High IQ turns academics into atheists

Very interesting article. However it seems that too much was not taken into account in the study. Such as the anti-Christian attitude of much of the professors of colleges and universities. If one in higher education is told enough that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions and that belief is foolish of course they are more likely to doubt beliefs. Many are taught to listen to their teachers they are more educated and knowledgeable. <p>Another point is how much the public schools have berated and disallowed bible study and belief in God. They teach evolution as fact instead of a theory. They are taught that there is not right or wrong. What else with all the teaching against belief would be expected. Also it is not taken into account that higher education does not necessarily equate to higher intelligence. Not all people with high IQs can afford college educations. Nor are all with high IQs interested in so-called higher education. Many are so turned off by the limited intelligence of teachers they would not want to deal with even more arrogant professors who claim knowledge. This is how many I have known felt about teachers. <p>Given the obvious slant of educators against religion is it any wonder that more and more are doubting beliefs? As an atheist it was easy to let pride cloud judgement to believe that religion is simply superstition and to be equated with psychics and spiritualists which of course we are told is foolishness. If one believes that religion is foolishness it is not hard at all to equate higher intelligence with unbelief. Of course as long as you do not doubt their religion of evolution. Let us not dare question that sacred cow. <p>Though my email address is BibleL7, I was not always a believer. Most of my life I was in fact Atheist. I had no reason to doubt that believers were foolish and thus less intelligent. However at the age of 37 I found out different. I read the Bible from cover to cover and it made much sense. It answered questions that no evolutionist or big bang theory believers ever could. And that was just the first chapter. I have asked many atheists since to answer such questions yet have not received an answer yet. Oh other than to say that evolution is fact and everybody knows it. <p>As for the scientific community I would not put much into what it says when I was a child we were told that scientist all agreed we were headed into another ice age now all scientists agree we are having global warming. The give statistics from what they think would be the case hundreds or more years ago yet there are no records of these statistics we are just to take it on faith in their calculations. When these so-called more intelligent people put their beliefs to the same tests they claim that disprove God such as only considering what has been measured and tested and verified by actual evidence perhaps they will find that their faith is misguided. <p>Sinners who wish to deny the existence of God so they don't have to consider themselves sinners will still not escape the final judgement of God. The evidence all points to one Creator, One Truth, and that Truth is also the Way and Life. Not wanting to believe and claiming we are too intelligent to believe will not be an excuse.

Thanks, Skye Mc Leod, for that sermon. However, your "They teach evolution as fact instead of a theory" comment only supports the findings, which is that low intelligence people are more likely to believe in a god / fairy / dragon etc.

On the subject of Evolution: in the time of Darwin, Evolution was just a theory, but today evolution is essentially fact (as far as anything can be considered fact), if not self evident. The only issue is whether Evolution created humans directly or whether some other entity (presumably the result of evolution itself) designed us. However currently the evidence suggests it is most likely that we are direct products of Evolution, there is no evidence on the other hand to suggest we have in anyway been designed, even if it looks like that on the surface to those who have a lesser understanding of how evolution works. <p>In response to Skye Mc Leod: <p>I think Skye's comments go a long way to prove just how probable the correlation between intelligence and propensity to atheism is.

Many are taught to listen to their teachers they are more educated and knowledgeable. <p>Certainly at university level, the students should have been taught to critically assess everything the teaching staff say, and check it against independent sources, make sure it makes logical sense and gain a personal view, supported by evidence, of the subject to hand. This is diametrically opposite to teaching them to swallow everything the teaching staff say. This attitude of critical assessment and independent co-oberation probably contributes to the higher rates of atheism.

There have been numerous studies that verify this finding. There are also studies showing that crime is lower in areas where there is little or no religious belief. Religion has no place in school other then to be studied as mythology. The thing is that unintelligent people, who are often religious, will not look at the facts. They have little utility to understand the scientific method and will dismiss study after study that shows the relation between low intelligence and religion. Come on people. We have regected almost all of the gods of the past as stupid superstition. Let's take it a step further.

I agree with Skye. The bible actually answers a lot of questions that contrary theories do not answer. As a matter of fact, the bible has gone as far as predicting these days when people will get deceived and abandon their belief in God. The truth is obvious, and that is why there is so much debate against it. The debates don't change the truth, rather they strengthen it. Jesus is Lord regardless. Life after death on earth is true. Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

"It answered questions that no evolutionist or big bang theory believers ever could. And that was just the first chapter." <p>Anyone can answer questions by 'making up' answers. If the bible had claimed that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the 'Great Green Arkleseizure' would you also live in perpetual fear "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief"? <p>There are thousands of different creation myths from different civilisations, why not believe in those instead? They all have the same basis in reality as the Douglas Adams one I've used above.

"Though my email address is BibleL7, I was not always a believer. Most of my life I was in fact Atheist. I had no reason to doubt that believers were foolish and thus less intelligent. However at the age of 37 I found out different. I read the Bible from cover to cover and it made much sense." <p>I very much doubt that this is true (yes, I think you're lying...). Here's why I think that: <p>1. I know of no atheist who would use capitalize the word, as if it was some sort of belief system, rather than an attitude of disbelief. <p>2. No one could possibly read the Bible from a skeptical point of view and come to the conclusion that it "[makes] much sense". What few atheists have reverted to their previous state of belief have usually done so independently of a serious study of religion (usually as a desire to get back to the safety of childhood after a psychological shock). The belief comes first, the study comes later. <p>The only way to believe the Bible is to read it while one is already a believer. I have also read the Bible cover to cover: all I found there was a disgusting description of a violent tribal god willing to perform genocide on behalf of one small tribe; intense hatred for anything outside the "tribe"; and a view of humanity so sad as to have little value in the real world.

Having read the article I felt some reservations about the direct link between IQ (which as an indicator has to be treated with caution - I thought there was a lot of debate over the validity of IQ as a measure of intellect) and religiosity. However, I think David Hardman hit the nail on the head with his point "there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt intuitions.". I think it is this questioning nature that leads one to the open conclusions of agnosticism or atheism (I would argue most atheist are ideologically agnostics, but rate the probability of finding any evidence to prove the existence of a creator so slim that to all intents and purposes they are atheists). <p>There are a few responses I would like to give to Skye's comments. <p>"When these so-called more intelligent people put their beliefs to the same tests they claim that disprove God such as only considering what has been measured and tested and verified by actual evidence perhaps they will find that their faith is misguided." <p>Firstly, it is not for anyone to disprove a theory or ideology, but for the believers to prove it. Scientist, as far as I am aware are not trying to disprove God. I'm also not aware of any scientific effort to disprove the exisitance or leprechaun's or other mythical creatures. <p>They are ultimately pointless tasks that have no end. In addition to this, how would you set about disproving something that has no evidence to say it exists, other than a story book (be it a religious story, or a mythical story. The myths of the Norse, Romans and Ancient Greeks once made up religions too) Regarding leprechauns. although there existence has not been disproved, I doubt many people truly believe they exist. <p>Science is not biased on faith, at least not for the community scientists engaged in the research. They have highly trained critical analytical skills to test their theories with. They have methodically tested their theories against the available evidence. Some theories fail these tests, and as such are discarded and replaced by an theory that more completely describes the evidence (sometimes this replacement theory is a modified version of the original). <p>Scientific theories are peer reviewed and so have been tested by scientists other than those who proposed the theory. This overcomes any theory being adopted due to personal feelings. By this mechanism of peer review any unfit theory is discredited. This leads to the adoption of the best possible theory at that point in time. If new evidence arises that somehow contradicts the prevailing theory then the theory is re-examined, along with any competing theories. This is a continual process. Obviously we don't know everything and I am sure that in time many of the accepted theories of today will be overthrown by improved theories as human knowledge expands. <p>For those outside of the scientific research process, I can see that a lot of the claims the scientific community makes have to be taken on faith. There is of course the option to study the subject area oneself, through books and reliable internet resources, to allow critical consideration of what the scientific community are saying, so there is an alternative to simply taking on faith whatever the media says the scientific community is saying (not always the same as what the scientific community is actually saying, either because it doesn't make such a nice headline or through genuine misunderstandings). <p>There is often confusion over the term "theory", and it seems Skye has fallen into this trap. The everyday definition of "theory" is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural. A scientific theory has however been through the extensive peer review process described above, and so has considerable evidence in it's favour. In this sense a scientific theory is far from conjectural. A scientific theory should also make predictions beyond the current body of evidence to allow the theory to be tested. Only once passing these hurdles is a scientific theory accepted. <p>As Skye correctly points out, evolution is a theory. People may often incorrectly take this to mean that evolution is somehow not really thought to be an accurate explanation of how life came to be the way it is today. While I will agree evolution is not a fact, I will say that it is as close to fact that anything can be. There is a huge body of evidence in support of evolution. Contact your local University's Biology Department. I am sure they would help explain the case to any interested parties. I have yet to have heard of any competing theory or ideology that explains the evidence around us well as evolution. <p>On belief, the matter was rather nicely summed up in a conversation I had with a friend yesterday. He had just listened to a radio phone in show hosted by an atheist on the topic of religious belief. A questioning believer had phoned up and asked "How can atheists not believe in God?". The host asked the caller if he believed in Unicorns, and the caller explained he did not. The host said then questioned why the caller didn't believe in Unicorns. The caller explained he'd never seen any evidence of Unicorns. The host said, I think you have just answered your own question.

Thanks to Chuck and Chris for the drive-by sneers of Skye McLeod. Such disdain is a typical reaction of some "intellectuals" to arguments they disagree with but cannot refute. <p>Even if it were true that intelligence is correlated with atheism, it only provides more proof that intelligence is not the same as wisdom. <p>Like Skye, I am an adult convert to Christianity after being a convinced atheist. By the time I was converted (at age 32), I had a post-graduate degree. Go figure!

Sad isn't it? When we don't understand something much bigger than us we call those who believe in it un-intelligent.

Gajurt 12 June, 2008 "I agree with Skye. The bible actually answers a lot of questions that contrary theories do not answer." <p>As far as I can tell, the Bible is a collection of stories. These stories have made many many predictions, largely in the style of Mystic Meg. Perhaps we should start listening to what Mystic Meg has to say, and we should all read our horoscopes? I suggest that intelligence and belief in astrology, ghosts, werewolves, unicorns etc. etc. are similarly negatively correlated.

This is not new knowledge. <p>And it is something I observe every day in the media and amongst my own family and friends. <p>But besides IQ there is a clear trend (fashion) that religion is used to underline the difference between THEM and US. <p>That said, a believer like gajurt is so deep in that IQ doesn't matter. He can not see further than his? bible allows. <p>The sad thing is that there is no cure for religion when first infected the only way out is to find out for your self any outside pressure will only worsen the delusion so the best weapon against religion is to ignore it.

Religion provides easy answers to difficult questions, hence its appeal. But most issues are not that easy, and science struggles to find explanations which can be understood by non-experts with the same ease as religious ones. Unfortunately many religious propagandists conclude from this situation that they are right. <p>It is always harder to think for yourself, and if you're only told to listen to your teachers you will never get used to it. To me it seems obvious that critical thinking leads to questioning the simplistic and naive 'explanations' that religion provides.

While personal belief that there is a higher power which will eventually make things good (whatever that involves) can be explained with the fact that hope dies last, organized belief in whatever deity, or religion, is simply a political structure meant for control and manipulation of large masses of people. In this sense, I think, one should differentiate between, let's say plain optimists, "personal believers" and "organized religion" when talking about religiousness. And if an experiment were possible to relate IQ with these different categories, it would have ended probably showing IQ going gradually down moving from "optimists" to "personal believers" to "organized religion members".

With regards to Scott Gilbreath comments, <p>"Even if it were true that intelligence is correlated with atheism, it only provides more proof that intelligence is not the same as wisdom." <p>I assume you are implying that believing something written in one particular collection of books, e.g. the Bible, is wise? How do you decide to chose the Bible over any other religious text? Or is it simply choosing to believe in a religious belief of some sort the wise choice? <p>"Like Skye, I am an adult convert to Christianity after being a convinced atheist. By the time I was converted (at age 32), I had a post-graduate degree. Go figure!" <p>Congratulations on your educational achievement Scott. It seems you are confusing education with intelligence however. While often there is a correlation, simply being well educated is not the same as being highly intelligent and vice versa. Out of curiosity, is your post-graduate degree in theology?

Nice parody comment there from Skye McLeod. Could have been a bit more subtle though. Believers might not always be the most rational people, but not too many are downright stupid enough to say things like "Most of my life I was in fact Atheist... However at the age of 37 I found out different. I read the Bible from cover to cover and it made much sense. It answered questions that no evolutionist or big bang theory believers ever could. And that was just the first chapter." <p>One good point though. Taking "academic" as synonymous with "high IQ" makes this study look almost as stupid and unpleasant as some of Dr Lynn's previous work.

Henrik - while I agree with your sentiment, I must whole heartedly disagree. Obviously everyone is entitled to believe what they like (not just on religion but on anything), however this does not mean everyone's beliefs are reasonable. <p>The way I would challenge unreasonable beliefs is to discuss with the people what they believe and why. I find that by getting people to ask questions, they often stumble across improved answers all by themselves - much as the radio show host did in the previous example. Sadly this only works with people who are genuinely inquiring into a subject and not those who, for whatever reason, have decided that they have the one true answer. <p>Before anyone attempts to make the point that scientists assert they have the all correct answers now, please read my first post and you will see this is not what scientists do. Scientists are open to new ideas and are willing to change their mind (at least good scientists are) provided evidence for a reason to change their mind can be shown. Simply because science can not currently explain everything, it does NOT mean that any other field of study or research (or those fields that would pretend to be such) can.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14:1

Gajurt's response is typical of the brainwashed religious. <p>Having actually read the Bible several times as well as some of the omitted books left out... Dead Sea Scrolls... yatta yatta, I think I have a more accurate statement than Gajurt. The Bible does NOT 'answer' many questions at all. It offers explanations from 2,000 years old dead people that made sense at the time. With the amount of contradiction within it more aptly proliferates more questions than answers. <p>Immaculate conception... yeah right. <p>People that believe honestly in 'magic' fertilization also are apt to find Santa Claus plausible. Look up the name Pantera, most likely Jesus' real father. Mary should have been stoned to death at the time with the rules that were in place then. I think I would have made up a story that God put a bun in my oven if that was going to happen to me too. Funny how one little white lie can turn into so much B.S. <p>It is the thinking person's journey to find what truth is possible and question everything. It is the ignorant who would rather believe a story for fact. Sad thing is that the poor and stupid have and always will fall pray to this ultimate hoax and feed it with their 19% income (or whatever the church states now is the appropriate amount of cash that earns your ticket to someplace you can never visit physically). <p>You are on your own. You do not need religion to have morality. Try not to bring pain to others and help your fellow human beings by pointing out the blatantly obvious as often as possible to avoid further confusion. <p>Cheers.

Franz, is that an ironic post? Are you somehow suggesting, by quoting the Bible, that anyone who after critically analysing the evidence and deciding not to spend the rest of their life believing in a supreme being (and therefore not trying to please, appease, ward off, apologise, ask forgiveness of, or pray to) is a fool? <p>To me it seems foolish to spend time praying to an entity that all the evidence suggests does not exist. By this I mean that I mean that, as far as I can tell, there is no evidence to suggest that the entity exists. Imagine all the constructive things the human race could have done if all the hours spent pray was spent, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and tackling other global issues. Imagine all the hospitals, fire stations and homes that could have been built instead of religious temples of various sorts. <p>I don't count a religious text as evidence of the existence of whatever that religion believes in. I've read Lord of the Rings (cover to cover!) but I don't believe that wizards, elves, hobbits etc. actually exist or ever existed, other than in the imaginations of Tolkien and the readers that is.

NoGODisGOOD - interesting points and I would also be tempted to make up an immaculate conception story rather than facing being stoned. It is debatable if that is where the immaculate conception myth arose from though. I was of the understanding that the text, originally in Hebrew I believe, was translated to various other languages and somewhere the word for "maiden" meaning young woman, was taken to mean virgin. I thought that this was widely accepted in academic circles that have historically studied the Bible, although my research is not particularly extensive in this area. <p>Regarding all else, very well said :D

"An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident." Francis Thompson in 'Paganism Old and New'. <p>"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand, you have failed." St Augustine of Hippo in 'De Trinitate'. <p>"God can be denied only on the surface; but He cannot be denied where human experience reaches down beneath the surface of flat, vapid, commonplace existence." Nicholas Berdyaev in 'Dream and Reality'. <p>"If there is no God, there is no meaning to life at all. All we have is nature and what it produces. That blind, cold, unfeeling nature that brings things to birth, watches them decay, and absorbs them right back again. Nature doesn't produce meaning. It only produces itself. No God - no meaning." Amy Welborn in 'Prove it! God.'

"They teach evolution as fact instead of a theory." <p>-Skye Mc Leod <p>Wow I mean wow. Doesn't sound like the 21st century's arrived yet does it? Since all of science is based on theories, do you have problems with science as a whole? <p>What should the astophysics course in the university teach besides astrophysics? Should would-be astrophysicists also study how god created the universe in 7 days?

"Sinners who wish to deny the existence of God so they don't have to consider themselves sinners will still not escape the final judgement of God." <p>Ah, so now the threats start. Such a loving crowd these Christians. I'm so glad I won't have to spend eternity with them, what an ordeal that would be. <p>"The evidence all points to one Creator, One Truth, and that Truth is also the Way and Life." <p>Skye, <p>Could you please present this "evidence". (And please don't quote your bible, that's circular reasoning). I'm sure there's a Nobel prize in it for you if this "evidence" stands up to critical and scientific scrutiny. We wait with baited breath...

It seems from my (limited) experience that scientists, and posstibly academics in general, are less likely to be agnostics or perhaps "social believers", and are more likely to state that they are atheists. <p>In the same way a large percent of brits claim to be members of the Church of England but never attend. I see the same proportion of practicing Christians (and other religions) in my department as in the general populace. It would be interesting to see a study on actual behaviour not just stated beliefs (apologies if this is the case, I haven't read the papers yet). <p>(Also, why all this fuss about evolution. Are most of the posters here from the USA? In the UK most academic believers in God also believe in evolution.)

I just find it ridiculous that certain academics and members of the intellectual elite believe that they have the right to push their anti-religious attitudes onto others when they criticise religion and religious institutions of being dogmatic and of trying to manipulate and control people. <p>Yes, religion has been exploited in this way, but mankind have and will exploit anything in their pursuit foer power, not just religion. This need to rationalise everything and provide answers for everything is a disease. Why do people feel the need to break everything down? The esscence of religion is having faith in something, believing it. If someone does not truly believe in a higher deity you can't force them to. So the same rescpect should be given to those who do believe.You either do believe or you don't. It's not something that should be determined by how many arguments can be provided for or against. <p>When religious people preach/try to convert others they are accused of being fanatics/encroaching on other's rights.Why does it not work the other way around? I don't believe that religion has anything to do with intelligence. It is about having faith in something that you can never truly understand.And the fact that certain things cannot be fully understood makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Science and theattempts to disprove theories, religious or ortherwise is just another pursuit of power. No-one knows what happens after we die. It can never be proved so I don't see how religion can ever really be disproved. <p>I completely respect the beliefs of others, whether they be religious or not. So why not just leave people alone to pursue their beliefs rather than trying to categorise them because of it

<p>There are no atheists. Those that deny the existence of God just worship their own intelligence as their God.

In response to Franz: <p>Even the devil can quote scripture. <p>If you think that by picking and choosing quotes from the Bible you can make it look good, you're wrong. Reading the whole thing is very enlightening, but I doubt you'd appreciate the conclusion that any objective reader would come to. <p>This study is ridiculous, but religion is probably worse.

James, To make a long story short, God revealed to me that Jesus Christ is alive. I'm sure you're incredulous, and I understand completely. If it hadn't happened to me, I would never have believed it myself. <p>While I accept the Bible as God's Word written, I think that wisdom involves more than believing the Bible. In my opinion, it includes appreciation for the revelation of God in nature, moral order, objective truth---natural law, if you will. <p>Are you asking me if I got a post-graduate degree in theology while an atheist? Of course not. My first post-graduate degree was in Economics. After my conversion, I earned a Master's in Theological Ethics at Oxford.

<p> "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." <p>(Psalms 14:1)

The first comment so perfectly supports the article that one might wonder if the IP address from which it was submitted could be connected to the home of Prof. Lynn ;-) <p>Sadly, I suspect not.....

Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but... <p>Some here should educate themselves about the meaning of the word "theory" in the scientific sense.

I have no trouble with the premise, none whatsoever. <p>But is it accurate to say that children become more intelligent as they age? <p>More knowledgeable, more experienced and wiser as a result. But more intelligent? <p>"To see by faith is to close the eye of reason". Ben Franklin

When people say there is no evidence of design in organic complexity they are sorely mistaken. <p>First, one needs some well-defined reference from which to assess whether something is designed by a complex process as opposed cobbled into existence by some matrix of simple forces and primitive rules. This is easily ascertained by looking at how complex things are put together. For instance proteins are the predominant building blocks of life, serving structural, catalytic and computational roles. But proteins are strings of amino acids (usually several hundred long) whose functional capacity is directly tied to their precise concatenation. In other words, without the right combination, the resulting protein doesn't work right. <p>With twenty amino acids to choose from, the number of possible combinations for a string 250 amino acids in length is about 2.0E+325! But this is not the end. Imagine thousands of proteins that must be built correctly to fulfill specific functions, each being 250 long. <p>Obviously, we quickly run into a combinatorial explosion problem. The question is how does a simple matrix of blind and ignorant forces compensate for such vast variety, where the functional structures are but remote islands in a sea of junk structures? <p>The answer is you can't. The problem of infinite variety demands something more of the synthesizing process than the random generation of novel structures and some ambiguous fitness rule. <p>This does not even take into account the fact that at the core of life is language! Proteins are not directly taken from the DNA structure. Rather, a code is extracted from DNA which serves as a blueprint for manufacturing the protein on a Ribosome workbench. In other words the actual physical protein is insulated from its DNA representation by what amounts to a dictionary. <p>And they say there is no evidence of design? <p>For years everyone imagined that the battle to disprove intelligent design would be won on the fronts of theoretical physics and chemistry. Not true. When analyzed within the context of engineering and manufacturing theory (late comers to the arena of science), the idea of raw matter bootstrapping itself into complex arrangements is shown to be a nonevent. <p>Simply put, which came first, the chicken of the egg? The answer is that simple processes do not have the requisite qualities necessary to synthesize complex network formations of any kind, man-made or organic. Only more complex processes, like exotic state machines with advanced forms of selection capability and the capacity to manipulate natural resources like raw materials in exotic ways (i.e. intelligent operations), can attack the problem associated with combinatorial explosion successfully. <p>The truth of the matter is that scientists have not come to terms with what they are looking at when they inspect life. Organisms with nervous systems are essentially software programs running in organic hardware. The macroscopic form of the organism is a product of exquisite nanaotechnological manufacturing processes. The whole organism is a chemically-based machine with chemcial computation at its core. <p>So tell me: is nature somehow well versed in highly advanced chemisty, computer engineering techniques and automata, materials science, signals and systems theory, and nanotechnology? It would need to be, to construct life as we now understand it. <p>If not, then where did life come from? <p>You decide, but do the research first.

I was Atheist my whole life but then I read Franz's post: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14:1". It makes sense. I am now Christian. Thank you Franz. <p>ahh...<feels really sick in the stomach ....>

I would just like to quickly respond to the comments of Skye Mcleod when he said that: Many are so turned off by the limited intelligence of teachers they would not want to deal with even more arrogant professors who claim knowledge. <p>I have just finished my BA and I would not say that this is the typical teacher at a higher education level. My teachers were always humble, and only taught us their own theories when they were also involved in contemporary debate on the topic. However, they never said anything along the lines of: 'I am right'. I found rather, that all contemporary theories were covered and explained, and it was left up to us to argue and discover which was the most plausible, with the teacher only there to guide the debate between competing ideas. Maybe things took this format because I did a highly conceptual subject like philosophy, and I can see how science would be taught to a person as fact, although this is because science has evidence to back it up. <p>I find Skye Mcleod's comments to be insulting, and I'm sure my teachers would feel the same. I find it unsurprising that someone so distrustful of teachers and learning reverts to a very old textbook, clearly having some notion along the lines of: "Well, if it's old, it must be right...". <p>I would also like to say a few words on the meaning of the words agnostic and atheist, as I feel that time and time again in these discussions, a misunderstanding of the words we use causes confusion. Looking at the etymology of the word agnostic, one notices that it has to do whith gnosticism, i.e. knowlege, and whether something is knowable. Atheism, however is a position of belief. Thus, it is possible to be an agnostic atheist, or even an agnostic theist. What this person is saying is, "whilst I cannot ever know for certain, I believe there is/isn't a god." Agnosticism is a position which says that the question is unanswerable, yet that does not meean that they don't have a belief about the answer to the question anyway. <p>Cheers for your time.

Oh dear, Tyler Durden has "baited breath" -has he been eating fish? <p>Even discussing religion is indicative of low IQ.

Have you ever noticed that it's always the intellectually limited who sneeringly refer to those who would dare question the validity of superstitious nonsense as "intellectually elite"?

If we live in a society where a person is free to believe as they will - why waste money on research trying to score points from those who, for whatever reason, gain comfort and purpose from faith in God? <p>Perhaps the problem is more that some folks feel that they simply must try to destroy what they cant understand. <p>Isn't that too often the human condition? <p>I rather like this quote from a 19th Century Humorist "Wisdom has never made a bigot, but learning has". (Josh Billings)

Tijen: <p>"If someone does not truly believe in a higher deity you can't force them to." -- But if you stone 'apostates' and promote suicide bombing, [all too prevalent in recent years amongst believers in one growing religion], you can have a damned good try! <p>"So the same [respect] should be given to those who do believe." -- Provided believers don't try to impose their beliefs on others, this might seem reasonable. However, frequently they do. In addition to the examples above, we've had decades of interference in reforming law on witchcraft, slavery, women's rights, suicide, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia ... whilst the mystical rites of institutional child abuse [sexual, physical, and emotional] by priests, nuns, and other religious figures flourished. <p>"why not just leave people alone to pursue their beliefs" -- Which beliefs? African beliefs and practices include the ritual killing of children: sometimes to exorcise demons, and sometimes to obtain body parts for traditional medicine. Caribbean and practices beliefs include hacking gay men to pieces. Chinese beliefs and practices include exterminating species in order to obtain body parts for traditional medicine. Beliefs and practices from the Indian subcontinent [embracing Hinduism, Islam, and other local sects] include 'honour killings'. Jehovah's Witnesses 'disfellowship' JW's who receive blood transfusions. -- WHICH beliefs should people be allowed to pursue, in a modern, civilised, society, based purely upon tradition?

<p>I am a member of Mensa and a firm believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now here is a religion for the intellectual elite!

"This need to rationalise everything and provide answers for everything is a disease. Why do people feel the need to break everything down? The esscence of religion is having faith in something, believing it. If someone does not truly believe in a higher deity you can't force them to. So the same rescpect should be given to those who do believe.You either do believe or you don't. It's not something that should be determined by how many arguments can be provided for or against." <p>- Tijen <p>Tijen, in that case, why bother thinking about anything? Why don't we just make up our minds what we believe reality to be and stick to that? Let us not use reason or logic to determine anything. It worries me to hear people want to turn their backs on reason. That way madness lies. Faith is simply the surrender of reason. I suppose for some that feels like a burden of responsibility has been lifted. <p>You are right, people are entitled to believe what they want. They are not entitled to be respected for silly beliefs though. For arguments sake, let's say I believe that unicorns exist. Should people take my belief seriously? Well, it would only be polite to enquire why I believe. After I have told them I have an old book that explains that unicorns run freely around but are invisible so we can't see them, should people take me seriously? Would you? I truly hope not. Now what if I said the book was religious, and that I prayed to the unicorns? Now should people respect my beliefs? Not in my view. They are still as unfounded as before, religious or not. I see no reason to respect unfounded beliefs. <p>"There are no atheists. Those that deny the existence of God just worship their own intelligence as their God." <p>- Janet <p>Nice statement Janet. A broad sweep catch all sentence that does nothing to actaully engage those you have called atheists on any points or counter-points they have made. I guess you don't want to advance the discussion though, as I think you can see where it is going and you don't like that destination. <p>"Are you asking me if I got a post-graduate degree in theology while an atheist? Of course not. My first post-graduate degree was in Economics. After my conversion, I earned a Master's in Theological Ethics at Oxford." <p>- Scott Gilbreath <p>How on earth did I guess you were qualified in Theology? Spooky hey. Perhaps God told me? Most people are considered mad for hearing voices. Maybe God did tell you. Why not tell me? Because I don't believe? That can't be right, he told you and you where an atheist. Oh well, I guess if I am wrong I can have a chat with him after I pass away.

