Study by Evolutionary Psychologist Reveals Atheists Have Slightly Higher IQs

[jaimehlers]

I agree with Plethora here.  IQ tests are seductive; it's pleasant to think of oneself as being more intelligent (or much more intelligent) than other people, especially if they are people who we don't think highly of.  And getting that opinion 'confirmed' by an IQ test just makes it that much more certain.  But the simple fact is that an IQ test is not all that useful in any practical sense, and in some respects it actually does more harm than good.

I know someone who tested almost 20 IQ points lower than his siblings when he was a kid.  Yet now, he's the most successful of them because he didn't accept the results of that test and applied himself in ways the others didn't.  And when he was tested later, surprise surprise, his IQ was as high as any of them; he apparently just didn't deal well with the original test.

What I'm trying to say is, don't read too much into a six-point or less IQ difference.  Perhaps atheistic people do have a slightly higher IQ score than religious people, but so what?  What matters is what a person does with their life, not whether they happen to score a little better on an intelligence test that's as limited as the IQ test is.

[pianodwarf]

But the simple fact is that an IQ test is not all that useful in any practical sense, and in some respects it actually does more harm than good.

That's true, especially if you tend to be insecure.

I looked into Mensa a while back, found out that I qualified, and joined.  I enjoy my membership and get a lot out of it, but sometimes, insecurity would get the best of me, and I would find myself looking up other high-IQ societies that have higher IQ cutoffs than Mensa does.  "Hmm, my SAT scores got me into Mensa, but they're not good enough for Triple Nine.  I bet I could do well enough on the LSAT to get into Triple Nine, though.  I wonder where I could take the test?  Is there some way I could qualify for Mega or Prometheus?"

That doesn't happen nearly as often anymore, since I've grown quite a bit in this area and have better perspective on things that are and aren't important.  The tendency does come back every once in a while, but it's easily ignored.

[curiousgirl]

*Sigh*

I keep getting all these replies criticizing IQ tests. Again, can anyone else provide a more culture-fair and objective way to test for intelligence than the army study I provided? If you don't believe IQ tests are that useful, do you at least agree that intelligence is?

Also, Ricky, if you do not believe that much intelligence is required to disbelieve in God, what about the people who came to that conclusion simply by using their intelligence to be rational? I think that personality may be a factor for atheism, yes, but to firmly grasp the reasons why God isn't real, rather than simply relying on one argument, such as Russell's tea pot, one must critically analyze information (such as the contradictory verses in the Bible, evolution vs creationism, etc). Otherwise, when unbiased theists ask for valid reasons for your atheism, if you can't provide an intelligent answer, they may not take you seriously. Who would you take more seriously? A person who became an atheist based on personality, or someone who really thought through why they should be an atheist?

[plethora]

*Sigh*

I keep getting all these replies criticizing IQ tests. Again, can anyone else provide a more culture-fair and objective way to test for intelligence than the army study I provided? If you don't believe IQ tests are that useful, do you at least agree that intelligence is?

The army study you provided tested for the likelihood of a student's success in a particular scenario with a particular set of goals. It's probably the best test available for measuring those skills that are relevant to those goals.

There are other tests, like those undertaken by potential astronauts, that specifically measure a person's ability to withstand high pressure situations and working during long periods of isolation, among other things. Another set of skills for another set of scenarios and goals.

The point is, there is no single all-encompassing test that can measure every aspect of a person's "intelligence"... not even close.

Furthermore, since each set of tests applies to specific scenarios and goals, all test are therefore biased as to whatever each one defines as "success".

[jaimehlers]

*nod*  There's also the fact that intelligence tests in general tend to measure capacity in what the test is looking for.  Don't get me wrong; capacity is useful to know.  But there's other factors which matter as well which are not specifically related to intelligence, and I don't think any intelligence test can really measure those.

[curiousgirl]

The point is, there is no single all-encompassing test that can measure every aspect of a person's "intelligence"... not even close.

Which is why I agree with the previous study that intelligence should be defined as information processing for IQ tests. How would it be practical to try to measure all aspects of intelligence?

Furthermore, since each set of tests applies to specific scenarios and goals, all test are therefore biased as to whatever each one defines as "success".

I would say that information processing is crucial to any type of intelligence (whether linguistic, musical,etc) because the better you process info, the better you learn. Whether we are talking about an astronaut or a musician, better information processing skills allow one to adapt to the environment better through learning, no matter what the individual's goals are.

