Well, there has certainly been a lot of controversy over an undergraduate psychology assignment given at The Ohio State University. A student anonymously submitted the following question to the people at Campus Reform which was actually on his homework assignment.
Theo has an IQ of 100 and Aine has an IQ of 125. Which of the following statements would you expect to be true?
a) Aine is an atheist, while Theo is a Christian
b) Aine earns less money than Theo
c) Theo is more liberal than Aine
d) Theo is an atheist, while Aine is a Christian
The correct answer was A, and it certainly has many Christians calling foul. This stereotype is pervasive in our society, so while I am not terribly surprised to find a question like this in academia, I think that it deserves a little bit deeper consideration.
You might remember a study that was done by Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester that performed a meta-analysis and found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. I assume that that is where these kinds of textbook questions are coming from.
However, we first need to remember that correlation does not imply causation. Let me give you an example. When the spring comes, the snow begins to melt outside of my house. The birds also begin to come back and start chirping in the trees. Birds chirping and snow melting are very highly correlated, but it would be ridiculous to think that one causes the other. There is a third variable under there that involves the rising temperature. We first need to remember that basic rule of statistics. Everyone likes to jump to conclusions on correlations, but they are often times not justified.
Second, I am assuming that this question is hypothetically set in the United States. Otherwise, why did they not choose Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists? According to a recent poll done by ABC News and BeliefNet, 83% of Americans identify as Christians whereas 13% claim to have no religion and 4% have a variety of other religions. If you gave me two random people out of the general population with the given IQs, I do not know why I would expect one of them to be an atheist. The odds are certainly against that. The most likely scenario is that I do grab two Christians from the American population.
However, let’s think about this statistically. 83% of the American population is Christian. With that many people believing in Christianity, some of them are going to be very intelligent, and some of them are not going to be quite as bright. The beauty of an IQ test is that it is designed to be a normal distribution. For non-statisticians, this is your traditional bell shaped curve if the sample size is large enough.
The average IQ is supposed to hover at 100, so we would expect half of the American population to the above that mark, and we would expect half of the population to be below that mark. Again, this is not me trying to rationalize; this is just the statistics behind the basic proposition.
Now, I am going to be incredibly generous. Let’s say that the textbook question is right. Let’s say that all 13% of American nonbelievers are above average IQ. That is definitely a stretch, and that is not proven, but just for the sake of argument, I will go with that. It is not the case that every atheist is brilliant by any means.
Remember, now we have 50% of the above average American population and 13% of that has been reserved for nonbelievers. I would even give you that the miscellaneous 4% of other religions is in that top 50%. As a result, 17% of the 50% is hypothetically not Christian.
33% of that top 50% is Christian. In other words, there are more than double the number of above-average Christians than above-average nonbelievers. For some reason, even in this group that deals with only people of above-average intelligence, we still have a majority of Christians.
I guess my point is that even in the most generous estimate I can produce, this question seems odd. It is first incredibly necessary to remember that correlation does not equal causation whatsoever. We don’t know what confounding variables might be in the aforementioned research that I assume this question was derived from. Second, in America today, if you have above-average IQ, even by the most radical estimates, the odds are that you are still going to be a Christian.
I know that this hypothetical question seems to have stressed everybody out a little bit, but I think the best approach is to actually step back and think a little bit. This might be an opinion in the marketplace of ideas, but we don’t need to panic. We might be smarter, or we might not be. However, I would propose that rather than making sweeping claims about whether atheists or Christians are more intelligent as a group, why don’t we sit down as individuals and really talk about these ideas? It will surely be more useful.
“why don’t we sit down as individuals and really talk about these ideas?”
