Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

« What is the point? | WHAT REALLY ANNOYS YOU THAT YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER? »

Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

by SeasideMan ^Pro @ 2008-08-20 – 17:46:15

" A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence"

"A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.
A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God."

Full article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html

----------
What do the good folks here think of this?

Cheers, Tom.
Options:
Tags:
- god
- intelligence
- belief

65 Comments on Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Hide subcomments

- realityjumper
- http://www.realityjumper.blog.co.uk
- 2008-08-20 @ 18:12:13
The beauty of nature, science and logic all point to there being no god, so it doesn't surprise me that intelligent people don't believe in god. Then again we can't really define intelligence or the growth of intelligence. The increase in extremism points to the decrease in intelligence wouldn't you agree?
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-20 @ 18:28:38
  It's very difficult to either define or measure intelligence in a non-culture-specific way.
  
  Do you think there has been an increase in extremism?
  
  Tom.
  - - realityjumper
    - http://www.realityjumper.blog.co.uk
    - 2008-08-20 @ 18:35:25
    yes i believe so, in the very least there has been an increase where i live, racism seems to go hand in hand with it 2
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-08-20 @ 18:48:03
      I see, thanks.
      
      Tom.
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink
- kevinwilson
- 2008-08-20 @ 18:16:20
maybe there's an equation that means the more intelligent you are, the more you rely on yourself, and the less need or desire you have for faith.
in other words, clever people are more likely to think they know it all!?
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-20 @ 18:24:53
  Interesting thoughts, as always. Thanks for them.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- mazzy
- 2008-08-20 @ 18:22:14
did anybody see 'The genius of Richard Dawkins...I mean Charles Darwin?' Dawkins is pompous above and beyond the call of duty!
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-20 @ 18:34:09
  I haven't seen that, but it's on youtube if anyone fancies watching it. Dawkins can be a little pompous, but I don't mind a bit of pomposity every now and then, especially when it's on such an important subject.
  
  Tom.
  - - mazzy
    - 2008-08-20 @ 18:53:57
    I don't mind it either necessarily, but one of Dawkins' tricks on tv, apart from bellowing at people, is placing a voiceover when somebody is putting forward a different opinion. Later the same evening, I watched the second half of a documentary called 'Dangerous Minds', about people that had been in the forefront of mathematics, and the knowable and unknowable. They all ended up with severe mental health problems, a couple of them took their own lives (with Dawkins, it us who end up with the problems). It struck me, though, when one of the professors said that true science is always exploring, not sit back and think the scientist knows it all. One of the matehmatitians, who was religious, basically said it was God that gave those who sought it, the key to unravelling these conundrums. I would probably place myself as an agnostic, by the way.
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-08-20 @ 19:07:41
      Thanks for a thoughtful response. I haven't watched any television for a long time so I can't comment on your descriptions of those programmes. I've heard Dawkins on Radio 4 though, and he came across politely, lucidly and honestly.
      
      I agree that scientists should always be seeking for the truth, honestly, in whichever direction it may be found, even if it's not the hoped for direction. A true scientist wouldn't claim to know "it all".
      
      I would describe myself as an Agnostic Atheist.
      
      Tom.
      - mazzy
        
        2008-08-20 @ 19:21:05
        
        I do believe in evolution rather than creationism, and I think it's delusional to think that the world is only 6,000 years old, or that we onced frolicked with dinosaurs. However, maybe I'm being delusional, but is it completely beyond the pale to ask exactly where the big bang, with all of its gases,came from, where once there was nothing? Something started it
        steve
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-08-20 @ 20:28:19
        
        That's a perfectly reasonable question. But you say "once there was nothing". How are you sure of that?
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        mazzy
        
        2008-08-21 @ 15:20:13
        
        Well, nobody can be sure of anything, even Dawkins, but our galaxy at one time didn't exist, if what we're told is correct. Where did the gases come from, what lit the metaphorical torch, not just for us, but other solar systems?
        steve
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-08-21 @ 17:08:50
        
        There are many theories on this, but none are yet proven. "God" is merely one of the theories, and one which suffers to some degree from a complete lack of physical evidence.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- playwrite27
- http://davidtennantsdoctor.wordpress.com/
- 2008-08-20 @ 18:43:25
Personally, I firmly believe we're getting dumber, not smarter...not that it matters, really. Religious belief is an individual thing, like having sex, so who cares?
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-20 @ 18:47:02
  Lots of people seem to care a great deal about it. It seems to be a pretty big deal for the presidential candidates in your country at the moment, for example.
  
