nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Correlation between increasing intelligence and atheism

dilbert2

There are a lot of websites on the internet indicating that atheism often increases with education and a rise in intelligence. For instance, countries with better education systems and higher IQ’s are usually secular with little religion. In secular nations such as Sweden there also seems to be a lot less bigotry, sexism etc. than what one would find in a more religious and superstitious society and this is surely a sign of intellectual maturity and intelligence.

Do you agree that there is a correlation between atheism/ secularism, and a better educated, less superstitious populace?

Find more posts tagged with

more atheism...

zzzzzzz....

Quick Links

Comments

Sky King

Success is subjective, and different people have different priorities in life.

For some people, success is rearing a healthy happy family. Is this any less valid than business or sporting success?

Ghost Buster

Access to information and a wider social group can certainly help ones noggin get around the whole notion of atheism being possible. I had a very typical irish upbringing as a catholic in a rural area outside a small town with catholicism being rooted in every aspect of life. I knew i did not believe most of what i was being told from my early teens but the notion of not believing in something was utterly alien to me as I had been taught voodoo and superstitious bollockology from year one.Then I went off to college, the internet was born, non RTE / Church run tv became available and so after a very brief flirtation with Paganism I had that EUREKA moment and realised that its possible to live very happily without any supernatural beliefs in ones life.
I think its possible to realise that religion is nonsense at any time but certainly access to other information or call it education if you like is a help toward atheism.
And no Im not a science head by any means.

Logical Fallacy

paddyandy wrote: »

Intelligence is not Wisdom and if you don't understand that..........

LoL, yeah...and don't forget about street smarts.

And various other arguments to make stupid people feel less so.

MagicMarker

philologos wrote: »

Your claim was about education.

It's not my claim, it's the scientific, peer reviewed study's claim.

philologos wrote: »

There are contradictions in studies. Indeed, in respect to intelligence it largely comes down to social class, education, region, wealth in respect to atheists. Like all things, correlation is not causation but it comes down to other factors.

From the link above:

I don't disagree with the factors that contribute to the level of intelligence in any given society.

I find it funny though that the Wiki page you originally quoted from was perfectly acceptable for you at the time, but since I've quoted from it you had to find a different source to quote to dispute what I quoted from your original source.

Kidchameleon

Some of the most intelligent human beings throughout history were religious so the OP is stupid. Also claiming that somebody who is religious is less intelligent than somebody who is not is completely retarded.

Just some of the great minds who were not atheist...

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)

Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Some more names who are / were religious...

Muhammad Ali, Charles Darwin, Matt Groening, Malcolm X, J.R.R. Tolkien, Oscar Wilde

MagicMarker

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Some of the most intelligent human beings throughout history were religious so the OP is stupid. Also claiming that somebody who is religious is less intelligent than somebody who is not is completely retarded.

Not being able to read is completely retarded, you should learn.

Seachmall

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Some of the most intelligent human beings throughout history were religious so the OP is stupid. Also claiming that somebody who is religious is less intelligent than somebody who is not is completely retarded.

We're talking about statistics, not individuals.

I'm sure any of us could produce a list of famous Atheist thinkers but it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Also, Einstein's use of the word God is probably the most misunderstood use of the word today.

cc4life

Seachmall wrote: »

We're talking about statistics, not individuals.

I'm sure any of us could produce a list of famous Atheist thinkers but it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Also, Einstein's use of the word God is probably the most misunderstood use of the word today.

Go on and make a list and save me looking it up

Seachmall

cc4life wrote: »

Go on and make a list and save me looking it up

Seriously?

cc4life

Seachmall wrote: »

Seriously?

Thanks..i scrolled through them fast and thought the religious ones were better :P

Naomi00

No, I think to be honest it's more of an 'I'm better than everyone because I'm an Atheist' attitude , rather than actual knowledge.

I don't really care what beliefs people have, but Atheists always seem to have to give people 10 reasons why they're wrong, and force their views on everyone else (e.g political correctness over trivial things, on a larger scale) which generally makes people feel like they can't practice any religion incase they upset someone. I think it's a closed minded attitude to have thus not as 'intelligent' as OP described.

Seachmall

Naomi00 wrote: »

No, I think to be honest it's more of an 'I'm better than everyone because I'm an Atheist' attitude , rather than actual knowledge.

It's an apparent statistical correlation, not an opinion. You can't just say "I don't agree".

That's silly.

Bloody Nipples

Naomi00 wrote: »

No, I think to be honest it's more of an 'I'm better than everyone because I'm an Atheist' attitude , rather than actual knowledge

To be fair, there is a lot of this type about. Generally gnostic atheists and generally clueless when actually drawn into discussion on the topic. Not that I generalise or anything.

darkman2

IMO atheists can be, and are, just as intolerant as religious fanatics.

MagicMarker

Naomi00 wrote: »

No, I think to be honest it's more of an 'I'm better than everyone because I'm an Atheist' attitude , rather than actual knowledge.

Atheists do think they're better than everyone else, they are the ones who feel that this whole universe was made especially for them, oh wait, that's them religious folk.

Naomi00 wrote: »

I don't really care what beliefs people have, but Atheists always seem to have to give people 10 reasons why they're wrong, and force their views on everyone else (e.g political correctness over trivial things, on a larger scale)

OMG you're right, atheists are always pushing their views on everyone else.