That would be nice. I’ve tried and tried many times from many angles for what seems like years now. I beg and beg for religious people to drop the whole bible speak for just a few hours and rationally discuss how wonderful the world would be if we could simply combine all of the great things from all religions, all cultures and all great science and throw to the curb all the dogma, all the pointless stuff, all the corruption, all the greed, all the insults, all the talking animals and unite as one harmonious group to defeat our real enemies who have us programmed to stay divided and discombobulated. Once we take them out we could all be truly better educated, prosperous, healthy, happy. peaceful, safe and free. Is that too much to ask? Every time…yes, yes it’s way to much to ask, and I’m immediately viciously attacked and slandered, the most vile and grotesque insults you ever heard, morbid condemnations that i’m going to rot in a putrid flaming hell for eternity for even suggesting such sacreligious thought. Talk about it? Nope, never going to happen.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of both intelligence and statistics in this article and its comments.
First, intelligence. The study focuses on analytical intelligence, defined as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.” It is not knowledge, science, or philosophy. An analogy comes to mind: if the brain were a computer, IQ does not test the information on the hard drive, it tests how fast the computer can compute stuff and how much memory capacity it has. So any attempt to disregard the findings by saying that atheists are more knowledgeable about science misses the point.
Second, to say “if you have above-average IQ, even by the most radical estimates, the odds are that you are still going to be a Christian” indicates to me that you might not understand statistics. The whole point of the study was to figure out the average IQ of different social groups that are not evenly distributed in the population. Adding up population percentages totally misses the point of the study.
The results of the study are what they are. The reasons could be many, but the authors of the study concluded that likely reasons were, in summary, that nonbelievers tend to be more analytical/logical in their approach and that nonbelievers tend to have less need for the structure/comfort that religious dogma provides. The authors of the study might not be right, but they were the deepest in the data, so I’m not quick to disregard their observations.
I’m an atheist. Obviously, if I convert to Christianity my IQ does not change, nor would it if I then became a skeptic again. But let me provide another stat that might shed more light: atheism is also positively correlated with education level. This, to me, is more telling. Some of the intelligence elements analyzed in the study are fostered and honed in college: logic. In many college classes you are taught to think skeptically, not assume something is good/bad/right/wrong/impossible. You are given tools to do this. You then leave college and apply this approach to life. Someone who approaches belief with a “prove it to me” attitude is sure to be less likely to believe than someone who does not.
>>>>>Someone who approaches belief with a “prove it to me” attitude is sure to be less likely to believe than someone who does not.<<<<<
I disagree. I think you are speaking from your point of view only. It is demonstrable that the vast majority of atheists not only do not care about proof, but they lack a great amount of knowledge regarding many religions. I have been offering college students who are atheists to take part in a simple test that I give to them via a recorded live video (so they cannot cheat by way of Google). Basic questions regarding Hermeneutics, Christian origins, 1st century history, manuscripts, the Synoptic writings, etc. So far, not a single atheist (including Kessinger and his cohorts) has agreed, yet I see the same atheists "disproving" Christianity with quite obsolete reasoning.
My conclusion is that 90% of atheists do not approach belief with a "prove it to me" attitude. After having been a part of the old atheist wolfpack at infidels . org, after having been in countless dialogues with skeptical atheists, I know that a majority of them jump into the debate with a blind, dangerously emotionally grounded presupposition, without containing much knowledge of Christian theism at all. Most of the New Atheists, like Dawkins, just want to watch religion burn.
Now, IF you approach Christian theism with an open mind (i.e. the supernatural could exist) and with a rational truthseeker "prove it" mentality, I believe you will be MORE likely to believe than not. I am a good example of that. I am a strict evidentialist who recently came back to Christianity a couple of years ago after deciding to [finally] loosen up my emotional disconnect with God and approach the evidence with a "supernaturalism could, rather than must not, be true". I still lack what Christians would call a good personal relationship with God, yet here I sit. among the Christians, guided by my evidentialist mindset.
And I hope I did not stray too much up there. Good day to you.
-Tim
Academia has been moving in the direction of Atheism or at least a freedom from religious views for a long time. There is often more freedom to express disapproval or negative views of religion than there is to express the positives. This has opened the door to much of the misrepresentations that are espoused by anti-theists concerning Christianity.
I would agree that the average Christian is probably less interested and less knowledgeable about science and philosophy than the average atheist or agnostic. I think this has more to do with the tension between a Young Earth view of the biblical text and the interpretation of the scientific evidence showing the Earth to be billions of years old. On both sides we have an issue of interpretation rather than an issue of the actual evidence.