  The trend is for people to get more knowledgeable, but that doesn't equate to intelligence.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- thehomelyyear ^Pro
- 2008-08-20 @ 20:27:35
Mmm - food for thought as always - I reckon faith is not always connected to intelligence
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-20 @ 20:43:10
  And a smart response from you, as always.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- 2008-08-20 @ 21:09:16
Surely before we can even consider expressing any opinions on the proposition, we need to establish a common definition of intelligence and indeed religion?

XoD.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-20 @ 21:21:45
  I think the common (dictionary) definitions are probably sufficient for this little chat, but feel free to use any other definitions if you prefer.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- jenray ^Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-08-20 @ 22:43:51
A lot of people seem to find Dawkins pompous, but I don't find him so...he doesn't bellow as Mazzy said, and restrains himself admirably in front of the most amazingly bizarre beliefs like this world started 6000 years ago...With regard to this professor, it's difficult for him to say that the more intelligent a person is the more likely they are not to believe in God, because the majority of the past scientists and alchemists all believed in God and you can't say they weren't highly intelligent individuals...I've known Catholic priests who were philosophers and very intelligent but equally firm in their belief in God...I've no idea now whether the growth of intelligence has anything to do with the decline in religious belief...I think it's more likely that people don't actually have to the time any more to go to Church or to seriously question whether or not God exists...it's just not a part of their life any more...if it bores them, they don't do it, whereas once upon a time, you were expected to believe in God and attend Church every Sunday, and you were chased up by the clergy if you failed to put in appearance...that certainly doesn't happen any more...think this professor enjoys stirring things up...LOL
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-20 @ 22:55:27
  Well, the article was in the Telegraph (which I must stress I don't read!).
  
  I haven't given my opinion on this yet, and it is this:
  
  The same as yours! But, I think it is important that the article mentions that so few scientists are believers. That makes sense, really. Since there isn't any evidence for gods existing or not, a true scientist would have to have at least some level of agnosticism.
  
  Tom.
  - - jenray ^Pro
    - http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
    - 2008-08-20 @ 23:05:36
    Well I'm not surprised that in this modern world so few scientists believe in a deity...it's difficult to put your faith in what has proved to be mythical stories and, with our growing knowledge of the world, the Universe and how our brains function, the loss of faith is even more understandable...it's strange how firmly I believed once, then it was like a blindfold peeling away from my eyes and my faith disappeared...it didn't hurt, it was like being set free and I had a tremendous sense of exhilaration, bit like the cave story where people sit looking at the reflection of the fire on the back wall and think it's the only light, and don't see that if they walked outside of it they would see the real light...hmmm...I can deal with believers who don't come out with 'we die because we're sinners', those I want to pick up and shake soundly until their brains begin to work...
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-08-20 @ 23:24:01
      Ah, Plato's "allegory of the cave". It's a very powerful idea about the journey from the known to the unknown. I really must read Plato's Republic again at some point.
      
      I find unthinking belief more and more disturbing the longer I live and I don't mean just religion. There's the rubbish that passes for news from the mass media and from our politicians for one thing. Too many people seem averse to using their brains to really think about the things they are told. I don't accept that it's lack of time either: the working week has never been shorter. The constant bludgeoning of misinformation has worked.
      
