dismantled the primary omni-benevolent/omnipotent/omniscient God we can satisfactorily say that the Christian God is highly unlikely to exist.

What Christians turn to when they claim you cannot disprove God is a bait and switch approach, you cannot disprove a God is inherently vague and without definition, thus their God exists. False. That God has no more meaning than saying, "Prove that I do not possess Hooglesnacks in my pocket." As Hooglesnacks doesn't have a real definition, that is, of course, an impossible task. But it is a meaningless request as well.

While I consider myself a agnostic on the grounds that the liberal use of the word god is without adequate definition and is thus, unknowable, I take offense at the fact that some people who are without intellectual integrity claim some superiority because they call themselves similarly. Giving agnosticism a bad name by essentially being the fence sitters as others accuse. Even the religious recognize that some interpretations of God are plain silly.

In the end it is all for naught I realize. But it makes me feel a little better. People will continue to contribute their cribbed half truths in defense ridiculous stances. Like the IDers who, when confronted with the falsity of their particular argument, do not end the use of broken conjecture, but instead save it for a time when it may persuade with less sophisticated understanding.

Like trotting out Einstein believed in God, when at most, before you could have said he was a deist and now he was obviously significantly less religious than even that.

[Anonymous Coward]

And agnostics are smarter than atheists...

Atheists claim they know, **know**, that God doesn't exist. What these supposedly "higher IQ" people ignore is that a belief in God is not the same as a belief in, say, unicorns. A belief in unicorns is merely a belief in an object among other objects.

A belief in God isn't a simple statement about the existence of an object, it is a philosophically ontological theory of being itself...and that includes all things such as objects, energy, the laws of science, and the range and limits to our very ability to understand and know.

As such the posited God would be immune to human demands regarding rules of evidence, falsifiable hypotheses, and all the typical expectations we are comfortable with when considering the contingent physical world.

Athiests claim to *know* something they can't possibly know...at least not by typical human means. Because whatever those means are they are, by definition, contingent on God and not the other way around.

(This is different than the so-called "ontological proof" of God's existence. It is an ontological observation about our inability to prove the posited God's existence either way.)

Some may object that this means we can't consider God's existence in the same rational way we think about the rest of the universe. They may find such a thing unacceptable. But that, itself, is an irrational emotional reaction. Limits to our ability to know (and prove) may be uncomfortable for some, but the wise man recognizes his limitations rather than trying to bluster his way past them.

As the proposed ground of all being, God can't be held to account by human expectations about existence proofs. God, *by definition*, would be the author of rationality, not the other way around.

Atheists are just people who haven't thought this problem through enough to become agnostics.

[Anonymous Coward]

@ other AC

"The start of genetics, astronomy, chemistry botany and mathematics was all laid down by Christians, mostly monks. Anatomy, medice, pharmacology by notable Muslims (who also had a big part in early maths and astronomy)."

This is true, but to some extent the Christians, Muslims etc. didn't have much of a choice about atheism in the past; you either joined the congregation or got persecuted. So they were religious because that was the culture in which they lived.

Galileo was a Christian, but his work was not exactly sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church.

I suspect that if many of the great scientists of the past had had a real choice about the matter, many of them would have become atheist.

My point was that while an individual may be religious and a scientist, the religious institutions have not encouraged the pursuit of science.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an agnostic..

It seems to me that most of the people who profess religion on here are explaining why they have a right to believe what they believe without being called stupid.

It also seems that allot (but not all) of the atheists as spewing hate filled bile about how people with any view different to there’s wrong. Add a few death threats and it would be a good text for a terrorist video.

The next thing I have noticed is that many of the atheists, who claimed to be intelligent people, seem to be unable to separate "religious" terrorists and extremists from the everyone else who holds religious views.

The final thing I see is lots of atheists quoting atheist dogma biased on lies and half truths.

All I know is that I don't know, but right now I'd rather know a Christian than an Atheist.

[Chris]

Religion teaches a lack of critical thinking.

@anon coward "In short - the knowledge implied here isn't about the ability to discern between good and evil. It's about the ability for Adam and Eve to make that decision for themselves, effectively ignoring God completely, for which God (if you believe the message of the book containing this quote) made his beings mortal."

Yep, like I said, religion teaches a lack of critical thinking. Here's what you should know, don't question it. Questioning is wrong. Do what you are told and don't think about why.

@Jason The Saj, nobody had mentioned apples until you did. Out of interest, what fruit was it? How do you know it wasn't an apple?