At the same time Christians seem to be knowledgeable (on average) than atheists and agnostics on areas concerning morality and social development. Since as a society we need science, philosophy, morality and social development to grow we should find ways to work together instead of arrogantly asserting intellectual superiority.
“Christians seem to be knowledgeable (on average) than atheists and agnostics on areas concerning morality and social development.” What evidence is there for this?
To start with anyone who lacks a particular knowledge is indistinguishable from someone who chooses not to apply that knowledge when we look at the evidence. I recognize that observances of antisocial behavior (such as mocking or ridiculing) among atheists and agnostics directed at theists may be the result of either. I also recognize that behavioral traits like muscles tend to grow stronger with use and deteriorate with lack of use.
Most people in civilized society recognize some behavior as immoral and anti-social while others are moral and social.
First of all when we compare Atheist, Agnostic and Christian web sites we find that the Atheist and Agnostic sites devote much more of their material to negative attacks on theists than Christians do on negative attacks at all other groups combined. We also find
that Christian sites are more likely to have uplifting and positive themes like; words of encouragement, expressions of kindness, love, joy, peace, financial stability, how to help the poor, etc..
Second when we compare Atheist, Agnostic and Christian books we find a similar trend. Most Christian books are positive books about self-improvement, love for God and love for others. Even if we limit the books to those on apologetic we still see a contrast. Atheist and Agnostic books on apologetics tend to use emotive tactics of ridicule or attack theists (especially Christians) with misrepresentations and mocking. They do throw some science in there but it’s with naturalistic presuppositions. In contrast Christian apologetic books are more directed at making a positive case for their position and try to look at the science from both a theistic and naturalistic perspective as a way of comparing the two.
Third when we compare the comments to online articles that involve Atheists, Agnostics and Christians we find a large percentage of Atheists and Agnostics using the same methods of ridicule and mocking that we find on their sites an in their books. This reveals a subculture that prides itself on being immoral and antisocial to theists. I personally have patiently tried to reason with Atheists and Agnostics online but more often than not they are more interested in expressing their prejudices. When they ask me for evidence for my positions I try to provide what I can. When I ask for evidence in return it usually ends the conversation.
The last point of evidence is more positive. Christians apply moral and social frameworks such as loving God and loving others. Secular humanism does imitate this but it isn’t a requirement. Christians form positive social groups that encourage each other even in regions where they are persecuted or don’t have funds to provide a building. In times of wealth or poverty Christians share food and shelter with those in need. Where possible Christians build churches that function as a place to corporately worship God and meet the needs of others. In my community the homeless shelter, domestic abuse shelter, teen community center and most every food pantry are all run by Christians. We don’t have any organizations operated by atheists or agnostics that reach out to the needs of the community.
I think I see the root of our disagreement. You think comparing Christianity to atheism is apples to apples, I do not. The reason I do not is because atheism is not a religion, and Christianity is. Atheism is not a religion in any classical sense of the word. There is no god to worship in atheism, there are no official churches to go to, there are no sacred texts, no sacred people, no holy places, no holy rituals, etc. Some believers like to say that atheism is analogous to a religion – fine, but in no way is it what most people consider a religion. Atheism is just a name given to people who have the same opinion on a subject, like political groups, except political groups are much more organized.
So when you’re comparing atheist vs. Christian websites/books, you are comparing apples to oranges. The purpose of most Christian websites/books is different from that of atheist websites/books. Christian websites/books usually exist to spread the word of god and strengthen worship/faith. If you compare Christian websites/books to Islamic websites/books, that would be a good apples to apples comparison. But to compare it to atheist websites/books ignores intent. Since atheists have no religion to preach, the purpose of atheist websites/books is usually to provide a platform to debate and debunk religious claims. Do you see the difference? One kind is to strengthen worship/belief, another kind is to debate/debunk. This is precisely why the atheist websites/books come off as negative, because comparatively they are negative, but not because atheists are necessarily more negative people, but because the purpose of the websites/books is totally different.