[Add Homonym]

Not sure if this has been covered in the forum before, but an evolutionary psychologist in London conducted a very interesting study:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH

The smarter you are, the more likely you are to feel in control of your life and have excess wealth for education. Education does not favour religion, because you are more likely to bump into people who look down on religion for cohesive documented reasons. The braveness by which you reject religion is part determined by your social status, and ability to cunningly defend your aberrant position by using sophisticated arguments, which may or may not be fallacious. Lower status individuals may find Christianity appealing, because it teaches against the rich, and speaks of an afterlife for stupid people: And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[plethora]

The point is, there is no single all-encompassing test that can measure every aspect of a person's "intelligence"... not even close.

Which is why I agree with the previous study that intelligence should be defined as information processing for IQ tests.

I see what you're saying ... but I don't agree with defining 'intelligence' as 'information processing' even if it's specifically in the context of an IQ test. Why not just call it an 'information processing intelligence test'?

"Intelligence" on it's own is a much broader term. It isn't limited to the subject's information processing capacity.

How would it be practical to try to measure all aspects of intelligence?

It isn't practical and I never said it was. I am saying there is currently no way to measure all aspects of a person's intelligence and boil it down to a number on a scale.

The IQ test is very good at doing what it is designed to do. Unfortunately, people use it as an overall intelligence score and that can be very misleading.

I would say that information processing is crucial to any type of intelligence (whether linguistic, musical,etc) because the better you process info, the better you learn. Whether we are talking about an astronaut or a musician, better information processing skills allow one to adapt to the environment better through learning, no matter what the individual's goals are.

Yeah but information processing skills in a single individual vary greatly depending on the task at hand.

I may have a good ear for music and good coordination when it comes to playing my instruments ... but I can't dance for shit. Believe me, I've tried. I've taken lessons. I'm stiff as a board and just cannot coordinate properly.

I mean, I can play drums with a double-bass kick pedal for fuck's sake... you would think I could handle dancing!  Boggles my mind....

Am I not using the same information processing capacities? Both require rhythm, keeping time and coordination... go figure.

So I'm an "intelligent musician" and a "stupid dancer". I'd like to see an IQ test explain that one to me.

[rickymooston]

I keep getting all these replies criticizing IQ tests. Again, can anyone else provide a more culture-fair and objective way to test for intelligence than the army study I provided? If you don't believe IQ tests are that useful, do you at least agree that intelligence is?

CuriousGirl. That army attribute sounds useful and measurable. Its an aspect of what most people think of as intelligence.  There exist tasks that people with this attribute perform better at; e.g., performing calculations.

Jason Lisle, the guy who uses the stupid strawman argument that logic comes from God, likely has a high army intelligence. I'm going to bet, his processing speed is very high. I'm not sure he's a better "thinker".  There is a guy from my high school, Ian Juby, who has a high IQ and likely a good processing ability. He has a mensa group on intelligent design 

I'm suggesting a possibility, that other aspects may exist which may not be caused by this one. The flaw, if there is a flaw would be encapsulating intelligence into a single attribute.

Do I agree intelligence is useful? Well, what you mean is, do I think identfying people of high intelligence is useful? Potentially yes but I think it would be far more useful to identify the different aspects and identify which ones apply to which sorts of tasks. Again, compare intelligence to athletic ability

Some people are all round good athletes but there do exist people who are good sprinters and poor long distance runners.

Is an IQ test is useful. There are likely tasks that people with good IQs are better at than other people. If I wanted to pick a good candidate for a quiz show, I'd certainly grab somebody with a good IQ. They are probably better at Crosswords and other tasks The british army used them for cracking codes.

I think that personality may be a factor for atheism, yes, but to firmly grasp the reasons why God isn't real, rather than simply relying on one argument, such as Russell's tea pot, one must critically analyze information (such as the contradictory verses in the Bible, evolution vs creationism, etc).

Actually, curiousgirl, the other arguments are all rat holes. None of them lead anywhere really. 

For example, evolution vs creationism. That is a rathole; e.g., the catholic church acknowledges that the earth is old and that evolution happened. Very few people have the background to know all the science involved in proving evolution and old earth in any detail. Its more a matter of talking points and believing that the published results of the scientific establsihment have some validity.

Contradictory verses in the bible? People have means of resolving those contradictions. A whole range of interpretations exists. Deists exist who believe in a non-biblical God who walked away



see patterns aka sign posts to the supernatural but dont acknowledge the bible. Every new interpretation becomes a wind mill.