      Tom.
      - jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-08-20 @ 23:41:08
        
        I think when the brain gets overloaded with information, it gives up trying to discern what's true and what's not true...I suppose each individual uses their brains because they wouldn't survive if they didn't and clearly some don't use them and end up dead, but it's what they use their thinking time for that varies hugely...I guess if you fill your head with what this or that celebrity is doing, there's not much room left for considering the wonders of the Universe and how we function... I suppose it's wrong to be critical of how another person uses their brain...it really is their business what they want to fill their brains with, but I do wish sometimes there was a little more thought put into what it means to exist and how our Universe works, and to study the wonders of the natural world, and the microcosmic world...there's so much beauty out there and things to stand in awe of that it seems a waste of a brain to not treat it with more respect...the human brain is such an extraordinarily wonderful thing...I'll stop here because I really could got carried away about it...LOL...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-08-21 @ 09:14:40
        
        I agree again, you can't blame someone who chooses to veg out watching Lifestyles Of The Disgustingly Rich And Famous, because it's up to them how they spend their time. But I find it dificult to understand how so very many people when told by just some person: "believe what I tell you and everything will be fine", just say "Yes".
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-08-21 @ 12:25:01
        
        That's because it takes effort to discern what is true and what isn't, and a lot of people just don't have it in them to bother to do that...and even if we think we've discerned the truth behind the misinformation so often spread about, we're probably still an awful long way from the real underlying truth...there are a lot of secrets floating around in this world that the general public are just never privy too...keeping people in ignorance seems to be the order of the day and that has been going on for centuries no doubt...it's just today with all the media exposure of almost everything we do expect. I think, to be told the truth...only a few journalists do that nowadays...I'm not altogether sure most people believe though that everything is going to be fine...I think an awful lot realize things aren't good but it's too much to deal with and bury their heads in trivia....
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-08-21 @ 13:24:14
        
        *sigh* You're right, of course.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        joebangles
        
        2008-08-21 @ 17:07:53
        
        Some good posts Jen.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-08-21 @ 17:11:11
        
        Thanks, Trev...GBHs...XX
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- Antireptilian
- 2008-08-21 @ 08:11:49
This is also related to the formation of the state as a psychological replacement for God. Check out Carl Jung
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-21 @ 09:16:04
  Indeed, a good point as always and thanks for it.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- grumpus ^Pro
- http://grumpus.blog.co.uk
- 2008-08-21 @ 08:33:06
For most of my life I've held the opinion that only two types of people "believe in God".

There are the unthinking fools who believe what they are told, or more likely say they do because they can't face the consequences of questioning their "faith". To do so would mark them as rebellious and dangerous in the eyes of their peers and "betters".

Then there are the "preachers" (anyone within the religious hierarchy) and the "leaders" (anyone in authority from the Queen down). None of these actually "believe" in God, unless they also have a foot in the "unthinking fools" camp, which I believe to be extremely rare. These are the guardians of the world's oldest and most closely kept open secret; that "there is no such thing as God, but this invention of the wise men of ancient times serves to keep the non-thinkers in line."

Sadly in recent decades the "fear of God" in many modern societies, has virtually diminished to nothing, resulting, amongst the lower ranks, in an almost total disregard for ones fellow man and his well-being or property.

I don't think a rise in intelligence is the only factor in this decline. In some sectors of our own society, intelligence could be said to be falling. Man's ever widening experience tells him that bad things continually happen for no justifiable reason and regardless of desperate prayer, worship or sacrifice. He has simply given up on a lost cause.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-21 @ 09:21:40
  Your two categories seem reasonable to me. But I'm not convinced that disregard for others is related to a diminishing of religion. The constant nannying of people, diminution of sentences, and the culture of expectation are certainly factors though.
  
  Thanks for such a thoughtful response.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- - joebangles
  - 2008-08-21 @ 17:12:19
  Good post Grumpus.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- 2008-08-21 @ 12:32:51
That must be why i believe in god cos im not intelligent.
I dont believe it as anything atall to do with wether your intelligent or not. 0nce i did not believe in god myself, infact for many years i didnt.
I will dare to say that there is a god but if your not a spiritual person you wont find it.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-21 @ 13:23:03
  Thanks for your reply, but don't be so hard on yourself :-)
  
  Tom.
  - - deleted user (Visitor)
    - 2008-08-21 @ 15:29:06
    If there is a choice between being concidered intelligent and godless, or stupid and having my faith i would choose the latter.
    One man is no better than another and his opinions are the same.
    When we care what others think we are fools even more if we believe any mans word is above our maker.
    If any man be so good can he control life and death, the answer is no,so who does?
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-08-21 @ 17:06:17
      Caring what others think does not make a person a fool, it makes them considerate.
      
