Intelligent people = 'less likely to believe in God'

[jackattack]

I don't think it has been.

[Quoi_Tu]

 

While southern states such as Texas and Louisiana top the charts as the most religious. And well, we all know the stereotypes of the south.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, we don't. Texas for one has the best public education system in the Union. And on average southerners score higher on tests such as the SAT and ACT tests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uhm, the southern states are the most religious, what does that have to do with SAT or ACT scores? And I highly doubt Texas has the best public education, though when you live in Oklahoma you get a skewed view of any thing Texan.

 

 

 

(for example we had a new student that came from Texas she said that AP classes and concurrent enrollment were not offered at her high school[though of course thats just one high school])

 

 

 

I live in the buckle of the bible belt, and there are quite a few crazies here. I really hate it when they come to your door and ask to come to there church... -.-

 

 

 

I'm sure barihawk can elaborate into much greater detail (he's a teacher, I think), but Texas does have some of the best public schools in the US. I have no idea why, but I wish North Carolina would learn a thing or two from Texas schools.

[jackattack]

Probably just one step above San Francisco just colder.

 

 

 

So, by your generalization, that applies to the whole state of California as well, considering you only used one city as an example.

 

 

 

Open mouth, insert foot?

 

 

 

 

 

I was generalizing about Massachusetts not California. Mostly only us San Francisco people are freaks. Sacramento people and most of everyone else is pretty normal. I can't speak for Socal though. I just hope Cindy Sheehan runs for congress. She'd be a shoo in to beat Pelosi.

[hoffman44]

Probably just one step above San Francisco just colder.

 

 

 

So by your "logic" San Fransisco, Massachusetts and Canada are all the same?

[jackattack]

^^ I wouldn't know I've never been. I only said that was the stereotype. I know it is for SF and thats what I think of when I hear Massachusetts.

[hoffman44]

I lived in Massachusetts for a year, its nothing like San Fransisco.

[jackattack]

And your point is? I was only saying that thats what the stereotype of Massachusetts. Same as the guy who was talking about the stereotypes of Texas and Louisiana.

[hoffman44]

As far as i know most people stereotypes of Massachusetts is this...

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

and this

 

[hide=][/hide]

[Barihawk]

 

While southern states such as Texas and Louisiana top the charts as the most religious. And well, we all know the stereotypes of the south.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, we don't. Texas for one has the best public education system in the Union. And on average southerners score higher on tests such as the SAT and ACT tests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uhm, the southern states are the most religious, what does that have to do with SAT or ACT scores? And I highly doubt Texas has the best public education, though when you live in Oklahoma you get a skewed view of any thing Texan.

 

 

 

(for example we had a new student that came from Texas she said that AP classes and concurrent enrollment were not offered at her high school[though of course thats just one high school])

 

 

 

I live in the buckle of the bible belt, and there are quite a few crazies here. I really hate it when they come to your door and ask to come to there church... -.-

 

 

 

He was implying with the "we all know the stereotypes of the South" that Southerners have a reputation for being stupid. Which is untrue, as many Southern states have very high testing scores across the board. So I was saying that we are both very religious and intelligent on average.

 

 

 

As for your student, she might have gone to some school out in the middle of nowhere. Most 3A and up schools in Texas (approximately 85% of them) offer AP programs, and 4A/5A schools are required to have IB programs as well, along with concurrent enrollment in community colleges.

 

 

 

And as for your "crazies" I've generally found that when someone offering religious reading comes door to door, it's often polite to say "I'm sorry, I am not interested." They usually get the point and leave. Unless they are the Mormon Bike Squad in which case you may have to be a little more terse.

[hoffman44]

[hide=]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as for your "crazies" I've generally found that when someone offering religious reading comes door to door, it's often polite to say "I'm sorry, I am not interested." They usually get the point and leave. Unless they are the Mormon Bike Squad in which case you may have to be a little more terse.

[/hide]

 

 

 

When I say crazies I don't mean the people going door to door, i mean the people that carry there bible to school, yell verses on street corners (in a city of 1 million) and build huge mega churches bigger then the state capitol and airport.

[hoffman44]

Wait, what do the stereotypes of Massachusetts have to do with this?

[user1991]

Why are you so angry? It's not nice to accuse someone of something that harshly. If atheists and Christians could actually discuss something intelligently together there wouldn't be any need for harsh judgments, hurt feelings and flame wars. Contributing to the hate is not going to work in your favour.