On the otherhand, get back to Russel's point. (I concede Russel may have had a high processing ability; I'm unsure. Von Newmann did.) Why does one believe in God?

Otherwise, when unbiased theists ask for valid reasons for your atheism, if you can't provide an intelligent answer, they may not take you seriously. Who would you take more seriously? A person who became an atheist based on personality, or someone who really thought through why they should be an atheist?

Processing speed isn't the best attribute for coming up with convincing arguments there.

Given that the best arguments are really the simplest ones; i.e., shifting the burden of proof back and demanding one to "show me", ....

[Samuelxcs]

Maybe a group of athiests and a group of thiests should get together and do an IQ test to see which group has a higher IQ. Then it and the results should be made public so they stop annoying everyone with their pathetic made up beliefs and stuff.

[jaimehlers]

curiousgirl:

Yeah but information processing skills in a single individual vary greatly depending on the task at hand.

Another case in point; I'm good at spotting errors in writing, but I am not particularly good at spotting errors in math.  Both of those are a kind of information processing, and they operate under reasonably similar principles.  Yet ability in one doesn't really translate to the other.  So how would we rate my overall ability to error-check?  Based on my ability when it comes to writing, or based on my ability when it comes to math?  Or should we average the two and take the mean value?

Whether it's the IQ test, or the military's standards, or whatever, we can't just point to a slight increase or decrease in IQ and treat it like it's especially meaningful.

Maybe a group of athiests and a group of thiests should get together and do an IQ test to see which group has a higher IQ. Then it and the results should be made public so they stop annoying everyone with their pathetic made up beliefs and stuff.

I highly doubt that religious beliefs can be debunked with an IQ test.

[curiousgirl]

My whole point is that if atheists with higher IQs have better information processing skills, perhaps they analyze information from their environment to conclude the non-existence of God by using this ability. If theists do indeed have lower IQs, it would affect their entire information processing ability, and they may try to invent answers or accept a group answer (God) to unanswered questions (where humans came from, for example) because they do not process information by themselves (scientific explanations) as intelligently. Granted, there are those who are willfully ignorant and simply won't accept scientific evidence even if they are intelligent. My argument, however, pertains to atheists coming to the conclusion that God is non-existent because atheists are generally more intelligent than theists. When a group of people that understands something through logic and science (atheists) tries to convince a group of people that thinks they understand something when they are truly wrong (theists), I would argue that the members of the atheist group that are trying to educate the theist group are inherently more intelligent because they figured out the non-existence of God more quickly and easily than the theists. Let me give an example: Copernicus tried to educate the 16th century public about heliocentrism through his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium because they believed in geocentrism. I would argue that Copernicus was probably more intelligent than those he was trying to educate, which allowed him to be a brilliant astronomer to begin with.

[Truth OT]

My whole point is that if atheists with higher IQs have better information processing skills, perhaps they analyze information from their environment to conclude the non-existence of God by using this ability. If theists do indeed have lower IQs, it would affect their entire information processing ability, and they may try to invent answers or accept a group answer (God) to unanswered questions (where humans came from, for example) because they do not process information by themselves (scientific explanations) as intelligently. Granted, there are those who are willfully ignorant and simply won't accept scientific evidence even if they are intelligent. My argument, however, pertains to atheists coming to the conclusion that God is non-existent because atheists are generally more intelligent than theists. When a group of people that understands something through logic and science (atheists) tries to convince a group of people that thinks they understand something when they are truly wrong (theists), I would argue that the members of the atheist group that are trying to educate the theist group are inherently more intelligent because they figured out the non-existence of God more quickly and easily than the theists. Let me give an example: Copernicus tried to educate the 16th century public about heliocentrism through his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium because they believed in geocentrism. I would argue that Copernicus was probably more intelligent than those he was trying to educate, which allowed him to be a brilliant astronomer to begin with.

Sounds like you're going out on a limb CG. This synopsis sounds in some ways simular to the predestination idea that some christian groups promote as it seems to fail at taking into consideration realistic possibility that an individual could switch from one group to the other.

Relating intelligence to what one believes can be a slippery slope as there as so many other factors that would need to be accounted for from culture, to access to information, to what the individual interests of the sampled person was, to a myriad other other things.

[Omen]

Relating intelligence to what one believes can be a slippery slope

Can you demonstrate a logical and 'intelligent' argument for a god claim.. ever?