      Lots of men (and women) do control the life and death of others.
      
      Tom.
      - joebangles
        
        2008-08-21 @ 17:09:18
        
        Good question, good comments, good post Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- mazzy
- 2008-08-21 @ 15:39:39
a lot of interesting points....
I'll get the trivial out of the way first. Dawkins, to my mind DOES BELLOW! He's got previous too!!! If I knew nothing about the subject, his bellicose way of talking to others would have me pitching my ideological tent firmly in the other camp. The continuous use of (usually quite patronising) voiceovers with anybody who disagrees with him (look at the interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury) is very annoying. We don't get to hear other people's arguments, and does his cause a great disservice. I was going to add a lot more at this point, but it's time for 'Countdown', so it'll have to wait...Steve
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- mazzy
- 2008-08-21 @ 18:36:44
sorry to harp on about Mr Dawkins, but he does the evolutionary cause no good whatsoever, to my mind anyway, with his diatribe against religion, and his 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude.
This C4 3 parter was a missed opportunity to go into Darwin's revolutionary work, and the legacy, the knowledge it has begat since. I do feel there is a patronising and condescending attiude towards believers, a 'Poor fools' attitude that he displays on occasions.
During the late 80's and early 90's, my late mother went to an evangelical church. After a few months, I decided to take a look, but I could not reconcile my own personal tenets with the excesses of their teaching. My mother carried on going. She did not, though, take in everything they said by a lomg chalk, and she was an intelligent woman. This is one of the reasons I get angry with what I thing can tip over into smugness in a few. Just because she had a faith did not make her unintelligent.
I could not agree with a number of thing they said. such as praying for the abortion limit to come down, or the male being the head of the household. They also thought you didn't need the disco when God ois in your heart, your life. It is, of course, possible to have both. There's plenty of other stuff, which I may share with you, or force on you, depending on my mood.
I do get angry, and very perturbed, with notions of the 'Endgame' and the 'Rapture' ...Steve
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-21 @ 19:06:24
  Evolution isn't a "cause".
  
  Tom.
  - - mazzy
    - 2008-08-21 @ 19:19:06
    fine, after losing my work twice due to technical gremlins in the works, I wasn't about to agonise over a word. My argument still stands.
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-08-21 @ 19:31:29
      If you can forget your dislike for Dawkins for a moment, in a nutshell what is your "argument"?
      
      Tom.
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink
- DominicGee
- 2008-08-22 @ 10:45:54
Unfortunately most people in this world are ignorant thickos who cannot think for themselves. What we need is to abandon democracy and place super-intelligent humans in charge of us who have the wisdom, objectivity and foresight to lead us to a fruitfull future. The mind boggles at how the human race could have advanced thus far while all over history intelligencia has been derided and oppressed. Just think what we could have achieved if democracy had not been invented and we had allowed our natural superiors to rule over us. Thank Science for the Royal Society who have the mettel to put the majority of the world's population in place by telling us unpatronisingly that it is only our lack of mental strength that allows us to believe in God. The lesson - if you want to appear intelligent, deny the existence of God, it seems to work wonders for the Royal Society.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-22 @ 11:03:00
  A very interesting post, thanks for it. I'm not sure an Intellocracy would make for a particularly vote-winning manifesto, so I suspect this will never happen. Then there is the danger if it did happen of power corrupting.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- 2008-08-22 @ 11:52:26
I did not say caring what people say made any one a fool Tom, i said believing what a fellow man said before your maker.
But people can believe whatever they please and they will.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-22 @ 12:02:35
  You said:
  
  "When we care what others think we are fools even more if we believe any mans word is above our maker"
  
  That sentence has 2 clauses and the first one says that caring what people think makes you a fool, and the 2nd one that you're an even bigger fool if you take a person's word over that of the particular god you've chosen.. It's hard to be certain though because the grammar is a little askew. If that wasn't what you meant, fair enough.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- - grumpus ^Pro
  - http://grumpus.blog.co.uk
  - 2008-08-22 @ 12:43:16
  As you say Jean, people can believe whatever they please, but that does not necessarily make them right.
  