 

 

 

Its not nice to make threads like these either. I get really ticked about things like this, people finding reasons to prove christianity wrong. and in this case its a simple statistic. I'm willing to make an intelligent discussion. But I don't see how much intelligence is going on when someone posts a statistic saying most higher intellectuals are non-believers. I see no point in this thread other than to start controversy.

 

 

 

That's pretty much the most defensive position you could take. If you're so angry with threads like these why don't you do something, ugh, like disprove the title statement?

 

 

 

I'd actually think most intelligent people would be agnostic/atheist. But then again, most people view atheism and theism as polar opposites, which is just ridiculous. There are many atheists who don't deny that God COULD exist, just haven't seen anything that proves to them that he does. So they don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean he couldn't exist. Most theists however, simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that God doesn't exist. Again, I said most. Some do, so don't come at me.

 

 

 

Theists state that something exists, and atheists (most of them) state that they don't believe that, but it is possible that he could. Hell, its possible we are all just a computer simulation created by aliens in a completely different reality. Unlikely, but possible nonethelesss. So when you get theists who refuse to accept the possibility that God doesn't exist, it does kinda lead you to believe that any intelligent person would see that. The problem is that there are people on both sides who ruin the reputation of the majority. Then again, I've never actually heard a Christian explain exactly WHY the Bible is the Word of God, or how it is, without using the Bible itself as proof.

 

 

 

It is no secret that most faith stems from upbringing. It is rare for people brought up without faith to convert to a religion, (it does happen, so again, quoters, don't come at me). Someone who is intelligent is more likely to challenge/analyse their beliefs than someone who isn't. That's a fact. That ability comes with the intelligence.

 

 

 

As for the OP's post. Well, that professor does have a point. General intelligence has risen, and the amount of believers has fallen. Is there a link? I'm not sure. You could tie in the internet, information being more accessible etc into the intelligence argument, and the lack of punishment for not believing into the drop in believers. I think the actual amount of believers is much less than what people think, when you consider that the 1.6 billion people the Catholic Church boast as members, millions of them are simply on the list, and have changed what they believed, and are simply members because of parentage.

 

 

 

The problem with me saying anything like this is that it makes theists automatically defensive, and makes them say things like "look at this guy, he isn't stupid," as if that disproves the general point. There are people of great intelligence on all sides, even fundamentalist Islam. In most cases however, intelligence does lead to you dissecting the very core of your understanding and general perception of reality, which I believe, is more likely to lead to either atheism,agnosticism, or what I like to call vague theism, where you say that God could exist, but that the concept of religion is too specific in terms of what it says, and that it is more liekly, if there is a God, that it is just completely random and we know nothing of anything.

[Barihawk]

I'd actually go as far to say that the leaders of Radical Islam like Bin Laden are extremely intelligent. He knows exactly what buttons to push to lead a psychological war.

[user1991]

I'd actually go as far to say that the leaders of Radical Islam like Bin Laden are extremely intelligent. He knows exactly what buttons to push to lead a psychological war.

 

 

 

For once, I agree with you completely.

 

 

 

He's a smart man. The people blowing themselves up? Not so smart. But Bin Laden knows how to push their buttons to get them to do whatever.

 

 

 

The problem with the War on Terror is that I really can't see it being won. I know thats a negative attitude, and probably not the most productive, but when you have a war on an ideology, it's significantly harder to defeat than other enemy or foe. For one, even being in an area where people hold such thoughts is damaging, as they may start to creep into your subconscious. From there, you have a sort of sleeping acceptance of the general principal of radical islam. The invasion of Iraq I think is the most important factor. It worked in Bin Ladens favour. Now he can be the victim, the martyr - and the people there buy into his infidel bs simply because we were far too agressive.

 

 

 

Whilst ridding Iraq of Saddam, in principle, was a good thing, far more people will die simply due to the increase in terrorism that the invasion will create. The war there will take decades, in order to rid the country entirely of militia men who would simply hop into power if we removed our troops. Im pretty much as liberal as they come on most topics, but withdrawal of the troops is just RIDICULOUS. The invasion was a bad idea, but too many people dwell on that. If we want to stop the death, we need to solve the problem, and removing troops will just give the various militia groups chance to overthrow and take control - and that, we DONT want.

 

 

 

However, it's a vicious circle. If we leave, militia take control. If we stay, more people convert to radical terrorist principles. Which one is more damaging? I don't know. That's what the vote should be on.

 

 

 

Anyway, I don't want to turn this thread off topic, so Ill stop with that discussion.

[hellbellz]

They get to live with 70 virgins in Heaven.