"So tell me: is nature somehow well versed in highly advanced chemisty, computer engineering techniques and automata, materials science, signals and systems theory, and nanotechnology? It would need to be, to construct life as we now understand it." <p>- Michael Herbst <p>Well Michael, your post certain appears to be well informed. The problem is you are not looking at even half of the issue. Intelligent Design is NOT a competing theory with evolution. Intelligent Design is not even a theory in the scientific sense. It makes no testable predictions and is a highly unsatisfactory explaination. <p>I'm not a biologist, but I imagine most biologist could explain to you the where your mistakes are. As far as I am aware Intelligent Design is not being discussed by credible scientists because it is not a credible idea. There are plenty of videos of biologists looking at the flaws of Intelligent Design to explain why ID is not a credible idea. They show that the eye is not designed, and later bacterial phigela (not sure if I have spelt that correctly). These are the two main examples ID proponents use to show "design". If I can find links for them, I will post it as I hope you will find it enlightening.

<p>Saying academics have high IQs is a bit of a stretch.

Re: "But is it accurate to say that children become more intelligent as they age?" from Jim. <p>IQ remains the same from childhood to adulthood. One cannot increase their IQ, so no - children become more educated, but not more intelligent. They use the intelligence (ie, IQ) they were born with to use their given education to be deemed "smart". <p>Re: Everything else. I give a big "Wow." to all of the theists out here who automatically get on the defensive and say... er, rather... type all of these low-blows. Good job for proving the article to be very true. I hope these comments get put on the next grant to further the research in this area.

It's interesting that the comments here so quickly devolved to a discussion of evolution versus intelligent design. Most people who have faith in a higher being actually have no opinion or even favor some form of evolution when asked about the issue. <p>You will also note that the article itself never mentioned evolution either - attacks on the intelligence of Christians based on the concept of intelligent design are red herrings <p>Personally, I think there ARE a few issues with the article that bear consideration - especially with regard to the author's desire to present his evidence as definitive proof of his thesis. <p>Granted that he has shown some limited correlation, but this shows nothing close to causation. In fact, these statistics are more than adequately covered when you factor in self selection of the groups, motivation for unbelief and an alternative reason for the correlation. <p>Self Selection of Atheist Academics <p>Part of the problem with Dr. Lynn's study is that he's not polling ALL the intelligent people. He's specifically targeting academics as an "intelligent" group and extending the results to cover the rest of the intelligent population. However, this only works if intelligence were the only limiting factor in choosing an academic career. This is most definitely NOT the case. Specifically, two religiously oriented factors play a strong role in affecting this decision as well. <p>The first is the environment a religious person finds in academic circles. Especially at the university level - where he focused his study - religion finds highly antagonistic attitudes prevail. These attitudes tend to drive away (often intentionally) the faithful. <p>The second factor is in calling. Simply put, if you have a high IQ and don't believe in God, focusing on your IQ by going into academics is an easy choice. However, if you have a high IQ and DO believe in God, you might just feel compelled to a slightly higher calling. Notice that Dr. Lynn doesn't examine the IQ of those in religious service. If he had, he may have found many of those highly intelligent religious people that he found absent in academia. <p>Motivations for Unbelief <p>I'm including this factor primarily because of Dr. Lynn's statements on the loss of faith of adolescents. I'm going to put aside his comments that they lose their faith "as they grow more intelligent" and focus on what else is happening to these kids that corrolate to their loss of faith. <p>The first thing that happens is sexual awakening. <p>Adolescence just happens to be the time that people get interested in the opposite sex. It is also the time that they find societal mores do not quite jibe with their newfound drives. Not too coincidentally, this is also when they start to feel a drive to rebel against those who wish to rein them in such as parents, authority figures and yes, God. Added to the obvious issues is a more subtle change in adolescent brains. They stop accurately recognizing social cues. <p>Studies have shown that adolescents, for a time, lose the ability to accurately judge things like body language and facial expressions. They interpret hostility where there is none and consequently feel picked on or ostracized. Because of this, adolescents risk feeling "cut off" from the rest of the world - all alone. such feelings can easily lead to questioning - or even abandoning - one's faith. After all, if you're all alone, then no one, not even God, is there by definition. <p>An Alternative Correlation <p>Of course, other polls also show some decrease in faith among the highly intelligent, so the question remains - do more intelligent people believe less? Specifically, are people atheists BECAUSE they have a high IQ or could there be some other factor involved? <p>Consider this: believers in general - and especially the strong believers - don't just accept that God exists as an abstract concept. They RELY on God. They know that they alone are not sufficient in the grand scheme of things. They are not in charge and, without God, they are lost. Highly intelligent people, on the other hand, can easily believe just the opposite. They find solutions to difficult issues and, if they are not careful, can come to believe that they can find solutions to ANY problem. Intelligent people have the tools to more easily achieve success in some areas (such as, for example, academics) and can mistake success in one area for success in life. Academics and teens are especially prone to this - the former because, in academia, they are sufficiently insulated from real life to prevent facts from disabusing them of the knowledge and the latter because, since their development is suddenly skyrocketing, they have more and more trouble knowing their limits (this is also, in part, why teens believe they know everything and are orders of magnitude smarter than their parents). <p>This lack of connection to real world consequences doesn't always manifest as atheism. It can show itself in many other incarnations as well - as the intellectual elite who never bothered to learn how to change his tire if it goes flat, as the professo with his head in the clouds who goes through life in a daze, as the kids who go to a party to have a little fun and eventually find themselves in front of a judge or even as the teens who video tape their indiscretions and broadcast them on Youtube. However it shows itself, it is always recognized by one name - foolishness. <p>In short, rather than seeing atheism as correlating directly with intelligence, it is more likely that it is INVERSELY proportional to wisdom.

<p>Daniel, thanks for your comments. I was enjoying reading your post, even if I did not agree with it all. It was nice to see that you had brought the discussion back on topic. <p>Then I read your last paragraph. The hypocrisy is shocking! After having taken apart Dr Lynn's paper for over stretching a correlation as a causation (I quite agree with you on this point) you then, in a matter of a few paragraphs, move to the sweeping statement; <p>"In short, rather than seeing atheism as correlating directly with intelligence, it is more likely that it is INVERSELY proportional to wisdom." <p>As evidence of this you put forward stereotypes of day dreaming academics with limited practical skills and juvenile offenders. On top of this you make the statement; <p>"This lack of connection to real world consequences doesn't always manifest as atheism." <p>You are clearly suggesting that someone who does not believe in God (which God, or will any do? Are Thor and Odin acceptable? Baal? Is there a deity league table?) is less connected to reality. Again, on what grounds I do not know. Perhaps it is because you think that believers rely on God (surely many of them do, why else cling to an ideology that, not only has no evidence to support it, but that often is totally in opposition to the evidence?) that this makes them somehow more intune with the real world? <p>From my experience, someone who says they do not believe in any specific deity has given the subject some thought. While I am not saying all those who believe have not given the subject thought, I have certainly come across many who have not considered the questions I ask them about religion (e.g. my previous comment about which deity figure should be worshipped - I could go on with a long list of questions, and I would love to know your answers to them). <p>Lastly (as far as this post is concerned at least ;) ), I apologise for all my typos and grammatical errors, as I have been rushing many of my posts off and rereading them I am finding several mistakes.

Daniel, <p>you make some really good hypotheses... several of the critical points you make are testable. I'd like to see some data to prove or disprove them. <p>specifically your points about selection bias, a group of academics is hardly an unbiased sample. you should go out and get IQ data from some religious people. <p>also, your "wisdom" point. While I don't know if you can come up with an analog to IQ for wisdom, if you could it would be interesting data.

Reading the Bible was the main factor in my rejection of Christianity. How anyone could believe such a violent, yet simplistic, bronze-aged collection of stories provides any answers at all is confusing. Until one looks at this article. Ah, it takes intelligence to think critically. <p>The cdesign proponentsists only emphasize the difference. Intelligent design is like meeting someone that seriously believes astrology. You know their opinions can be discarded and you don't have to waste time taking them seriously. I find it quite useful.

Talking of unicorns, yesterday's "Times" [Thursday, 12th] reports that one is now living in Rome, as a genetic mutation: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4116471.ece I recall reading a news article a few years ago about a hermaphrodite whose genitalia almost, though not quite, permitted self-fertilisation. If a genetic mutation can produce a virgin birth, that would be another 'miracle' explained: though no guarantee that we would have a zooful of little godlings.

In response to Jim. You ask do children become more intelligent rather than just simply wiser as they learn? Psychological research would suggest that as we age we become more intelligent (until a point). physiological shows us (through PET/MRI and other scans) that the brain develops as we grow. If you look at the work of Samuel and Bryant you can see how they confirmed the earlier work of an earlier psychologist who originally showed that as children age they get the ability to conserve, conserve doesn't mean what you might think (some children earlier than others) and this is most likely because of cognitive development. I shan't explain all here, just type Samuel and Bryant into google, there is quite a lot about it. All very interesting. It isn't exactly intelligence but it appears that as we get older we gain more innate abilities, intelligence could be one. <p>syke used the argument that Evolution is a theory and not a fact. This is a straw man argument. I shall explain why. In layman's terms we take theory to mean a guess maybe an educated guess. Scientists how ever use the term "theory" to mean a peer reviewed idea that has stood up to scientific scrutiny and is based on facts and evidence. For example the Germ theory (that is to say the theory that germs bacterium species and virus species make us ill) is a theory and not a fact, but does that mean we should not take medication? <p>People who are quoting revelations by saying the day that people doubt the word of god are also making a bad argument, because there where religions before Christianity/Judaism and they would have been able to see that those religions collapsed and people doubted them to predict that history would repeat itself is not hard. On a similar note quoting psalm 14:1 is on the same level. <p>That said I don't agree with the original article, maybe that will surprise you. I don't know. why? Simply through my own observations I know a lot of very clever people who hold belief in god. How ever I see that they turn their ability to think critically, to analyse and think objectivity off. Another problem is that religion is treated with kid gloves in a sense. <p>We will call BS on unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and psychics, but when it comes to people's religious beliefs we seem to have a problem, seemingly because we have put religion on a pedestal and are afraid of hurting peoples feelings. <p>we are all 98% chimp, 0k 95% if you discount indels, the Human Genome is 50% identical to the Genome of the Great fruit, I kid you not. what was that about wondrous Variety in god's design?

I think this article is ridiculous. I have been told my IQ is 147. I had a 4.0 GPA in college. I am able to critically analyze anything I read. Yet, I am a devout Christian, always have been. It is true that when one reaches adolescence, one begins to doubt things. It is part and parcel of being an adolescent. Eventually, adolescents mature and develop their own beliefs; some may be what they were taught early on, and some may be what they, themselves formed. However, it isn't their developing IQs that have an effect on whether or not they become atheists. Religious people are not a bunch of idiots. There is the same spectrum of intelligence as in the general public. I, for one, am on the higher end of the spectrum; and I live my life fully as a devout Christian. This concept of IQ and atheism is ludicrous.

"Could you please present this "evidence". (And please don't quote your bible, that's circular reasoning)" <p>Are you ignorant of the fact that the Bible is not just "a" book, but an anthology, a collection of 66 documents written by 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years? That the New Testament writers, living between 30 and 100 A.D., claim Jesus fulfilled prophecies from, for instance, the Torah(written by Moses about 1500 B.C.), the Psalms (written by King David about 1000 B.C.), and Isaiah (written about 700 B.C.)? <p>These evidences for the Christian faith are most certainly not circular reasoning. <p>BTW, I was raised Catholic and became agnostic/atheist in my teen years because I realized there were other religions besides Catholic that also claimed to be "the one true way", and as far as I could tell, the Catholic Church had not provided enough data to support their claim. I became a follower of Jesus just before my 25th birthday, after meeting and working with a man who knew the Bible well. Wary that I may have been sucked in by a cult, I am always open to opposing points of view, so far, after over 30 years, there has been no serious challenge. <p>I qualify for Mensa membership, too.

Interesting article. However, the prevalence of atheism amongst these 'intellecual elites' could in fact have more to do with the depressing conformity of these academics to the intellectual dogmata of their communities. The normative religious views of white, middle-class liberalism have been atheistic for a very long time now. Why does anyone think that this evidence shows a greater tendency towards free thinking - surely the opposite is in fact true. <p>'The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.' <p>Albert Einstein

I think most of the comments here just show how much ignorance there is about religion, from both religious and non-religious people. For example: <p>[NoGODisGOOD] You claim to have read the Bible. Perhaps if you had really done so you would know that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not appear in the Bible. In fact that doctrine first emerged in the early Middle Ages and was not even official Catholic doctrine until the nineteenth century. <p>Or could it be that you're confusing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with that of the Virgin Birth? That doesn't say much about your knowledge of the subject, does it? <p>You also say you've read those books which were "left out" of the Bible, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. That's like saying that the Bhagavad Gita was left out of the Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by an apocalyptic Jewish group, probably the one at Qumran, who were not Christian and had nothing to do with Christianity. There's no reason why the church should have included their writings in the Bible even if the church had known about those writings - which they couldn't have, given that they were hidden in pots between the first and twentieth centuries. <p>As for Pantera, no serious scholar would consider him "most likely" to have been Jesus' father. He was part of vitriolic anti-Christian polemic in the rabbinical and pagan traditions, and first appeared long after Jesus' lifetime, when the anti-Christian writers couldn't possibly have known who Jesus' true father was. From the point of view of study of the texts alone, the virgin birth has a far better attestation than Pantera. The most obvious hypothesis is that both stories are later legends - one pro-Jesus and one anti-him. The fact that you pick up on one of these legends as "most likely" to be true only indicates your own bias. <p>Also, Mary should not have been stoned to death under the laws in operation at the time. Death by stoning was outlawed under Roman law; only the Roman authorities had the power to authorise executions, which is why the Gospels portray Pilate as authorising Jesus'. And in that particular they are absolutely accurate. <p>But then, of course, who ever let facts get in the way of arguments about religion?

Daniel (Daniel 13 June, 2008) made an interesting observation concerning the direction that the comments on this article have been going in. <p>He said, “It's interesting that the comments here so quickly devolved to a discussion of evolution versus intelligent design. Most people who have faith in a higher being actually have no opinion or even favor some form of evolution when asked about the issue.” <p>Although it may seem that the issue of evolution versus intelligent design is something tangential to the topic of atheism, the fact of the matter is it’s key to the issue. <p>Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” established the idea that organic diversity might be a naturally occurring phenomenon driven by primitive cause-and-effect, rather than being the product of some elaborate generative process, i.e. an intelligent creator. The problem with the debate is it’s not just about competing models, but about competing frameworks as well. It is not just evolution versus creationism, but rationalism versus mysticism. <p>Of course, science has shown that the universe is logical and lawful in its behavior. Thus the mystical context is relegated to the domain of false ideas. But out with the bathwater goes the baby, so to speak. The idea of a creator is disbarred as a possible explanation for life’s emergence due to the alleged mystical context of operation. <p>It is on this foundation that atheism is built. There can be no creator because there is no mystical context in which to operate. The universe is cold and mechanistic, and Darwin provided the first formal hint of how to address life’s diversity within this framework. <p>At this point let us turn to the article about which we’re posting comments. The fact that some study shows an inverse correlation between IQ and religious conviction doesn’t mean that being smarter causes one to be less religious, no more than a correlation between watching television and obesity means that watching television causes one to be heavy. What the study reveals is that people with better critical thinking skills and a greater knowledge of how things work are more likely to reject ideas that cannot be placed within a rational context and linked to some form of cause-and-effect mechanism. <p>Additionally, I believe that people who think for a living probably tend to work harder than the average person at molding their knowledge into a consistent world view. <p>Now let’s tie all this together. When kids mature they tend to lose faith in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus because their increasing cognitive sophistication allows them to realize these beliefs don’t fit within a rational context. Science and Darwinism extended this “awakening” to the notion of a creator. If life is the consequence of blind and ignorant forces and a simple selection rule, then creation is a myth, just like the Tooth Fairly putting money under a pillow or Santa leaving presents under a tree are myths. <p>Thus, after denying the existence of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, the next step, given an advanced framework of rational thinking, is to deny the existence of God. Of course, people who tend towards creating the most consistent and accurate world view possible will also tend to take greater care in rooting out any and all bad premises and insuring the use of good logical technique in synthesizing that world view. Hence, you’ll probably find a greater percentage of atheists among professional pundits. <p>But what happens when the foundation of atheism – the idea that raw matter can bootstrap itself into existence through primitive physics – is shaken to the core? <p>Life is not what the learned people of Darwin’s day imagined – something built from primal blobs of protoplasm. In fact the higher forms of life are highly sophisticated forms of automata – physical machines meshed with exotic computational capacity. And the basis of this technology is at the very periphery of what humans have dared to imagine. As it turns out, the cell, the foundation building block of life, is a highly advanced form of automated factory that’s based on nanotechnological principles. Moreover, at the core of this factory is language. <p>As mentioned in an earlier comment, the main building block at the sub-cellular level is the protein. These serve a vast range of functions, from structural to catalytic to computational. Protein structures are encoded in the DNA, but these are not taken directly from the double helix. Rather, a code is extracted from DNA that is taken to a ribosome workbench which uses the blueprint to manufacture the protein from amino acids. In other words, the physical structure of the protein is isolated from its DNA representation by what amounts to a dictionary. <p>The implication here is clear. Life is not the product of primitive physics and a simple selection rule. For the basis of life is not tiny blobs of slime but raw matter massaged by some sophisticated organizing function that's well-versed in advanced chemistry, exotic principles of mechanical engineering, computer engineering techniques and automata, materials science, signals and systems theory, and nanotechnology. <p>This is true because it is impossible to comprehend life in the absence of such knowledge. <p>So, whether life was created or bootstrapped into existence is no longer a moot issue. All atheists need to decide is whether this sophisticated organizing function, something that literally terraformed an entire planet with advanced technology in the form of exotic microscopic automata (the cell), should be called a “God” or not.

Franz Said: <p> "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." <p>(Psalms 14:1) <p>Agreed! The original author of this forgot to include: <p>"The fool hath said in his heart, There IS a God" <p>Conclusions based entirely upon emotion are foolish!

I'm inclined to agree with the last poster, the MacLeod person from June 12th. I think the article is somewhat misleading, as there are plenty of highly educated and intelligent people who still believe in God. It seems to me like another attempt to make believers seem ignorant and stupid.

This research has good face validity. The greater your capacity for critical thinking, the greater your capacity to question, to investigate and to understand different perspectives. The lower your capacity for critical thinking, the more likely are you to attach yourself to a religion that gives you rules and guidelines in which to function.

In response to James’ comment posted on 13 June, 2008. <p>James said “Well Michael, your post certain appears to be well informed. The problem is you are not looking at even half of the issue. Intelligent Design is NOT a competing theory with evolution. Intelligent Design is not even a theory in the scientific sense. It makes no testable predictions and is a highly unsatisfactory explanation.” <p>My first response to James is to say thanks for reading my comment and providing a thoughtful and courteous response. <p>Now with respect to your comment about intelligent design not being a competing theory with evolution as it is not even a theory in a scientific sense because it is not testable. This isn’t correct. It is fully theorizeable and fully testable. <p>If we take a look at all the kinds of activities that take place in and under the heavens, these may be roughly organized along a dimension of intricacy. Thus, we get a spectrum of processes running from simple to sophisticated. Now if we inspect these activities over the entire range we find a direct correlation between complexity of behavior, and complexity of output. In other words, simple processes produce simple results while more complicated processes produce more complicated results. <p>Within the context of a matter-energy framework this boils down to the kinds of work that can be done on the environment by some arbitrary defined material system when infused with energy. Energy coursing blindly and capriciously through a system causes random results, as anyone who has witnessed the outcome of a tornado or a car careening down a cliff can attest to. However, when energy is modulated to a high degree in some material system it can produce rather elaborate results, as anyone who’s had opportunity to watch a world-class billiards game or tour a semiconductor production facility can attest. <p>This is a law of nature because there are no observations which contradict this rule. <p>With respect to the origin of life the question that needs answering is which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did primitive forms of blind work produce something complex or is life the consequence of something capable of producing complex levels of modulated work? <p>Rudolf Virchow, the “father of pathology,” gives us the answer in his famous proclamation “Omnis cellula e cellula” (every cell originates from another existing cell like it), which is the third principle of Biology’s cell theory. In other words, chicken begets chicken, or more abstractly, complex processes beget complex processes. Life on Earth must be the product of some highly complex process operating on material reality. <p>As you can see this is fully theorizeable and fully testable to science. There is a cause-and-effect framework within which to understand intelligent design. This makes it a fully credible alternative theory to the egg-first hypothesis.

The question itself is poor. A belief in a God or Creator is a personal thing depending on what a believer or non believer defines as this God or Creator. <p>A good teacher never tells a student what to think although he/she may instruct the student how to think. You do not have to be educated or not educated to think. The problem for many is that they don't think but instead believe what someone in authority has told them. (Or what is written in some book.) This some one might be a teacher, a parent, a "man/woman of God" and on and on.

There is no point engaging in this debate, as atheists and theists will never see eye to eye. The problem is that the theist will not accept the conclusions of reason. In their eyes, there are propositions that are determined by reason (everything aside from their religion) and propositions that must be accepted on faith. They are so cognitively dissonant that they see the sphere of faith as an entirely different area of "knowledge", one that cannot be answered by or evaluated through the use of reason. This is evident by asking them "If I can show a logical contradiction in your conception of God, will you abandon your belief in that god?' The answer is invariably NO. This is because religious people lack the intellectual integrity to seek truth. <p>The fact that they lack such intellectual integrity is the exact reason their belief should not be respected. Their right to believe in anything should be respected, but the actual belief should not be, now should the person who holds such beliefs. It saddens me to see such an attack and abandonment of reason, to see the work and accomplishment of man tossed aside as of less value than the "truths" of religion. <p>I have a B.A. in philosophy and am currently a medical student, so I have been uniquely immersed in the worlds of both science and philosophy. All evidence I have encountered reaffirms the fact that religion is mythology, nothing else. The lay person doesn't understand the honesty and integrity it takes to cast aside theories that don't prove themselves, or that for a scientist to work their entire life to characterize a theory and seek out evidence, and when 10 years have been put into the research, to admit that it was not a correct theory and to work on something else. Nor do they understand the idea of critical thought, or peer review, or cross disciplinary correlation of facts. <p>Take evolution for example...the evidence is now overwhelming that evolution occurs on the species level, yet most people think this is just a "theory", no different than the"competing theory" of intelligent design (ID). This of course ignores the fact that the new fields of cell/molecular bio and genetics reaffirmed the evidence for the theory. They also fail to admit that ID will never be taught as science, as it is NON FALSIFIABLE, and thus does not meet the most basic criteria of a scientific theory. <p>ID proponents founded their entire theory on the idea that complex structures are 1) irreducibly complex (which has already been proven false - see the bacterial flagellum /injector argument) and 2) is too complex to arrive from "chance" (again, disproved in multiple disciplines). Unfortunately, we will never win this debate, as most people are frankly either too stupid to understand science, to lazy to educate themselves, or too dependent on emotional support that faith gives them. Remember, half of the population has an IQ < 100. <p>Also remember that the vast majority of people have not graduate college (college graduates were only 27% of the American adult population at the last census). Now imagine the education gap between a member of the national academy of science with 8+ years of education and that of the average person. It is no wonder we have an inability to communicate and evaluate issues in the same way. <p>The deeper you delve in science and philosophy, the more you see that religion is mythology, that belief in religion is no different than belief in unicorns, a flat earth, or even racism...all are founded not on reason but on faith. Remember also that faith defined is "belief in the absence of reason", and we already have a word for that: ignorance.

Interesting comments from Daniel, ending with the concept of wisdom. There is certainly a pride and absolute confidence in man's abilities which stands in contrast to the wisdom and love of God. Few of us would see the logic or benefit of giving up our rights and life, in isolation, for the sake of others, yet this stands at the heart of Christ's message to the world. His death and resurrection are historical facts and are foolishness, if they do not lead into a life beyond this one. The only way into that life is through faith.

Atheists will go to any means not to accept Jesus because their god is their mind. They worship themselves and pass it off as intellectual rigour. They break the 1st commandment "You shall have no other Gods before me" - Exodus 20 v1 and always show a scandalously poor understanding of the Bible, if not intolerance. Only by a supernatural act of God will these people experience saving Grace in addition to the common Grace they currently lavish in. I'm surprised anyone considers the IQ test a credible measure of one's intelligence when, to my knowledge, we have yet to be provided with a decent definition of intelligence. <p>Atheists - pray for your salvation.

The matter is myth versus reality or execution. They are not one against the other, but just two point of view, one the result of thinking, the other of the real life. The two are linked together by a series of steps (orizontal content) as identified in the following matrix which shows also the equivalent structure of the other myths (vertical content), these latest also if considered of a lesser value as compared to the religion. On the left side is the power which dominate the human mind which come to us as a natural patrimony of the human nature, either it being: God, politic, beauty, etc. On the right side is the human behaviour and in between the transition from myth to reality. <p>power intelligence support execution faith rational myth or principle belive and social life ethic or human support behaviour or real life <p>God religion moral human beeing politic rule party participation physical gimn or sport sport branches exercise beauty cultural value model use of cosmetics, miss contest intelligence culture science branches study, research, mankind civil laws and rules cohexistance <p>In the first column there are both, God and mankind, both are the result of human feeling and thinking: feeling as emotional and thinking as rational. The value of the myth is the power that it has on humans, the right content is arguable the left one is not, either you have it or you don’t . The relation between the right side and the left side is as per Saint Agustine definition “the believe is the rational adhesion to the faith”. <p>Now the matter is from the side you start to consider each line of the matrix. From left to right is the traditional believe and interpretation “God in seven days created the universe” (arguable why in seven days or even in an instant as He is supposed to be over the time), but as per Mr Voltaire there is the other way around “the man created God at his image and similarity”. This way of thinking has its fundament in the evolution history fo God; from things (onions) to animal (cow) to humans (greek time) to multi monotheist concept (christian and other contemporary religions), to a single monotheist (may be to day). <p>Both way however don’t explain in rational terms the world existence, therefore either this is a different matter or our mind didn’t yet discover the mystery of our existence. But let us assume God exist and that he is infinitely great and let us assume for the purpose of the rational that the order of magnitude of the distance between he and us is at least the same that is in between a microbe and us. Now if you beat your hands you kill many of them, the same when you walk on do any movement. But you don’t care about the microbes life, they are too far from you, although you know they are there. The same can be thought for God and us, then if he is there it is his problem not our matter. Then the basic is that we are made in such a way that we need a faith, the matter is to choose on the left column which one better fit with our individual need, considering that all of them involve intelligence, believe, culture, practice, etc. And all of them have a specific value, but greater is the value, greater is the disputability due to the lesser acceptance of the faith’s value.

First you'll find most academic institutions in the west grew out of Christian institutions. <p>Secondly the high IQ correlates with the superior ability to discern fact from fiction and incongruence among the various ideas as presented in the Bible. <p>A third reason for this correlation is simply the intellectually elite, particularly in math and science are more likely to be drawn to relatively well paying and significantly respecful careers in these fields. Highly intelligent people understand the problem solving ability of science. <p>The proof of science's effectiveness cannot be argued or diminished in any way. Science and medicine have brought us technological marvels and impovements in health that theology never could. Many of the greatest and most profound dicoveries have come from atheistic or agnostic researchers. Indeed, do you see your doctor or a minister for your health needs? <p>Science has proven again and again that it provides a superior explanation than religion for any observable phenomenon. When the two clash these kinds of debates break out. Did Galileo or the Church win? Does the sun revolve around the earth? Where are the flat earthers? Who can cure leprosy? Who can raise the dead? (or keep the dead alive) The list goes on and on. Even the irrational will eventually realize that the proposed effects of "spiritual" entities on the physical world will eventually be whittled down to nothing by science.