[Jesse]

Irony

The pure irony of this article is all the commenters that have expressed that they "knew this" or "isn't it obvious" without even questioning the article!

As usual the comments both intelligent and ignorant are often better than the article being discussed. Good times.

[Christopher E. Stith]

Too narrow of a definition of religion

Albert Einstein was religious in his own way, but was not a pansy to an organized church. Science and theology are two entirely different branches of the same practice -- philosophy. One is mechanistic and built on observation and the other is teleological and built on faith. One is pragmatic, dealing with the world with which we directly interact. The other is hopeful and concerns itself specifically with the unknown. Science may be more useful practically, but that doesn't mean it's any more logically valid.

These "researchers" have obviously played numbers towards their conclusion, using statistics to prove a cause they believe without strictly controlling anything. That's teleology at its finest -- to fit numbers to a cause rather than to follow cause and effect through the chain of events. Atheism isn't their rejection of religion. It is their religion. They have faith in themselves as superior, but they are anti-scientific hypocrites and heretics against true research. Their conclusion doesn't even seem to mention cultural effects within universities and research labs, where often science is deemed to be good and faith of any sort quaint.

Theology can never disprove science (in this world at least). Science can never disprove theology. The two work from different philosophical bases towards different ends using different methods. It was thought that mechanistic scientific research and teleological theology were separated in Greece around the time that Moorish alchemy replaced the four elements. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell these guys.

[Anonymous Coward]

Professor Richard Lynn

<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=richard%20lynn%20nazi&meta=">Say no more</a>. This clown used to be a psychology lecturer at my alma mater, University of Ulster at Coleraine; he pops up with some publicity-whore nonsense, usually to do with IQ, every few years. Don't feed the troll.

Paris Hilton because she knows about as much about psychology as Dick does.

[Dick Emery]

Hang on...

...wasn't this already discussed in the HGTTG? They proved God did not exist and thus he vanished in a puff of his own logic from what I recall.

Anyhow. Most God(s) fearing humans are a product of their own social background and upbringing. The family is religious therefore it's more likely that their progeny will be religious too, and so forth. They often form larger social groups and communities which enhances their belief. My bet is you will find that there are many more loners out there with high IQ's and thus non-believers.

The hicks will breed like rabbits, stick together, have their 'faith' in their 'God' and ultimately will overpower the less well organised boffins. Logic be damned!

Paris knows all about logic.

[James]

Doh

Sometimes I forget that people can't read my minds. When I was quoting Einstein I wasn't saying his ideas on quantum mechanics are right, I was just trying to point out that one of the most brilliant people who has lived for the last two centuries believed in God. That’s an outliner who’s pretty far out there and hands up who has written papers which revolutionise mankind’s understanding of the universe?

[Anonymous Coward]

this reminds me

of "Bigger than Hitler, Better than Christ" by Rik Mayall, a damn good read

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the best Reg article ever

As a transplant from the UK to the US, I've seen plenty of evidence to know this is true.

The southern US is known as the "Bible Belt", and the state of Mississippi (which is in the heart of it) is known as both the poorest state and devoid of any real tech/scientific business. Coincidence?

It's bad enough just trying to have a conversation with them before my mind goes numb. Maybe my Yorkshire upbringing, and accent that drops useless letters, makes it difficult to converse with someone who has a hard time putting out more than two syllables a second.

And having first hand experience with the crazy Scientologists, don't get me started.

Still doesn't make sense that CNN came from Atlanta... hand me my coat before they track me down.

[Steve Martins]

IQ not an accurate measure?

Well maybe not, but a relative measure nonetheless. This is old news, I came across information a few years back detailing over 50 separate studies by religious groups and non-religious alike, stretching back 100 years or so. Whether the studies were done by a religious group, or a non-religious group there was a strong trend that people of a higher intelligence (however measured, not just IQ) are less likely to hold religious beliefs. Now any intelligent person would tell you that this doesn't in any way denigrate religion, merely that intelligent people tend not to be religious (unless being intelligent somehow makes an 'opinion' on something that cannot [yet?] be proven or disproven more valid!). I was brought up with religion, spent a long time in contemplation of it, and am now a nonbeliever (fwiw IQ143 on a given day in a random and not necessarily scientific test). treat this article for what it is - evidence that higher intelligence means a lower likelihood of belief. If you feel threatened by it, perhaps its because you don't have a strong foundation to your beliefs, and can be shaken so easily!!

p.s. have you got nothing better to do that read 150 odd posts??!? no? me neither :-p

[john bullock]

Define intelligence

This discussion spins aimlessly in the zero gravity of a world of words of changed meaning in a universe of relativism. I submit that the researchers' use of the word "intelligence" is meaningful only to them and those who live in their reality.