 

 

 

I'm sure any idiot would believe that :D

[malo2]

I agree wit that as well, and I was just poking a bit of fun at you.

 

 

 

By the way, as to the whole "free time" argument, how do you explain Muslims having been the leading scientific group in the Middle Ages, despite praying very often during their day? Sorta defuncts that idea.

Key word is Middle Ages, a time when not believing in god could be punishable with death, and a time where science wasn't advanced enough to contradict almost everything the Bible or Quaran says.

 

 

 

Oh and guess what else, it was also a period in Islamic history when people didn't blow themselves up for their beliefs.

 

 

 

Dang, I pressed quote instead of edit.

 

 

 

They don't. You're wrong. Want me to prove it to you? Issac Newton. He believed in god and studied the Bible. He also happened to write what's considered one of the best works in scientific history, "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica," in which he outlines laws of motion and gravitation, along with calculus. I don't think it's possible to have ravaged your idea any more than I just did. Hope it didn't hurt too much.

Multiple points here. I personally would not be surprised if he actually admitted to being a religious person. The question is, how religious was he? Did he attend church constantly, and believe everything he was told there? Or did he go on about his research and mostly ignore the mess that religion is?

 

 

 

Secondly, the theory of gravity and his three laws of motion do not largely contradict the bible, there fore his intelligence being consumed in physics, he had no reason to care whether or not the bible is the truth. Then theres also the whole thing about the brainwashing powers of peer pressure at work as well.

 

 

 

How about a more modern and also well known scientist? Albert Einstein made it clear that he was an atheist. Although he did practice the religion with other Jews, he made it clear in numerous letters that he enjoyed the social aspect of it, and did not do it because he had any related beliefs. I have read the text of those letters myself by the way.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm not going to bother reading any more of this thread, but I will leave you with a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg

[bloodyhatchetbear]

The problem with me saying anything like this is that it makes theists automatically defensive, and makes them say things like "look at this guy, he isn't stupid," as if that disproves the general point. There are people of great intelligence on all sides, even fundamentalist Islam. In most cases however, intelligence does lead to you dissecting the very core of your understanding and general perception of reality, which I believe, is more likely to lead to either atheism,agnosticism, or what I like to call vague theism, where you say that God could exist, but that the concept of religion is too specific in terms of what it says, and that it is more liekly, if there is a God, that it is just completely random and we know nothing of anything.

 

 

 

Actually, I was one of those people who gave info on one intelligent man, which leads to a group of intelligent people. That being said, it wasn't to just debunk this theory, but also to separate fundamentalists from the majority of Christians. People also seem to be skimming over the fact that in most of my posts on this thread I have stated that I am not a Christian, nor of any Abrahamic religion.

[jessy87]

Just throwing this out there:

 

According to a study i just read about the other day in the boston globe: out of all the states, Massachusetts is the least religious(i.e believe in god, worship a god or higher power) along with several other new england states. While southern states such as Texas and Louisiana top the charts as the most religious. And well, we all know the stereotypes of the south.

 

 

 

The fact that "intelligent" people are less likely to believe in god does not surprise me. The reason 90%(made up statistic) of religious people believe in their religion is because that was what they were raised with. For example, i doubt that most very religious Christians would be Christian today if they were raised say, as a Hindu. So basically they are basing a large part of their life around the fact that they were told it was true from a young age. I think a main trait of an intelligent person (even though they may not be right, who knows.) is to question what other people tell him or her. When they arrive to the fact that the only reason they believe is because that is what they grow up with, they would abandon that faith.

 

 

 

The bible belt.. oh god. In this thread I would defend religion naturally, In any other thread however. I would attack religion in the bible belt.

 

 

 

too much faith can be a bad thing. Especially if misguided. Sad isnt it?

 

 

 

 

 

Err, what's wrong in the Bible Belt? People believe the same things as anywhere in the nation, [hide=]there's just more conservative worship. And since most of these communities are founded by people active in the church, there are old blue laws that aren't even enforced anymore.

 

 

 

I've been living in the Bible Belt for five years now and I don't see people having "too much faith" with the exception of a few neo-contemporary Baptists who act a little silly in church. Emphasis on "in church" because while in church they may have their hands high in the air singing terrible music (I hate praise and worship, I grew up with hymns), outside of church they are just going back to their daily lives and not caring (with exceptions, of course).

 

 

 

And that's just one church. The Catholics and Methodists and Southern Baptists here are tame and just normal Christians. It's not like we go on Sunday witch hunts or go protest outside of strip clubs or something.