  Thinking people weigh up the hard evidence. I believe what I see with my own eyes. When a fellow man tells me something I believe THAT they told me, but not necessarily WHAT they told me. God is one of many supposed "makers" and as far as I know has never been directly heard speaking to any man by any other. Private conversations can only be regarded as hearsay, eg., Adam, Noah, Moses, et al.
  
  Many people claim their god speaks to them, but in this day of widely available technology, no one has succeeded in recording his/her voice.
  
  You could get killed in the rush back to religion if this ever happened! (Waits for the lame excuses.)
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- 2008-08-22 @ 12:23:55
May i suggest you make whatever you want to from what i said Tom it seems thats what you are doing any way.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-22 @ 12:35:32
  No, I'd far rather understand what it is you are trying to say,
  but if you choose to not make yourself clear, that's up to you.
  
  You are verging on being unpleasant too, and there's really no need for that when it's been such a reasonable discussion so far.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- 2008-08-22 @ 12:45:45
I thought it was you who was being unpleasant Tom not me. Ive no more to say to you on this subject but you can not accept that.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-22 @ 12:48:06
  On the contrary, I have been trying to understand what you are saying but you seem unwilling to clarify. As I said, if you choose to remain unclear, that's up to you.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- mazzy
- 2008-08-22 @ 15:45:32
I think my point from earlier is as much a series of observations, because I certainly don't have the answer to whether God exists or not, and nobody else does either for sure. We can think we know, but we cannot for sure.

I do think that in recent years there has been too much patronising of those who do have a belief. I think this discussion has been open and fair to all, but I don't think this courtesy has been extended in other places. As I mentioned in one of my earlier messages, my late mother had a belief which stood throughout her life, and she was a fiercely intelligent woman. My late father, incidentally, journeyed at least to an extent the other way before he passed away. My own journey has been from being taught to believe (as you are at school), to my current Agnosticism.

I find it a bit of a paradox when more than one scientist (I'll undermine my own argument here by confessing I cannot remember who they are) have actually said they would to think they are playing God, which doesn't really make sense.

As I've intimated earlier, I am disturbed by much of organised religion, but it partly depends who does the organising. Much evangelicism of any belief gives me the creeps, and I don't like the rise of faith schools. Faith wise, I think children should be taught about all beliefs, and the beliefs and credos that underpin them, including atheism, so they can make up there own minds. Of course this is obvious, but it is clearly not happening. I've got lots more to say on the subject, but once again it's time for 'Countdown'...
PS DAWKINS (I'm contractually obliged to mention him)
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-22 @ 15:57:27
  I see the bulk of the patronisation going the other way, against those "poor sinners" as so many preachers put it. Non-believers have been perpetually patronised, so much so that some can't even see it any more. If they're getting back some of their own medicine I'm fine with that although I'd rather have a debate free from it.
  
  Organised religion disturbs me too, and I find evengelicalism to be a little too close to fascism for comfort. The moment a person says I'm going to burn in hell if I don't believe the same things as they do is the moment when my resistance is maximal. Someone once said that you know your god is made-up when he hates the same people you do. Very smart comment that.
  
  I also agree with you that children should be taught comparative religions and atheism and agnosticism too. I dislike children being indoctrinated by their parents because it's too close for comfort to brainwashing. It's no surprise that Jesus and Mohammed both asked for the children to be taught.
  
  Thanks for a reasonable response.
  