John Denney 14 June, 2008 <p>"Could you please present this "evidence". (And please don't quote your bible, that's circular reasoning)" <p>"Are you ignorant of the fact that the Bible is not just "a" book, but an anthology, a collection of 66 documents written by 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years? That the New Testament writers, living between 30 and 100 A.D., claim Jesus fulfilled prophecies from, for instance, the Torah(written by Moses about 1500 B.C.), the Psalms (written by King David about 1000 B.C.), and Isaiah (written about 700 B.C.)? <p>These evidences for the Christian faith are most certainly not circular reasoning." <p>What John misses is the fact that the new testament writers would have had access to the old testament, and so it would have been really easy for them to write the new testament to 'fit' the predictions made in the old. If he were truly being objective, he would realise that he needs to look beyond the anthology to assess the credibility of the whole. <p>We read that Dorothy would find the Emerald city at the end of the Yellow Brick Road. She found the Emerald city, so therefore the Yellow Brick Road exists... (Seems a little silly, doesn't it...) <p>I would reccommend "The Bible:The Biography" by Karen Armstrong, (a theologist and self-described 'freelance-monotheist'), who has done a lot of research on the writing of the Bible. It's very interesting to see how the documents in the bible were written at times when social events required such writings. <p>The bible did not arrive by fax from heaven. It is man-made, and thus responds to things that men wanted to talk about.

Skye Mc Leod, What is your IQ?

Hi guys. Here's a religious rebuttal of IQ testing, from a historical point of view. <p>The Eugenics movement has long been using IQ tests helped divide people into religion and race categories, as well as by profession and society. <p>Doug Daniels of the University of Regina’s Department of Sociology in Canada says that although many believe the I.Q. scale is just "pure math" with no social or racial bias, Alfred Binet, who in 1905 developed one of the first tests to measure intelligence -the Binet Simon Test-, “perfected his test amongst the middle and upper class children of Paris and - lo and behold- found that working class kids didn't do so well at it.” <p>Convincing the population that a series of questions designed for a certain group of people to master, while rendering others less intelligent requires a great deal of illusion. The sequence and nature of the questions themselves have a quality that seems to lead the thought pattern and mysteriously twist patterns of thought in a manner reminiscent of mind control. It would seem that, yes, those most susceptible to such deception, whose real intelligence is inferior to the level of animals -as even beasts do not deny their Creator-, would as a rule score very high on such tests, the point of which is to make large groups of people submit to an imposed mental and spiritual inferiority. <p>All this ties into ethnic cleansing. <p>In 1999, Nicolas Lemann wrote for Time Magazine, “The beginning of the IQ-testing movement overlapped with the eugenics movement — hugely popular in America and Europe among the ‘better sort’ before Hitler gave it a bad name.” Eugenics is often used as rationale for destroying masses of people who are of no use in an Illuminati program. <p>Peter Quinn in his study “Race Cleansing in America” mentioned that “eugenics—the theory as well as the word [from eugene which means “wellborn”]—originated with Francis Galton [a key player in the development Intelligence Quotient examinations in America and] a cousin of Charles Darwin. Inspired by Darwin’s theory of natural selection, Galton’s study of the family backgrounds of prominent members of British society led him to the conclusion that achievement and heredity were clearly linked,” leaving room for him and others to promote mass sterilization. What Galton perhaps neglected to mention is that the highest members of British society, such as the royal family, also have long and detailed links with Satanism and mind control. Intelligence testing (eugenics) is but a tool for the training of aspirations, gearing the mankind to be engaged in a constant quest to carve out an individual place in a Darwinian system of backward intelligence standards. In the everchanging rat race, few view a connection to their Creator as important. This combined with a constant feeding of falsehoods in respect of the Almighty results in large numbers of athiests. <p>All people, regardless of race, social standing, or religion should be aware of this attempt to rob them of a relationship with their Almighty Creator, who has designed a system to which all the universes submit since the very beginning of time, a system geared to grant everlasting success.

The study was on IQ vs. religion. It is not an attack on Christianity so for a RELATED debate, it would be best to refrain from quoting the Bible and from attacking it. Take these arguements elsewhere. <p>I used to be a firm believer in my early childhood but slowly that degraded. I have an IQ of 151. Looking back on the people that i went to Church with, I can not recall a single person who studied beyond a bachelors in any subject and only one person who did a bachelors in a scientific subject. High IQ would indicate an ability to rationalise a problem and analyse it critically. This is necessary for those who study science but do we need it for subjects such as Business Studies or Economics? I am not saying that these are "easy" or "soft" options but that they do not require you to think with the same criticalness as a scientific degree. <p>That was a bit rambling but what I mean to say is that there were next to none who had a high IQ and they were adamant believers. I could never get answers to my questions as they were all in the Bible apparently. Not an attack but a quote and an example. Only by looking at it rationally did I get my answer which I wont share here as it will only provoke. <p>The question I think many theists need to ask themselves is Have I thought clearly about this? Have I thorougly thought about what I am being told about this entity or entities? If the answer is no, I would advise you to. If you can't see anything wrong with it, it proves this study correct.

<p>“Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1) <p>“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37) <p>Ya know, I absolutely *hate* religious people for many reasons. I went to bible school as a kid, and on my own learned of all the atrocities that people of *all* major religions have perpetuated throughout history in the name of the god they believe in. I really don't care what you believe, as long as you do it in the privacy of your home. Organized religion is the worst thing humanity has ever created, and has sure killed more. <p>Oh sure, you bible thumpers will say crap like "I'm lost" or "I'm going to hell", blah blah blah, but you have ZERO proof, and I say this one quote: <p>"If everybody can't be right, and MILLIONS of people believe YOUR god is total bullcrap and their god is the true god, how can ANY religion, in any way, be factual?" <p>That is my own quote, but now, for people who are just too retarded to see the world for the way it is, and feel the need to create an imaginary friend so they can feel their life has meaning, here are some quotes from that great bible you worship, to show up just how screwed up your religion is (taken from evilbible.com): <p>If you don't hate your parents, you can't be a christian: “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37) <p>Hows about lets not have any laws: “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”-- Matthew 5:39 <p>I sure hope you don't call your "dad" "father": “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” --Matthew 23:9 <p>Better not make plans: “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or that ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on... Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, not gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedth them. Are ye not much better than they?” --Matthew 6:25-34 & Luke 12:22-31 inclusive <p>This one is awesome, if you have a single "non-believer" in your town, kill the whole town! woohoo, anarchy! <p>Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) <p>I'm sure all you christians are guilty of this, lets kill all who work on sunday!: The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT) <p>Lets kill everybody with crappy parents: Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB) <p>Now, I give you these quotes as they are from the same book you say is law. Ok, now is the time people say "don't take it literally"... well that being the case, what kind of follower are you if you just pick and choose what rules of god you follow? <p>That was a quick sampling, but basically if god exists, and the bible is fact, god is worse than satan, he has killed MILLIONS, while satan only a few, wtf is up with that?!?!?! <p>Don't even get me started on ID, its freaking stupid, you can see EVERY day in nature proof that evolution is true. Just need to open your eyes and LOOK. I'm actually quite curious on why evolution is still a theory when its so obvious its a fact. <p>I would love to tell you all to read "The God Delusion", which made me realize just how absolutely silly all religions are, but its pretty hard for a typical person to understand. While pertinent, he is a super smart guy, and some of the analogies he uses I'm sure most god believing folk would find just too complex to grasp. <p>I can hate religious people, as they negatively impact my life. Aetheists don't negatively impact my life. Religious people tell me what to say, what to watch, what I can do, what is legal, etc, etc... <p>Religion is for people who can't seem to grasp that in the grand scheme of things, their life really doesn't matter. <p>Freaking hypocrites. <p>btw, I know my spelling/grammer sucks, I'm no rocket scientist and when on a computer 10+ hours a day you tend to not care about typos or grammar anymore. Correcting me on it, especially after this, would be pretty silly.

I would be fascinated to have any of you folks who claim something to the effect of "the Bible answered questions better than atheist intellectuals could" send us one example of of such a question. Surely, since some of you claim to hold advanced degrees, you're intellectually honest enough to list ALL of the questions that the Bible better answered. That you wouldn't simply volunteer them to illustrate your point is odd. They wouldn't be stupid questions would they?

<p>Two points <p>1. It is high time that we all need to take a step back and see it how it is. Medically speaking, if I were to have a belief and that belief were false. I would be classed as delusional. Half way to being classed a mental misfit; not religious. <p>2. From the very first entrant (Skye) this thread has intertwined God with religion. It can be argued that one beget the other or vice versa (depending on your belief), but why are these two things not separate in this discussion?

<p>The answer to whether IQ is linked to atheism lies in the Bible. Well, it is really a bold thing to say for I haven't read any of the other great books written by God. But in the one book familiar to me, God planted a tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden. Adam ate the fruit and became as wise as God. Thousands of years later, the descendants of Adam are today way smarter than God. Seeking knowledge is to deny God the oxygen he needs. The opposite of that is that an acceptance of god is to deny onself the knowledge and ability that humans have developed. We can fly to the moon, travel at the speed of sound, cure terrible diseases, wipe out whole species, genetically engineer food etc. The religious are simply parasites on the hard working knowledgeable human minority. God designed it that way.

I welcomed Jesus Christ into my heart. It was great to be saved, but then I got really dumb.

I haven't read through all the posts so maybe someone already made this comment but here goes: <p>There is a theory called "unintelligent design" whereby noted scientists have commented that a lot of nature is not so well configured. For example, numerous species go extinct every year due to the 'design flaws' of their bodies, living conditions, influences from other predators etc. Even taking humans as an example...humans, relatively speaking, are very fragile creatures and can only live in VERY PARTICULAR conditions (temp, food, water, body damage, etc). <p>Now, of course, I know this information could be used either way: to support or not support god's existence. I don't really care as the onus isn't on me to prove a negative (i.e. god's non-existence) but thought unintelligent design was, at the very least, interesting.

For the believers who claim a higher IQ...congrats...the article doesn't say that just because one has a higher IQ doesn't mean they aren't entitled to their delusions, arrogance, or logical fallacies. Hitler had a high IQ and any logical person can see that he had some serious issues (yup I went there). <p>Speaking of the xtian god...For a deity that is all powerful, all knowing, and/or creator of everything that makes us human...why in the hell would he himself have human desires? why would he need every person to worship him??? why would he create people with higher IQs to doubt its own existence? if we are all its children then why play favorites? a deity who is supposedly one of love, forgiveness, and patience sure does have a lot of hate, grudges, and need for instant gratification. <p>If a god was that powerful...then who are we as lowly creations to try and truly understand what its intentions are...humans are an arrogant species no matter what IQ score they attain...it is painfully and logically obvious that religion is an opiate for the masses that keeps people and check, inspires people to do horrible things in the name of something that can truly assume blame, and comfort people who are afraid of dying alone. <p>One could argue that there are NO true XTIANS. again for those of you with high IQ who claim to believe...work it out for yourself....for the rest of you...reread your contradiction filled text...look at you life and how you practice you faith...ask yourself why you look both ways before you cross the street...if you were a true believer you wouldn't...stop using your computer and SUBMIT, wait around for a miracle, a sign, or a messiah......me I have one beautiful life worth LIVING...not waiting around waiting to die to find comfort. <p>the xtian god is one of arrogance, much like every other god, unless there is a god of humility in some other religion (I don't know) and strangely enough most of its believers are arrogant believing that an all powerful being who can create infinite numbers you, me, and anything else we can't think of actually cares about you. If it does, then obviously it isn't all that powerful and you are putting your faith in the wrong place. <p>for those of you who think quotes by fellow humans are proof: <p>"Only sheep need a shepherd"-unkown

I apologize if this point has already been made, but I'm at work and don't have time to read all of these comments. For those of you who have confused "Theory" with "Scientific Theory" allow me to clear things up. <p>I don't need to tell you all what a theory is, but I'll give you a brief definition of what a scientific theory is: <p>"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence" <p>So all I ask now is that you theists stop trying to use this as proof of creation. <p>I realize this comment is mainly directed at Christianity, and I apologize for that because I'd like to make the point that any theistic belief is dangerous and detrimental to humanity. Your god, whoever that may be, is imaginary. Although you may think that faith is some sort of proof of existence, it is not. You do not have 1 piece of evidence that your god exists. <p>So I guess I'll wrap up this rant. Intelligent, educated people look at the facts and realize there is ZERO proof of the existence of any god whereas unintelligent, uneducated people believe whatever they're told all the while ignoring actual FACTS that completely disprove their ass-backwards ideas. I don't care what you scored on some IQ test. If you believe in any supernatural being, then you're not as smart as you think you are.

a matter of "high IQ" is nothing to judge a human being by. <p>don't believe the hype

Do to personal realizations and observations I agree with the studies outcome.

Here's a thought: <br>Who gives a damn? <br>God or no god, life-after-death or just rotting in the ground. <br>Does it really matter where we came from or going to? No! <br>For thousands of years, we humans have never known yet it never stopped us from doing the shit that needed to get done. Believing in some "master creator" never put food on the table, and neither did not believing in one. Both sides of this eon long argument need to get their heads out of their asses. STOP DWELLING IN THE PAST, YOU GOT THE FUTURE IN YOUR FACE! <p>All that REALLY matters in life is survival anyways. So go ahead and believe in whatever you want, because it ultimately doesn't matter. Only when humans stop breeding, then you can all start bitching. Until then, go get a life, start making babies and stop wasting time arguing something that will never end.

I believe that everyone should seek out their own truth. If you're too busy to do that and fin yourself following the beliefs of others that is your choice. I seek to live and let live. I don't believe in god, I have formed my own beliefs through many discussions and realizations. One thing that I have found is that my beliefs are constantly changing. Although education may not necessarily imply intelligence, one cannot be considered intelligent if they refute evidence to the contrary of their beliefs. However, intelligence is not derived from a single source. It s gained through experience. Religion is a way to fit in. In MY PERSONAL opinion there is nothing beyond one's own experience. <p>Sadly, it has been my experience that those who are most willing to share their 'beliefs' with you are the ones least likely to want to hear about yours.

Humans are biologically inclined towards understanding our surrounding . our mind is an excellent pattern matching machine. We have a biological BIAS which inclines us towards the supernatural because that seems to give us answer to all of life's problems. This is why God and religion are so common across the world. <p>belief in Superman and spider man is also common across 5-year old across the world but it doesnt make them true.

Read the scriptures and all doubt will vanish. You will know for sure that they are all myths.

Hi EM, <p>"Read the scriptures and all doubt will vanish ?" <p>I am an IT engineer from India, in my schooling I actually did read some vedic sanskrit scriptures. <p>Here is a sampling <p>"Matha , Pitha ,Guru ,Daivam " <p>which translates to "mother,father,teacher,god" <p>The Teacher is given more priority than God ( oh and note that there is no mention of priest/saint) <p>sanskrit scriptures predate western religion ( i am not suggesting they are neccessarily superior or more true) <p>The scriptures place more importance on knowledge (gyanam) and valour (dharma) than on this thing called "GOD" which by the way is questioned in many Vedas. <p>Remember that sanskrit was the language of scholars and philosophers in ancient India and that it contained significant texts dedicated to "atheism". Now these scholars and philosophers had high IQ (sanskrit has a complex grammar structure thats quite complicated - the reason why it is not spoken any more) <p>high IQ -> atheism again? <p>may be the professor Richard Lynn has a valid idea for research. all he needs to do is find the link that connects both. <p>according to my scriptures it is the nature of knowledge to remove ignorance just as it is the nature of science to remove the 'super' from supernatural. <p>not all scriptures are myth.and some are pro-science :)

It's always interesting to see the religious respond to such an article. They simply add more evidence to the correlation of lower IQ and belief in a god.

1) Even if this study is conclusive, it does not say anything (on purpose, it seems) about the veracity of religious statements or even the form that they take (onto-theological, prescriptive, emotive or whatever) so I can't really see why people are so up in arms about it - especially as in certain parts of the bible there are occasions where god is said to favour others over those who are intelligent, or that intelligence is in some way detrimental to understanding parts of scripture. <p>The judgement that if statistically people of a higher IQ find religion implausible then it is less likely to be true or that it is not true is not found in the study, at least, that is how the article seemed to me. <p>2) A few people seem to be offering themselves as counter-examples to the study. If the statistical analysis is correct then you aren't really demonstrating anything at all, but if it is false then you would doubtless find a far better argument would be to point out where you think the argument fails, as michael herbst did - which I found far more interesting than this inane bickering. <p>I'm going to reserve judgement on the link between IQ and religion until I have looked into it for myself, I'm still not even sure what religious language is really meant for yet so a decision could be a long way off! <p>thanks all.

1) Even if this study is conclusive, it does not say anything (on purpose, it seems) about the veracity of religious statements or even the form that they take (onto-theological, prescriptive, emotive or whatever) so I can't really see why people are so up in arms about it - especially as in certain parts of the bible there are occasions where god is said to favour others over those who are intelligent, or that intelligence is in some way detrimental to understanding parts of scripture. The judgement that if statistically people of a higher IQ find religion implausible then it is less likely to be true or that it is not true is not found in the study, at least, that is how the article seemed to me. 2) A few people seem to be offering themselves as counter-examples to the study. If the statistical analysis is correct then you aren't really demonstrating anything at all, but if it is false then you would doubtless find a far better argument would be to point out where you think the argument fails, as michael herbst did - which I found far more interesting than this inane bickering. I'm going to reserve judgement on the link between IQ and religion until I have looked into it for myself, I'm still not even sure what religious language is really meant for yet so a decision could be a long way off! thanks all.

I do not know what the hell is going on nor do I think does anyone else. We as a species have been around for and infinitesimal amount of time relatively speaking and the odds are that we will go the path of the dinosaurs and I daresay countless other sentient and indeed non sentient life forms that have preceded and will succeed us. The self-adoration and collective narcissism of our species completely amazes me - well it did but doesn't now since most of my passions and emotions have since waned or atrophied ? <p>Alls that we can do is live our life in whatever manner we choose irrespective of the tags and precepts we place on its quality, quantity and meaning. We're born, consume produce propagate and die and that's about it. To me life is about the eternal struggle to survive in nothingness and finding and attempting to maintain a suitable environment in which to exist and then try to place some purpose and meaning on it. <p>Given that we have emerged from the primordial slime and have reached a stage of subjective advancement in the hierarchy of “achievements” in all the various fields of human endeavours to me it amounts to diddly squat. Alls that we are doing is rationalising our existence and are perpetually in denial of our mortality and relevance. If we are going to survive as a species and that is a very big "if" indeed it will be on the shoulders of scientists and not latter day goat herders and mumbo jumbo exponents. <p>Measuring intelligence to me is also a total nonsense for doing so achieves very little if anything apart maybe from chronicling the extent of our accumulated knowledge for the equivalent anthropologist of another species to study and write a thesis about when the human race has long been extinct. Though, and this is somewhat wishful thinking on my part as chronicling mankind’s achievements could assist future generations to continue the search and find answers for the purpose and meaning of life

In regards to Mr Mc Leod, who happened to be the first in the list of those to respond to this article - seriously, the Bible made more sense than any scientific theory, including the Big Bang theory, in just the first chapter? <p>Where? What sense, if any, does this racist, ignorant piece of dogma make? Hardly any. Occasionally, verbs and nouns are included in the same sentence, and this is the extent to which the Bible makes sense. Don't worry, the "heathen" Quran, and any other religious text is equally ridiculous. <p>One does not even have to be of religious persuasion to believe in the big bang theory. How anti-religious is it to say that perhaps God/Allah/Yahweh/the-invisible-sky-man may have been the cause of the big bang? Science can only go so far, and as yet, we have nothing to fill in the blanks. Ignorant people may wish to fill in these holes with God. However, such a paper-thin can hardly cover these holes, unless of course one chooses to ignore the teachings of "intellectuals". I find it remarkable that you were against higher education purely because the "arrogant professors who claim knowledge" tell you that God probably doesn't exist? Even more remarkable that you note later in your lengthy reply that you did not find "God" until the age of 37. When, pray tell, did you intend to apply for higher education? <p>Ignorance, sadly, is not bliss. I am bored, and going outside.

Atheists have a pretty damn good reason to be angry. Especially in the US. What ever happened to the seperation of church and state?

It is nice to see this, a correlation that many have suspected, proven by a study. It makes sense that atheists are those of us who, as intelligent individuals, are less driven by feeling/instinct/precedent and more by actual analysis and study. <p>This study in no way suggests that all theists are unintelligent, or there are no intelligent theist scholars. Simply this: the smarter you are, the less likely you are to fall for the fallacy of religion. <p>Kudos to these researchers for contributing to the ongoing battle for the positive public understanding of atheism.

Evolution doesn't have enough evidence. How can anyone call it fact? Please, read my two thousand year old book and you'll find all the answers to every problem at any point in time. <p>That was sarcasm for all you "believers" who might not understand big words. <p>Look, first you learn that the Easter Bunny isn't real, then the Tooth Fairy, and then Santa Clause. We were told Santa was always watching us and making sure we were good. Basically bribing us with presents. Apparently 63% of us still need god to bribe them with salvation so they will be good. As opposed the the intellectuals who realize that they should be good because it is good.

I think that all that needs be said is that correlation is not the same as causation. It seems like many religious folk got offended by this misconception by thinking that the article was saying that religious people are primitive or something of that sort. That is not to undermine the significance of the correlation, it surely shows that education/intelligence (I can't remember which it was correlated to...kinda drunk) at least is a factor in the atheistic/theistic beliefs of our country (or was it the UK?) as a whole.

Myth is not synonymous with falsehood. Myth a a mode of understanding experience. An intelligent mind, capable of grasping metaphor (see Northrop Frye's "The great Code" or Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth") is capable of seeing that there are rational ways of looking at the world and social reality and subjective experience that are very valuable without being scientific in the strictest definition. Religion itself? Well, it is often turned to wicked ends, but is generally simply a force for social conformity and concentration of power, neither of which is a strictly good or bad thing, depending on how it is applied. <p> IQ is, to my mind, a concept as fraught with reductionist zeal and superstitious attachment as religion. What is the rational and worthy basis for ranking all types and varieties of human intelligence on a scale with numbers? Admittedly, the very smart and the wise have little regard for that number, but people in this conversation seem to be buying the idea that IQ measures something meaningful outside of the extreme ends of the testing spectrum, something that people at the high ends of that spectrum tend to reject.

I don't have a horse in this race, because I'm agnostic and don't really have an opinion about Christianity vs. Atheism one way or another. Now I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but: <p>My fiance is a devout believer in God. He understands that there is absolutely no basis for his faith, but to him, that's exactly what makes it worthwhile -- that is, he's not someone who looks for, or even WANTS, solid proof as to the existence of God. <p>I, as mentioned above, am hazy on the issue and feel that there is not enough evidence one way or another to make a determination. I feel that if there is a God, it is probably not exactly the JudeoChristian God, but could very well be very similar. <p>And now the crux: My fiance has a much, much higher IQ than I do. He learns faster, grasps concepts more easily, and frequently leaves me in the dust in any kind of intellectual discussion. He is brilliant enough that I sometimes have to "translate" for him to our friends when he just assumes that they are as intelligent as he is, and can follow along. <p>From the point of view of an outsider, it seems that atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, making assumptions and taking things on faith in just the same way. After all, an omnipotent God who wanted to hide his existence (because of the aforementioned 'Faith is worthless if you have proof') could easily do so. There are many things in common, including the fact that some individuals can be very, very annoying in their attempts to "convert" others.

People use religion as a crutch. They are afraid of what happens next and are clutching at any explanation which will tell them that in death, everything is great if you just do "this" (this being whatever ridiculous rules have been instituted to get you into heaven). It is all just a way for cowards to die in peace. Who doesn't want that, right? <p>It takes way more guts to accept that when it's over, it's over. Intelligent people will always question people who throw bullshit at them. That is what sets them apart from the rest of the uninformed, uninterested, and completely trusting (of authority figures) majority. That's how we got George Bush; people liked what they saw and sounded really nice, but they forgot to check out the facts. <p>Sucks for the rest of us!

You can't prove, or disprove religion, like so many try to do. Just like you can't do this with many things in science. They're both run on a system of faith. The faith in a creator, or the faith in quantum mechanics is the same. We believe what we see works, and accept this as our reality.

Religion gets them young so that their brainwashing will be imprinted forever. The true thinkers escape this zombie state and are truly free. I felt so good ridding myself of these fairytales.

You silly twisted people, still believing in a superstition 6000 years old set down by a man who said the world was flat. Then there is the book of myths and legends written by the local story tellers of the day and you are saying we should believe such rubbish. Get a life.

Skye, i respect the fact that you had the balls to state your opinion on an obviously biased thread, however implying that the educational system is wrong in separating the bible from public schools is just ignorant. <p>Educational systems are naturally going to scrutinize theology as the principles behind all religions bypass the scientific method and react...poorly (as you have shown in your message) to questioning and the search for evidence. <p>Schools are not the place for the bible not only because education has a way of destroying it, but because it clearly violates the principles this country was built on. <br>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". <br>It is easy to see why there are so few Christian scholars. Without a mind ready to change, ready to use the data given to form a new hypothesis it is impossible to discover more about our universe.

I once was a rationality “bible” bashing atheist, trying to make people see the irrationality of their religious beliefs. Then I just realised it was a completely pointless way to spend my time. Since, I also thought prying was an utter waste of time, I had to knock my atheist sermons on the head if I wanted to be logically consistent with my own belief system. It does me no good, them no good, and ultimately wastes both of our time. <p>Now, I spend the time that I would have been arguing with them, thinking about a point in the future when the majority of our species will cast off the shackles of religiosity, and go into the future with open eyes untainted by millennia old doctrine and Bronze Age mysticism. <p>So, don’t bother with making religious folk see reason. They most likely wont! We’re the ones in the minority and by a large margin. Instead look forward to the future when hopefully this situation will be reversed. If you do accept IQ to be correlated with lack of belief, I can only see that future happening. Improvements in teaching methods, increased interaction with technologies such as computers seem to have a beneficial effect on us. This is characterised by the Flynn effect which indicates an increase in global average IQ with time. Not to mention that we'll probably be improving our intelligence by artificial means e.g. drugs, genetic modification, and brain implants in the not too distant future. <p>So for those atheists out there who do think there’s some validity in the IQ-atheist correlation, we've already won the war of rationality, we may just have to wait a few decades/centuries to see the trophy. By which point religions in general will be considered the way Greek or Norse religions are now. A mere curiosity and nothing more!!

While this is a very interesting topic and it is wonderful for debate, there is not one person on this earth who can decide what someone else believes. We can't base judgements on people based on what religion they choose to practice (or not to practice) or whether they pray to a god every night before the sleep. <p>You think that the scientific evidence will make people stop believing, it won't. People decide what they want to believe and if their faith is strong enough nothing will alter those beliefs. So we can argue over this issue for the rest of our lives or we can grow up and realize that we can not dictate anybody elses lives. <p>People are who they are. Just because a group of scientists who dedicate their lives to the study of evolution (no disrespect intended) don't believe in God does not mean that other "intellectually elite" people do not. America needs to wake up and realize that we are too advanced for our own good, shutting down others because our science proves their beliefs to be wrong. Well their Bible proves your science to be wrong.

To say that religious belief is analagous to a lower I.Q. is the understatement of the century. The truth is that these people can't accept with courage and grace the fact that one day they're going to die, so they spoonfeed themselves this flimsy argument one serving at a time, like a little baby who's just wet his diapers and is now pissed at the entire universe because he can't handle the fear of dying. The funny thing is, with quantum physics, there may be multiple universes, so they may just get their chance to live again, if they can just pull their heads out of their asses long enough to read a REAL book.