 

 

 

There's an alarming trend in these threads of making blanket statements, and it's coming from both sides of the table. Please stop. Saying that you are more intelligent then someone and then making blanket statements about a large group based solely on their religion is not...very intelligent.[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

dont get me wrong, i am a believer of god, but not a religious person. But i think too much religion can be dangerous. Honestly, remember the book burning because books were pornography? yeah, this get extreme sometimes. Things that get too concentrated just have negative effects.

 

 

 

In all honestly, I believe people need to take religion a little less seriously. Since i dont know the reasoning behind some religious things. Well, good friday and we cant eat meat? to be honest, seems a bit extreme.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Removed the last part of the post. Not needed~Lionheart_0

[warri0r45]

They don't. You're wrong. Want me to prove it to you? Issac Newton. He believed in god and studied the Bible. He also happened to write what's considered one of the best works in scientific history, "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica," in which he outlines laws of motion and gravitation, along with calculus. I don't think it's possible to have ravaged your idea any more than I just did. Hope it didn't hurt too much.

 

 

 

Multiple points here. I personally would not be surprised if he actually admitted to being a religious person. The question is, how religious was he? Did he attend church constantly, and believe everything he was told there? Or did he go on about his research and mostly ignore the mess that religion is?

 

 

 

Secondly, the theory of gravity and his three laws of motion do not largely contradict the bible, there fore his intelligence being consumed in physics, he had no reason to care whether or not the bible is the truth. Then theres also the whole thing about the brainwashing powers of peer pressure at work as well.

 

 

 

How about a more modern and also well known scientist? Albert Einstein made it clear that he was an atheist. Although he did practice the religion with other Jews, he made it clear in numerous letters that he enjoyed the social aspect of it, and did not do it because he had any related beliefs. I have read the text of those letters myself by the way.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm not going to bother reading any more of this thread, but I will leave you with a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg

 

 

 

He was religious. Apparantly unorthodox compared to the church.

 

 

 

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virgi ... ewton.html

 

 

 

Later in the 1670s, Newton became very interested in theology. He studied Hebrew scholarship and ancient and modern theologians at great length, and became convinced that Christianity had departed from the original teachings of Christ. He felt unable to accept the current beliefs of the Church of England, which was unfortunate because he was required as a Fellow of Trinity College to take holy orders. Happily, the Church of England was more flexible than Galileo had found the Catholic Church in these matters, and King Charles II issued a royal decree excusing Newton from the necessity of taking holy orders! Actually, to prevent this being a wide precedent, the decree specified that, in perpetuity, the Lucasian professor need not take holy orders. (The current Lucasian professor is Stephen Hawking.)

 

 

 

But he accepted the Bible as fundamentally true and believed in god.

 

 

 

http://www.newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html

 

 

 

VII RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND PERSONALITY

 

Newton also wrote on Judaeo-Christian prophecy, whose decipherment was essential, he thought, to the understanding of God. His book on the subject, which was reprinted well into the Victorian Age, represented lifelong study. Its message was that Christianity went astray in the 4th century AD, when the first Council of Nicaea propounded erroneous doctrines of the nature of Christ. The full extent of Newton's unorthodoxy was recognized only in the present century: but although a critic of accepted Trinitarian dogmas and the Council of Nicaea, he possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God's providential role in nature.

 

 

 

The point I made, and much of your post is taken up not adressing it, is that religious people don't necessarily reject science. It's a very wrong thing to say, considering people like Newton. I could just as easily bring out an example like Francis Collins, who was a key figure in the human genome project and the discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He's a Christian and rejects creationism/intelligent design.

 

 

 

Bringing out examples like Einstein, who according to what I've read would rather have been called an agnostic, really has no bearing on my point.

[Lateralus]

 

The point I made, and much of your post is taken up not adressing it, is that religious people don't necessarily reject science. It's a very wrong thing to say, considering people like Newton. I could just as easily bring out an example like Francis Collins, who was a key figure in the human genome project and the discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He's a Christian and rejects creationism/intelligent design.

 

 

 

Bringing out examples like Einstein, who according to what I've read would rather have been called an agnostic, really has no bearing on my point.

 

 

 

I think you're probably the only person on this forum ever to mention Francis Collins, and I've seen you do it 3 or 4 times. :P

 

 

 

It's worth mentioning that he was an atheist at one point. His conversion is quite a famous story. Something silly like he fell to his knees and accepted Jesus as his savior because he saw a waterfall frozen into 3 segments. Seems odd to me that a scientist would even correlate those two things.