I'm going to say this to the next atheists who knock on my door! Oh...wait, that's them religious folk who do that.

Naomi00 wrote: »

which generally makes people feel like they can't practice any religion incase they upset someone. I think it's a closed minded attitude to have thus not as 'intelligent' as OP described.

OMG the atheists are always stopping people from practicing their religions, let's not forget about all those schools that atheists are running, brainwashing those children with the odd rape thrown in for good measure. Oh, darn it, it's them religious folk again.

Bloody Nipples

darkman2 wrote: »

IMO atheists can be, and are, just as intolerant as religious fanatics.

Well "can be" and "are" are two different things. One I wouldn't take offence at and one I would, so which is it?

MagicMarker

darkman2 wrote: »

IMO atheists can be, and are, just as intolerant as religious fanatics.

People in being just as intolerant as other people shocker.

Seachmall

darkman2 wrote: »

IMO atheists can be, and are, just as intolerant as religious fanatics.

Well neither belief or lack of belief requires arrogance and I'd imagine overall they're roughly the same in that respect.

Although I do agree that atheist's can be perceived as more arrogant, particularly online.

It tends to be the group who disagree with legal policy or cultural assumptions that make noise because they feel they're not being appropriately represented or being "oppressed" (for the lack of a better word).

Factor in the fact that Dawkins' books are influential for younger atheists and Dawkins promotes a vocal approach that perception is understandable, although ultimately unjustified.

geetar

the list of great minds that was posted is irrelevant.

its a societal intelligence that brings atheism.

those great scientists/philosphers etc, may very well have been atheist, or doubtful of religion but would never declare it publically. they would lose all credibilty in a society where atheism was a crime and the public were all devout to their religions.

contrarily, go through the greatest minds of scientists and philosphers today, i would not be surprised if they were all entirely atheist.

Freddie59

Sisko wrote: »

It'd get banned from there. It's the religion section after all.

Considering religion tends to take advantage of the uneducated and the ignorant , its pretty obvious that indeed it is the case that the more educated and intelligent a society is the less religious it becomes.

So because you're religious you're uneducated and ignorant. Nice.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

Sisko wrote: »

Yeah but having a large amount of either will naturally steer you away from man made fairytales.

Here we go again......

Sisko

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Some of the most intelligent human beings throughout history were religious so the OP is stupid.

Listing people from a time period where if they were not religious they would be social outcasts , tortured or killed does not make a point.

Humanity has grown since then, you really think if any of those people were born now they would blindly believe in a book written by men over 2000 years ago?

They may certainly believe there is something out there that man has yet to explain, but that's totally different. Religion claims to have the explanations and condemns those that dare question it. Not exactly a great breeding ground for the most intelligent people on earth.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Here we go again......

Welcome to the year 2011.

Seachmall

geetar wrote: »

contrarily, go through the greatest minds of scientists and philosphers today, i would not be surprised if they were all entirely atheist.

93% of National Academy of Sciences members report at least a doubt in God's existence.

With philosophers I'd imagine it's closer to even in terms of belief, but can't find anything to back that up.

MagicMarker

Naomi00 wrote: »

You're kinda proving my point..:pac:

No, just highlighting the stupidity of your point by highlighting the facts.

Freddie59 wrote: »

So because you're religious you're uneducated and ignorant. Nice.:rolleyes:

TBH, I'm starting to thinking so after reading this thread. You're really doing yourself no favours by completely misinterpreting what's being said.

Dudess

He does that - a lot.

darkman2 wrote: »

IMO atheists can be, and are, just as intolerant as religious fanatics.

That hasn't been said a million times before at all here.

Can't think of any genocides in the name of atheism though (yes communist dictators are atheist - their murder campaigns aren't purely characterised by atheism though).

Yeah a lot of atheists force their beliefs on/ridicule others. So? Ditto lots of religious people. Not all of either group do so though, so... what's the problem?

Naomi00

Seachmall wrote: »

93% of National Academy of Sciences members report at least a doubt in God's existence.

With philosophers I'd imagine it's closer to even in terms of belief, but can't find anything to back that up.

Why science specifically?

If anything it just gives a small group of people who need an exact answer for everything, which to be fair is their job.

So obviously if they need a specific yes or no, they would find it difficult to believe something they can't actually see etc. So in general would be the most likely people to be atheist.

Using scientists as a general rule against who is smart and who isn't just gives a very one sided arguement. If you used people across lots of different areas, who are generally considered intelligent (music composers, artists, writers, athletes, inventors etc) you would get a more balanced statistic.

Naomi00

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, just highlighting the stupidity of your point by highlighting the facts.

TBH, I'm starting to thinking so after reading this thread. You're really doing yourself no favours by completely misinterpreting what's being said.

That was the first point I made...having to prove how smart they are and how 'stupid' everyone else is.

Son Of A Vidic

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not this old chestnut again.

I disagree completely.

fedor.2. wrote: »

That what your god told you to say, huh?

Leave me out of it, I never opened my mouth.

MrTsSnickers

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

MagicMarker

Naomi00 wrote: »

That was the first point I made...having to prove how smart they are and how 'stupid' everyone else is.

I'm not saying you're stupid, your point was though. Are you going to address anything I actually said to you or are you going to just ignore it all and keep posting vast generalisations, throw away comments and cute little emoticons?

For instance, how about telling us all how all atheists are trying to force their views on everyone else?