I don't think some of you grasp what a terrible failure Atheism has been in Sociological terms. In the East one had the ideological, Collective Atheism of Communism which before its collapse had bred such horrors as the Gulags of Siberia and the killing fields of Cambodia whilst in the West we've the hedonistic, individualistic Atheism of Consumerism which has spawned a highly destructive drug culture and the mindless degeneracy of the Big Brother House. The reality is that our whole secular culture is in a very big crisis - it has created a psychological vacuum which unreasoning fundamentalists of all religions are exploiting. I see nothing appealing or rational in the long term consequences of Atheism. As the French Philosopher Sartre put it 'Atheism is a cruel long term business.' <p>Philosophically its flawed because it's based on the verification principle of logical positivism which denies the reality of anything which can't be scientifically measured. The problem is how does one verify the verification principle? As an overarching philosophy logical positivism no longer has much credibility in Sociology. <p>Furthermore, once it has neutralized religion, Atheism removes all checks on the power of the state. The result is either full blooded totalitarianism of the kind seen in Mao's China or the 'nanny state' of our beloved leader Gordon Brown. In every society, the end result of Atheism has been tyranny and poverty. Looking at the historic track record has left me atheist about atheism. It has also lent weight to the biblical teaching that it's a kind of rebellious foolishness. <p>As a professional Social Researcher I am highly doubtful about the validity of Lynn's findings. This is because his results could be so easily distorted by his own bias and by a whole host of distracting variables. What his data may show is not the relationship between IQ and belief but between having (or not having) a comfortable professional lifestyle and belief. It is also highly doubtful whether its feasible to operationalize a highly problematic concept like IQ.Here, can recall the disastrous fiasco over the eleven plus exams. <p>Nor do I buy into the Atheist Myth that religious belief and reason are necessarily incompatible. All that does is reinforce the equally damaging fundamentalist myth that science is a godless activity which should be shunned. In contrast, my own faith in Jesus Christ motivates me to extend my intellectual powers to the utmost especially when preparing detailed lectures on social science or historical topics. Religion has increased and not dampened down my desire to acquire knowledge. Indeed, I regard it as a sacred duty to do so. <p>As a Christian all I can do by way of a close is testify that to commit your life to Jesus as your Lord and Saviour is an act of supreme rationality. I can only commend Him to you.

Other cultures across the world have long recognised that people in the secular West have lost their ability to process circumstances and situations with anything other than their minds. <p>Spirtual matters are fully discerned in a number of ways, the intellect being just one of them. <p>So I guess what the Professor is really postulating is that in a part of the world where we have become much less able to understand matters of the soul and heart, those with greater intellects are especially disadvantaged.

Talking about IQ ! <br>So you know, a theory is a set of proven hypothesis related and supported by different fields of study, instead of a simplistic reductionist way of understanding things. A theory is not a supossition, guess or a belief system like faith or religion. <p>It is easy to see that co-relation between intelligence-atheism and faith-ignorance in the answers throughout this forum. <p>Religion promotes ignorance its a very basic way to control the believers via guilt and fear.

"Religion promotes ignorance it's a very basic way to control the believers via guilt and fear." <p>Far too much of a sweeping generalization is made here. What you say is true of bad forms of sectarian religion or of forms of religion that have been too closely entwined with the state but to obtain a balanced picture the whole track record of religion must be considered. <p>This afternoon I gave a two hour session on the third century crisis which afflicted the Roman Empire and it was clear that the early church did manage to keep some light of civilization burning as well as showing a lot of compassion for the poor and distressed. In the Dark Ages Benedictine Monasteries like Fulda in Germany preserved vital manuscripts like the Histories of the Roman Senator Tacitus. Nearer our old time the Sunday School Movement founded in 1780 helped the working classes of this country to become literate on a large scale. My own Great, Great Grandfather seems to have gained his literacy skills through his Baptist Church. <p>A similar pattern has emerged when relating closely to members of the Orthodox and Muslim Communities in this country. I have had wonderful conversations with them on issues of profound significance. In their case, religion has been a stimulation to learning. On average they've been far more motivated then my Secular English students whose conversation revolves around football (if male), shopping (if female) or the latest happening on some tawdry soap opera. All very tedious and reflective of the psychological emptiness which Secularism tends to create. <p>The historical track record suggests that religion can either be a very constructive or destructive force in society. The Medieval Catholic Church gave us both the Cathedrals and the Inquisition. What needs to happen is for governments to learn the knack of encouraging the constructive while containing the destructive aspects of religion. Not an easy thing to do but a far better policy then berating believers for being ignorant or stupid. Some believers maybe but a lot are not. Indeed, many Atheism's can be ignorant when they wonder out of their speciality as Richard Dawkins did in his book 'The God delusion,' When it came to History or Theology I'd grade him an F- . His book did perform a service in disposing of some of the bad arguments sometimes made to advocate religion but he really had no understanding of the subject. Christopher Hitchen's in his book 'God is not Great' is even worse. It's simplistic, mono-causal analysis was a prime case of 'reducti ad absurdum' (reduction to the absurd). <p>Your comment also overlooks the way faith can ferment dissent. One only has to recall the brave monks of Burma or the Churches role in overthrowing apartheid. In large religious organizations leaders often find it impossible to control their followers. This is something which the Archbishop of Canterbury is finding to his cost. (I bet he wish he could control the Anglican Church through fear and guilt.) In Orthodox Judaism no Rabbi is considered to have proved himself unless he's survived at least one attempt by his congregation to eject him. In the monotheistic faiths especially, believers can be incredibly disputatious. (Just have a look at the relevant forums.) <p>On a final note, a limited amount of guilt and fear is necessary for the wellbeing of society. The only people without these traits are psychopaths. In Christianity, the way to deal with these traits is through faith in Jesus Christ whose death on the cross made the forgiveness of our sins possible. He delivers us from all irrational guilt and fear.

Many scientists will say that science asks more questions then it answers. At the very least, this is an incorrect answer. No one has seen proteins with their eyes but the alternative evidence suggests that they exist. They can be manipulated (mutations) and their effects on functionality be studied etc. Was there ever a time when the existence of proteins considered to be a theory? Over the years, direct evidence has shown that the existence of proteins is a fact. Now when the technological advancement has increased at a faster rate, I would expect the conclusive evidence, very much like the existence of proteins, for evolution to exist. Scientists have shown how a mutation in an amino acid of hemoglobin in the active site will result in a decrease in RBC functionality but who has shown a bacterial cell evolving into a eukaryotic cell under a microscope? <p>Personally, I think that there is evidence for the existence of a molecular mechanism for micro-evolution very much like the evolution of my own non-physical attributes such as personality, ideas, likes and dislikes etc. I, however, consider the transformation of species via evolution to be an unconvincing answer. By the way, I just graduated with Honors BSc with high distinction and thus have that high "IQ" which the stupid person talks about in the above article.

I've always been curious to discover the exact mechanisms that draw people into their specific religion. Most practice the faith they were born with, that is to say their parents "chose" it for them. Some changed in later life due to people that they've met, or through marriage or even through literature. Therefore it must be concluded that the "truth" they've discovered hasn't been spontaneously brought to them through some supernatural intervention, but by random events of birth and social interaction. <p>I think this is the most critical point I can make- if for argument's sake there is a "God", if the truth was so clear and evident and so blatantly obvious people should be able to make their determination without any external influence. This is testable in one regard- should we find two cultures that were not influenced by any outside source for a great length of time, dealing with only internal contacts, they should have spontaneously generated the exact same religion, or at least close enough for there to be little differentiation between them. <p>But if this isn't true, then we can at the absolute worst conclude that there is no genuine, "true" inherently native religion to mankind. In essence, each and every religion is based on cultural artifacts and interpretations. And as such, their multiplication serves to reduce the potential that a single one of them has any factual basis. <p>The more Gods, the fewer chance that there is one God. Now you could use this argument to bolster the theory of polytheism, but I think it is clear that if one God is hard to imagine, many are even more unlikely.

I think that young people in an academic environment can't associate with the old white bearded image of God thats all. Check back with them after a while, it is a matter of age and stage.

There was a time when everyone believed in God for several hundred years... it was called the DARK AGES. People like Galleo who learnt things for theirselves instead of listening to the church and learnt things that contradicted the church were killed. <p>Basically God is saying "worship me, or burn for all eternity." Religion threatens those who dont obey with torture and eternal hell, preys on those who are afraid of death by promising eternal heaveny goodness, and those with low self importance by telling them that God is always there watching them... um if God is watching you all the time, taking a personal interest into your school, work and sex life then you must be pretty damn important. <p>Why is it that we thank god for our bread and the good things we have in life, but not the plagues, the floods, the famines and all the unnecessary deaths that go on in the world, and then turn to him for help when these things happen? if any follower can answer that I would love to hear it. <p>Religion is based on one source (bible) written over 2000 years ago by people who herded goats for a living, while anything scientific is tested and tested in the most unbiased way possible, using methods of many different scientists, and only then it is called a theory, accepting the fact that we dont know everything about it, but we're pretty damn sure we do and accept the fact that new things come along. THERE HAS BEEN NO UPDATE ON RELIGION IN 2000 YEARS! And the bible has be retranslated again and again. Studies were done into this by the Jesus Seminar and found that only 18% of the bible was historically accurate... you want us to teach kids about how the earth was created 10,000 years when there is a really really good chance that its all wrong... <p>Religion, especially catholicism is very obsessed with sex... masturbation is forbidden, and sex is forbidden until marriage, and who can honestly tell me that they have been able to follow these rules? You mentally torture yourself until you give in, breaking the rules and have to punish yourself, damned if you do damned if u dont. Same for homosexuals, most are tormented for life, never getting any sort of balance between their life and religous boundaries. <p>People who gave into their homosexual desires in the middle ages were burnt alive along with so called witches. Have I mentioned that thousand and thousands of women were burnt during the middle ages, blaming them for everything like storms and sicknesses? <p>Many christians participate in protests at the funerals of those who have aids, holding picket signs saying 'god hates fags'. Well if you hate anyone who thinks for theirselves, questions and updates the theories of lives after thousands more have lived and studied it since the bible was studies, well we're not that fond of you either. <p>Why do the ten commandments forbid cheating, gossiping etc but do not forbid slavery, torture or cruelty? Why do women always play the non-dominant role Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . . ." (Ephesians 5:22–23) is every christian and catholic sexist and follow life along these lines? I can imagine many people disagreeing that they are sexist, but u cant just dismiss certain bits of the bible and follow everything else. Something else that I would be happy to be questioned on by someone else in this post. <p>Please, look around, question the things you hear, keep asking the question 'why?' dont believe anything you hear unless you've done research from many different sources, if anyone has any problems with my facts, please say so and I will be happy to provide sources.

<p>It is unfair to say that the religious are not as intelligent a group as are the non-religious. What is really being said is that religious are not smart enough to be non-religious. <p>It is fascinating to me some of the high positions in society that are held by the mythologists. I always wonder "what is the defect and how did it get planted in these walking contradictions". Worse though, is how dangerously contagious they are to the rest of the non-critically-thinking majority. Too bad natural selection doesn't work on stupid....oh, it does you say. Okay, good. Wish it were faster.

IQ is an outdated tool for the measurement of intelligence. The article does not support either of the arguments being made here. Personally, I believe in all of the gods. I don't find any of them very exceptional and until they can agree on who is top honcho, I have no time for the lot of them.

I can't remember who said it, I think Napoleon, but don't quote me on that. <p>" Religion is seen by the common people as truth, by the wise as false, and to leaders as useful."

This one's for skye. <p>There's so much wrong with everything you said that I don't know where to start, really. I WILL say that evolution is not a religion; religion operates on faith in the improvable. Science is not about faith or belief but FACT. Believe it or not, it makes no difference at all to the fundamental principles on which the universe functions. <p>As for the rest, I'd like to descend into ad hominem for a second. You need to use commas. Lots of commas. I can't take your ramblings seriously when a) they're stupid and b) you can't even dress up the stupid with reasonable grammar, punctuation and syntax. <p>Many sighs. <p>B

I dunno guys. I have an IQ of 142 and I am a firm believer in Jesus Christ. No atheist here.

I have an IQ of 165 and went to a "gifted" school. The smartest guy in our school had an IQ of 186 (he got 1600 perfect on his SAT) and ended up in an insane asylum. The second had an IQ of 175 and was in mensa. He was my friend and commited suicide out of the blue. I was the third highest with 165. <p>The fourth highest had an IQ of 160 and was school Valedictorian ALL A STUDENT. He was a communist and had many "crazy" ideas like UFOs are real and was working on a nickle a gallon substitute fuel for gasoline. He had a mental breakdown and now he washes cars in his dad's auto shop. <p>The smartest girl in our school had an IQ of 139 and was later confined to a psychiatric hospital. She was so intelligent that she did not need to study or go to class to get an A. She would read the book one time and understand everything. <p>I believe in Jesus. Many of my friends did not. High IQ is not a blessing, it is a curse. The price you pay is very high.

I can't believe this goes on and on. Put down the bible and read a real book for nature's sakes! Read 'The End of Faith' or 'The God Delusion'. No, I don't think you will because you are afraid. That's ok. Be afraid, stupid, ignorant, or whatever it is. Just stay out of my way. Stay out of my bedroom. Stay out of my government. Stay out of my medicine cabinet. Pathetic.

They have a god, it's their intelligence.

These results do not surprise me. It takes a high IQ (and a bit of courage regarding the 'afterlife') to free your mind from the religion virus. Usually when I hear that someone is an athiest or an agnostic I can safely assume that they posess an above average intelligence.

Ok, fine, there is evidence to suggest that atheists are smarter. Atheism involves critical reasoning which is separate from emotional bias. The very thing that religions rely upon to make people believe the most outrageous things. EG, people coming back to life, talking bushes and boats that can carry two of every animal. We all want to believe there is a magnificent reason and purpose as to why everything exists, but the actual, unbiased verified evidence, shows there simply isnt one. <p>Why can't we simply be satisfied being amazed at the fantastic billion year old magic trick that is nature's evolution and all living organisms around us? <p>Books are written by people, but nature is created by itself.

This is a fascinating discussion! I have been a science professor in MULTIPLE sciences (upper, lower and graduate level courses) for over 35 years to over 50K students in the US and have written in international journal of cosmology about these very topics. I have also written articles and spoken on the evolution of consciousness (true intelligence-consciousness is not the same as intellect!) in Homo sapiens and trace the steps we go thru along our human journey to Full Liberation and Completeness. <p>I was raised Catholic and had 16 years of pretty excellent catholic education (which is not saying much with the horrible state of US education compared to the other nations of the world. US population has PLUMMETED in intellect-scholastic-intelligence-wisdom in these very troubled times, esp math and sciences over the past few decades-centuries, that is proven if one follows the global stats-research!) I did my post grad studies at multiple public universities, however, which were ranked average-above average in US. I even took a world religions class in my senior year at a TOP, highly ranked Univ, hoping to learn some of this, but now that I have spent decades since then reading and "seeking" the deepest highest scientific spiritual knowledge possible in ancient bonefide scholarly texts on this planet, ie. the Vedas, (even learning some Sanskrit) I find that the prof I had for world religions in 1974 really hadn't done much deep reading-research, and he even taught us about polytheistic religions. It is not until one is at the "post doctorate" level of purification and understanding ( I used the Vedas or Vedic texts as my sources) that one realizes that some religions described as polytheistic are really monotheisitic, and that God is not the same as demigod!. Even in my catholic training I learned that there are many elevated spiritual beings who were saintly but who were not God, ie angels-saints! Anyway, I encourage any of you who are so inclined to research this. You will find that there are three stages of God realization that come after one has become ego-self realized and self actualized. The first stage is Brahman realization which is typically atheistic or impersonalist, where-when one "believes" and or experiences and or discovers-uncovers "The Force" or "The Void" or "The Love-Light" where we feel One with or a part of The Force. This is the beginning of liberation, but not full realization. The second stage is Paramatma realization, which is finding one's own spirit soul and true eternal identity within one's heart and the difference between the false ego and spirit soul AND finding God within the heart and NOT confusing the two spirits ala "birds in the tree-God-our soul" so as to think oneself as god! Yogis who do this FALL. The third stage is Bhagavad Realization. It includes the prior two levels too, but is much deeper, where one is focused on more spirit than matter-material world, intense purification so that one is worthy of becoming intimately close to and serving The Supreme Creator. It is where one can let go of all religion and just focus on devotional service and the highest levels of the spiritual world eventually 24-7. God is not so "cheap" as to be made "known" to anyone who just asks a few times and then rejects the notion due to NO PROOF and behaving kinda good sometimes. "When the student is ready the teacher will appear!" It takes discipline, sincerity and focus, and not JUST obeying commandments and or being "good." But "goodness" is a necessary component of the necessary bio-physics-bioenergetics. The deepening into spiritual dimensional-realities is an "energetic-physics" thing and is hampered by unbridled senses-desires, a dirty HEART and material desires which keep our vibrations slower and denser. That is what renunciation of matter-material world is about, so one can vibrate higher and thus merge with and experience higher dimensions-realities-states of consciousness without drugs. Once one is focusing on spiritual dimensions and after one's hankering and taste for matter (being an earthly enjoyer and controller) is lessoning, a whole other spiritual world becomes revealed. gradually. <p>I have also had multiple "mystical" experiences since I was quite young, without the use of any hallucinogenic drugs or without having any mental illnesses or head injuries. It was not until I read Bhagavad Gita As It Is, translated by A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada that I found most of the introductory answers to the introductory questions I had asked about these experiences and had asked other so called "masters" of multiple faiths for decades. But the real "nectar or fruit or tree" of Higher Knowledge that really goes the deepest into these issues is the many volumes of the Srimad Bhagavatam, also translated by Swami Srila Prabhupad. The explanations in these IMMENSE texts are the deepest levels of scientific spirituality that I have ever come across, and they are THOUSANDS of years old, actually even older! They take a lifetime to get thru, but they are awesome! These texts take all the sciences I have taught, including physics, chemistry, biology and astronomy and link it all together with The Eternal. Also, those whose minds are developed just enough to understand introductory Newtonian physics of the three states of matter may have a harder time "understanding" the higher physics aka quantum physics, where explanations-theories help to start linking-bridging spirit-matter continuum. These Vedantic studies can help us scientifically understand the difference between not only temporary (matter) and eternal (spirit-anti matter), but also about the vibrational physics and the difference between the elements (fire, earth, air, water, ether) and ego, mind, body, non-eternal spirit and Eternal Spirit. It is a LONG scholarly pursuit, and it has definitely nourished every iota of intellectual curiosity and quest that this being has EVER had during this life. I hope you will find the same nectarian experiences I have found with these quests too. Om Tat Sat

The researcher hit the nail on the head with his findings. All previous studies have pointed towards the same conclusion, intelligence will often times lead to atheism, or at least agnosticism (virtually the same). <p>There is no actual argument for a theist. There is absolutely no evidence, despite what some would like to claim. Faith itself is that which is believed without evidence (oxford dict.). If you have evidence, you no longer have faith. Thusly, there is no evidence of any theistic claims, ever. <p>Further, so many theists have such a warped view of atheism. It is simply the lack of belief in the theistic beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less. The atheist takes the position that theists have never (and most likely will never) prove their claims, thus warranting no belief to their claims. That is not to say we could not be swayed by evidence, it simply means the theists have not shown any.

The eternal debate cracks me up. <p>"You can't prove god scientifically!" <p>"Well, you can't experience god through science!" <p>Yes. You are both right. And it will always be that way. <p>There will always be occurances and experiences that the science at the time cannot explain. Through science we will learn more, but there will always be some information missing. <p>And some people will always attribute that mystery to god. <p>Science resents god because it will never be able to explain him away.

Well, whatever they say about me I have actually arranged this world in such a way that everyone has to have a belief about it.

After reading through all the comments there seems to be a pervasive tendency among many of the theists to suggest that age (or wisdom) will ultimately lead one to believe in God. This notion has bothered me for years; the idea that with age comes enlightenment, with respect to theology, has many logical counters. Perhaps the greatest counter argument rests within the dauntingness of mortality. As we grow older it is only natural to begin thinking about our own possible death and what lies, if anything, beyond this life. In our youth, these ideas are rarely visited. So why do so many become religious as they grow older? A simple explanation, within the context of my preamble, would be that these people begin to truly ponder their own mortality and that of their loved ones. For this reason, people often turn to religion. Many religions provide answers and comfort; the premise that if one were to lead a certain kind of life and believe wholly in a particular omnipotent figure that immortality could essentially be achieved. To me, that sounds like an appealing framework for many to live there life in and to raise/nurture a family around. <p>Let me make it known that I am best described as an agnostic. I am assiduously skeptical and have been since my senior year of high school (roughly 7 years ago). I just received a post-grad degree and am from a family that is dichotomously divided between Presbyterians (mom's side) and Mormons (dad's side). My opinion of a correlation between mortality (realization of), religion, and age was the product of countless conversations and observations I had engaged in with both newfound and longtime religious folk.

Micheal Herbst said "In other words, chicken begets chicken, or more abstractly, complex processes beget complex processes. Life on Earth must be the product of some highly complex process operating on material reality." <p>Since we are made in god's image and we are a highly complex process, who made god?

I think that this article makes sense because, any religious convicetions aside, it is expected that people with higher IQs are going to have a more questioning nature about them, and as a result, they will be very unlikely to believe something that must be taken solely on fate.

I think it is best not to seperate Atheist from Theists but rather seperate intellectuals from Idiots (jokes aside) . There are facts to evolution, but there are also large gaps in the theory. I think it is too rash to say that this disproves the creation that Theists claim to have happened but of course this is debatable, and I doubt, judgeing by the typical responses to this article, that many of you are not respectable enough to take on such a debate (no offense). If done right, the debate shall become a good learning experience that all should share.. <p>Suggestion: Question everything and put your emotions aside. <p>I do not trust the research mentioned in this article for obvious reasons nor will I make foolish assumptions.

I have yet to meet the person who can look me in the eye and say "God created the Earth then an" and keep eye contact with me while I spew forth the truth that the Bible was written by the Roman government. Its true. In fact, there were over 100 books written about Jesus alone and only 66 made it into the Bible (including the Old Testament which has nothing to do with Jesus at all). There are books that tell of Jesus killing his best friend by pushing him off the roof of his friend's house, but there is no mention of it in the Bible despite the tale of him bringing his friend back to life because that would make Jesus appear as :less than holy". If I were to write the Bible I would have included that story. Not only does it convey that Jesus was human, but that mistakes are made by all humans, and most of the time can be corrected. Don't get me wrong, I actually do appreciate the stories in the Bible, but they are just that. <p>The fact is, that Rome's officials approved what was allowed into the Bible. "If it not for religion, the lower class would murder the upper class." Napoleon himself said that, and it is absolutely true. Religion is used to keep the poor man down and praying for hope, while those that are capable of seeing through the guise are, more often than not, more successful within society.

You don't need a high I.Q. to understand that the smarter you are the less likely to believe in God, a modest I.Q. will do just fine. <p>Try this:Take a ride through any american ghetto and count the number of churches.Theres about one per street corner, with once-empty store fronts converted into churches of some denomination or another. <p>Now take a ride through the ritzy section of town and count. Then ask yourself, where would you most likely find people with higher testable I.Q.'s?

Defenders of Skye: Me thinks thou doth protest too much. <p>Skepticism is the tool of the intelligent used to dig at the truth. The bible, while interesting and containing useful parables, stretches the imagination to the point where an intelligent person must accept that it is a useful work of fiction but should not be regarded as fact.

"Tijen 12 June, 2008 <br>I just find it ridiculous that certain academics and members of the intellectual elite believe that they have the right to push their anti-religious attitudes onto others when they criticise religion and religious institutions of being dogmatic and of trying to manipulate and control people. " <p>No one is pushing their 'anti-religious' beliefs on you. If you don't like the study, ignore it and go to church. Who cares?

I'm sorry, Skye Mc Leod, but this study was made in the UK. Your claim that "the public schools have berated and disallowed bible study and belief in God" may (repeat, "may") apply to the US but in the UK there is no separation of church and state. Christian prayers and Bible study are compulsory in UK schools.

What saddens me in amongst some of this dialogue is that somehow, somewhere along the line the Body of Christ has managed to drop the ball. <p>To many who have written comments, and probably more who have passed by, we have clearly represented the good news in such a way that it is deemed to merely be about a post-life insurance policy. <p>Or that the deal is between worship or burning in hell for eternity. <p>I passionately believe that the reality of what the Bible says is that in creation God has made us with the freedom and ability to enjoy life. But also with the capacity for a relationship with himself. According to Christianity, God is entirely relational, seeking us with no strings attached rather than requiring anything of us (one of the major uniquely defining characteristics of God in Christianity). He is love, despite what many people's understandings from Old Testament scripture seems to let them believe. <p>And for me, that Love deeply informs what happens in the here and now. In the Lords Prayer, Christians ask that 'your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven' so that we might see an alleviation to suffering, that we might be in the places that are hurting and we might see hope, love and joy where otherwise things are awful. <p>Of course that is not unique to those of faith but because the church is God's hands and feet, we've been tasked with intervening. And Christians are far from perfect (Romans 3 being our great declaration of that) in living up to that. But the impact of the church for Good throughout History (esp in the revolutionising of the concept of charity) should not be downplayed. <p>Heaven isn't the thing we're holding out for. Life after death isn't the be all and end all of being a Christian. Seeing that break through into the here and now is the greatest treasure. <p>I spend a lot of time talking to believers of all kinds of things (and I do include followers of Dawkianity as believers) and it's awe inspiring to step back and reflect on the breadth of capacity we have to think for ourselves and the interesting ideas that produces. <p>I hope that in letting people know that God is Good and Christians aren't Bad you don't think I've stopped thinking on my own? <p>I can assure you I haven't :)

I used to subscribe to an atheism newsletter but I stopped reading it because I found the constant jokes, the point of which were all essentially that believers are stupid, to be offensive. As a student of anthropology I really enjoy thinking about and discussing religion and trying to understand the different ways that it fits into different people's lives. I find studies like the one above interesting and tend to agree with its conclusions. (Although Daniel made some excellent points about flawed methodology.) But I wouldn't reference it outside a discussion like this because I have no need to change anyone's beliefs and it totally confounds me that other people do. <p>I like the color pink. If you prefer blue, why should I give a hoot? I'm certainly not going to try to convert you to prefer pink. And I'm constantly amazed when people take very real, personal offense at my lack of belief or when atheist get so worked up about what other people believe to the point of nasty name calling. And I have to wonder if the people speaking loudest to defend their own point, whichever point it is, aren't suffering from some agnostic angst. If you have or don't have a personal relationship w JC, shouldn't it be just that - personal? <p>I'm speaking from an American perspective with a strong belief in separation of church and state. Because of that, I think there are times that it is absolutely appropriate to have public debates to determine what is secular and what is religion. I think it was appropriate to have a discussion about evolution vs. ID to determine that despite some people's verbal combinatorial explosions, ID does not meet the rigors of science and should not be taught in public schools. I also think it is appropriate to have conversations about when and where Santa Claus should appear in the public realm. But beyond that why would anyone try to change anyone else's mind? <p>I can understand that this study might make some people feel vindicated. But nobody likes an "I told you so!"