[warri0r45]

 

The point I made, and much of your post is taken up not adressing it, is that religious people don't necessarily reject science. It's a very wrong thing to say, considering people like Newton. I could just as easily bring out an example like Francis Collins, who was a key figure in the human genome project and the discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He's a Christian and rejects creationism/intelligent design.

 

 

 

Bringing out examples like Einstein, who according to what I've read would rather have been called an agnostic, really has no bearing on my point.

 

 

 

I think you're probably the only person on this forum ever to mention Francis Collins, and I've seen you do it 3 or 4 times. :P

 

 

 

It's worth mentioning that he was an atheist at one point. His conversion is quite a famous story. Something silly like he fell to his knees and accepted Jesus as his savior because he saw a waterfall frozen into 3 segments. Seems odd to me that a scientist would even correlate those two things.

 

 

 

Yeah, seems odd to me too.

 

 

 

I just admire guys like Collins, Ken Miller and the like because they stand up for good science (evolution) and show that you can be a person of faith while accepting it. Plus, anyone who helps us along the path to understanding a genetic disease and/or the human genome gets a tick in my books.

[r4ngewarlord]

hmmm i gusse that could be true smart people always boubt and question stuff :D

[bloodyhatchetbear]

I think its important to keep in mind that this is on average. Obviously there is going to be very smart and very stupid people on both sides(just look at this thread :D ) But this is the main reason i think this may be partly true. Ill focus on Christianity just for this argument.

 

 

 

As i said before, I think that most Christians are Christians because they were raised that way. When they were little they went to church or CCD and they were told jesus died for your sins and that god loves you. They grew up with this, and then follow it for the rest of their life. Now if the same person was raised with a different set of ideals, i think they would follow that just as blindly. Say they were taught there is a puppet master in the sky that carved each of us and decided our lives, they would believe that too. Obviously there are people that research their religion and truly believe it, and thats a different story. But i just think following something only because someone tells you it is true is kind of stupid.

 

 

 

Born-agains actually are the exception to the rule. I actually knew someone at one point in time who was EXTREMELY atheist. A couple years ago, she converted to Christianity.

 

 

 

Just goes to show change happens... ALOT.

[warren211]

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.

 

 

 

From what I see is, he's seeing "decline in religion" and "increase in intelligence" and is simply linking them together, They're two seperate events. While there might be some link between them, I don't find it exactly fair to say one directly linked to the other.

 

 

 

Remember, there are other reasons for a decline in religion too:

 

 

 

1)Sexual pressures from others, and so the person decides to break away from God to enjoy it or disagrees with God for forbidding him this chance

 

2)an increase in controversial activity (abortion, cloning, euthanasia, etc) that divides even the most religious of people apart

 

3)Pressure from peers "you still believe God exists? look what he's done to the world" kind of stuff that teens get exposed to by their agnostic or atheist friends.

 

 

 

Its not all about being smarter. believe it or not, knowledge increases over the decades with new discoveries, faster methods of doing things, new technology, etc. and believe it or not, pressures from the nonreligious population are increasing too. Things like abortion aren't nearly as common in the 1200s as they are today, amazingly. and issues like that drive even the most devout religious people apart, weakening their ties with their God.

 

 

 

There are a lot of strange, obscure assumptions I could make with this guy's "directly proportional" logic that I'm not going to go into because I know it will just lead to a quote chain. But I will say: there's a lot more going on in this statistic than simply being smarter.

[fakeitormakeit]

It doesn't surprise me. Smarter people are usually the ones who like to question things. Religion is usually passed down through family. Atheism usually comes when someone tries to seek the answer themselves.

 

 

 

Science is the pursuit of knowledge and religion rejects science.

 

 

 

Ignorance, nice presumption saying all religions reject science. In my religion, the growth of intellect is incouraged and so is challenging the existance of God because it leaves those who still truely believe yet have been educated.

 

 

 

Although I do strongly dislike when some idiot just follows a religion because their parents told them to, or they were brought up with it and that just stuck to them. Abortion is bad. Whys abortion bad? Because the Bible told me so. Why did it tell you? idk.

 

 

 

(Btw I'm Maronite Catholic, and just because you see Catholic, don't think Roman Catholic, its alooooooooooooot different).

 

 

 

I do believe in Evolution, science is a marvel, and I do believe in God and the power(and mystery) of what he created. Science and religion shouldn't fight, but be used hand-in-hand.

 

 

 

And just because people get smarter doesn't mean thats the reason why they refuse to believe in God.