Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'
24 Answers
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.
A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174 /Intelligent-people-%27less-likely-to-believe- in-God%27.html
Discuss.
A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174 /Intelligent-people-%27less-likely-to-believe- in-God%27.html
Discuss.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That's probably a bit of a generalisation. If I may use the examples of Octavius and Theland (I could use friends of mine but you don't know them so it'd make no sense), I don't think either of them are lacking in the brain cell department (well, not Theland anyway) and they both have a belief in God.
I think rather it depends on how you go about your reasoning. I dare say that I could agree on certain points with both Octavius and Theland but at some point they make what I call a leap of faith and what they'd probably say is a reasonable conclusion based on their own experiencess and there we differ. I can't link what I know of the world to the possibiltiy of a higher power, it makes absolutely no sense to me and I see no evidence for it. That said, I'm not an athiest exactly either, I can't really quantify exactly what I think but of all the ABers I can think of, Whickerman's beliefs (as I've understood them from his postings on here) probably have more in common with mine than any others. And he's not exactly lacking in the grey matter either.
Blindly following a faith is absolutely and unquestionably stupid to my way of thnking but looking at your life and what you've experienced and drawing a conclusion from that as to what you will and won't have faith in I can't really argue with. It's not for me but neither is bungee jumping or brussel sprouts.
I think rather it depends on how you go about your reasoning. I dare say that I could agree on certain points with both Octavius and Theland but at some point they make what I call a leap of faith and what they'd probably say is a reasonable conclusion based on their own experiencess and there we differ. I can't link what I know of the world to the possibiltiy of a higher power, it makes absolutely no sense to me and I see no evidence for it. That said, I'm not an athiest exactly either, I can't really quantify exactly what I think but of all the ABers I can think of, Whickerman's beliefs (as I've understood them from his postings on here) probably have more in common with mine than any others. And he's not exactly lacking in the grey matter either.
Blindly following a faith is absolutely and unquestionably stupid to my way of thnking but looking at your life and what you've experienced and drawing a conclusion from that as to what you will and won't have faith in I can't really argue with. It's not for me but neither is bungee jumping or brussel sprouts.
Yes, maybe he is right, and some people become educated beyond the level of their own intelligence. Precisely as the Bible says, the fool says in his heart , "There is no God."
Yes, a childlike trust is required and the abandonment of intellectual arrogance.
Those who can affirm that there is no intelligent Creator God, do so by becoming comfortable with the many unanswered questions that remain, like the first cause of all things, and tha fallacy of abiogenesis.
"The God of the gaps," is the cry that is heard so accusingly so often, but that cry comes from the secularists who deny that knowledge is obtainable from any source other than science and detection from the five senses.
That rules out philosophy for starters, and also any revelation or subjectivity that cannot be repeated as in a laboratory experiment.
If the universe is 13 to 15 billion years old, as claimed by the secularist intelligentsia, then that still does not leave enough time for pure random selection to produce self replicating molecules that constitute a living cell. Even evolutionists recognise the gap in this.
So a lack of belief in God could be the most stupid of stances to adapt after all.
(Having lit blue touch paper, stands well back .....)
Yes, a childlike trust is required and the abandonment of intellectual arrogance.
Those who can affirm that there is no intelligent Creator God, do so by becoming comfortable with the many unanswered questions that remain, like the first cause of all things, and tha fallacy of abiogenesis.
"The God of the gaps," is the cry that is heard so accusingly so often, but that cry comes from the secularists who deny that knowledge is obtainable from any source other than science and detection from the five senses.
That rules out philosophy for starters, and also any revelation or subjectivity that cannot be repeated as in a laboratory experiment.
If the universe is 13 to 15 billion years old, as claimed by the secularist intelligentsia, then that still does not leave enough time for pure random selection to produce self replicating molecules that constitute a living cell. Even evolutionists recognise the gap in this.
So a lack of belief in God could be the most stupid of stances to adapt after all.
(Having lit blue touch paper, stands well back .....)
Sorry Theland everytime you come back to well we dont know how it started and that a god plugs that hole quite well to get from that to an entity that puts his son on the earth to get killed, who put dionsaurs on the planet and forgets to mention them, who floods the world on a whim, who built an entire universe of billions of planets and created humans on one and if his own creations fancy the same sex then he gets really angry! That just doesnt make any rational sense at all. Forget science isn't that the most biggest leap of faith you could ever imagine?
O.K. then Sherman, I think you are entitled to a full explanation of my reasoning that takes me to a belief in God, but of course, time and space will not permit. But we can agree on a few basics can't we?
Abiogenesis for example, just simply did not happen.
The claim that it did happen can be dismissed by simply pointing out the fact that it is not repeatable in the laboratory, with computers, high tech equipment, and some rather clever people running the show. Yet the supposition is that it happened in the distant past, completely at random, with nobody guiding the events to a desired outcome. Now that's a leap of faith.
Abiogenesis for example, just simply did not happen.