[I'm going to post this in several parts because I got an error when I tried to post the whole thing at once.] <p>Let me present my qualifications for the following comments. My tested IQ is 153 (about the top .05%). My wife and young son test similarly. I invented something largely outside my own field, where people closer to the field told me I was wrong, which eventually was shown to be right and resulted in a 7-digit check to me. A number of software products, including several award-winning ones, use some mathematical calculations attributable to me. <p>I think that IQ is probably partly genetic, but also probably at least as much a matter of mental habits -- a style of thinking which derives from events in early childhood. (Research shows that nutrition and the environment in the womb also play a factor.) <p>From a young age, it's always seemed clear to me that the evidence in favor of many religious assertions of "truth" simply isn't there. <p>But according to a 1994 Gallup poll, 68% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. <p>That fact is astonishing to me. There is absolutely no evidence for that assertion outside of a book written by human beings, none of whom even claim to have been present at the birth (much less the conception). <p>That's not exactly the kind of evidence that would win a case in a court of law. And extraordinary claims normally require extraordinary evidence. How could 68% of the country possibly believe such a thing? <p>The only explanation I've been able to come up with is that most people simply believe what those around them believe. If most people around them believe something, they will tend to believe it too. If there are also ancillary benefits to believing it (community, the assumption of a kind of immortality, etc.) then they are more likely to put aside any doubts and believe it. <p>Frankly, it's scary. If you are willing to believe absurd things mainly because your peers also believe them, how are you going to resist extremely destructive beliefs? In Rwanda, a critical mass of peers in one group came to believe it was not only OK, but a good idea, to hack one's neighbors to death with machetes (as long as they belonged to the other group). <p>Would each of those individuals have come to that conclusion on their own, or was it because of exactly the same willingness to irrationally believe what one's peers believe? <p>I think this is the heart of Dawkins' et. al.'s critique of religion, but I also think they've misstated it a bit. The "New Atheists" tend to blame the world's problems on religion. But I think religious crimes are only one manifestation of the deeper problem, which is humanity's tendency to believe peers in the absence of evidence. (And, as is pointed out by believers, religion also does a lot of good, and atheists have often done a lot of bad. Again, the problem is not religion, but the underlying tendency to believe what one is told by a critical mass of others. If religion has a problem in that regard, it's that it tends to encourage such tendencies.) <p>Given that willingness to believe, charismatic leaders (whether Jesus or Hitler) will tend to collect a certain number of followers, and then, if there are ancillary benefits to holding the belief being proselytized, and there is no way to obviously disprove it, the peer phenomenon kicks in and the number of believers can grow exponentially and a small group's evidenceless belief can eventually become a world-historic phenomenon.

Frankly, I can see how those beliefs can be correlated with IQ. People with a high IQ are (by definition) demonstrably unusually skilled at looking a information and drawing correct conclusions, without being told by others what the conclusions are. There is no reason to assume zero correlation between the ability to do that on an IQ test and the ability to do that with regard to other kinds of information. <p>When they look at religious questions, the fact that most of their peers may hold a particular belief is therefore less important. They give more weight to the evidence. The evidence isn't there for such beliefs as the virgin birth, so they don't accept them. <p>The above critique focuses on a kind of literalist belief. Often, when they participate in debates, people like Dawkins and Harris are told they are arguing against a straw dog; that nobody believes in those literal assertions anymore. Of course that is not true, as 68% of Americans will attest with regard to one such belief. And yet there are many people who have "faith" and who also try to reconcile that faith with observable evidence. <p>People of this ilk can be Christians without feeling any need to doubt evolution or generally decide facts based on evidence. <p>The political writer Andrew Sullivan seems in many ways to fall into this category. And yet even here, a kind of fundamentalism exists. Sullivan believes in the resurrection of Christ -- again an extraordinary claim that there is no concrete evidence for. It says in the Bible that there were plenty of witnesses, but the Bible is a book. There are many books claiming many things, many of them very old, many of them claiming to be true. Some of them are in direct contradiction to the Bible (such as the Koran, which holds Christ to only be one prophet among a number of them). <p>The evidence that is contained in the book of one religious tradition that contradicts the books of other religious traditions is not enough evidence on its own. Otherwise all the the other religious traditions should be taken just as literally-- including those that contradict the Bible. <p>This is the case because there is no universally-accepted evidence that one of these traditions is special. Of course, every tradition has many adherents who believe that their tradition is unique and special and can list many reasons why. But the fact that every other tradition also has such adherents, frequently contradicting each other's beliefs, belies the seriousness with which such adherents must be taken as knowers of real truth. <p>The methodology most people use in selecting the tradition they are going to believe illustrates this point. That methodology is: They believe that the religion their parents had, and that their peers have, is the one that is literally true. An obvious corollary of this fact is: if those same people had happened to have parents and peers who followed another religion, it is statistically likely that they would have come to believe that one's literal truth instead. <p>When presented with this obvious fact, fundamentalists are unfazed. They simply continue to believe that their religion is the special one. <p>But if you are willing to rely on evidence in choosing what to believe, It isn't enough to rely on one tradition among many traditions that all have equally fervent and intelligent adherents. There has to be other evidence. The resurrection of Christ simply has no such other evidence.

<p>And yet, based on reading his political writings almost daily for years, I respect Andrew's intelligence and his commitment to finding the truth. Andrew Sullivan is not stupid. And yet he believes something that, to me, seems utterly absurd for an intelligent person to believe, given the lack of evidence. <p>In an online debate with Sam Harris, Sullivan said that he has believed that Christ loved him from such a young age that it is impossible for him to believe otherwise. He is well aware of the fact that followers of other religions hold beliefs that are contradictory to his, and he knows that in light of that, it is logically absurd to think that his beliefs are special. But he he simply can't believe otherwise. <p>To me, this seems like a clue. For some people, the penetration of religious belief is so deep that reason simply can't touch it, even when the person is fully understands the reasoning. <p>This goes a long way toward explaining why the correlation between religious belief and IQ isn't even stronger than it is. People have different degrees of penetration of religiosity.The degree of penetration makes it more difficult for evidence-based reasoning to result in atheism. So, increased ability to reason based on evidence, and to avoid the sway toward believing what one's peers believe, does not necessarily lead to atheism. Atheism merely becomes more likely. There will always be exceptions. <p>The biggest fascination is the question of how religion ever penetrates so deeply. But, any successful religion evolves over time. The more successful variants have more of that deep-penetration ability; as is true of anything that evolves, key traits to survival become more refined as time goes on. Sullivan is a Catholic; I have little doubt that the grandeur and beauty of Catholic ritual contributes strongly to the deep-penetration effect of that subspecies of Christianity. <p>In the above, I am not addressing the fact that there are people who follow religious traditions without being literalist believers at all, not even to Sullivan's extent. My understanding is that among Christians, people who like Paul Tillich's thought-system may fall into that category. I am personally quite attracted to many aspects of the Judeo/Christian tradition. My wife has a strong Jewish background so we hold an atheistically-oriented seder in our house every year at Passover! I think there is value in religious traditions, and that that real value is a key reason they continue to thrive. The problem I am addressing is strictly the problem of holding beliefs on matters of fact that are not supported by evidence. <p>I have no doubt that there are many people who follow religious traditions without being "true believers", and who simply don't think or care too much about such questions of fact as whether Christ rose from the dead. Many religious "moderates" would undoubtedly fall into this category. <p>I'd like to see such people make more of an effort to make a rational decision about the truth and falsehood of the beliefs that are part of their religious traditions, because, in not denying literalist beliefs, while supporting the religion, they add support to overall the environment in which literalist, evidenceless belief can thrive, even while not being fundamentalist themselves. (This is a point Sam Harris often makes, though he focuses on religious fundamentalism rather than the underlying tendency toward evidenceless, peer group-based belief.) <p>As mentioned above, the underlying problem many atheists sense and object to is the tendency to uncritically follow one's peers in believing what is true. Once one is inclined to do that, the question of whether one has beliefs that result in mass slaughter or beliefs that result in good works is too strongly affected by the random factor of a) who one's peers happen to be, and b) what charismatic leaders happen to be around at the time. <p>Anything that helps diminish that tendency is good in my book. <p>Caveats: <p>a) When I talk about atheism, I mean an agnosticism in which the probability of literalist beliefs being true is considered to be so close to zero that for all practical purposes, it is zero. Very few intelligent people think that a literalist God concept can be disproved. They just think it's unlikely, and as far as we can tell from statistical research on the subject, the higher the IQ, the more the will tend to think it's near zero. <p>b) Sorry for picking so much on poor Andrew Sullivan. As I said, I've enjoyed his intelligent writing near-daily for years, so what he's had to say about religion has influenced my thinking.

Oops, one other point. <p>In the above, I argue that people shouldn't rely on their peers for beliefs, but should look at the evidence for themselves. For instance, if the Rwanda machete-wielders didn't rely on their peers to justify their actions, I doubt that they would have happened. <p>But that leaves open the question of where moral guidance comes from. Most religious believers think that it comes from religion. <p>I strongly disagree. In fact, I think there is something sad about thinking that people would do bad if they weren't convinced it would lead to going to Hell. That belief implies that it's only for selfish reasons (hell-avoidance) that people resist doing bad. <p>In contrast, the reality is that human beings have compassion, each to his own degree. In sociopaths, that degree is zero or close to it. But studies show that sociopaths tend to be reckless, and so it's arguable that fear of Hell doesn't help there. <p>The rest of humanity has compassion, and feels bad for other people who suffer. The thing that gets in the way of this is dehumanizing beliefs. For instance, people often belief that members of an oppressed group don't have souls. That justifies their being treated badly. <p>Such beliefs bely the evidence: other people don't act that differently than we do. Most people in any group give ample evidence of having feelings of joy and sorrow. <p>But, people prone to simply believing what their peers do, and what their charismatic leaders tell them to believe, are at risk of assuming that the truth is not what they can easily observe. Rather, it's what their own group tells them it is. <p>In WWII, many members (not all) of Hitler's SS had bad feelings about the murders they were committing. They were told that for the greater good, they had to put those feelings aside. And they believed that that was true, because their peers and charismatic leaders told them it was. And so they kept on murdering. <p>What they were told belied the evidence of their own eyes, reflected in their feelings.

I do think the Golden Rule -- which seems to be a key piece of most major religions -- should be taught and extolled in every possible way. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This is one of the values of religion, since most religions state it in one form or another. <p>It is a way of being that is consistent with the evidence. Most people in any group appear to experience joy and sorrow. It is reasonable to act in accordance with that evidence. (For similar reasons, compassion towards animals is also to be respected.) <p>And at the same time, the tendency to believe peers unquestioningly, which can make one disregard the evidence before one's eyes that those "others" are real people just like you, should be undermined in every possible way.

"If someone does not truly believe in a higher deity you can't force them to." <p>People do this to their children every day, bub. It is called "religious indoctrination." Ever hear of it? Parents push this nonsensical garbage into their kids' heads while they are still Santa Claus eligible, then pile on some fear and social pressure to help make the beliefs stick.

Tijen said "This need to rationalise everything and provide answers for everything is a disease. Why do people feel the need to break everything down?" <p>This attitude both frightens and saddens me. Have you really no intellectual curiosity at all? Can you even begin to fathom the amazing depths of scientific progress created by those who sought to provide answers to virtually everything, and who actually rolled up their sleeves and did the work?

Reading over my posts above, I see that I made a substantial number of grammatical errors. I'd spent too much time writing and so was in a hurry when I edited the text to improve the expression, and sometimes a resulting sentence turned into an inconsistent mishmash containing doubled words or other problems. I apologize for that because I think that as the writer, it's my job to do better than that. Also (and possibly mainly) because I prefer not sounding like an idiot.

Jeanine said "I think this article is ridiculous. I have been told my IQ is 147. I had a 4.0 GPA in college. I am able to critically analyze anything I read. Yet, I am a devout Christian, always have been." Yep, you always have been. In other words, you were indoctrinated as a child. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be saying "I am a devout Muslim, always have been." Perhaps you should think about that.

Michael Herbst said "Now with respect to your comment about intelligent design not being a competing theory with evolution as it is not even a theory in a scientific sense because it is not testable. This isn’t correct. It is fully theorizeable and fully testable." By all means, man, step up! Michael Behe and the rest of the cdesign proponentsists have been waiting for someone like you to come around. Think of how Kitzmiller v. Dover would have turned out if you were there!

Richard Smith said "I don't think some of you grasp what a terrible failure Atheism has been in Sociological terms." Of course, like many religious apologists, you completely ignore such countries as Sweden and Norway in favor of Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, since that serves your purposes. You claim to be some sort of "professional Social Researcher," yet you do not recognize that the latter two resulted from cults of personality and the worship of the State in place of conventional religion. Nationalism is a form of non-thinking of a similar level of perniciousness as religion. You claim there is a "hedonistic, individualistic Atheism of Consumerism," yet one of the most religious countries in the developed world, the United States, is also one of the biggest proponents of consumerism. You claim "atheism removes all checks on the power of the state," yet seem to have never heard of the Divine Right of Kings. <shakes head sadly>

James, you claimed that you would make no foolish assumptions, yet you also said "There are facts to evolution, but there are also large gaps in the theory." No, there really aren't. It is one of the most powerful explanatory tools in science, and is built upon mountains of factual evidence.

Gwendelen said "I think it was appropriate to have a discussion about evolution vs. ID to determine that despite some people's verbal combinatorial explosions, ID does not meet the rigors of science and should not be taught in public schools." We already had this discussion. It is called "Kitzmiller v. Dover." ID was utterly debunked, and several of the cdesign proponentists were shown to be liars on the stand.

Tartessos: great work! A pleasure reading you. <p>One comment though, about your response to Jeanine: "Jeanine said 'I think this article is ridiculous. I have been told my IQ is 147. I had a 4.0 GPA in college. I am able to critically analyze anything I read. Yet, I am a devout Christian, always have been.' Yep, you always have been. In other words, you were indoctrinated as a child." <p>If Jeanine has an IQ of 147, she should realize that a finding of correlation does not mean that the correlation is 1.0. As long as the correlation is < 1.0, there will be exceptions to the rule -- by definition. She is just such an exception. To pretend that any conclusion can be drawn from the fact that she is one of the expected exceptions is, simply, stupid. Or at least, very improbably ignorant for an intelligent person. <p>Also, Jeanine says: " There is the same spectrum of intelligence as in the general public." The research shows otherwise. The higher density regions of the IQ spectrum are shifted to the left for believers as compared to atheists. An intelligent person wouldn't make a blanket statement that simply contradicts the findings of the research -- not without pointing to some other research that supports their own position. <p>I don't know who told Jeanine that her IQ is 147, but I have to doubt it.

Or perhaps, rather than being unable to grasp the difference between anecdotal and statistical evidence, Jeanine is simply too emotional about this to give it the same kind of rational consideration she would give other subjects. Which would, of course, also provide an illustration of one factor that enables many highly intelligent people to keep believing.

Frank, I agree that the Golden Rule is in general a pretty good idea. I do not agree that it is anything like a universal religious precept. It is not as if one has to believe in the supernatural to come to the conclusion that treating others as you would like to be treated is a great social compact. <p>On that note, I notice that no one has brought up humanism in this discussion, which is a rational philosophy that I think most humans would agree upon if they were not indoctrinated with religious dogma. I have often thought it insane that some folks insist that the Ten Commandments represent some sort of superior moral code, when in fact most of them have little to nothing to do with morals, and those that do are obvious to begin with. I will post a sample of humanist Ten Commandments in a bit. I will be curious to see the reactions.

Here are those ten humanist precepts (plus a synopsis). As you read these, compare them to the Ten Commandments you are familiar with, and see which you think packs more moral fiber. <p>1. Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for themselves. There is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore. <p>2. Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims to possess or have access to supposed transcendent knowledge. <p>3. Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness. <p>4. Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, flashes of inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even religious experience, while not valid means to acquire knowledge, remain useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of looking at the world. These ideas, after they have been assessed rationally for their usefulness, can then be put to work, often as alternate approaches for solving problems. <p>5. Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now. Humanists regard human values as making sense only in the context of human life rather than in the promise of a supposed life after death. <p>6. Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems--for both the individual and society--and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities. <p>7. Humanism is a realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the existence of moral dilemmas and the need for careful consideration of immediate and future consequences in moral decision making. <p>8. Humanism is in tune with the science of today. Humanists therefore recognize that we live in a natural universe of great size and age, that we evolved on this planet over a long period of time, that there is no compelling evidence for a separable "soul," and that human beings have certain built-in needs that effectively form the basis for any human-oriented value system. <p>9. Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives. <p>10. Humanism is in tune with new technological developments. Humanists are willing to take part in emerging scientific and technological discoveries in order to exercise their moral influence on these revolutions as they come about, especially in the interest of protecting the environment. <p>11. Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, Humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails.

"I do not agree that it is anything like a universal religious precept. It is not as if one has to believe in the supernatural to come to the conclusion that treating others as you would like to be treated is a great social compact." I think I made it clear that you can come to the Golden Rule based on the evidence, if and only if you can also avoid succumbing to irrational dehumanizing beliefs. The fact that many religions explicitly endorse it has helped those religions flourish, just as other good things done by religions help them. That certainly doesn't mean you need to believe in the supernatural to come to the Golden Rule! <p>Re Humanism, I'm a member of the American Humanist Association and fully agree with your comments and with Humanism's POV.

There are always morons who say things like, "they teach evolution as fact instead of a theory." How come morons never say things like "they teach electricity (theory of electromagnetism) as fact instead of a theory" or "they teach gravity as fact instead of a theory". I KNOW these people have heard of The Theory of Gravity so there is no excuse...

The bible answers a lot of questions, mostly about evolution. People still have the need to pack together in groups and share resources. We'll grow out of it soon enough. <p>1. Just because someone converts as an adult is not proof of anything except statistics, it has to happen to someone. <p>2. Getting a degree does not make you smart, it means you put time into it and didn't screw up bad enough to get kicked out. <p>3. There really is no debate here, mythical thinkers base their beliefs on faith, and faith is meaningless in any logical discussion. Don't confuse scientific statistical likelihood as faith based belief. <p>4. Saying things over and over does not make them true, it makes them oft-repeated things which are still as wrong as they were the first time someone said them. <p>5. Deities capable of creating such a wonderful universe would be kinda lame to care what we do. If a God can create such natural wonders, yet for some reason give a crap about whether I love them or not, then I don't want anything to do with such a self-serving childish god. <p>6. Every day, Science takes another one of your sacred cows, and explains them. Religion used to just execute people who discovered things, or at least torture them until they "recanted". Like when the earth was the center of the universe. Now every time we reach a new level, people just assume god put all that stuff, like billions of universes, out there to fool us. Arent we cool. <p>7. The next tactic, is to be too stupid to understand scientific processes and terms. This is actually biology helping religious people find similarly limited types to pump out more kids, especially in poor areas and countries. Their going to breed us out of existence, then wonder whose going to keep the world running when logical people are gone. <p>8. If the "link" is helpful or not, is pointless. It's ether true or not, and all things indicate it is. Especially the responses here, even though some of the responses are at least well articulated versions of proof less feel-good faith based notions. <p>9. Don't wonder why Atheists are pissed. They are over 10% of the U.S. Population (not counting the others who just dont wanna rock the boat or make their parents/spouses/kids angry), with no political representation. Other places like Switzerland are nearly 68% Atheist already. Athiests don't try to restrict other people doing things as long as it is not a violation of someone's rights. Yet we're always having other peoples religious hangups thrust on us. Stem cells, we're now paying Asia for the same tech. Abortions? Other states, or overseas, or instructions online. Gay marraige, who cares, it has nothing to do with you. You cant legislate morality, only an idiot tries to. So while I am trying to use my vote to actually get something done, your wasting your on a republican that really does not care about your issues, but pretends to because without the religious sheep, they cant get elected. <p>10. Your religion is a fad. Just because it's the current version instead of Greek or Norse gods does not make it any less false. Try learning from history, and instead of wasting time coming up with carefully crafted self-reinforced delusions which can only be explained away and never disproven, just try and listen to something objectively for once.

Many have chimed in, several were quite long winded. I'll try not to be, but I probably won't be able to contain myself. Even though this story is somewhat dated, I feel I must put in my 2 cents worth. I have long stated that my own experiences indicate exactly what Professor Lynn is claiming: higher intelligence = lower probability of a belief in "a god". I live in the "Bible Belt" of the USA, the "Buckle" as a matter of fact, and I see this everyday. The vast majority of regular churchgoers undeniably display a lower than average intelligence. Also, by my own experiences, I see that groups of people with higher than average intelligence (i.e. Dr's, Academicians, CEO's, etc) undeniably display a marked propensity NOT to believe in a deity of any sort. However, the converse of this, that a group of Athiests, non-believers, Agnostics, etc, is of higher intelligence is NOT TRUE. <p>By my own experiences, as a group, the vast majority of non-believers display the same trend to lower intelligence as the churchgoers. The reason is simple, in both cases, non-believers and churchgoers, each individual feels as though they are part of a "group", a "family" of similar minded individuals, and they can give over some responsibility to 'the group' and thereby avoid much critical thinking. Your brain is like any other organ in your body, use it, or lose it. Critical thinking is "exercise" for the brain, when you no longer feel a need to engage in Critical Thinking, you lose the process, and a little intelligence goes with it. In fact, neither group is "right". 'God' is unprovable, 'lack of God' is equally unprovable. YOU are provable, I can engage all 5 senses and determine that. <p>So to all of you out there, believe in YOURSELF first, your FAMILY second, and your deity third. There is nothing wrong with a faith based outlook on life, there IS something wrong if that perspective IS your life. By the way, I'm a double-doctorate in Psychology and Theology. I also have two Masters, Philosophy and Physical Education. I have an IQ of 167, I am an Evangelical Pastor, yes, I preach every Sunday, and believe it or not, I DO NOT believe in a "God", at least not the "God" that is represented in most of the western world's religions as "the one true god". There isn't one of those. And because you wonder, I preach about the common decency represented in the bible and other religious documents, the message of how to act, I DON'T preach about "God", he (or she) is irrelevant to the message.

This is the problem with these sorts of studies- the wording. Technically, one could say that 'studies show that the the IQ of a population and the percentage of members of the population who believe in a religion are inversely proportional', but that is quite frankly unpleasant and does lead to the view of atheists as elitist. Also, while evolution is a theory, so is gravity, and so is just about all that we 'know'. The evidence points strongly towards evolution and gravity, so we use those. I'm an atheist, my dad is an atheist, and my brother, sister, and mother are Christians. I have no problem with either side. The whole idea of fighting over something as inconsequential as this is ridiculous. Live and let live is a philosophy that no one can object to.

While I don't claim to have a high I.Q. or even be on par with some of the people who have posted comments so far, I do think myself smart enough to deduce facts from... fiction (for lack of a better word). I dare say that any so called "believer" in any god-like being without cold hard proof is, in some way, shape, or form an idiot, completely and utterly. It's not their fault though, they've more than likely had it stuffed down their throats since they were born. Almost any child will fully believe anything a trusting authority figure tells them is true without question. <p>I pose a series of questions to believers in omnipotent god's which some people have most likely heard before. Could this all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful god that can do anything, make an object that even he/she could not lift? Could he/she even create such an object? If he/she could create it, can he/she (in a single form) lift it AND not lift it at the same time? I dare say that by using the laws of the universe, which that god has so generously provided, it can not be both. Hereby disproving god's omnipotence. Also the very fact that people will refer to an omnipotent god as "he" or "she" disproves the "fact" that it is an omnipotent and perfect being. <p>To the subject of Christianity. I have questioned to myself many times why a person would willingly believe in a god that has brought forth the end of the world multiple times (and probably plans on doing so again), has plagued humanity, and would go so far as to punish a soul for eternity for a mere life time of sins that would sooner go unpunished if forgiveness was simply asked. Isn't not wanting to be in a raging pit of fire for all eternity enough? Also why is it fire? Could it be fire because simple minds need something horrid that they can relate to so that they may adhere to the teachings and live for the religion? I don't know about you personally but I would put burning to death pretty high on my list of ways I don't want to die, much less spend the rest of eternity. <p>A god that claims to be omnipotent and isn't. Claims to love each and every living being and doesn't. A god who would also bring forth death and destruction to the world, and also punish those he killed and condemn them to an eternity of pain and torment, is not the type of god you will find me worshiping any time soon. Nor would any other reasonable being for that matter. That god is a liar and is a false god because of it. <p>Often times you hear that the MANY contradictions in the bible have arisen from human error and miscommunication between god and humans. I say those contradictions are brought forth from the human mind's inability to fully grasp extremely large concepts and/or pick up on the very small details when making additions to them, especially when the author has changed so many times. <p>Also, another thing I am getting quite tired of hearing from religious followers is that they do not push their religion on to other people. NO religious group has EVER been founded on belief alone. Religion is forced on people physically and mentally. Just so much as a "You can be an atheist... you'll still be judged by god in the end." is a form of FORCING your religion on to people. That's not even mentioning the subtle force used to mislead young children in to believing this crap when they don't even have the mature mind needed to question it's concept. Well you keep your god... and you keep your divine judgment... I won't need it because when I die, I'm gonna be quite dead and unaware of anything that's going on. Which to be honest, I find it to be a welcomed peace after a life long process of dealing with idiots. <p>There's one phrase you will hear more often than most others when it comes to the Christian faith, and those much like it. It's "Spread the word of God." Anywhere Christians go they will try to convert non-Christians to their faith. Thus labeling themselves hypocrite's in general when they say that they don't force their religion on to people. When they say it's okay for you to believe in a different faith, what they really mean is that you'll be judged by THEIR god in the end. Almost as if they were better than you huh? People need to grow up and stop believing in ridiculous stories like these. I believe religions were created to ease mankind's worries and to have a code to live by. Yet in this day and age I find more often than not that most people are living FOR the religion and not BY the religion. <p>Let no one person mistake the meaning of living FOR a religion and living BY a religion. Many many many cults pop up around the world all the time and they are looked down upon as religious fanatics. Well you die hard religious believers are just that, fanatics, and you have a problem dealing with reality. If you have to believe in mythical beings to come to terms with reality, then by all means do what you must. But for the love of GOD, don't spread your disease among us. You weaken us with your talk of souls and heavens and hells. Religion and it's pathetic "morals" hold back humanity from it's true potential. Also all of you Christians HONESTLY believe that the world is only some 10-15 thousand years old? Are kidding me?! I can sit here and tell you honestly without a doubt in my mind (and I know I'm not alone in this) that that is a very VERY ignorant thing to believe. A person comes to that conclusion by opening the self entitled "good book"... reading it... and then setting it down and believing in god and in every word that was written. <p>How you can so easily betray the rest of your race when the only thing left is to basically get actual footage of the Earth millions of years ago is beyond me. You'd rather tuck yourselves in to your little shells made of hopes and dreams and prayers and hide away from the truth. You're living in denial and it's not healthy for you. Whether you like it or not this planet we live on is in fact millions of years old... MILLIONS. Not thousands... millions and millions. <p>I rest easy at night knowing that one day the religions of today will fall, though most likely none of us will be around to see it. I only wish I could stand on a pedestal in front of all believers in the end, so that the last thing they saw would be me pointing and laughing and saying I told you so!

I was reading some comments above, and I realized that some people don't understand the controversy of evolution. There is no "theory" of evolution. It is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This is essentially the theory of survival of the fittest. That has not been proven. However, what has been proven is the genetic change in various species over time. This is not debatable. It has been proven, so unless somebody said this already, (i wasn't going to read ALL of these comments) get over it, evolution is real as it gets. Natural selection? We don't know yet, but its pretty real.

First I'll say I 'stumbled' across this page using StumbleUpon, available at stumbleupon.com. <p>2ndly, sorry to let the wind out of your sails, theists, but there is no god, and to claim there is one is incredibly ignorant on your parts. Mankind in general is so in fear of their own deaths that they subscribe to these ludicrous fairy tales about 'life after death,' but it is up to the believer to prove god exists (he doesn't) NOT the atheist to prove he doesn't. You can't prove something doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist. There's nothing to prove. <p>As Thomas Jefferson once said, 'this would be the best of all worlds if there were no religion.' <p>I am absolutely fed up with people preaching religion, which is preaching hate. The bible (I was raised catholic and went through 12 years of catholic school in Philadelphia and while I appreciate the additional education I never would have received had I gone to a public school, religion preaches nothing but hate and intolerance for those not like you.

pffftt...science. i bet you believe in dinosaurs too.

One summer I was lonely and was befriended by a group of people who belonged to a fundamentalist christian church. At the time I was struggling as a single mother with two children and a truckload of debt. I ended up going to that church for about 6 weeks. I had been brought up catholic and the amazing way which the people worshipped, such as talking in toungues, lots of singing and praising was intriguing to me. I began to wonder if the rigidity of my catholic upbringing could have influenced me to stop believing in God. <p>Being around that church provided a sense of community and friendship that had been missing in my life. <p>And then came the homophobia, the sexism, ethnocentrism and audio and video tapes which made absolutely no sense at all to me. I started to ask questions. All of a sudden, all those nice people and sense of community disappeared and was replaced with coldness, barages of verbal abuse and a few people who were desperate to save me. <p>I found this article interesting as one thing that I had alway found strange about the worshippers at this church was that no one had any tertiary qualifications, apart from 'degrees' from a bible school. <p>And yes, I have a university degree.

imagol4: <p>a) Sorry for being longwinded in my own writing above. <p>b) I greatly enjoyed your post. But I have to ask you something, due to your position as an Evangelical pastor. When you preach, isn't it true that most of the people you are preaching to believe that there's a conscious entity that listens to their prayers and decides whether to grant their individual wishes? It sounds like you feel that such beliefs are untrue, since you say there is no "one true God," though that isn't entirely clear. If you think it's untrue, Do you challenge your congregation to think critically about this, or do you just let it go?