Regarding your personal experiences debating, remember, the atheists you encounter on websites like this one are not necessarily representative of nonbelievers as a whole, and neither are Dawkins and Hitchens. The ones that come to this website are atheists that really like to debate. I don’t think most Christian visitors to this website come here to debate, but rather to reinforce their beliefs with logic. I think you are experiencing a biased sample of atheists and reaching a premature conclusion.
Regarding charity, there is no doubt that Christianity propels followers to give time/money. There are plenty of secular people/organizations that also do this, but not as many as Christian. However, I think that it is less about “one group is good and the other group less so”, and more about the fact that religious and social pressures propel Christians to do more good. In other words, we are all just people, but one group is well organized and encourages charity, whereas the other does not. Devine guilt and the promise that the almighty approves are strong motivators that the atheists don’t have.
I think I can agree with most of your statements. Atheism (if we are putting aside agnostics for the moment) is a belief that a God or gods do not exist. That isn’t a scientific position; it’s a theological position. I don’t consider it a religion and I agree that the atheist subculture is less organized than the Christian subculture. My comparison wasn’t about theological perspectives or beliefs; it was about subcultures. In that respect my comparison is about apples to apples. When comparing how those subcultures educate their members on morality and social development I still stand by my original position that Christianity is better than atheism in this respect. In many ways you seem to agree.
Books from the atheist subculture often get put on the best seller’s lists even though they are by people with little or no training in philosophy or theology. In many ways this functions similar to the Islamic subculture. A small minority carries out the attacks to influence unbelievers and encourage their base but they receive some degree of active or passive support from others within the subculture. Richard Dawkins has even admitted that the reason he ridicules Christian belief is that it makes people laugh. If atheists were actually more interested in disproving Christianity then wouldn’t the books by trained atheist philosophers of religion be higher on their reading lists? Wouldn’t they use more reason than ridicule?
Although guilt and looking for approval may be motivators with some Christians biblical Christianity isn’t about either. Biblical Christianity is based on our relationship with God and by extension our relationship with others. When you love someone who also loves and accepts you in spite of your flaws then you don’t need to feel guilted into expressing love nor do you have to continue to seek their approval.
Secular organizations are great and I appreciate how they help people. What evidence is there that an atheist is more likely to contribute their time and money than an agnostic, deist or any other non-actively religious group?
“I agree that the atheist subculture is less organized than the Christian subculture…” This is quite an understatement. The Christian religion is very organized, and even has a universal manual: the bible. Atheism has almost no organization, with nothing to teach. Dawkins is just a populist writer.
“When comparing how those subcultures educate their members…” What atheist education? It doesn’t exist. There are no Sunday School equivalents. It’s not even apples to oranges, it’s apples to nothing. But I can’t stop you from thinking that a phantom atheist education program exists and that it’s not as virtuous as the Christian.
“Books from the atheist subculture often get put on the best seller’s lists even though they are by people with little or no training in philosophy or theology.” Like I said, Dawkins and Hitchens are just populist writers. They probably have more Christian readers than atheist readers. They write how they write in order to maximize book sales. There are intellectual and considerate atheist thinkers out there, they just don’t sell as many books.
“What evidence is there that an atheist is more likely to contribute their time and money…” I never said they did. I have no idea which non-Christian subgroup gives more. I’ve just seen the studies that show Christians give more than non-Christians.
It would be interesting to consider some reasons why Christians might be less intelligent – if indeed they really are. Or why less intelligent people might be more inclined to be Christian.
Jesus stood up for the poor and the down-trodden. If intelligence is correlated with worldly success, then the poor and down-trodden would also tend to be less intelligent. Thus, we could suppose that Christ’s message was aimed mainly at the less intelligent.
Indeed, when we talk about intelligence, we mean worldly intelligence, right? Intelligence is about summing up numbers in your account books. It’s about modeling the world as a mechanistic, predictable machine. Intelligence is very different from spirituality, wouldn’t you agree?
Maybe Christians should grudgingly accept their less intelligent status. Don’t lay up for yourselves treasures of intelligence, but instead look to the heavens and value those spiritual gifts that God gives you.