[curiousgirl]

TOT, I realize that there are other factors for the beliefs of theists, not just their intelligence. I even mentioned one (my bolding):

Granted, there are those who are willfully ignorant and simply won't accept scientific evidence even if they are intelligent.

I was arguing that there could still be a correlation between intelligence and beliefs. Notice how I was speaking about groups, because there are exceptions to the rule for individuals.

Can you demonstrate a logical and 'intelligent' argument for a god claim.. ever?

I'm with Omen on this one. Atheists can at least provide logical arguments, which I interpret as a sign of their intelligence. I was raised going to church and apologetics seminars, and I have yet to hear a single logical argument from theists.

[Truth OT]

Relating intelligence to what one believes can be a slippery slope

Can you demonstrate a logical and 'intelligent' argument for a god claim.. ever?

Ever get the feeling someone's following you? I digress.........

Omen, just to make sure I don't get involved in something pointless with you, please tell me that and how your line of questioning is tied in to intelligence and theism?

Now, to respond. Assuming beliefs are initially formed after logical analysis is a flawed assumption. Most people that believe in you name the deity, do so because they have been brought up and conditioned to do so. Because of this, they tend to accept what is said without questioning the logic for it. There belief in the deity is in effect equivalent to their belief that their real name is whatever mom and dad said it was and such beliefs very rarely can be related to one's intelligence. So again, relating intelligence to what one believes can be a slippery slope because other factors need to be taken into consideration.

[Omen]

Omen, just to make sure I don't get involved in something pointless with you, please tell me that and how your line of questioning is tied in to intelligence and theism?

We can conclusively claim that theistic belief excludes rational reasons to believe beyond presupposed notions of belief, fallacies, or psychological dependencies.  While all of these are not exclusively the lack of intelligence, it is certain that intelligence is moot when it comes to belief.  The only other possibility is that an argument for a god belief exists that is actually 'intelligent' ( or reasonable, rational, logical, and derived from evidence ), but yet unknown.

Now, to respond.

Now to make up pointless red herrings.

Assuming beliefs are initially formed after logical analysis is a flawed assumption.

Red Herring: Irrelevant, an intelligent reason to believe was requested, nothing was assumed or stated about what conditions lead to belief.  It does not have to be assumed to just ask a very simple question.

You absolutely did not answer my question whatsoever.

Lets try again:

Can you demonstrate a logical and 'intelligent' argument for a god claim.. ever?

[curiousgirl]

Now, to respond. Assuming beliefs are initially formed after logical analysis is a flawed assumption. Most people that believe in you name the deity, do so because they have been brought up and conditioned to do so. Because of this, they tend to accept what is said without questioning the logic for it. There belief in the deity is in effect equivalent to their belief that their real name is whatever mom and dad said it was and such beliefs very rarely can be related to one's intelligence. So again, relating intelligence to what one believes can be a slippery slope because other factors need to be taken into consideration.

There is the ability to question what you have been spoon-fed by mom and dad, which begins in adolescence. My argument is that higher intelligence is part of what leads atheists to claim that God does not exist. Especially since they were intelligent enough to challenge what they were spoon-fed as kids. Those who do not eventually challenge these beliefs would not be quite as intelligent, IMHO.

[Truth OT]

I'm with Omen on this one. Atheists can at least provide logical arguments, which I interpret as a sign of their intelligence. I was raised going to church and apologetics seminars, and I have yet to hear a single logical argument from theists.

Sometimes they can. It would depend on why they are not theists though. Some atheists are so because they have never been bothered with religion and are unaware of what it entails. And many, if not most theists are theists because of traditions and culture than because of reasoning.

Like you, I was raised going to apologetic seminars. I believed that the likes of Ferrell Jenkins and Don Patten and others that could be termed creationists made some very logical arguments for belief in God. I believed that way because I accepted the data they presented as being true. It sounded intelligent and they made it make sense, so I and many others believed we were in the know and could put forth an intelligent argument for the existence of our specific God. I do not believe that the are correct any longer however. The reason is because I have since been presented with information that I hadn't been presented with before that has made me question that which I once accepted on a whim. I'm no more intelligent, just more informed.

[Omen]

I'm no more intelligent, just more informed.

Then it should be no problem in answering the question:

Can you demonstrate a logical and 'intelligent' argument for a god claim.. ever?

Unless of course, you're reasoning for belief is still no more relevant then what you believed before or what those 'creationists' believe.  If the reasons you claim to believe are still not supported by reason, logic, and evidence - then how can you claim that the 'creationist' were wrong?