First I have to point out to all those who commented above, that Christianity is not the only religion, and so its deficits can in no way be used to disprove spiritualism in general. All that can be said by them is that we're still working on the perfect religion. <p>Atheism only one step in the process. It looks at the conventional and often "irrational" axioms of a traditional faith-based religion and moves beyond them. True atheism is not trading one belief system for another, for a true atheist understands the dynamics of science and does not follow any of these theories blindly. Einstein starts as a madman and only when his conclusions are inevitable does he become a prophet. <p>From here an atheist can go one of two ways. He will find that the universe as defined by the laws of science is painfully indifferent, and either regress to the absolute solace creationism, or he can embrace the universe as a simple medium and move forward. Science in conjunction with philosophy is inevitable at this point, and rather than question the words of the Bible our ex-atheist compassionately recognizes the power of faith. Any religious believer who fears science is not faithful, for true faith transcends reality. And for that reason science can never touch it. <p>Already advances in theoretical physics are reaching their limits. String theorists preach the existence of a raisin-bread multiverse that can never be proven while faithfully clinging to the questionable mathematics of their irrelevant calculations. Ultimately, the very nature of God ensures his existence. God exists in ambiguity, and that is exactly what science has found. Eventually a scientist must ask himself "Does quantum ambiguity signify the hand of God any less than it signifies the existence of parallel universes?"

As an atheist, I thank Christianity for the beautiful architecture, art, and the essential moral code of goodness and self sacrifice, duty and responsibility, altruism and generosity that has shaped the moral code than I was born to in 1953 in England. I am, and want to be, a moral and kind man, not because I fear hell, but because that is how I want other people to be towards me and everyone else, because life is better and more fulfilling that way. <p>Christians, don't forget you are atheists too. In Islam, Hinduism, Chinese religions, Buddhism, African tribal, Sikhism, Judeism or any of the hundreds of belief systems in the world, you are an atheist. <p>I just go one god further than you. That's all. Peace old chum.

I read words like true " true atheist"," love", "morals" and so one in commentaries of people who claim they don't believe in God. How then can they even pronounce them, nevertheless expect them? I have seen no birds, dogs or even monkeys doing that... <p>Remember, though, you have one life and you are free to not believe in the one who keeps you alive (talk about free will), but that will only guarantee you death (and I'm sure any atheist can agree with me here since atheism provides no hope). But then there is another possibility: you could start using those IQ's you have been given and ask yourselves some questions, like:What is the purpose of life? If there is a God, why does he allow suffering? Will God ever directly interfere here on Earth or is humankind going to destroy itself? <p>I stumbled across this page also and yes, I have a master's degree and yes, a lot of scientists believe in God... after having studied the Universe and realizing its immensity and yet, its exact lows that govern it. <p>The fact that people invented Gods to worship does not prove that the ONE TRUE GOD who created all things does not exist. That's too obvious to explain.

it has been addressed that high IQ does not necessarily make an atheist but has anyone considered that not believing in religion allows one to question the world we live in today and gain a greater knowledge of how it works. Maybe it is the rejection of religion that allows one to think for themselves and obtain a greater intelligence. Religious people often say that by believeing that there is not a god give life no purpose and that we all just die and rot... but atheists are still trying to find reasons for these deep questions life has proposed to us instead of accepting general superstition based on the word of people from long ago!

A wonderful trail of comments forcing me to add my own pennies worth. Being a true atheist(pessimest) i asked my daughter (7) one day whether the glass in my hand was half empty or half full, Her simple answer was that the glass was the wrong size. What does this have to do with these comments, Having mulled over my mortality for many an evening (alcohol, fire, etc) i think it is not intelligence the true athiest exhibits but the courage to die and in dying to be dead. I personnally have no God because i have both Infinity and Now, to want anything more would for me be greed.My infinity not being an afterlife but a knowledge of my true relativity to the Universe, and my Now which can be as simple as a sunset on a sunny day which often gives me more "bliss" than manys a day passed at the altars of catholicism ever did. As the comedian Dave Allen used to say "May your God go with you" !

"However, what has been proven is the genetic change in various species over time. This is not debatable." <p>sounds a little bit strange, we're not allowed to debate with you. ok. i'm pretty sure there is some debate among evolutionists about the nature of genetic change. there is suggestion that the fossil evidence currently supports large jumps in the progression of species rather than the more traditional incremental changes. meaning, rather than finding multiple intermediate forms, there have been markedly different forms found with no indication of the intermediate mutations that enable new forms of a species. so, it has been put forward that evolution progresses in fast leaps (comparatively fast) not small incremental bumps, according to dating and appearance of the fossil record. this appears to be debate within the theory about the nature of the genetic change.

Of course religion answers a lot of questions, if not all of them. But it answers them without proof. <p>Just because something feels right or does good, doesn't make it the truth..

Laura, may I ask what your masters degree is in? I find it interesting that people state that they have a degree in something and make terrible sentences that don't even make sense... <p>"How then can they even pronounce them, nevertheless expect them? I have seen no birds, dogs or even monkeys doing that... " <p>huh? a masters degree in economics has no use in this in this conversation and is completely void. I also find it funny that you say atheism provides no hope... the whole concept of afterlife is so selfish and retarded. My interperetation of death is that yes you do die and rot into the ground and cease to exist... this does not mean there is no hope and my life was meaningless... My meaning of life is to make an impact on the world and help humanity advance, and live on in the memories of others. It is ignorant to believe that when you die, some magical part of your body which we cant find seems to drift off into a magical world where you live forever... does time not exist there? what do you look like there? if you believe in reincarnation then how does population grow? souls are just created? another thing... you say put your big IQ's to use and then ask a questions that have no answers unless your brave enough to step outside your box... i have an answer for your questions... i answered the first already... second question... there is no god so he doesnt allow or disallow suffering... answer to third question... there is no god so he wont directly interfere with earth seeing as he never has. Step outside your box for a little while... What has been stated before many many times is that as an atheist i dont have to prove anything... I believe we are searching for the truth... this is the meaning of life... we may never find the truth because our human minds may not have to capacity to handle it... but as a theist you provide a bunch of bullcrap with no evidence and then bring up a bunch of questions which cant be answered... and then if an answer is provided that contradicts your beliefs you quote your bible and hide behind it. the meaning of life plain and simple = open your eyes and live it... accepting that god is the reason for everything is giving up and you may as well be dead!

Science - unbiased hard work and procedure constantly questioning and learning, along with a willingness to consider other's opinions <p>Evidence - hundreds of years of tested, analyzed, and reviewed data <p>Religion (Christianity in particular) - biased mindset and distorted veiws, as well as stubbornness and refusal to even CONSIDER the other side's opinions <p>Evidence - a book written by opium addicts that was plagiarized from prior pagan religions. <p>I will not bother supporting my argument, for Christians refuse to listen to support and disagree blindly to anything that is said. It is very pathetic how they claim "I'm right because I think so!" It is a sign that the original document may very well be correct. If you believe in God, the only way you can complete your foolishness is to read Puss 'n' Boots and think "Holy crap! The almighty smart cat! Let's worhip him and his glorious boots!" I'm not saying religion is wrong, but it is UNDENIABLY ignorant. <p>I am through trying to be respectful to Christians, because they are simply rude and vile to everyone except other Christians. Don't you just love how Christianity is so "loving," but hey preach hate to everyone who's different? Because THAT isn't discrimination, not at ALL. <p>I can deal with fools, but disrespect I cannot forgive.

We lived, as humans, for about 80.000 years without religion. <p>Only when we invented writing (which was "holy" because it was hot science) we could write things and learn from writing on writing (4000 BCE) <p>Then we compressed writing in alfabet form, we found papyrus and knowledge accelerated again. When papyrus was exported to Greece, philopsophy automatically begun, leading not only to the birth of modern science but also to the birth of some new world religions. This in itself was exported back to Egypt and we got the wonderful Library of Alexandria with halls for more than 5000 students long before the birth of Christ. <p>Christiantiy was a cult, very Thora based, only years after it was decided that crucial Jewish things were no longer part of the rituals. All the rest was slowly added during the next 2000 years. It is one big make-up story but still a Jewish cult. <p>The Tora was created in Egypt, and based within a flourishing Egyptian culture, who believed in salvation, soul and rules. A small copy was the base of the Tora. <p>When papyrus became scarce due to the fall of The Roman Empire we invented the printing press which provided faster transfer of knowledge thus accelerating of science. <p>When we got to the industrial age knowledge spreading and thus accelerating of science went faster and faster. <p>With Internet we have a new worldwide library of Alexandria, which means that not only the knowledge above about the history but also from all fields of science and insights gets copied much and much faster generating knowledge on knowledge. <p>There is absolutely no way anyone can stop this anymore. I believe we are witnessing the end of the age when we were primitieve and had "religion" and are slowly entering the age where we are fully based on science. <p>You do not have to look at science or debate religion on modern scientific ground like biology or physics, the only thing you have to do is trace back to the roots of the beginning of one of the gazillion religions or cults and read up on what happened exactly, factly and where these ideas originally were based on. Who said what and where does a thing come from. <p>One example out of millions: <p>the original people along the nile were cannibals, stone age, primitieve, you still see this with primitive cultures around the world. The believed that when you ate someone that you get all his "powers". <p>During the beginning of the Egyptian Culture the Osiris cult had great trouble with the large faction in the country which stall ate up people including their parents (and drink their blood). Simple: can be read up in the many many documents found in the older pyramids. <p>It took a long time before they could transform their country into not really eating people but "virtually eating people" by postulating an "eternal life" (eat flesh/drink blood). <p>2500 years later the Tora was written and the sacrament (sacrafice) went all along to the Jewish cult Christianity (which was 100% jewish during the start including ALL rituals, read up on this) and now I watch tv.... and see "eat my flesh, drink my blood" and wonder if anyone who does this realizes that they are following a thread dating back 6500 years ago. <p>Everything that was ever a conviction slowly got integrated and twisted and twisted and twisted. As if a long row of people during 6500 years whisper to each other. Even the idea of a "god" in itself. When did we first invent a "God", isnt this a completely lunatic idea? Yes it is, we first had many many Gods directly correlating to natural objects and events which makes it more logical. Only during a certain period in Egypt some Egyptian Farao invented the "One God" idea, making it so abstract and combining everything in it so that noone can explain anymore what a God is. <p>And here we are... in a total lunatic world. It is as if we are inside a Star Trek Episode.

I agree with those above, outraged that the so called "theory of evolution" is taught in our public schools. What don't those teachers understand about the word theory! But, they don't stop there. No, the scientific elite are force feeding our children many other unprovable theories such as: <p>the theory of gravity the many theories of modern psychology some crazy theory that the earth goes around the sun (ha!) and many many others. <p>God help us

religion breeds ignorance

I almost feel, by this point, that my comment is too late to gain much response, but after reading almost everyone before me, I couldn't leave it alone. So in answer to Laura above me: <p>By what evidence do you assume that animals believe in god? All observation of the animal kingdom, (lack of devotion to an unseen being, lack of sexual "morals," lack of theorization, which is required to create a god, etc...) suggest they are atheists. <p>There is a frustrating myth among theists that atheists are immoral and loveless creatures. The hypocrisy of religion regarding morality is what turned me away. It was a sexist, racist, egotistical (and worst of all) stagnant place to be. Religion has incriminated women for ages (and continues to do so). Religion condones fear towards homosexuals and people of other faiths. Religion has condoned war and book burnings and guilt and guilt and guilt in the pliable minds of children attending Caucasian Jesus camp. By your reasoning Laura, Atheists should be the primary demographic of our criminal population, but the opposite is true. Atheists do not need a god to be moral. We utilize compassion and truth. <p>Hope. Hope of what? Immortality? What use of hope if its a false hope? <p>"What is the purpose of life?" That is for you to decide. Your life is your own. <p>If there is a god, why does he allow suffering? a) God only cares about some of us, in which case, only some of us are entitled to care about god. b) God hasn't the ability to prevent suffering, In which case, god is not omnipotent. c) God has a plan of his own, which god will not tell us, though god gave us minds to question as a cruel joke, in which god and I cannot be friends. <p>And regarding your last question: <p>"Will God ever directly interfere here on Earth or is humankind going to destroy itself?" <p>If god didn't interfere during the Holocaust, the genocides in Darfur, the black plague, the potato famine in Ireland, the Spanish Invasion, Tsunamis, mustard gas, and 9/11... I think it safe to say that he isn't coming. <p>As a journalist especially fascinated with physics and anatomy, I'd have to say that the opposite becomes apparent: the laws are less exact. The atom is questioned. The string theory is thrown around. The laws are laws only as long as humans give them such status. I'd question your Masters degree solely on the basis that there are enough grammatical fallacies in your tirade to cause corona damage, but I also question it because, despite the degree, it appears that you have stopped questioning in favor of blind faith. Money well spent I'm sure. <p>"The fact that people invented Gods to worship does not prove the ONE TRUE GOD who created all things does not exist. That's too obvious to explain." <p>Considering that you took the time to write about theistic monkeys at the beginning, and that this is "too obvious to explain," I was rather hoping that you would. Those pesky humans, inventing gods and saviors all over creation. Now thinking people are questioning my bipolar Christian god, simply because every other god was just a myth! Oh the humanity! How can I possibly explain that this god is the exception to the rule? <p>Good luck with that. <p>This initial discussion was a discussion regarding the intelligence of theists vs. atheists. From personal experience and discussion, I'd have to agree in that the more intelligent tend to question traditions on a deeper level and thus remove themselves from religious thought. However I think his sampling wasn't so much a sampling of IQs, but a sampling of scholars which (as has been pointed out many times) is not the same thing. A more accurate report might actually have a random sampling of people completing an IQ test, and as with the majority of standardized tests, specifying religious affiliation (if any) before beginning. <p>On average, IQs have been rising over the years. This gives me hope that one day, humankind will remove the blindfold completely and embrace that natural world. Here are my eyes wide open, and I can tell you, the world is a beautiful, mysterious place.

"Laura, may I ask what your masters degree is in? I find it interesting that people state that they have a degree in something and make terrible sentences that don't even make sense..." <p>Shamrock, I appreciate the fact that you read my comment, even if you didn't agree with it or, even worse, made no sense to you. This shows me that you care (or else it would turn into a selfish debate in order to convince me of your beliefs, but I know you know that trying to convince someone honest and documented that God doesn’t exist is tougher than convincing him love does not exist.), you and many others who have commented here. Having an opinion and being able to sustain it is good enough for me. <p>Now I should also point out (as if it's not obvious) that English is not my mother’s tongue, so I truly apologize to you, to Janet Lee and to the others that had felt discomfort due to my “grammatical fallacies”. Maybe we should switch to French or Spanish, see how that goes. <p>My master's degree has nothing to do with it (its not economics, nice try--kidding). I know I mentioned it and I admit that as a mistake. The only things relevant in my education is the fact that I somehow learned to question any theory and ask for logical proves and that throughout my studies I also took one course of astronomy, which, in the end, had straightened my faith in God. But if God exists, it’s absurd to think he expects us to get a doctor’s degree before he would let us know him. <p>In order to answer your questions I should start by very and I mean very briefly telling you what I believe in, let you know, like you also had, how I see life and its purpose. <p>1. I believe there is one true God and that most people (even though we are in a so imperfect state) still reflect his personality. That's why all the people function by principles. Anywhere you go, people conduct themselves by lows, good or bad, but they have them, so the concepts of right and wrong is found in any human society, group, family… It's natural to think animals also have lows, but they were not the ones who established them, were they? Animals are guided by instinct, they do not have a free will, as humans. <p>I hope that now you’ll get a better sense of: <p>I read words like true " true atheist"," love", "morals" and so one in commentaries of people who claim they don't believe in God. How then can they even pronounce them, nevertheless expect them? I have seen no birds, dogs or even monkeys doing that... <p>If it still doesn’t ring any bells, let me rephrase (and this is valid for Janet, too, whom had translated the above paragraphs into “Considering that you took the time to write about theistic monkeys at the beginning” and left me speechless… is my English that bad or…?). Theistic monkeys?? It’s not even an issue. Humans are the only ones asking themselves questions about life and existence… in or outer space… always determined to discover more and more thinks and soooo on and they have intelligence, capacities and free will (3 things that clearly separates us from the animal kingdom) to go with it. <p>2. I believe the Bible was inspired by God. There are a lot of proofs there, but those are only worth discussing once one believes in God's existence. Only then you can start wondering whether he has any expectations from us or gave any instructions, lows to follow. But that's another story. <p>3. And now, of course, according to the 2nd point, I only believe what the Bible says. That means, Shamrock, that there is a good news and a bad news for you. The good news is that you got it right, that's exactly how the Bible defines death, too. Concepts like life after death, even though very popular (due to almost any human being’s desire to live), are not only illogical (life is the opposite of death and vice versa), but also they can not be sustained with biblical reasoning. The bad news is that if that were all there was to it, then we would be left with no hope what so ever. I am not talking about hoping the best for the generations to come, which is a very noble and altruistic wish, but which doesn’t do you as a person any good while rotting, as you said, in the ground. I am talking about a real hope concerning each and every one of us, a hope that we find in the Bible. I will not go into details, for the same reason mentioned at 2. <p>“I believe we are searching for the truth... this is the meaning of life... “ <p>I agree, but what happens when one finds the truth or should we ALL find it at once? <p>“we may never find the truth because our human minds may not have to capacity to handle it...” <p>And who set boundaries to our human mind? <p>“ but as a theist you provide a bunch of bullcrap with no evidence and then bring up a bunch of questions which cant be answered... and then if an answer is provided that contradicts your beliefs you quote your bible and hide behind it” <p>Nothing in the Bible contradicts science, common sense or logic. But, of course, you need more then a superficial look to come to that conclusion. <p>“the meaning of life plain and simple = open your eyes and live it... “ <p>Living means taking decisions every day, small or big decisions… now I admit I need guidance with that, a set of principles to apply in my life… without them I’d be lost. <p>“accepting that god is the reason for everything is giving up and you may as well be dead!” <p>My words exactly!! Amazing.. one small correction though: not accepting that god is the reason for everything good is giving up and you may as well be dead! <p>I intend to come back with an answer for Janet Lee…

Get 1000 ppl with an IQ range of 70-90. Get 1000 ppl with an IQ range of 110-130. Tell them all that you had a vision in which God told you to <insert anything fun here>. See who believes you more.

I find it annoying when people state that atheists believe there is no god. I do not believe any such thing. As an atheist I have an open mind. If you can prove to me that any particular god exists then I will quite willingly agree with you. And being an atheist does not make me a member of any particular group with the same beliefs, because there are no such beliefs. Unfortunately theists are unable to see this because of their closed minds and inability to think critically. They would not believe without proof if this were not the case.

Data is data, regardless of the holes you might want to punch in it based on your own beliefs about academics. The correlation is there, plain and simple, no amount of personal bias can account for it.

As an atheist, I think it's sad that many atheists believe that religious people are less intelligent for having those beliefs.

The correlation isn't that surprising - always looking down on everyone does make it difficult to see What's above you.

** no self-respecting ape is religious ** <p>The falsity of 'intelligent design' is proved by the existence of those who believe it. <p>Get used to it, ape brain. Your divinity is an evolutionary *flaw* introduced by a hypertrophied pre-fontal cortex. Ditto morality. <p>bipolar2 <br>© 2008

From an earlier post: <p>"BadSyntax 18 June, 2008 <p>“Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1) " <p>I just love it when others quote out of context. That is not the whole passage. The entire passage is: <p>1] Judge not, that ye be not judged. <br>[2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. <p>In those areas in which I judge others, I am content to be judged by that measure. <p>And to David who said: <p>"As an atheist, I think it's sad that many atheists believe that religious people are less intelligent for having those beliefs." <p>Thank you. I am a Christian and I don't think atheists are stupid either. Misguided and mistaken, but not stupid. My faith says that Yaweh gave us free will to choose. One either chooses to believe the Wiord, or not. Who am I to question the right I believe God gave you? My proselytizing is for those who have not heard the Word. I have no obligation nor duty to convince non-believers.

<p>"Sinners who wish to deny the existence of God so they don't have to consider themselves sinners will still not escape the final judgement of God. The evidence all points to one Creator, One Truth, and that Truth is also the Way and Life. Not wanting to believe and claiming we are too intelligent to believe will not be an excuse." <p>Well, you were doing so good until you had to put this little bit in. I almost wanted to contact you for an intellectual discussion. This is much of the reason why I do not believe in God. I was raised a Christian but after some thought came to the conclusion that a loving God would not make his creatures suffer by inflicting a series of dispositions and personalities (such as homosexuality) that would automatically make them hell bate. I am gay, and if there is a God he meant me to be so, and I love myself. Most Christians hate me, though they try to say they just hate the way I am. However, if they encountered me in a dark alley they would beat me to a bloody pulp and leave me to choke in my own fluids. As so many examples before me have proved. These are just my experiences. <p>BUT, I would love to find a true intelligent Christian that is willing to debate their views openly and un-bigoted with me. If you have a comment you would like to direct towards me send an email: soccerstud194ever@yahoo.com

I find it funny that theists always say... follow the word... what word? our languages were invented by US not god... why would god have any use for a language if he is the one and only?

thank you FRANK for making an excellent point... there is evidence that contradicts much of religion but theists chose not to look for it... THEY HAVE GIVEN UP... because they think that they have found all the answers... not all of them do... there are many smart people out there that fill in the gaps with religion... this study does not prove all theists are "stupid" but it is funny that alot of them take it this way which proves their own ignorance. oh yeah... jesus was some great magician... hes got half the world believing that a god could also be a man... and that he could also die... and oh yeah... water to wine, thats a real tough one... come on people we figured out a long time ago that MAGIC DOESNT EXIST!!! im sure everyone loves to listen to amazing magical stories as a kid... so you get fed all that stuff as a kid and you want to believe it... but guess what thats all they are... stories... if you told somone 2000 years ago that the earth revolved around the sun and the sun and that stars are just like the sun but rediculously far away people would excommunicate you... but nowadays if you dissagree with that you would be laughed at... so if the people 2000 years ago had probably less than 1 % of the actual knowledge of the world we live in then why would you believe in hocus pocus magic that has no evidence that they proclaim? its ignorace when you put it all together You can not see the truth if your eyes are closed!

Frank, God is LOVE, he does not have love, he IS love. Now, that makes him the source of love and all the qualities that come from it. It's only natural to find animals doing acts of love, after all God created them too. But making an act of love does not mean you actually love. This goes for humans too, not only primates. I mean, we could interpret an act and associate it with a familiar feeling, but that is not a prove that the one responsible for the act had actually felt the feeling that we associated it with. Thanks for the articles.

well that makes a lot of sense... god IS love but he is also the SOURCE of love... <p>laura what do you assume love is? is love a feeling... or is it also some kind of magical mystery that only god can be, create and give? other animals have demonstrated that they have love for other animals, just because you cant prove what the animal is feeling does not mean that it has to be some rediculous profound magical man in the sky... why not look for the simple answer?

A short answer for Janet Lee of NYC (as promised): <p>You wrote: <p>“All observation of the animal kingdom, (lack of devotion to an unseen being, lack of sexual "morals," lack of theorization, which is required to create a god, etc...) suggest they are atheists. <p>And then you wrote: <p>“There is a frustrating myth among theists that atheists are immoral and loveless creatures.” <p>DO you SEE my point?? There is a HUGE contradiction there. Since I don’t intend to come back with another response, for I see it’s useless, I’ll even explain the huge contradiction: in the first paragraph you associated the lack of sexual morals with being an atheist. And then you write something like in the second paragraph. WOW!!! <p>Now I am not going to say whether the myth is an actual myth or reality, who am I to judge, what I know for a fact is that lack of sexual morals, lack of devotion, and so on, is so evident in the way most people pretending to believe in God live their life, also. That proves that saying that you believe is not enough. <p>In short terms, true knowledge leads to true faith, which is proven by one’s acts during his lifetime and which leads to salvation. You can’t have one without the other (faith without knowledge or faith without acts). <p>As obvious, I am not defending religion in general or religious people, mostly because of their hypocrisy. For example, teaching your believers to love one another and then making them go to war and KILL, fooling them into believing God would bless their sacrifice is absolutely……… {sorry, I could not find a suitable word to describe it} <p>I answered most of the issues in my above answers. If you care, you could take a look at those, too. <p>“If there is a god, why does he allow suffering? a) God only cares about some of us, in which case, only some of us are entitled to care about god. b) God hasn't the ability to prevent suffering, In which case, god is not omnipotent. c) God has a plan of his own, which god will not tell us, though god gave us minds to question as a cruel joke, in which god and I cannot be friends.” <p>The correct answer is c, rephrased: God has a purpose (for plans can change) of his own, which God DID tell us……….. but most of us don’t really care, we rather mind our own business, saying that: “"What is the purpose of life?" That is for you to decide. Your life is your own. “ The outcome of ones life is for him to decide, not the purpose. <p>“If god didn't interfere during the Holocaust, the genocides in Darfur, the black plague, the potato famine in Ireland, the Spanish Invasion, Tsunamis, mustard gas, and 9/11... I think it safe to say that he isn't coming.” <p>I would not hurry up and predict future acts of a person I don’t even think exists, not to mention know anything about his personality, purpose and ways of fulfilling his purpose. Funny, we can see so many wonderful things here on Earth and yet, so many people deny the existence of the one who created those things for us and only for us, but when it comes to some of their expectations (which may as well be founded) not being fulfilled, well then they start judging……… <p>Leaving aside the sarcastic affirmations and misinterpretation of my words, I rest my case.

In "The God Delusion" (p. 103) , Richard Dawkins states that there have been 43 studies since 1927 on the relationship between intelligence and educational attainment and religious belief, and all but four found that, the higher a person's intelligence and educational attainment, the less likely they were to have religious beliefs. <p>However, "religious beliefs" in a Christian context implies adherence to a creed or dogma, rather than a spiritual outlook which finds value in the metaphorical and symbolic value of mythology. It all depends how the question is phrased. Also, as several other commenters have pointed out, IQ tests are not completely infallible. <p>My research on Pagans and science appears to show that being more highly educated does not conflict with Pagan views, nor make them less likely, perhaps because Paganism is non-creedal and eclectic. 69% of my questionnaire respondents had attended higher education courses, and 29% of the subjects studied were scientific (archaeology, psychology, natural sciences, space sciences, earth sciences, life sciences, chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer sciences, and engineering). Most of these saw no conflict between their Pagan spiritual path and the scientific world-view.

The only valid religious view is one arrived at independently based on a lifetime of experience. To completely accept an established religion as fact shows a complete lack of an ability to think critically and arrive at independant solutions. It may surrprise you to know that I am not an atheist - to say with confidence that there is no god is completely arrogant, since god is a theory that can never be actually disproved. After a lifetime of experience under my belt perhaps I will feel confident enogh to make the call one way or another, but until then it's just a pissing contest between two opposed groups, neither off which have one iota of evidence to support their claims. (The Bible was written by men over the last 2000 years, and is subject to the biases of the individuals who wrote it as well as those of the dominant societies of the day, and is therefore completely inadmissable in any kind of argument about the existence of god). Evolution is the best theory we have so far, but there are some holes in it that have yet to be answered. I have no doubt that they will be, sonner or later. <p>My personal view is that god does exist - not as the entity commonly believed by religion, but as an idea. It cannot be denied that god has had a huge impact on billions of lives over the millenia, and so in a sense he exists as an idea, and will exist as such as long as there are people who base their decisions on that belief. I think that as science grows, the influence of god will diminish, since god is essentially a way of explaining to unexplainable. The sphere of the unexplainable is slowly being shrunk as science pushes is own boundaries, and there will come a point when we will no longer have need for belief in a deity, assuming the human race survives long enough.

laura your ignorance is shocking and quite hilarious... <p>you claim: <p>"In short terms, true knowledge leads to true faith, which is proven by one’s acts during his lifetime and which leads to salvation. You can’t have one without the other (faith without knowledge or faith without acts). " <p>now a web definition of FAITH: "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" <p>so now would you like to elaborate on what "true" knowledge is, or just demonstrate "true" ignorance?