  Tom.
  - - mazzy
    - 2008-08-22 @ 17:23:32
    Thanks, Tom.
    
    You're absolutely right about the fascism analogy. I don't know if anyone saw that documentary with that so-called Christian fellow who was at the forefront of the 'Jerry Springer opera' brouhaha (what the piece was actually about seemed to have completely gone over their heads. If memory serves me, he and his 'fellowship' printed the addresses, phone numbers etc of those involved in the BBC2 transmission. In the documentary, he in particular, but also his flock, ssaid some really incendiary things about Islam, and his demeanour generally was defensive and occasionally pretty aggressive. The thing is, their 'faith' seems to give them the right to be racist, sexist and particularly homophobic. You will still find the odd rogue scientist who will use pseudo-science to espouse these views, but they are odd and rogue. Of course religion hasn't started all wars...
    I remember years ago, when I was on a government training scheme (oh, happy days), the building was shared with YTS trainees. One of the young chaps came out while he was there. He was subjected to the usual bigotry, and came to one of the heads, who was, and is, an evangelist. He was telling me and a couple of others a few days later that, at first, he had told the young man that his sexuality was as valid as heterosexuality. Sadly, he retracted the statement the next day (his conscience, you see) and told him homosexuality is an abonimation!
    Steve
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-08-23 @ 09:37:11
      That's disgusting behaviour, and exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of.
      
      Tom.
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink
- mazzy
- 2008-08-25 @ 14:52:49
Yes, it is. Also, Tom, replying to something you said about "sinners", I too hate that concept, and the idea that you will go to hell if you don't believe what they do.

I seem to be in agreement with most of you, really. I suppose one of my reasons for posting on this subject is to say that non-believers (or believers in other credos, we all believe in something) are not immune from some of the excesses of religion sometimes. Also, as a well-balanced Libran (now, you must all believe in astrology, surely.....hello, are you still there?), I will say that being religious and be a well-adjusted, caring, non-judgemental person are not mutually exclusive.
Steve
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-25 @ 15:05:17
  We do seem to be mostly in agreement here. It's been my observation over the years that how good a person is (or how "well-adjusted, caring, non-judgemental" you are, as you put it so well) is independent of whether the person is religious or not. i.e. Good and bad come from within. This site is a perfect example: there are some great atheists and some awful religious people here, and vice versa.
  
  I bet it's no surprise to you that I don't care too much for astrology!
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-25 @ 15:08:00
  Sorry, I forgot to add in my last reply: I don't have any beliefs.
  
  Tom.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- prydwen
- 2008-08-26 @ 16:59:12
Discussed this at tea the other night. Faith is what it implies that is that un-educated people in the past relied on the educated to lead them in the 'truth' and 'light'. As soon as the average Joe managed to read this faith was questioned. Now we question everything and nobody takes anything on faith.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-08-26 @ 18:13:47
  That's an excellent point. That's why bibles didn't used to be available in English, the first one being in 1535. The fundamentalist Christian view is that scholarship "causes confusion".
  
  I see it as a major step forward that we now require more than just faith. Asking questions and getting people to prove their opinions is important to a healthy society.
  
  Tom.
  - - mattk
    - 2008-08-29 @ 15:51:10
    Organised religion and personal spirituality are two very different things. All sorts of assumptions are made as soon as anyone mentions words like "god", "religion", "faith", etc, which is quite understandable in the current political climate, but if you're someone who is genuinely interested in thinking for yourself and not unquestioningly accepting the dogma of an established order, then consider this - science is a belief system, and what's more it's a belief system that is at times as closed-minded and dogmatic as any of the others. Don't make the mistake of assuming that anyone with a sense of spirituality (for want of a better word) must be stupid, ill-educated, or a fanatic of some kind.
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-08-29 @ 16:29:59
      Science is NOT a belief system. It is a method, and the purpose of that method is to test propositions about the the world and to make predictions. But as with all areas of human endeavour, there are some bad scientists and some good ones. That's why peer review is so important.
      
      Tom.
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink

Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

65 Comments on Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Leave a comment (Login)