Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, study finds

[Toramana]

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/08/12/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-study-fi

Religious people are less intelligent than non-believers, according to a scientific review of a decades-long study.

A University of Rochester review of 63 studies found a "reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity" in 53 cases.

The studies include a life-long analysis of the beliefs of 1,500 gifted children with IQs over 135. which began in 1921 and continues today.

It found that even during early years, more intelligent children were more likely to turn away from religion.

In 1958, Michael Argyle wrote: "Although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs, and rather less likely to have pro-religious attitudes."

Even in old age, the subjects of the study had far lower levels of belief in God than the average population.

The paper, which was published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, concluded: "Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme—the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who 'know better'."

The author pre-empted efforts by secularists to highlight the findings by suggesting that highly intelligent people may be more likely to associate themselves with ideas around personal control and therefore less prone to accepting religious ideas.

"Intelligent people typically spend more time in school—a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits," the researchers wrote.

"More intelligent people get higher level jobs (and better employment (and higher salary) may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs."

They added: "People possessing the functions that religion provides are likely to adopt atheism, people lacking these very functions (e.g., the poor, the helpless) are likely to adopt theism."

The study comes as renowned atheist Richard Dawkins comes in for criticism even from fellow campaigners after he tweeted: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge".

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

يَعۡلَمُونَ ظَـٰهِرً۬ا مِّنَ ٱلۡحَيَوٰةِ ٱلدُّنۡيَا وَهُمۡ عَنِ ٱلۡأَخِرَةِ هُمۡ غَـٰفِلُونَ

Surah Al-Room
They know but the outer (things) in the life of this world: but of the End of things they are heedless. (7)

[Friend]

Well you cant expect a church or madrassa going person to be expert in mathemathics or physics and the same for an athiest you cant expect him to be expert on bible or quran.
Every person is expert in his own field of studies.

[DaZahroJaam.]

i don't think that's necessarily true. that is probably a shorter version of a longer sentence.

[Manzareh]

Richard Dawkins is a moron that believes incest should be something acceptable if its practiced in a way which doesnt offend or effect anyone else since its not scientifically objectable - this guy has said in his own words that teaching a child religion is worse than sexually abusing a child, now what kind of sick twisted following does this guy have? If his ridiculous random remarks are regarded as intelligent then I think we need another definition for intelligence.

I would like to add that this study of 53 people is flawed, I can give a 100 names of renown academics that have converted from atheism to devout religious people, so what's the excuse for that?

Furthermore, there have been around 120 Nobel prize winners in the history of mankind, so I take it out of the billions perished in history and and the billions living there must be only 0.0000000000045% of intelligent people in the world or some other ridiculous figure like that? We live in the age of idiocy if intelligence is measured in Nobel prizes.

[Badlun]

Secularism is the middle path. You have faith, worship and ethics as well as science, politics, culture and modern education. Atheism and Islamism are both extremes.

In atheism you ignore morality and spirituality and in Islamism you base everything on religion and thus no scientific and material progress.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Secularism is the middle path. You have faith, worship and ethics as well as science, politics, culture and modern education. Atheism and Islamism are both extremes.

In atheism you ignore morality and spirituality and in Islamism you base everything on religion and thus no scientific and material progress.

How can secular societies have morality when there are erotic zoosvwhere you can pay and have sex with animals like for example in Germany?

Secularists dont have morality. Anything goes. Even sex with own parents like in Swiss.

[Kushan Prince]

I think this study was conducted by a retarded atheist himself.

[Friend]

Richard Dawkins is a moron that believes incest should be something acceptable if its practiced in a way which doesnt offend or effect anyone else since its not scientifically objectable - this guy has said in his own words that teaching a child religion is worse than sexually abusing a child, now what kind of sick twisted following does this guy have? If his ridiculous random remarks are regarded as intelligent then I think we need another definition for intelligence.

I would like to add that this study of 53 people is flawed, I can give a 100 names of renown academics that have converted from atheism to devout religious people, so what's the excuse for that?