Up there in post # XX (I forgot which) someone said: <p>"If there is no God, there is no meaning to life at all. All we have is nature and what it produces. That blind, cold, unfeeling nature that brings things to birth, watches them decay, and absorbs them right back again. Nature doesn't produce meaning...." No?....you just did, with that quote. <p>THAT's what religious people do not want to live with. Religious people are pompous. They claim to have a 'special' 'personal' relation to the invisible man in the sky who created the whole thing. They believe they have a special 'meaning/purpose'. ....and they'll never die....not 'really' anyway. <p>Well: you don't have more purpose than a carrot, and even though you fear death, you WILL die. <p>THAT's the beauty of life.....and death.

As far as what the Bible Really Teaches is concerned, may I add this for consideration too? <p>The best way to learn about God they say is to [examine] the Bible and that is very different to just reading/going through it alone and forming ur own conclusion. I saw that some actually did try here, but can you honestly say you've given it a thorough assessment; much less truly understand what it’s truly about? <p> (Why can you trust the Bible?) <p> HARMONIOUS AND ACCURATE <p> The Bible was written over a 1,600-year period. Its writers lived at different times and came from many walks of life. Some were farmers, fishermen, and shepherds. Others were prophets, judges, and kings. The Gospel writer Luke was a doctor. Despite the varied backgrounds of its writers, the Bible is harmonious from beginning to end. <p> The first book of the Bible tells us how mankind’s problems began. The last book shows that the whole earth will become a paradise, or garden. All the material in the Bible covers thousands of years of history and relates in some way to the unfolding of God’s purpose. The harmony of the Bible is impressive, but that is what we would expect of a book from God. <p> The Bible is scientifically accurate. It even contains information that was far ahead of its time. For example, the book of Leviticus contained laws for ancient Israel on quarantine and hygiene when surrounding nations knew nothing about such matters. At a time when there were wrong ideas about the shape of the earth, the Bible referred to it as a circle, or sphere. (Isaiah 40:22) The Bible accurately said that the earth ‘hangs on nothing.’ (Job 26:7) Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook. But when it touches on scientific matters, it is accurate. Is this not what we would expect of a book from God? <p> The Bible is also historically accurate and reliable. Its accounts are specific. They include not only the names but also the ancestry of individuals. In contrast to secular historians, who often do not mention the defeats of their own people, Bible writers were honest, even recording their own failings and those of their nation. In the Bible book of Numbers, for instance, the writer Moses admits his own serious error for which he was severely reproved. (Numbers 20:2-12) Such honesty is rare in other historical accounts but is found in the Bible because it is a book from God. <p> A BOOK OF PRACTICAL WISDOM <p> Because the Bible is inspired of God, it is “beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight.” (2 Timothy 3:16) Yes, the Bible is a practical book. It reflects a keen understanding of human nature. No wonder, for its Author, Jehovah God, is the Creator! He understands our thinking and emotions better than we do. Furthermore, Jehovah knows what we need in order to be happy. He also knows what pathways we should avoid. <p> Consider Jesus’ speech called the Sermon on the Mount, recorded in Matthew chapters 5 to 7. In this masterpiece of teaching, Jesus spoke on a number of topics, including the way to find true happiness, how to settle disputes, how to pray, and how to have the proper view of material things. Jesus’ words are just as powerful and practical today as they were when he spoke them. <p> Some Bible principles deal with family life, work habits, and relationships with others. The Bible’s principles apply to all people, and its counsel is always beneficial. The wisdom found in the Bible is summarized by God’s words through the prophet Isaiah: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself.”—Isaiah 48:17. <p> A BOOK OF PROPHECY <p> The Bible contains numerous prophecies, many of which have already been fulfilled. Consider an example. Through the prophet Isaiah, who lived in the eighth century B.C.E., Jehovah foretold that the city of Babylon would be destroyed. (Isaiah 13:19; 14:22, 23) Details were given to show just how this would happen. Invading armies would dry up Babylon’s river and march into the city without a battle. That is not all. Isaiah’s prophecy even named the king who would conquer Babylon—Cyrus.—Isaiah 44:27–45:2. Some 200 years later—on the night of October 5/6, 539 B.C.E.—an army encamped near Babylon. Who was its commander? A Persian king named Cyrus. The stage was thus set for the fulfillment of an amazing prophecy. But would the army of Cyrus invade Babylon without a battle, as foretold? The Babylonians were holding a festival that night and felt secure behind their massive city walls. Meanwhile, Cyrus cleverly diverted the water of the river that flowed through the city. Soon the water was shallow enough for his men to cross the riverbed and approach the walls of the city. But how would Cyrus’ army get past Babylon’s walls? For some reason, on that night the doors to the city were carelessly left open! <p> Regarding Babylon, it was foretold: “She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let their flocks lie down there.” (Isaiah 13:20) This prophecy did more than predict a city’s fall. It showed that Babylon would be desolated permanently. You can see evidence of the fulfillment of these words. The uninhabited site of ancient Babylon—about 50 miles [80 km] south of Baghdad, Iraq—is proof that what Jehovah spoke through Isaiah has been fulfilled: “I will sweep her with the broom of annihilation.”—Isaiah 14:22, 23. <p> Considering how the Bible is a book of reliable prophecy is faith strengthening, is it not? After all, if Jehovah God has fulfilled his past promises, we have every reason to be confident that he will also fulfill his promise of a paradise earth. (Numbers 23:19) Indeed, we have “hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting.”—Titus 1:2. <p> “THE WORD OF GOD IS ALIVE” <p> From what we have considered in here, it is clear that the Bible is truly a unique book. Yet, its value extends far beyond its internal harmony, scientific and historical accuracy, practical wisdom, and reliable prophecy. The Christian apostle Paul wrote: “The word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.”—Hebrews 4:12. <p> Reading God’s “word,” or message, in the Bible can change our life. It can help us to examine ourselves as never before. We may claim to love God, but how we react to what his inspired Word, the Bible, teaches will reveal our true thoughts, even the very intentions of the heart.

"a slight tinge of intellectual elitism and Western cultural imperialism as well as an antireligious sentiment" ... okay, so what part of that isn't good?

Please ease up on the never ending evolution debate. We don't know! To insist world was created as told in an age old book that has been modified recurringly by the needs of powermongers is just plain stupid. Even scientist make similar mistakes from time to time. <p>I think it's wrong to say bible is the word of god. It's the word of people who thought they were intelligent enough to know what god's word is. At least they were intelligent enough to use it as mind control to create society they could govern with fear. <p>It's plain arrogant to say you know about god. You may deceive yourself and others by manifesting you believe in god, but what is is that you really believe?

Laura said: <p> "But then there is another possibility: you could start using those IQ's you have been given and ask yourselves some questions, like: What is the purpose of life?" <p>The only sensible to answer this, without accepting *a priori* the existence of God (and I would need to see the evidence to support this assumption), is that there *is* no innate purpose to life, and we have to work out our own destiny. <p>"If there is a God, why does he allow suffering?" <p>You *really* don't want to bring up the Problem of Evil if you want to convince people that your god exists. <p>The main candidates for a theistic solution depends either on justifying infant deaths, natural disasters and civilian suffering in wartime as somehow "character-building" or "strengthening", or using the concept of free will as God's justification for creating evil, when if he cared that much about suffering, he would have done the maths in advance and not bothered creating anything - and of course the expected consequence of exercising free will in a world with evil is the curtailment of others' freedoms. <p>The classical Epicurean answer may not completely rule out the existence of gods, but any god that existed would have to be either malevolent or impotent. In which case you shouldn't be worshipping it.

In regards to Cate France, <p>A fortune cookie once told me that i would make new friends today... it was a cookie of prophecy and it was 100% correct. Now i can trust in the fortune cookie to bring me love and hope in my life. I will now base my entire life around a 25 cent cookie. I should not use logic, just follow blindly in the words of a man ive never met before because out of the million things he predicted... one of them came true. <p>notice that many of the arguments against theism are very short and too the point, dealing with facts. <p>also notice that many arguments for theism are very long and talk all the way around an actual point without actually addressing anything at all. If i am very vague about something, chances are some of it will be true.

@ Lisa Reid 5 July, 2009- Do not be mislead, there's difference between what most 'religious leaders' teach and the message in the Bible itself. <p>As an example, let us consider a question that has troubled many people. <p>IS GOD UNCARING AND HARDHEARTED? <p>AFTER a terrible battle in one war-torn land, the thousands of civilian women and children who had been killed were buried in a mass grave surrounded by markers. Each marker bore this inscription: “Why?” Sometimes that is the most painful question of all. People ask it sadly when war, disaster, disease, or crime takes their innocent loved ones, destroys their home, or brings them untold suffering in other ways. They want to know why such tragedies befall them. <p>Why does God allow suffering? If God is all-powerful, loving, wise, and just, why is the world so full of hatred and injustice? Have you ever wondered about these things yourself? <p>People of various religions have gone to their religious leaders and teachers to ask why there is so much suffering. Often, the response is that suffering is God’s will and that he long ago determined everything that would ever happen, including tragic events. Many are told that God’s ways are mysterious or that he brings death upon people—even children—so that he can have them in heaven with him. Jehovah God never causes what is bad. The Bible says: “Far be it from the true God to act wickedly, and the Almighty to act unjustly!”—Job 34:10. Do you know why people make the mistake of blaming God for all the suffering in the world? In many cases, they blame Almighty God because they think that he is the real ruler of this world. They do not know a simple but important truth that the Bible teaches. The real ruler of this world is Satan the Devil. <p>The Bible clearly states: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) When you think about it, does that not make sense? This world reflects the personality of the invisible spirit creature who is “misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (Revelation 12:9) Satan is hateful, deceptive, and cruel. So the world, under his influence, is full of hatred, deceit, and cruelty. That is one reason why there is so much suffering. <p>A second reason why there is so much suffering is that, mankind has been imperfect and sinful ever since the rebellion in the garden of Eden. Sinful humans tend to struggle for dominance, and this results in wars, oppression, and suffering. (Ecclesiastes 4:1; 8:9) A third reason for suffering is “time and unforeseen occurrence.” (Ecclesiastes 9:11) In a world without Jehovah as a protective Ruler, people may suffer because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. <p>Many people think that ‘If God cared, would not the world be a very different place?’ We look around and see a world full of war, and misery. And as individuals, we get sick, we suffer, we lose loved ones in death. Thus, many say, ‘If God cared about us and our problems, would he not prevent such things from happening?’ <p>Worse yet, religious teachers sometimes lead people to think that God is hardhearted. How so? When tragedy strikes, they say that it is God’s will. In effect, such teachers blame God for the bad things that happen. Is that the truth about God? What does the Bible really teach? James 1:13 answers: “When under trial, let no one say: ‘I am being tried by God.’ For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” So God is never the source of the wickedness you see in the world around you. (Job 34:10-12) Granted, he does allow bad things to happen. But there is a big difference between allowing something to happen and causing it. <p>For example, think about a wise and loving father with a grown son who is still living at home with his parents. When the son becomes rebellious and decides to leave home, his father does not stop him. The son pursues a bad way of life and gets into trouble. Is the father the cause of his son’s problems? No. (Luke 15:11-13) Similarly, God has not stopped humans when they have chosen to pursue a bad course, but he is not the cause of the problems that have resulted. Surely, then, it would be unfair to blame God for all the troubles of mankind. <p>God has good reasons for allowing mankind to follow a bad course. As our wise and powerful Creator, he does not have to explain his reasons to us. Out of love, however, God does this. (You will learn more about these reasons in Chapter 11 of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? Published by Jehovah's Witnesses). But rest assured that God is not responsible for the problems we face. On the contrary, he gives us the only hope for a solution!—Isaiah 33:2. <p>Furthermore, God is holy. (Isaiah 6:3) This means that he is pure and clean. There is no trace of badness in him. So we can trust him completely. That is more than we can say for humans, who sometimes become corrupt. Even the most honest human in authority often does not have the power to undo the damage that bad people do. But God is all-powerful. He can and will undo all the effects that wickedness has had on mankind. When God acts, he will do so in a way that will end evil forever! <p>***** <p>...AND there's alot more where that came from. Bottom line, there's more to God and His Word, the Bible. The Bible was meant to be understood. God offers to help us understand it. But we need to show a right attitude, a willing spirit. At Psalm 32:8, 9, Jehovah says: “I shall make you have insight and instruct you in the way you should go. I will give advice with my eye upon you. [But] do not make yourselves like a horse or mule without understanding, whose spiritedness is to be curbed even by bridle or halter before they will come near to you.” God will not cajole us into drawing near to him. Applying that, one would learn that the TRUTH is far from God "Basically.. saying 'worship me, or burn for all eternity.'"(Lisa Reid 5 July, 2008- But in fairness, this religious confusion isn't surprising and u cant be blamed)

@Shamrock: Fortune-telling (i.e fortune cookie), according to The Encyclopedia Americana, involves “predicting one’s fortune or future, by alleged signs or indications seen and interpreted by amateur or professional diviners.” <p>Fortune-telling is, therefore, a form of divination, a procedure for gaining knowledge of the unknown or of the future by extraordinary means. That is why the names of many of its methods end in -mancy (from the Greek man?tei'a: “the mode of divination”). There are, for example, cartomancy (fortune-telling by cards), chiromancy (by the lines of one’s hand) and crystallomancy (by use of a crystal ball or other transparent object). <p>The Bible warns all who wish to win the approval of God to keep away from such a thing. God’s view of the matter is set forth at Isaiah 1:13: “I cannot put up with the use of uncanny power along with the solemn assembly [for worship].” Commenting on the Hebrew word a'wen, here rendered “uncanny power,” Johannes Pedersen, a professor of Semitic languages, writes: <p>“Properly speaking it denotes strength, but gradually it has chiefly come to be used of the false strength, the magic power, and therefore it has all the characteristics of sin.” “[It] denotes the false strength, deeds involving disaster, witchcraft and magic arts.”—Israel: Its Life and Culture, pp. 431, 448. <p>It is clear from this that the Word of God links up the uncanny power behind fortune-telling with wicked spirit forces, or superhuman, invisible demons. (Eph. 6:12) That is why God commanded his people to shun every type of divination, saying: <p>“There should not be found in you anyone who . . . employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah.”—Deut. 18:10-12. <p>All forms of divination, whether by interpretation of omens or by some other use of psychic power, are covered by that prohibition. <p>@John Smith 7 August, 2008: "It's plain arrogant to say you know about god. You may deceive yourself and others by manifesting you believe in god, but what is is that you really believe?" <p>NB: My intention from the start was for people to simply appreciate the Bible for what it 'really' is, God’s remarkable communication to the human race. Using man’s schemes, scientific or otherwise, however clever, will lead you only to disappointment and disaster. The Bible, confirmed by all the honest findings of modern science, has proved itself accurate in detail as a road map for us through this dark system of things. No, the Bible is not out of date as a true guide for man. It has been around a long time, but so has eating, and you would not give that up as being out of date, would you? Neither will life seekers give up God’s life-sustaining thoughts contained in his Word, the Bible, spiritual food that has proved itself vital throughout the ages. Humble persons will certainly not want to be like the four journalists who had been invited to participate in a television discussion on Christianity. When they were asked if any one of them had given five consecutive minutes to an adult consideration of what Christianity had to say, every one of them admitted that he had not, even though all were men of above-average intelligence! How typical of many in the world who want their problems solved, who want a better future, but who will not go to the only place where they can get the information to make that possible!

@Peter B 8 August, 2008: "using the concept of free will as God's justification for creating evil, when if he cared that much about suffering, he would have done the maths in advance and not bothered creating anything - and of course the expected consequence of exercising free will in a world with evil is the curtailment of others' freedoms." <p>THE ORIGIN OF AN ENEMY <p>The first book of the Bible tells of an opposer of God who showed up in the garden of Eden. He is described as “the serpent,” but he was not a mere animal. The last book of the Bible identifies him as “the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” He is also called “the original serpent.” (Genesis 3:1; Revelation 12:9) This powerful angel, or invisible spirit creature, used a serpent to speak to Eve, even as a skilled person can make it seem that his voice is coming from a nearby doll or dummy. That spirit person had no doubt been present when God prepared the earth for humans.—Job 38:4, 7. <p>Since all of Jehovah’s creations are perfect, however, who made this “Devil,” this “Satan”? Put simply, one of the powerful spirit sons of God turned himself into the Devil. How was this possible? Well, today a person who was once decent and honest may become a thief. How does that happen? The person may allow a wrong desire to develop in his heart. If he keeps thinking about it, that wrong desire may become very strong. Then if the opportunity presents itself, he may act upon the bad desire that he has been thinking about.—James 1:13-15. <p>This happened in the case of Satan the Devil. He apparently heard God tell Adam and Eve to have children and to fill the earth with their offspring. (Genesis 1:27, 28) ‘Why, all these humans could worship me rather than God!’ Satan evidently thought. So a wrong desire built up in his heart. Eventually, he took action to deceive Eve by telling her lies about God. (Genesis 3:1-5) He thus became a “Devil,” which means “Slanderer.” At the same time, he became “Satan,” which means “Opposer.” <p>By using lies and trickery, Satan the Devil caused Adam and Eve to disobey God. (Genesis 2:17; 3:6) As a result, they eventually died, as God had said they would if they disobeyed. (Genesis 3:17-19) Since Adam became imperfect when he sinned, all his offspring inherited sin from him. (Romans 5:12) The situation might be illustrated with a pan used for baking bread. If the pan has a dent in it, what happens to each loaf of bread made in the pan? Each loaf has a dent, or an imperfection, in it. Similarly, each human has inherited a “dent” of imperfection from Adam. That is why all humans grow old and die.—Romans 3:23. <p>When Satan led Adam and Eve into sinning against God, he was really leading a rebellion. He was challenging Jehovah’s way of ruling. In effect, Satan was saying: ‘God is a bad ruler. He tells lies and holds back good things from his subjects. Humans do not need to have God ruling over them. They can decide for themselves what is good and what is bad. And they will be better off under my rulership.’ How would God handle such an insulting challenge? Some think that God should simply have put the rebels to death. But would that have answered Satan’s challenge? Would it have proved that God’s way of ruling is right? <p>Jehovah’s perfect sense of justice would not allow him to put the rebels to death right away. He decided that time was needed to answer Satan’s challenge in a satisfying way and to prove that the Devil is a liar. So God determined that he would permit humans to rule themselves for some time under Satan’s influence. Why Jehovah did that and why he has allowed so much time to pass before settling these issues is further discussed under the next subheading. Now, though, it is good to think about this: Were Adam and Eve right to believe Satan, who had never done anything good for them? Was it right for them to believe that Jehovah, who had given them everything they had, is a cruel liar? <p>A VITAL ISSUE IS RAISED <p>To find out why God allows suffering, we need to think back to the time when suffering began. When Satan led Adam and Eve into disobeying Jehovah, an important question was raised. Satan did not call into question Jehovah’s power. Even Satan knows that there is no limit to Jehovah’s power. Rather, Satan questioned Jehovah’s right to rule. By calling God a liar who withholds good from his subjects, Satan charged that Jehovah is a bad ruler. (Genesis 3:2-5) Satan implied that mankind would be better off without God’s rulership. This was an attack on Jehovah’s sovereignty, his right to rule. <p>Adam and Eve rebelled against Jehovah. In effect, they said: “We do not need Jehovah as our Ruler. We can decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong.” How could Jehovah settle that issue? How could he teach all intelligent creatures that the rebels were wrong and that his way truly is best? Someone might say that God should simply have destroyed the rebels and made a fresh start. But Jehovah had stated his purpose to fill the earth with the offspring of Adam and Eve, and he wanted them to live in an earthly paradise. (Genesis 1:28) Jehovah always fulfills his purposes. (Isaiah 55:10, 11) Besides that, getting rid of the rebels in Eden would not have answered the question that had been raised regarding Jehovah’s right to rule. <p>Let us consider an illustration. Imagine that a teacher is telling his students how to solve a difficult problem. A clever but rebellious student claims that the teacher’s way of solving the problem is wrong. Implying that the teacher is not capable, this rebel insists that he knows a much better way to solve the problem. Some students think that he is right, and they also become rebellious. What should the teacher do? If he throws the rebels out of the class, what will be the effect on the other students? Will they not believe that their fellow student and those who joined him are right? All the other students in the class might lose respect for the teacher, thinking that he is afraid of being proved wrong. But suppose that the teacher allows the rebel to show the class how he would solve the problem. <p>Jehovah has done something similar to what the teacher does. Remember that the rebels in Eden were not the only ones involved. Millions of angels were watching. (Job 38:7; Daniel 7:10) How Jehovah handled the rebellion would greatly affect all those angels and eventually all intelligent creation. So, what has Jehovah done? He has allowed Satan to show how he would rule mankind. God has also allowed humans to govern themselves under Satan’s guidance. <p>The teacher in our illustration knows that the rebel and the students on his side are wrong. But he also knows that allowing them the opportunity to try to prove their point will benefit the whole class. When the rebels fail, all honest students will see that the teacher is the only one qualified to lead the class. They will understand why the teacher thereafter removes any rebels from the class. Similarly, Jehovah knows that all honesthearted humans and angels will benefit from seeing that Satan and his fellow rebels have failed and that humans cannot govern themselves. Like Jeremiah of old, they will learn this vital truth: “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”—Jeremiah 10:23.

@Peter B 8 August, 2008: "when if he cared that much about suffering, he would have done the maths in advance and not bothered creating anything - and of course the expected consequence of exercising free will in a world with evil is the curtailment of others' freedoms." <p>WHY SO LONG? <p>Why, though, has Jehovah allowed suffering to go on for so long? And why does he not prevent bad things from happening? Well, consider two things that the teacher in our illustration would not do. First, he would not stop the rebel student from presenting his case. Second, the teacher would not help the rebel to make his case. Similarly, consider two things that Jehovah has determined not to do. First, he has not stopped Satan and those who side with him from trying to prove that they are right. Allowing time to pass has thus been necessary. In the thousands of years of human history, mankind has been able to try every form of self-rule, or human government. Mankind has made some advances in science and other fields, but injustice, poverty, crime, and war have grown ever worse. Human rule has now been shown to be a failure. <p>Second, Jehovah has not helped Satan to rule this world. If God were to prevent horrible crimes, for instance, would he not, in effect, be supporting the case of the rebels? Would God not be making people think that perhaps humans can govern themselves without disastrous results? If Jehovah were to act in that way, he would become party to a lie. However, “it is impossible for God to lie.”—Hebrews 6:18. <p>What, though, about all the harm that has been done during the long rebellion against God? We do well to remember that Jehovah is almighty. Therefore, he can and will undo the effects of mankind’s suffering. As we have already learned, the ruining of our planet will be undone by the turning of the earth into Paradise. The effects of sin will be removed through faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice, and the effects of death will be reversed by means of the resurrection. God will thus use Jesus “to break up the works of the Devil.” (1 John 3:8) Jehovah will bring all of this about at just the right time. We can be glad that he has not acted sooner, for his patience has given us the opportunity to learn the truth and to serve him. (2 Peter 3:9, 10) Meanwhile, God has been actively seeking sincere worshipers and helping them to endure any suffering that may come upon them in this troubled world.—John 4:23; 1 Corinthians 10:13.

Part 2. @Shamrock:" A fortune cookie once told me that i would make new friends today... it was a cookie of prophecy and it was 100% correct. Now i can trust in the fortune cookie to bring me love and hope in my life. I will now base my entire life around a 25 cent cookie. I should not use logic, just follow blindly in the words of a man ive never met before because out of the million things he predicted... one of them came true.notice that many of the arguments against theism are very short and too the point, dealing with facts.also notice that many arguments for theism are very long and talk all the way around an actual point without actually addressing anything at all. If i am very vague about something, chances are some of it will be true. <p>-Fortune-telling (e.g fortune cookie), in short isn't a Bible teaching nor a Godly practice and in effect quite different and its logic cannot be compared to the message (e.g prophecies) that of which is found in the verses of the Holy Sriptures. <p>The thought of coming under God’s rule is becoming detestable to more and more millions of people today. To their minds it brings the thought of theocracy, which is really what God’s rule means. But to many of those persons who revolt at the idea of God’s rule, theocracy makes them think of corrupt, oppressive rule by immoral, greedy, self-seeking, totalitarian religious priests and clergymen, who demand the absolute, unquestioning obedience of all mankind and who demand also their money under the cloak of false religious pretenses. For many centuries Europe had such a so-called theocracy run by priestcraft. This time of priests openly meddling in worldly politics and trying to hold the political rulers subject to them is referred to in The Encyclopedia Americana (in Volume 13, edition of 1956), in its article on “Government,” in the following words: <p>“SOURCE OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. Various ideas have been held by different people in different periods of history as to the source from which government derives its authority. . . . For many years in many countries, kings claimed to rule by divine right. They asserted that their governmental authority came to them directly from God. Many rulers in Europe have acknowledged that the pope was the direct representative of God on earth and had taken their authority from the popes as God’s agent on earth. The divine right of kings was claimed by some rulers later than 1600. James I of Great Britain (reigned 1603-1625) was a staunch advocate of divine right.”—Page 89. <p>Not only the earlier kings of Europe during the time of the Holy Roman Empire considered the pope of Rome to be “God’s agent on earth,” but the popes themselves and the religious hierarchy under them as well as the common people thought the same as those kings. Thus such popish rule through his hierarchy was considered a theocracy, and that is one of the meanings given by the dictionary to the word “theocracy.” Thus, too, because of considering themselves to be “the direct representative of God on earth,” the popes claimed to wield universal sovereignty, universal domination. What student of European history does not know of the pope’s claim to the right to crown and uncrown kings, to enthrone and unthrone kings? What student does not remember how Pope Leo III crowned King Charles the Great or Charlemagne at Rome on Christmas Day of the year 800? But it was Napoleon Bonaparte who crowned himself emperor in the presence of the helpless pope, shortly after the French Revolution. What wonder, then, that intelligent persons of today who are informed on the kind of rule that prevailed during the time of the popish “theocracy” cannot stomach the thought of God’s rule being about to come, if God’s rule means the restoration of such a hierarchical rule! <p>Fortunately such priestly theocratic rule has been only a sad part of man’s rule, for religious popes and priests and clergymen are mere imperfect, dying men. Certainly such religio-political rule by the priests and clergy of Christendom has disgracefully misrepresented God’s rule. Hence when man’s rule gives way to God’s rule the politico-religious rule of the priests and clergy of Christendom and also of pagandom must also give way and disappear for all time, to mankind’s eternal relief. This experience gives evidence of the truth of the Bible’s statement, it warns: <p>"But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here.  For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal,  having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Timothy 3: 1-7)