The claim that it did happen can be dismissed by simply pointing out the fact that it is not repeatable in the laboratory, with computers, high tech equipment, and some rather clever people running the show. Yet the supposition is that it happened in the distant past, completely at random, with nobody guiding the events to a desired outcome. Now that's a leap of faith.
Richard Lynn (born 1930) is a British Professor Emeritus of Psychology[6] who is known for his controversial views on racial and ethnic differences.[1] Lynn claims there exists race differences and sex differences in intelligence, and has called for the "phasing out" of what he believes to be "incompetent cultures".[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
Do we still like his theories?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
Do we still like his theories?
Oooh look at the blue touch paper burn! It's sooo pretty!
Unfortunately, since you've been storing your firework in brackish water, it won't be going off. As usual.
Yes , maybe he is right, and some people become educated beyond the level of their own intelligence. Precisely as the Bible says, the fool says in his heart , "There is no God."
And other religions say you�re a fool for not believing in their dumb myths. So, presumably they're all right, yes?
Yes, a childlike trust is required and the abandonment of intellectual arrogance.
Those who can affirm that there is no intelligent Creator God, do so by becoming comfortable with the many unanswered questions that remain, like the first cause of all things, and tha fallacy of abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis - as has been explained many, many times, is but one theory to describe the possible origins of life on Earth. It has neither been proved nor rejected, therefore it is not fallacious. There is a considerable weight of evidence to suggest that it is likely the right one - obviously you have read and rejected the recent news story about the Harvard scientists who have modelled a protocell which shows one way in a key component of abiogenesis might have occurred (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/0 80604140959.htm). May I ask what persuaded you to disregard this fascinating new breakthrough?
Far from being comfortable in not knowing, it is scientists who continually strive to learn how the universe began, how life began. It's the religious adherant who gives up and settles for a story from a book of dubious origin.
Unfortunately, since you've been storing your firework in brackish water, it won't be going off. As usual.
Yes , maybe he is right, and some people become educated beyond the level of their own intelligence. Precisely as the Bible says, the fool says in his heart , "There is no God."
And other religions say you�re a fool for not believing in their dumb myths. So, presumably they're all right, yes?
Yes, a childlike trust is required and the abandonment of intellectual arrogance.
Those who can affirm that there is no intelligent Creator God, do so by becoming comfortable with the many unanswered questions that remain, like the first cause of all things, and tha fallacy of abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis - as has been explained many, many times, is but one theory to describe the possible origins of life on Earth. It has neither been proved nor rejected, therefore it is not fallacious. There is a considerable weight of evidence to suggest that it is likely the right one - obviously you have read and rejected the recent news story about the Harvard scientists who have modelled a protocell which shows one way in a key component of abiogenesis might have occurred (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/0 80604140959.htm). May I ask what persuaded you to disregard this fascinating new breakthrough?
Far from being comfortable in not knowing, it is scientists who continually strive to learn how the universe began, how life began. It's the religious adherant who gives up and settles for a story from a book of dubious origin.
""The God of the gaps," is the cry that is heard so accusingly so often, but that cry comes from the secularists who deny that knowledge is obtainable from any source other than science and detection from the five senses. That rules out philosophy for starters,"
Nope. For instance, Einstein developed his theory of relativity through philosophical means. However, his work was testable, was tested and found to be correct.
"and also any revelation or subjectivity that cannot be repeated as in a laboratory experiment."
Not all science is done in a lab, so that's just wrong. Revelation, for some peculiar reason I can't quite put my finger on, tends not to be trusted, particularly if its claims can't be tested.
"If the universe is 13 to 15 billion years old, as claimed by the secularist intelligentsia,"
That's not a claim by a 'secularist intelligentsia'. Most people, regardless of religion, believe the same thing. There is not this simplistic split between the religious and the irreligious you would like to think. The split is between those who accept the weight of evidence from many different sources and disciplines that all points in the same direction and those who believe 'magic man dun it'. Go ask the Christian evolutionary biologist Ken Miller.
"then that still does not leave enough time for pure random selection to produce self replicating molecules that constitute a living cell."
What is 'random selection' in respect of self-replicating molecules? Presumably you're not still failing to understand how natural selection is a non-random process, because this has been explained too many times for you to make that elementary error, so can you explain what you do mean? In any case, how - since you say it is fallacious and presumably therefore have no model to describe - can you possibly know whether there is sufficient time for self-
Nope. For instance, Einstein developed his theory of relativity through philosophical means. However, his work was testable, was tested and found to be correct.
"and also any revelation or subjectivity that cannot be repeated as in a laboratory experiment."
Not all science is done in a lab, so that's just wrong. Revelation, for some peculiar reason I can't quite put my finger on, tends not to be trusted, particularly if its claims can't be tested.
"If the universe is 13 to 15 billion years old, as claimed by the secularist intelligentsia,"
That's not a claim by a 'secularist intelligentsia'. Most people, regardless of religion, believe the same thing. There is not this simplistic split between the religious and the irreligious you would like to think. The split is between those who accept the weight of evidence from many different sources and disciplines that all points in the same direction and those who believe 'magic man dun it'. Go ask the Christian evolutionary biologist Ken Miller.
