Several studies have shown that there’s a strong positive correlation between intelligence and atheism. In fact, the U.S. is somewhat of an anomaly in the fact that we have a fairly decent educational system (at least when compared to the entire world). We have elected (or appointed, as the case may be) a President who says that God comes to him in dreams and has commanded him to attack Iraq. Yet people, for the most part, seem to be OK with it. After all, how can you question an irrational belief?
The Telegraph has posted another article that draws what shouldn’t be a surprising conclusion. From Intelligent people ‘less likely to believe in God’:
He told Times Higher Education magazine: “Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God.”
He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time as people became more intelligent.
…
Dr David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London Metropolitan University, said: “It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability – or perhaps willingness – to question and overturn strongly felt institutions.”
I have written previously about the strong correlation between religiosity and rates such social issues as teen pregnancy and violence. You can see that within the U.S. (e.g., in the Bible Belt and in Republican States) as well as throughout the globe. Yet, people seem to cling to the idea that religion is good.
A common response to this kind of evidence (when there’s even one at all), is that the belief in God is fundamentally good, but people just seem to always get it wrong. That is, it’s the people that are the problem – not faith itself. I clearly disagree. If faith is generally defined as the belief in something without evidence, then how can it be considered a good thing?
And then there are those who maintain that religious beliefs should be personal. I disagree there, as well. If the goal is the search for truth, then we should treat religious claims like any other. We should demand evidence and research the claims that are being made. The truth is, of course, that there is no reliable evidence whatsoever for the existence of a supreme being of any sort. Those that choose to believe in one should admit at least that much.
Finally, it’s always interesting to me how most religious people can quickly dismiss any religion other than their own. They readily see the internal and external contradictions and hypocrisy associated with any God other than their own (or, in some cases, even within different interpretations of their own holy books). Richard Dawkins sums it up nicely in stating that most humans have chosen to disbelieve in thousands of religions (past, present, and most likely, future). Some of us just go one further.
Also, as Dawkins has expressed in his book, The God Delusion, we should stop being “polite” to people who have indefensible views. Just as we would correct people that make any wild assertion about math or science without any background, we should ask for more from those that claim to be faithful. I’d like to think that the tide is turning (in the direction of rationalism), but the last decade or so in the United States is not a good sign.
Zacharias said,
June 13, 2008 at 9:20 am
“And then there are those who maintain that religious beliefs should be personal. I disagree there, as well. If the goal is the search for truth, then we should treat religious claims like any other. We should demand evidence and research the claims that are being made. The truth is, of course, that there is no reliable evidence whatsoever for the existence of a supreme being of any sort. Those that choose to believe in one should admit at least that much.”
As a religious person I’d like to go against common perception and agree with you that there is no easily identifiable, emperical evidance for the existance of a supreme deity. The only problem though is that if we are seeking to prove the existance of a deity that created everything around us, we must admit that that deity is inherintly different from the things he created. (Most) religious people make the claim that God created the material universe. This would mean that there is a difference in essential essence between God, and the material universe: there is a division. This division would make it difficult for us, who are of the material world, to use material means of prove the existance of such a being. To use a crude example, it would be like a computer, made by a human, attempting to use programming methods to find the existance of the human. We are not a program, and are essentially different, therefore we cannot be ‘found’ using such methods.
Hm.. I think that makes sense, let me know if it doesn’t and I’ll take another try at it.
I do also agree though that those believe in something such as religion should be questioned about it. If we are going to believe in it, we should be able to explain it.
AtypicalGuy said,
June 14, 2008 at 10:37 am
Zacharias – thanks for your response! What you’re saying certainly makes sense. I can certainly understand how it might be difficult (or even impossible) for us to scientifically prove the existence of a God. Of course, the God would have to want it that way (a Supreme Being could easily give us evidence). The issue to me, though, is the nature of investigation. We should focus our efforts on what we can see, test, and verify. If we don’t do that, then I’d raise the question, “What would you *not* believe?” Indeed, there have been thousands of different religions, each with hundreds of superstitious beliefs. I think it’s reasonable to say that they’re all wrong.
Again, to accept something without evidence is a dangerous and slippery slope. Humanity has a poor history here, even if we limit the discussion only to slavery, torture, the treatment of women as property, and war (all of which, for example, the God of the Bible seems to be OK with). Many of us have evolved out of an era of human and animal sacrifces and astrology. We no longer believe in the vast majority of supersitions that have existed in human minds. And, with the exception of religion, we tend to reject baseless claims (creative spam and phishing notwithstanding).
I’m all for investigation into what we might now consider the non-material world. But, unless or until there’s evidence to believe in a mystical creator, I think we must reject those arguments (or, at the very least, view them with intense skepticism and scrutiny). Indeed, most religious beliefs are internally inconsistent and raise far more questions than they attempt to answer. I can think of few examples in which someone might say, “Religion really did triumph over science” (and I don’t believe the two are exclusive nor are they compatible).
Thanks again for your comments – I’d be intersted in a follow-up!
Zacharias said,
June 16, 2008 at 10:42 am
Sorry I can’t give this response more time (Work wanting me to work and all…
) But in response to your method of investigation issue:
I certainly agree with you that sense-evidence is a more positive proof, though I think when it comes to Gods, I personally tend to take the route that black hole researches take. They cannot physically ’see’ a black yet. They cannot prove that a certain ‘object’ is there directly. However, they can prove that something is there based on what is happening around it.
Besides a personal, definatelly sense-oriented experiance that I’ve had, I believe in the existance of God because of things surrounding Him, namely creation. For instance, I look at all the scientific progress that has been made in describing our world. We’ve come to understand that everything around us is made up of atoms, and these of quarks and other particles. We’ve come to realize that most object tend to act according to certain laws of physics and we can make predictions based on these laws. I was watching a show the other day that made the claim that all galaxies have at their center a black hole, and that the formation of these galaxies seem to be depedant on the formation of the black holes. I look at all these and see a definate order to the universe. Stuff isn’t out there just happening randomly; there is a complexity and order to everything around us that seems to just scream that -something- created this order, created the laws of physics, and set everything in motion.
While I cannot gaze on a physical God for proof, I use the things He has created to prove his existance for me.
Eric said,
October 18, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I absolutely agree with your article, and must say – as a result of my own experiences – that those who possess congenital intelligence, or extensive education, are far less likely to believe in God; whereas the people with little education are poorly versed in the ideas of reason & rationality.
The people who cling to religion in the 21st century act as though the philosophies of the Enlightenment period do not exist, and that blind worship of the holy trinity supersedes reason.
Many people here in the United States are shameful, ignorant beings who do not like to think about the fact that the combined 2.4 billion people in China & India are not Christians. In addition to that, Christianity, the religion of the West, is a numeric minority when compared to the faiths of all people on Earth. Surely all of these non-Westerners cannot be Godless sinners who are unequivocally bound for hell!
Irrational Christians are wrong to think they have the answers to the creation of the universe & what happens when one dies. People who aren’t religious do not claim to know these unexplainable things, which is what gives them the upper hand, and places them on the right side of logic. A book of unknown origins cannot be trusted to explain everything in the world, nor can it explain why so many people round the world do not believe in the same deity.
Lastly, when I speak to people who refuse to even consider that God may not exist, they invariably ask me to ‘prove it.’ Well, I cannot prove it, but they cannot prove that God does exist. And to the rational mind, this inability to prove the existence of God is what causes blind faith in God to seem questionable rather than incontrovertible.