Part 3 @Shamrock: <p>RECENTLY man’s wisdom plunged him into what he calls “the space age.” Yet man’s wisdom has not opened for him the way to heaven. By hundreds of thousands of miles man, by means of his instruments, has penetrated into outer space to learn some of its secrets. Despite all this wisdom, man has not gained access into heaven, the home of God. By all his probing into the bottomless depths of space scientific man is not even interested in learning more about God, the Creator. Is there not, then, something faulty about man’s “space age” wisdom? Is it practical? The farther that inquiring man reaches into deep space with rockets and satellites equipped with measuring instruments, the more he is confronted with the evidence that there is one God of all creation, that God is, that the intelligent Creator of all the universe is. Man is obliged to see and acknowledge the wisdom, the understanding, the knowledge and the discernment with which all the universe came into existence. But reliance upon his own wisdom and pride in his own accomplishments make man unreasonable, just like a dumb brute beast. A cow in the field looks at the wonders of earth and sky but cannot appreciate that there is a supreme, all-powerful, all-wise Creator who made and arranged all these glorious things in all their array and harmony. So the prideful man of science in the space age has become. He sees, but he reasons not and understands not. He wants to avoid the fact that there is a God to whom he is responsible and whose will he should seek to know and to do. He therefore does not himself use qualities that he sees exhibited in the works of creation, and he proves his materialistic wisdom to be impractical. He takes no heed to the following words penned by a famous king who had practical wisdom thousands of years before the space age: <p>“Jehovah himself in wisdom founded the earth. He solidly fixed the heavens in discernment. By his knowledge the surging waters themselves were split apart, and the cloudy skies keep dripping down light rain. My son, may they [that is, wisdom, discernment and knowledge exhibited in God’s creation] not get away from your eyes. Safeguard practical wisdom and thinking ability.”—Prov. 3:19-21. <p>But why should we keep such wisdom, discernment and knowledge before our mental eyes as being connected with Jehovah God as the Creator? Why safeguard the wisdom that is practical, and why hold onto our thinking ability, not letting it be regimented by domineering, self-seeking men? The king of practical wisdom continued writing to explain why, saying: “And they will prove to be life to your soul and charm to your throat. In that case you will walk in security on your way, and even your foot will not strike against anything. Whenever you lie down you will feel no dread, and you will certainly lie down and your sleep will certainly be pleasurable. You will not need to be afraid of any sudden dreadful thing, nor of the storm upon the wicked ones, because it is coming. For Jehovah himself will prove to be, in effect, your confidence, and he will certainly keep your foot against capture.”—Prov. 3:22-26.In the face of such manifest lack of discernment and understanding on the part of the scientists of this space age, it is of no use to look to man himself for practical wisdom that will mean a secure life for us in happiness and peace. Here, now, is something of an illustration of this. A young man of the State of New Jersey attended the Columbia University in New York city. Later he sued the university at law for his tuition money and damages for the time that he had spent at Columbia University as a student. Why? The New York World Telegram and Sun reports: “He claimed Columbia detained him by falsely professing to teach wisdom.”Superior Court Judge Gerald Foley dismissed the suit on June 13, 1958. Said he: “If there is one thing a person of ordinary intelligence knows, it is that wisdom cannot be taught, if indeed, it can even be defined.” Then the judge made a powerful reference to human inability when he concluded with these words: “No rational person would accept the claim of any man or institution that wisdom can be taught and no rational person would draw from the material [presented in this legal case] that Columbia conveyed the impression that it could or would teach wisdom.” However, the New York World Telegram and Sun reported that the former Columbia University student is unsatisfied and says “he will appeal the dismissal of his suit charging the institution with failing to teach him wisdom.”—June 14, 1958.We have every reason to believe that the Appeals Court will affirm the sane ruling of this Superior Court judge, that wisdom cannot be taught by any worldly institution of man. It was not within the province of this judge of a nonreligious court to say that wisdom comes only from the heavenly source, that is to say, from Jehovah God, whose four main personal qualities are wisdom, justice, power and love. It was God who, in the first place, implanted in man what wisdom man possesses; and thus man was created on the human level in the image and likeness of God his Maker. So man ought to display more common sense than a cow, now in this “space age” especially. Man ought to get some of the understanding and discernment that wise King Solomon had, which is written down and preserved for us in the Bible book of Proverbs. King Solomon knew from where he got his wisdom, and he was humble and thankful enough to confess it. In Proverbs 2:6-22 he wrote down:

Part 4 @Shamrock: <p>“Jehovah himself gives wisdom; out of his mouth there are knowledge and discernment. And for the upright ones he will treasure up practical wisdom; for those walking in integrity he is a shield, by observing the paths of judgment, and he will guard the very way of his men of loving-kindness. In that case you will understand righteousness and judgment and uprightness, the entire course of what is good. When wisdom enters into your heart and knowledge itself becomes pleasant to your very soul, thinking ability itself will keep guard over you, discernment itself will safeguard you, to deliver you from the bad way, from the man speaking perverse things, from those leaving the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, from those who are rejoicing in doing bad, who are joyful in the perverse things of badness; those whose paths are crooked and who are devious in their general course; to deliver you from the strange woman, from the foreign woman who has made her own sayings smooth, who is leaving the confidential friend of her youth and who has forgotten the very covenant of her God. . . . As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it.” <p>Man’s wisdom in this “space age” has increased the dangers, the hazards for him and the threats to his very existence amid all the material advantages that he enjoys. It is therefore impractical wisdom. Not so the wisdom that Jehovah God gives, together with the knowledge, discernment and understanding that he also gives. These things from him help us to be upright and to walk in integrity according to a higher standard than man’s, according to God’s standard. Just think of having Almighty Jehovah God as our shield because we walk in this integrity. And if we are upright, just think of this God as treasuring up something for us, “practical wisdom,” or, really, the fruitage of practical wisdom, that is, an abiding success, an effectual working, the good effects of our working. In this way we never come to a real loss; we are never wasting or misapplying our efforts; we are laying up treasure with God. And this treasure has to do with eternity, for Jehovah God is eternal. “Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God,” said the prophet Moses to Him in worship. (Ps. 90:2) Our treasure is thus assured of being eternal, to time indefinite in the future just as far as Jehovah was God to time indefinite in the past, which means endlessly. Wisdom that brings such an abiding success is truly “practical wisdom,” sound and efficient wisdom. So practical wisdom means more than mere wisdom, such as man now has.

you completely bounced right past the actual point of what anyone was talking about. try to be short and too the poin instead of writing novels on this forum please. <p>what i ask of you is... what chapter of the bible did GOD write? <p>all of these "holy scriptures" were written by MEN with much less knowledge of the universe that we live in. They try to explain our world by saying it is the eternal being in the sky. Now that we have answers to some of these profound questions in our lives we no longer need the idea of some magical being up there. <p>why should you listen to the words of some dude over 1600 years ago rambling about how some dude turned water into wine with no proof of anything other than magical stories, but ignore some of the greatest minds with detailed EVIDENCE and scientific knowledge that suggests the lack of intelligent design. <p>It is ignorance to follow blindly the words of MEN that have no credibility at all. I choose to see this world with my own eyes rather than being a slave to the ignorance of the past.

its funny how christianity describes the lord as our sheppard... you are all "his" sheep... slaves to "his" will. Or maybe just slaves to the idea, because you are too simple to use your own mind to find your own real "practical wisdom". <p>It is a perfect metaphor of the wool being pulled over your eyes.

"Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response." <p>So - belief systems that were created thousands of years ago aren't "primative?" Belief systems that keep women from fully participating in the church aren't "primative?" Come on - claiming that god talks to ANYONE is fairly "primative", no? I don't see a lot of clergy making breakthroughs in science - in fact, they usually fight tooth and nail against progress. That, my friends, is "primative." <p>Methinks this man is religious, and perhaps hurt by the fact that he's been put in with a group of "primatives."

Vanity and relentless work of the Ego to survive are the main reason for the "idea" of life after death, is it reincarnation or permanency of the soul; getting rid of the illusions created by the Ego opens the field of reality and allow each individual human beeing to live and appreciate each and every moment given to him, with simplicity, compassion and love.

Thank you, Cate France!

Nicely done article, but it completely missed one crucial point and barely touched on another. <p>First the "correlation" posited may be the result of sample bias,. The fact that members of the American National Academy of Sciences and fellows of the Royal Society are mostly athiestic does not indicate that high IQ people generally are less likely to believe in God. <p>I know it's hard to believe for some, but scientists are not the only high IQ people in the world. There are many brilliant people in Philosophy, Theology, Business, and the Humanities. Why weren't these people surveyed? <p>Scientists are, perhaps by nature, and certainly by training to discount anything that is not completely empirical. No religionist would argue that the case for God rests on empirical evidence alone, yet that is the only evidence that scientist will even entertain. <p>There are plenty of very smart people who have developed a belief in God because they are willing to look a little more broadly at the issue. By the way, I am not talking about just touchy-feely stuff, but very rigorous and intellectually demanding philosophical reasoning and that has led many to believe in some type of God. I haven't seen a survey, but most Philosophers I have met have some concept of God. <p>Second, the article skimmed over the argument that correlation does not equal causation. Most top American and British scientists are economically secure. Is it not possible that the feeling of economic security tends to diminish one's need for and belief in God? <p>Another possibility: Might people who feel compelled to explain things completely materialistically be drawn to the natural sciences at a higher rate than the general population? <p>Yet another: What is the rate of serious family problems or death of at least one parent during the youth of the scientists surveyed? Might family trauma at a young age tend to dispose one psychologically to reject the concept of a loving God on the basis that the world seems unfair? <p>There are so many potential causes, I think it's silly to attempt to establish a causal relationship (either for or against) between IQ and religion. <p>All this also obscures the real issue: Each person, regardless of his native intelligence must make his own decision about whether or not there is a God, and if there is, how to commune with that God. Additionally, the decision each person makes has no bearing on the reality (or unreality) of God's existence. Saying "Smart people don't believe in God, so neither will I" is really goofy. If it were somehow established tomorrow that the smartest people do believe in God, it would be equally goofy to use that fact as a reason to believe in God <p>Thanks, <p>Bill

A theory is a mathematical system, which is a collection of arbitrary self-consistent statements, verified by some agreement with experiment or observation. This means that when we say something is a theory, we are saying it is factually correct. <p>Evolution is a theory. The mathematics behind it is consistent. The consequences have been verified by observation. Current experiments verify it. <p>When one says it is a theory but not a fact, is shows ignorance of the nature of scientific thought. <p>Saying God created people is not a scientific theory. There is no mathematics behind the word God; i.e., no self-consistent statements with consequences that can be experimentally verified. <p>Check out my webpage for more details.

@ Shamrock- <p>I agree that based on your reaction you did miss out on a couple of points up there: <p>SOURCE OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY [The Encyclopedia Americana (in Volume 13, edition of 1956)]-This source shows that history of Religio-political rule by the priests and clergy of Christendom has disgracefully misrepresented God’s rule. What wonder, then, that intelligent persons of today who are informed on the kind of rule that prevailed during the time of the popish “theocracy” cannot stomach the thought of God’s rule being about to come, if God’s rule means the restoration of such a hierarchical rule! ..and that pretty much explains one reason why most if not all of 'em turn atheist. <p>True Christians(those that show high regard to Godly wisdom), however are made aware that such priestly theocratic rule has been only a sad part of man’s rule, for religious popes and priests and clergymen are mere imperfect, dying men. They adhere to the warning found in God's Word, the Bible: <p>"But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty..unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households..led by various desires, always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Timothy 3: 1-7) <p>-But why should we keep such wisdom(Godly), discernment and knowledge before our mental eyes as being connected with God as the Creator? Why safeguard the wisdom that is practical, and why hold onto our thinking ability, not letting it be regimented by domineering, self-seeking men? <p>Consider this; <p>"Man’s wisdom in this “space age” has increased the dangers, the hazards for him and the threats to his very existence amid all the material advantages that he enjoys. It is therefore impractical wisdom. Not so the wisdom that God gives, together with the knowledge, discernment and understanding that he also gives. These things from him help us to be upright and to walk in integrity according to a higher standard than man’s, according to God’s standard..And if we are upright, just think of this God as treasuring up something for us, “practical wisdom,” or, really, the fruitage of practical wisdom, that is, an abiding success, an effectual working, the good effects of our working. In this way we never come to a real loss; we are never wasting or misapplying our efforts; ...Wisdom that brings such an abiding success is truly “practical wisdom,” sound and efficient wisdom. So practical wisdom means more than mere wisdom, such as man now has." <p>It wasn't my intention to flood the forum. Rather i have made only attempts to give enlightment on the false impression on the Bible Teachings and for what it 'really' is as it was already being brought up . It is obvious that throwing opinions concerning things we hardly know anything about & only as we chose to simply understand it ending in a rhetorical manner only build tension & isn't helpful. It is long yes but was necessary and if you have read it you can be confident that it's not simply of my own, outside resources have been used besides the Scriptures, such as real life reports, telling about real people in many lands, examining religion and science, probing beneath the surface pointing to the real meaning behind currents events, while remaining politically neutral. <p>-'High IQ turns academics into atheists ' I believe it's not about intelligence solely, it has alot to do with the attitude that goes behind it, the motive. I know doctors, lawyers, other professinalsDoes it not make a certain kind of logic

Intelligent people?! Ask a horse what he thinks about the creation v evolution argument and see what he says. Whatever he says, well, I agree with him!

Prof Lynn asserts that most small children believe in God but that with adolescence "intelligence increases so many turn agnostic." <p>Also that religious belief declined in Western countries in the 20th century "as their populations became more intelligent." <p>Prof Lynn's assertion of a link between post-adolescent religiosity and lower IQ is more than adequately supported by earlier posts. <p>But does any psychologist believe that 'child IQ rises with age'? <p>Or that "IQ has risen in the West", where most bright people have had fewer children since 1900, thus indisputably reducing mean IQ in Europe, Australasia and North America - where lower IQ people still today breed faster than those with more intelligence? <p>Australian Medical Nobelist Frank Macfarlane Burnet undeservedly got into hot water some 50 years ago for arguing that IQ had fallen in the West since birth-control began. <p>Yes, Prof. Lynn is right about low IQ and religion, but wrong to claim declining religiosity in the West - or indeed anywhere on the planet. <p>Burnet, on the other hand, was right and Lynn wrong about IQ in the West, which has been in constant decline since well before 1900.

Why are atheists so quick to label all believing people as unintelligent? Some of us are intelligent - spending our days holding down senior level jobs or working in academia - and we apply critcal thinking to our faith as well as to other aspects of our lives. The survey didn't say *all* people of high IQ are atheists. Those of high IQ are more self-sufficient and less able to admit to any weakness or dependency.

Several posts in this epic thread have said something along the lines of atheism is a belief too. This attitude annoys me everytime I hear it, and is at the root of my antagonism with religions. Let me try and explain why atheism is not a belief, but is instead a lack of a belief. <p>Atheism is not a faith - atheism is a product of religion. I do not believe there is a god, however there are an infinite number of other things I do not believe. I don't have names for each of those potential concepts that I do not believe, I don't actively not believe them, I just don't have a belief in them. The only reason I get labelled, or label myself, as an atheist is that people with a religion have the arrogance to presume that I should believe in their unsupported premise. Without their religion then my lack of belief in their god could be alongside all the other things I don't believe such as the sun being inhabited by an eight legged goat who is spying on us all. <p>To me atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, not the belief in the absence of a god. By this definition everyone is born an atheist, some gain a belief which is fine by me as long as it is kept personal and they do not try to tell others how to run their lives based on it.

I don't know why this topic is so controversial. Seems blindingly obvious to me that there has to be a direct link between intelligence and atheism. <p>You can only become an atheist after absorbing religious information and then rejecting it on the basis of sound reasoning and logic. Most people only get to the first step and stay believers. The second step requires a higher degree of intelligence, so it's logical that there would be a link.

The beauty of being an atheist is: you don't have to prove nothing or justify something with your ignorance/fantasy.

I thought I'd throw something out there...I do not believe intelligence correlates with religious belief...I think that those who don't believe in god due to scientific reasons are being too stubborn. I will say this once. Science cannot disprove religion. ((sorry if i go off topic, try to stay with me)). If the God that created this world actually exists, then it would make sense that the God is still with us every day. It's not like since the bible is created God was put on "pause". I'm sure God could put fossils in the ground to test our faith if it desired. This is one possibility. Another is that people always think of god as this dude riding on a cloud or some guy with a beard. The image of what God could look like cannot be perceived. It could even look like the dark matter of the universe or something so bizarre. God, I guess, could even look like a scientific entity. Who knows? Furthermore, many believe that the world was created from the Big Bang. These two particles colliding together created the birth of our galaxy. However, who's not to say this was the process of God creating the earth. There's no past or future with God in the bible. God could have been alive for trillions of years before deciding to creating humans. Also, let's say God created the world. Everything began to develop...all these creatures took form. Eventually human-like beings came to be. There could be a chance that God took a liking to these beings a while after they were beginning to form. Not to mention, where did the two particles that created the Big Bang come from? What did created the entity that created the two particles? Science has no definitive answer and is undoubtedly less reliable than religion in determining the birth of the world. Everything comes from something or even nothing in some cases. But doesnt nothingness have to be created as well? There has to be a creation, which requires something that has already structured the world. We as human beings cannot grasp this concept no matter what, yet scientists find out some theories and are willing to bet their souls on it when they really don't have to. Something Interesting, I was watching a biology video one day and they had a theory that mankind originally spawned from the ocean. Also, Jesus' symbol was that of a fish. Coolio?!? Anyhow, I do believe in God. I dont want to really call myself a christian because I believe the majority of them are a big reason that people don't believe in God as much anymore, but I do believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins. I believe that is the the single most important thing because I think God grew sick of us treating each other terribly and sent down the being to save us. In addition, you could probably think the entire Bible is hogwash (cause most of it is) and believe that there was still a man named Jesus that died on the cross in an attempt to relinquish us of our sins while also believing there is a greater being that created us and still go to heaven. Essentially god doesn't have a name in the first place, it can be anything from Bob, Allah, George, whatever it is as long as it is directed toward the creator. Back to most of the bible being hogwash, that's because religion has been used to shape society forever basically. There are certain things in there you could tell that the the almighty benevolent creator would want, and what humans could have mended to better suit how they wanted to control people. For instance, God would not send gay people to hell. That's just retarded. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, no? And homosexuality has been an issue around those times too so it wouldn't be a long shot to assume that it was castigated in the bible long ago because it's not "normal." Also, I was at this church in TN with my friend one day and they were celebrating Veteran's Day. ....Veteran's Day? Oh how God has come to only support Americans these days..ugh.. Why not the United Nations at least? Oh well, so this pastor reads and I read along too.. But in the scripture it had the words "turned back" in the beginning referring to turning back against the commandments of God (( dont kill bla bla)) and it proceeded to talk about this town who "turned back" and picked up their weapons to fight for their freedom!! He proceeded to glorify Americans fighting for our country in the wars!! However, he fails to mention the next page where Moses spreads the water for the people who put their full faith in God to protect them and didn't rely on weapons and power to grant their wish. In reality, war should be condemned yet a lot of Christians seem to be fine with it...almost as if "God would agree." Hell, I could argue that some "Believers" aren't intelligent enough to conceive the quintessence of their faith. This is why you must think for yourself and not let what other people think sway your mind. If you believe in science how can God exist in the context of your study? If you're religious why can't you accept that "science" is probably nothing but a bunch of vocabulary terms that attempt to explain the process of how we were created in the first place? My point is intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is all but choice. Personally, if people put more emphasis on the value of their souls they could find means of fitting spirituality into their lives. The thing is that..over religious idiots play down science cause they are scared when they don't need to be. Infact, I could argue that higher IQ people are too blinded by pride and ego in their work that they can't accept the possibility of any higher being, even if it can fit in the context of their study.

Ryan! Sweet blog.

I think it depends on what you mean by intelligent. It's worth considering the two kinds of skeptics, stemming from ancient greek thought; those who questioned everything, on the basis that absolute knowledge could ever be attained, so the appropriate response was to continue questioning, always (the forerunner of the scientific method) - and those who, admitting similarly that absolute knowledge could not be arrived at (and certainly not through logical deduction) pragmatically subscribed to the readily-available belief system of the time - see "Pascal's wager" (the faith approach). these two poles, both stemming from the skeptical position, have alternately held sway thoughout history. Did IQ fluctuate in correlated fashion? - I don't think so

I think it is obvious - intelligent (read educated) readers know that THEY ARE GOD and that WHAT THEY THINK IS THE SAME AS THE ALMIGHTY the trouble is that this was OK when religeon was a really good way to gget ideas, morals and conformity across to a largely stupis ignorant and supersticious people. As more people read they understand this is what religeon is for and choose to follow the morals and guidlelines direct without the supersticion. Some go back to religeoun as it is still a better tool for engaging with the emotional world that is more illogical. Some go to religeon because they want their heart fed and facts don't always do that, but as for who feels like GOD and who doesn't the lines are not so clear.. especially with PCP

To those who have said here that they read the Bible cover to cover and it "made a lot of sense" and "answered a lot of questions," I'm afraid you're only adding evidence to the claimed correlation between education and atheism. If you google "case for an evil god" and click on the first video link, you'll see how easy it is to show that the god of the Bible (assuming he even exists) is pure evil...using the Bible itself as evidence.

Don didn't I (as "Househunter" I think) introduce you to Ed Jaynes a couple of days ago? Things have changed recently due to the reconfiguration of deductive and inductive logic via Bayes' Theorem. No?

Househunter - yes you did, and I found it highly instructive to take Jaynes' hisorical perspective on the ebband flow of differing notions of skepticism, thank you. Can you explain the next bit slightly? (sorry for being a bit thick - just need a handle)

Hello Don - The core of it is that if you take the notion that a probability is a "degree of belief", which follows from using Bayes' theorem to tackle inductive problems, then the classic Aristotelian deductive syllogism falls out as a special case of the logic for probabilities extremized to 1. Or put another way, one should not talk about the truth of falseness of any statement, but only its probability. The first few chapters of Jaynes' book "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" provide an outline of the arguments before he starts getting into the hard maths.

Ah - thanks - that was Popper's position as I understand it in relation to deductive reasoning, but Popper and Jaynes appear to diverge on inductive reasoning? (it's been a while, so I'd have to read up - ah! time, time time - if only)

I wonder if the apparent preponderance of atheist academics in Arts and Humanities might be the result of an increasing presentation of religion as a time-limited metanarrative which coloured earlier thinking and from current thinking has delivered us. >>>> I see this bias throughout much of the literature curriulum where I work. Earlier literature informed by religious perspectives is 'set up' to be demolished. This is particularly effective since the religious perspective is characteristically parcelled up rather simplisticly. A false dichotomy may be drawn between creationism - the 'Christian' view - and evolution - the enlightened and intelligent view. >>> As a 'liberal' Christian, I'm in fact no happier with the creationist hypothesis than Dawkins himself. But then, neither would Duns Scotus or even Saint Augustine of Hippo have been. >>>> I teach as from a non-partisan and disinterested viewpoint. Students need to make up their own minds in a liberal and open discourse, without any personal agendas on display. However, it's tricky to represent diversity fairly when atheists design the curricum didactically.

Surely this has more to do with the culture of the academy than it does with high IQ's. Utter nonsense.

Don - yes - Popper views a hypothesis as absolutely true or false. The Bayesian approach is to assign a probability to the hypothesis as a whole. So you get a change from "falsifiability" to "quantifiability" in approaching the viability of an individual hypothesis as scientifically valid. Apparently subtle, but in fact quite deep!

the most compelling perspective i can get on this religion/atheism debate is to consider how infinitesimally small we know our world to be in the scheme of the cosmos. the overwhelming majority of religious doctrine was written at a time of almost complete ignorance of the physical universe. a quick tour of the Hubble Telescope site at http://hubblesite.org/ will illustrate the scale of our universe. why we continue wasting our time debating over the ramblings of a few self-appointed "holy men" laid down a couple of millennia ago, in the light of knowledge of a 14 billion year old cosmos, evolving before our eyes through multiple generations of stars, is a mystery to me. as a few other posts have said, humanity needs to deal with the challenges of the present and future, not pore over ancient creation myths endlessly. if thinking that makes me an intellectual elitist in some peoples' eyes, too bad. let's grow up and take responsibility for ourselves and the world we inhabit.

How on Earth should one teach if not didactically?

Why is all of this correspondence about Christiantity? Why isn't anyone talking about Islam, or Hinduism, or Taoism? ~swhy are these debates always so dull. Get a life boys!

Humans first adopted the Earth as round in 384-322 BC. The book of Isiah - which has been carbon- dated back to atleast 700 years Bc due to the dead sea scrolls - already predicted the earth as round ("It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE* of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." --Isaiah 40:22 ) There are also many other historical battlles that historical evidence has proved correct that the bible predicted before its time. Count this along with, miracolous healings, numerous near death experiences and the love and passion that religious people experience for God in their day to day lives and I think youll find that religion is not simply placed there to control people ; although there may be corruption within religion. Throughout this debate, the word `'intelligence' has been indefinetly misused. Intelligence is not a number to be measured. We all utilise our intelligence in different ways. Henceforth an individual interested in natural science is obviously bound to have doubts over religion. The "correlation" in this research is probable to only include white individuals in western civilization. Im sorry, but that is the truth. Intelligence is a stupid term that humans use to make themselves feel above others. This coming from a 15 year old believer. God bless you regardless your belief

Saint Augustine was very intelligent, so was Thomas a Kempis and many other Christian figures. But that doesn't make them right. It's very simple really. Either you believe in the bible or you don't. It's no good saying this is a metaphor or that's a symbol nor can you, as Ryan does, imagine a lot of stuff and somehow present it as evidence of god's existence. The bible is supposed to be the revealed word of god so its literally true. Or it isn't. And since it contains biased history, horrific morality, ludicrous stories etc. it isn't true.

Franz, is that an ironic post? Are you somehow suggesting, by quoting the Bible, that anyone who after critically analysing the evidence and deciding not to spend the rest of their life believing in a supreme being (and therefore not trying to please, appease, ward off, apologise, ask forgiveness of, or pray to) is a fool? <p>To me it seems foolish to spend time praying to an entity that all the evidence suggests does not exist. By this I mean that I mean that, as far as I can tell, there is no evidence to suggest that the entity exists. Imagine all the constructive things the human race could have done if all the hours spent pray was spent, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and tackling other global issues. Imagine all the hospitals, fire stations and homes that could have been built instead of religious temples of various sorts. <p>I don't count a religious text as evidence of the existence of whatever that religion believes in. I've read Lord of the Rings (cover to cover!) but I don't believe that wizards, elves, hobbits etc. actually exist or ever existed, other than in the imaginations of Tolkien and the readers that is.------------------------------ I believe that medical science and state services such as the fire brigade where not in full swing during the period that religious temples were being built. We are talking 1500+ years ago no? You are obviously approaching this debate with a bias state of mind and it wont help with matters of such proportion. To be fair, atheism and the ignorant belief of nothing other than what is visible has more questions to answer than religion E.g the origins of life - life doesnt come from no life. ( I personally believe evolution as the answer to the human race ). Surely a force of some kind will have had to start life off? What was there before the big bang? Questions like these. The ignorance of the human race doesnt allow us to broaden our horizons. God Bless

Excellent article. It portrays that those with high levels of education are not taught to listen to a priest or professor as someone claimed but to have critical thinking. High levels of education encourage critical thinking and skepticism when it comes to unsupported claims of deities in the sky. Although it is a common behavior of those adherent to their religious faith to dispute the overwhealming evidence for the Theory of Evolution, even if the theory of evolution along with is overwhelming evidence would be proven incorrect, it does not make the default to be "a god in the sky created it". Just because something is not round doesn't make it square. Of course one who has the tools of critical thinking would ask for evidence of the claim (a deity named --- created it) which of course theists still have for many centuries failed to provide. And NO, personal experiences, hallucinations, visions, hearing voices and seeing Jesus in a tortilla or a dog's butt does not consitute any evidence whatsoever. Evidence would be on the lines of testable, reproduceable and falsifiable evidence for the existance of a deity, also evidence for the existance of a deity who had any choice/intention/consciousness in creating the universe, evidence that this deity actually cares about its creation as opposed to being apathetic especially caring human beings the most as opposed to another species and even further evidence that a deity not only created the universe but also cares the most about the homo sapiens sapiens species (meaning humans, as a clarification for those people who scream at the word homo, which its etymology has nothing to do with sexuality) and that on top of that had any saying in any of the religious text currently available (as every religion claims to have the only true word of God). Also, circular reasoning like referring to your religious texts and pointing out that it says such and such does not constitute any evidence either neither the argument of complexity, which by itself is an ad hominem, nor Goedel's mathematical argument which has been proven to be incorrect. When you can produce all that evidence, then and only then you can claim there is a "God, or the name of your favorite deity", until then there is no evidence for the existance of a deity therefore choosing to believe in something which there is no evidence for is rather preposterous. That is the position of the atheist and/or agnostics. And, most people within the scientific community and highly educated individuals as well do choose to follow these lines of critical thinking and skepticism, rather than to accept unsupported claims such as "a deity or deities (for those adherents to the polytheistic faith) in the sky is/are the creator(s) of the universe".