"then that still does not leave enough time for pure random selection to produce self replicating molecules that constitute a living cell."
What is 'random selection' in respect of self-replicating molecules? Presumably you're not still failing to understand how natural selection is a non-random process, because this has been explained too many times for you to make that elementary error, so can you explain what you do mean? In any case, how - since you say it is fallacious and presumably therefore have no model to describe - can you possibly know whether there is sufficient time for self-
"Even evolutionists recognise the gap in this."
Firstly, what's an 'evolutionist'? It a word invented by creationists to try and imply that accepting evolution (see previous comment re: weight of evidence) is analogous to a belief in a bronze age creation myth that is so obviously wrong a six year old can find major problems with it. You mean 'evolutionary scientists'.
If you mean that an evolutionary scientist would recognise that what you said is nonsense, then I agree; they would. They wouldn't recognise a valid criticism of either evolution or abiogenesis to critique because there isn't one there.
Please, one day, do yourself a favour and go read a beginner's book about evolution by someone who believes it's real instead of repeating this garbage off creationist websites. They not only make lame arguments against evolution, but they're even lying about what evolution is said to be by the scientists who work in the field. No wonder you're so confused.
P.S. Your firework just went 'sputt' and keeled over.
Firstly, what's an 'evolutionist'? It a word invented by creationists to try and imply that accepting evolution (see previous comment re: weight of evidence) is analogous to a belief in a bronze age creation myth that is so obviously wrong a six year old can find major problems with it. You mean 'evolutionary scientists'.
If you mean that an evolutionary scientist would recognise that what you said is nonsense, then I agree; they would. They wouldn't recognise a valid criticism of either evolution or abiogenesis to critique because there isn't one there.
Please, one day, do yourself a favour and go read a beginner's book about evolution by someone who believes it's real instead of repeating this garbage off creationist websites. They not only make lame arguments against evolution, but they're even lying about what evolution is said to be by the scientists who work in the field. No wonder you're so confused.
P.S. Your firework just went 'sputt' and keeled over.
I wouldn't expect to find Hawking in church with you any time soon
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]
People are always claiming people like Hawking and Einstein as religious partly because of their habit (shared with many Cosmologists) of refering to God as a shorthand for nature.
What is often called Spinoza's God.
It is so far away from the personal God of traditional religions as to not be meaningful
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]
People are always claiming people like Hawking and Einstein as religious partly because of their habit (shared with many Cosmologists) of refering to God as a shorthand for nature.
What is often called Spinoza's God.
It is so far away from the personal God of traditional religions as to not be meaningful
Belief in God is a doctrination from an early age. As one ages with a questioning mindset, there are doubts. Then life throws up unsurmountable hurdles that only God could clear......belief (faith) shows you the way thru these hurdles; it could be a sick relative, an unfortunate death or something very simple......as witnessed by me today:
An important file was missing for a tribunal due within the hour........a few heartfelt prayers and it was found; the case was saved! My faith was restored!
An important file was missing for a tribunal due within the hour........a few heartfelt prayers and it was found; the case was saved! My faith was restored!
Not at all. many people in highly thought of professions from Doctors to scientists, teachers to judges are believers.
And I know many people who are in many different professions who all go to church.
I do not blindly follow my faith and belief in God.
I can see him in the wonderful things that are on this earth and the wonderful people I know. I have had my share of experiances that have led me to believe that he is there.
I cannot and don't wish to make others believe it, that is for them to decide. I only know what I know.
but then I don't have a profession and I only have an IQ of 123.
And I know many people who are in many different professions who all go to church.
I do not blindly follow my faith and belief in God.
I can see him in the wonderful things that are on this earth and the wonderful people I know. I have had my share of experiances that have led me to believe that he is there.
I cannot and don't wish to make others believe it, that is for them to decide. I only know what I know.
but then I don't have a profession and I only have an IQ of 123.
Remove the ').' from the URL.
As for claiming 'it's only speculation' , you know this doesn't mean 'it's all in their minds', right?
I mean, you understand that there's experimentally testible ideas here - viable lines of research and the application of evidence..? Sometimes, I get the impression you don't think this is the case.
It's the work of scientists speculating and then carrying out tests and observations to attempt to disprove their theories that is going to prove one way or the other whether abiogenesis is possible, not religious people objecting to it on the grounds that it undermines their faith. Well, it may well do, but that's hardly proof, is it? It's an entirely spurious objection.
As for claiming 'it's only speculation' , you know this doesn't mean 'it's all in their minds', right?
I mean, you understand that there's experimentally testible ideas here - viable lines of research and the application of evidence..? Sometimes, I get the impression you don't think this is the case.
It's the work of scientists speculating and then carrying out tests and observations to attempt to disprove their theories that is going to prove one way or the other whether abiogenesis is possible, not religious people objecting to it on the grounds that it undermines their faith. Well, it may well do, but that's hardly proof, is it? It's an entirely spurious objection.
Latest Posts
Technology12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Is Technology Ruining The Game Of...
Sport27 mins ago
What Standard Of Football Does The...
Sport30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.