[curiousgirl]

I'm no more intelligent, just more informed.

However, you were intelligent enough to process the new information correctly, which is why you don't believe the old info anymore. That was my whole point, which is why I said this earlier:

  Those who do not eventually challenge these beliefs would not be quite as intelligent, IMHO.

If you had been given that new information and had not questioned the apologetics you were presented with (that is, if willfulness was not a factor), then I would have said you were less intelligent.

[rickymooston]

I'm with Omen on this one. Atheists can at least provide logical arguments, which I interpret as a sign of their intelligence. I was raised going to church and apologetics seminars, and I have yet to hear a single logical argument from theists.

None of the arguments on either side is tight. Atheism "wins" by burden of proof, aka russel's teapot.

In essence theists come up with sign posts to the divine and atheists are unsatisfied with any of these

[rickymooston]

CuriousGirl:
1) Do you think faster processing speed implies better thinking? (Think DeBono)
2) Do you think people with faster processing speed are less vulnerable to bias?

 

[Omen]

I'm with Omen on this one. Atheists can at least provide logical arguments, which I interpret as a sign of their intelligence. I was raised going to church and apologetics seminars, and I have yet to hear a single logical argument from theists.

None of the arguments on either side is tight. Atheism "wins" by burden of proof, aka russel's teapot.

You are wrong, there are not only 'two sides' and that makes you sound like fox news.  Many logical arguments against a god claim are inescapably air tight, leaving only the possibility to redefine the god claim and move the goal post rather than a proper rebuttal.  In comparison, NO theistic arguments are air tight.  No need to appeal to a middle ground that doesn't exist.

[jetson]

Omen nailed it.  Sorry RM, but atheism does not require anything to be airtight.  You should know this by now, you've been around long enough! 

God won't heal amputees because God is imaginary.

[Omen]

Omen nailed it.  Sorry RM, but atheism does not require anything to be airtight.  You should know this by now, you've been around long enough! 

God won't heal amputees because God is imaginary.

I would add that there does not exist or yet I have not had one presented to me, where an apologetic argument for a religious belief is false and a god couldn't exist anyway.  I mean two things from this:

1. Apologetic arguments are rarely philosophical or intellectual arguments for a god existing and are instead targeted rhetoric towards an audience of people who believe already.
2. There is no position as an atheist that we need accept that means a god doesn't exist and yet every philosophical argument we make about the nature of existence can be true anyway.

The reason this is so is because 'god' is such a meaningless and nebulous label for whimsical nonsense.

[jetson]

Omen nailed it.  Sorry RM, but atheism does not require anything to be airtight.  You should know this by now, you've been around long enough! 

God won't heal amputees because God is imaginary.

I would add that there does not exist or yet I have not had one presented to me, where an apologetic argument for a religious belief is false and a god couldn't exist anyway.  I mean two things from this:

1. Apologetic arguments are rarely philosophical or intellectual arguments for a god existing and are instead targeted rhetoric towards an audience of people who believe already.
2. There is no position as an atheist that we need accept that means a god doesn't exist and yet every philosophical argument we make about the nature of existence can be true anyway.

The reason this is so is because 'god' is such a meaningless and nebulous label for whimsical nonsense.

I usually take a harder line on this, but I don't really need to do that - it always gets me in trouble with fellow atheists!

I like my sig, that I stole from a forum member!

[curiousgirl]

None of the arguments on either side is tight. Atheism "wins" by burden of proof, aka russel's teapot.

Actually atheism "wins" because it is realistic. None of the theistic arguments are logically valid so far.

In essence theists come up with sign posts to the divine and atheists are unsatisfied with any of these

What sign posts are you vaguely referring to? Does this have anything to do with logic?

CuriousGirl:
1) Do you think faster processing speed implies better thinking? (Think DeBono)
2) Do you think people with faster processing speed are less vulnerable to bias?

 

Ricky, it's not only about the speed of information processing. It is the overall ability to process information in a way that you understand reality better that is truly important. Speed is significant, but I think you are missing my point. I keep repeating myself. Of course bias is a factor for theism, which is why I typed this earlier (my bolding):

If you had been given that new information and had not questioned the apologetics you were presented with (that is, if willfulness was not a factor), then I would have said you were less intelligent.

Also:

I was arguing that there could still be a correlation between intelligence and beliefs. Notice how I was speaking about groups, because there are exceptions to the rule for individuals.

[rickymooston]

I'll have to think about how to reply. Too many cans of worms opened. I missed your bold by the way, which post?