Furthermore, there have been around 120 Nobel prize winners in the history of mankind, so I take it out of the billions perished in history and and the billions living there must be only 0.0000000000045% of intelligent people in the world or some other ridiculous figure like that? We live in the age of idiocy if intelligence is measured in Nobel prizes.

Toramana calls himself a sufi looool and brings up such filthy pieces from some dirty sources. What a follower.

[DaZahroJaam.]

Maybe the study has not been conducted and is being conducted. Maybe it is about how people react to this information or to see what sort of information people come forward with. For instance, why the **** does shamlawar know of a place such as the one he just mentioned here. And even if he knows of such a place, why would he repeat the information to another soul?? WHY??
And I kind of agree with the part where a child who can barely differentiate between right and wrong gets brainwashed with what he or she should be worshipping.
Bring it on, sisters.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Richard Dawkins is a moron that believes incest should be something acceptable if its practiced in a way which doesnt offend or effect anyone else since its not scientifically objectable - this guy has said in his own words that teaching a child religion is worse than sexually abusing a child, now what kind of sick twisted following does this guy have? If his ridiculous random remarks are regarded as intelligent then I think we need another definition for intelligence.

Can you actually show a reference or video where he is explicitly stating such a thing?

I would like to add that this study of 53 people is flawed, I can give a 100 names of renown academics that have converted from atheism to devout religious people, so what's the excuse for that?

This is just the most recent study; in science there is something called random sampling so 53 is a random sample. However this is one of MANY studies done through out the course of time regarding this subject. It implicates the results have stayed rather consistent with the variables being examined. So no it's not "flawed" at least for the reason you claim because this is akin to the method they they test the efficacy of medicines.

Please go back to school Manzareh because you're proving this article RIGHT when you mindlessly say things without understanding or investigate the subject matter and how scientific research is conducted.

Furthermore, there have been around 120 Nobel prize winners in the history of mankind, so I take it out of the billions perished in history and and the billions living there must be only 0.0000000000045% of intelligent people in the world or some other ridiculous figure like that? We live in the age of idiocy if intelligence is measured in Nobel prizes.

Now this is a fair criticism; I agree with you on this. Look at what Richard Feynman a man who had actually WON the nobel prize had to say.


Richard Feynman - The Nobel Prize - YouTube

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Toramana calls himself a sufi looool and brings up such filthy pieces from some dirty sources. What a follower.

What's wrong with bringing things up? This is the real world stuff like this are brought up. Where are the dirty sources? It has nothing that Islam considers dirty here.

You're just insecure

[Friend]

Richard Dawkins is a moron that believes incest should be something acceptable if its practiced in a way which doesnt offend or effect anyone else since its not scientifically objectable - this guy has said in his own words that teaching a child religion is worse than sexually abusing a child, now what kind of sick twisted following does this guy have? If his ridiculous random remarks are regarded as intelligent then I think we need another definition for intelligence.QUOTE=RevolutionThroughReason;698878]What's wrong with bringing things up? This is teh real world stuff like this are brought up. Where is the dirty sources? It has nothing that Islam considers dirty here.

You're just insecure[/QUOTE]

This is the dirt....
"

[RevolutionThroughReason]

This is the dirt....
"

It seems anything is dirt if you're unable to defend yourself against it.

How convenient LOL

[Manzareh]

Maybe the study has not been conducted and is being conducted. Maybe it is about how people react to this information or to see what sort of information people come forward with. For instance, why the **** does shamlawar know of a place such as the one he just mentioned here. And even if he knows of such a place, why would he repeat the information to another soul?? WHY??
And I kind of agree with the part where a child who can barely differentiate between right and wrong gets brainwashed with what he or she should be worshipping.
Bring it on, sisters.

A child cannot differentiate between right and wrong which is why it is so important to guide them, now unless you believe that parents should not teach their child anything and just let them be a product of his/her surroundings then a parent has no choice but to teach them what they should be worshiping, be it worshiping the Dunya like atheist do or worshipping God like Muslims, if you indoctrinate your child into atheism then you are also brainwashing them away from religion.