For those of us who live and move in awareness of the reality of the spiritual realm it is not surprising that those who are deluded into accepting intelligence to include the advent of so many technologies that are destroying the planet and killing it's inhabitants also perceive the Creator of the universe they abuse as unintelligent.

[DJ]

Paraphrasing Mozart in Amadeus...

"I didn't know research like that was possible."

If Western IQs are increasing, how do you explain American Idol?

Please excuse me while I thank God I don't believe in researchers.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't see the error in this, you must be religious...

"And as for faith, even if you are an athiest, you still have faith..."

Erm, no. Faith requires belief in something. Atheism has no such requirement. You take the hypothesis that God does not exist. No one has provided any evidence whatsoever to gainsay that hypothesis, and there is plenty of evidence the other way. You're simply mistaken in this assertion. While it is difficult to prove a negative, you god-botherers should, by now, have come up with *something* that could possibly prove that God exists... It's not like you haven't had a few thousand years, but you keep coming back to the original arguments that have been eroded and not substantiated over that same time.

Just because you believers-in-sky-fairies can't understand a rational worldview, please don't tar us atheists with the same deficient thought processes.

[Steve Carter]

He does wear red...

"most children do believe in God, but as their intelligence develops they tend to have doubts or reject religion"

hmm, they have a good cause to doubt. Their folks also told them Santa or Father Christmas existed, and turned out to be just a way to try to bribe them into being good all year.

... wait a minute (thinks 9 year old), friendly Father figure, white beard, capable of withholding presents from naughty children, never actually see him, urges me to do what my parents ask me ...

Come to think of it, it does rather seem that the whole Satna thing has been contrived just to undermine Faith, don'tchathink? Ooo, and look what it's an anagram of...

Christ Fears Math

[Anonymous Coward]

@Not wanting to be offensive...

Actually the conversation would go something like:

Person of Religeous Belief (PRB) : "But I belive in God"

Athiest Acedemic of Intellegence (AAI) : "Yes, thats because you are too stupid"

PRB : "Indeed? Why do you think that?"

AAI : "Research shows so. If you were less stupid you would have less faith"

PRB : "OH, well that is terrible, why would someone be so petty and insecure as to invest time and energy in trying to prove that religious people, which would include Einstein and Newton as a minimum, are more stupid than none-religious people? It must be really nice to know and understand absolutely everything"

AAI : " Shut up you stupid religious twat!!!!"

PRB : "I forgive you."

AAI : "Fuck you!!" *froths at mouth a bit*

PRB : "I will pray for you as well."

AAI : "Fuck you...Fuck you.. Fu.......aaarghh............" *falls over in a fit of fitting*

Oh, I am not religious, but I think people who insult religion in general or religious people in general are really, really bad people. Teh sooner Dawkins shuts teh fuck up and goes away the better, IMHO.

[kalqlate]

Nothing to do with intelligence...

Belief of any kind has very little to do with intelligence, but everything to do with the timing and kinds of exposure one has throughout their life.

The frequency and duration of exposure to particular messages during formative years, particularly from mentors and authority figures, and the lateness of exposure to plausible alternatives is the true benchmark for susceptibility for belief in something. Add to that the way a person chooses to tune their mind via their personal pursuits and you have the answer.

Paris... because, compared to me and most of the posters on this thread, she's a social genius.

[Mike]

Calling all Athiests.....

Who of you *knows* god does not exist?

Very few I suspect, that's because in my experience an Atheist is someone who believes that god almost certainly does not exist and isn't prepared to live their life as if there is a god.

Some stupid people (and I use the term deliberately) think that it has to be black, white (or one specific shade of grey), i.e. that there can either be believers, agnostics or disbelievers, this is the old "Atheiests don't exist" argument.

Dawkins described this perfectly using a scale of 1-7, 1 being "knows god exists" and 7 being "knows god does not exist" 4 being exactly agnostic, you're more likely to find 1's out there than 7's because a person of faith needs no proof to "know" whereas even the most ardent of athiests will say "it's very unlikely that god exists" rather than "I know god does not exist", the trouble is many dictionaries are still using a 17th century definition of "Athiest" and it will take a while before the definition catches up with reality, see the next version of the DSM, theism will be in there as a mental disorder (and, no I ain't joking, not only are god believers stupid, but they are clinically insane :-)

[ElFatbob]

What i'd like to know is...

who funds this shite?