Meta-analysis of 83 studies produces ‘very strong’ evidence for a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity

Nov 2005
9,570
4,190
California
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.

Zuckerman and his colleagues previously conducted a meta-analysis of 63 studies, which found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity.” In other words, religious people tend to be less intelligent than non-religious people on average.


But that finding provoked a great deal of controversy. “Comments in the media ranged from expressions of surprise and curiosity to skepticism or even disdain about what intelligence tests actually measure,” the researchers wrote in their new study.

So Zuckerman and his colleagues decided to conduct another analysis with updated data. “Collecting new data to ascertain the validity of previous findings is crucial for science anytime, but especially when the subject matter is socially relevant and emotionally fraught,” they explained.

The new meta-analysis, which included data from 61 studies from the previous meta-analysis and new data from 22 studies conducted from 2012 to 2018, confirmed the previous findings. It also found no evidence that the negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence was growing weaker in recent years.

Religiosity is a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the involvement, interest or participation in numerous aspects of religious activity, dedication, and belief.

"Religiosity" should not be confused with "people who belong to a religion".
When people take a religion to an extreme that competes with reality, that gives an obvious indication of what the meta-analysis is referencing.
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA

Religiosity is a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the involvement, interest or participation in numerous aspects of religious activity, dedication, and belief.

"Religiosity" should not be confused with "people who belong to a religion".
When people take a religion to an extreme that competes with reality, that gives an obvious indication of what the meta-analysis is referencing.
What definition of "religion" or "religious" is it using?

In practice, I'd argue that people can act "religious" about anything - whether sports, politics or otherwise.

And as I've mentioned, most people do not have a heavy education on any subject (e.x. science) - most people's rudimentary scientific knowledge just comes from what they were taught in school, in the mass media, or what is culturally ubiquitous.

So in practice, a person at that low level of understanding would likely act more "religious" and less intelligent, even if their religious hang up was "scientific facts", wheras a person thinking outside the box or questioning establishments (including "scientific ones"), even if their idea was of something "religious" in nature, would likely be demonstrating more intelligence.

Not to mention, there are studies on emotional intelligence, and other forms of intelligence other than "standard intelligence", with emotional intelligence being arguably superior in many areas, standard intelligence, in practice sometimes being a deficit as much as a strength.
 
Nov 2005
9,570
4,190
California
What definition of "religion" or "religious" is it using?
Wow.
I defined religiosity in the post you responded to, but then you respond with the above.
You seriously don't bother to listen to anybody.


In practice, I'd argue that people can act "religious" about anything - whether sports, politics or otherwise.
No.
religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.


And as I've mentioned, most people do not have a heavy education on any subject (e.x. science) - most people's rudimentary scientific knowledge just comes from what they were taught in school, in the mass media, or what is culturally ubiquitous.
So in practice, a person at that low level of understanding would likely act more "religious" and less intelligent, even if their religious hang up was "scientific facts", wheras a person thinking outside the box or questioning establishments (including "scientific ones"), even if their idea was of something "religious" in nature, would likely be demonstrating more intelligence.
No.
You seriously need to take some courses in logic as you repeatedly blur issues together wherever convenient for you.
The article talked about intelligence. Not "scientific knowledge" or "heavy education". These are separate things.
"Low level of understanding" is not the same thing as a lack of intelligence.


Not to mention, there are studies on emotional intelligence, and other forms of intelligence other than "standard intelligence", with emotional intelligence being arguably superior in many areas, standard intelligence, in practice sometimes being a deficit as much as a strength.
Completely irrelevant.
If a study proved that owners of German Shepherd dogs weighed less, it is not a deficiency of the point to recognize that there are other types of dogs that exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lloyd Christmas
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
No.
religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Interesting that you chose that specific definition, when it's not a very good one:


A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Religions such as Secular Humanism don't invoke Gods or "superhuman" agency (as in the case of other types of religions, such as Eastern religions like Taoism which lack a god).

However, they include beliefs about the purpose of the universe and a moral or ethical code which are autocratically accepted based on faith.

You intentionally ignored this, and solely focused on a "belief in or worship of a God" (when "belief in a God" by itself isn't even a "religion") - you did this on purpose just so you could deny that these elements exist in secular religions and belief systems as well.

No.
You seriously need to take some courses in logic as you repeatedly blur issues together wherever convenient for you.
The article talked about intelligence. Not "scientific knowledge" or "heavy education". These are separate things.
"Low level of understanding" is not the same thing as a lack of intelligence.
It's beside my point. Comparing a 6th grade education on science to the knowledge of a legendary scientist such as Einstein or Newton isn't in the same ballpark.
 
May 2019
244
26
US
No particular religious person should take issue with this study. When discussing demographics and averages, no statement is made of a particular member of said demographic. Similarly, statistics correlating race/gender etc and some positive or negative quality cannot be taken to say anything about this particular member of said demographic.
 
Feb 2006
14,513
3,051
California

Religiosity is a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the involvement, interest or participation in numerous aspects of religious activity, dedication, and belief.

"Religiosity" should not be confused with "people who belong to a religion".
When people take a religion to an extreme that competes with reality, that gives an obvious indication of what the meta-analysis is referencing.
Post #2 is proof, and why it's fading away, people are getting smarter!


1573862894538.png
 
Nov 2005
9,570
4,190
California
Interesting that you chose that specific definition, when it's not a very good one:
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

ROFLMAO!
You highlighted the wrong parts which clearly demonstrate you fail to appreciate the limitations at hand...

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.​

Science is not about "purpose of the universe". The fact that "AND" is in there demonstrates all three need to be present.
Science does not have "superhuman agency or agencies". It doesn't have "devotional or ritual observances".


Religions such as Secular Humanism don't invoke Gods or "superhuman" agency (as in the case of other types of religions, such as Eastern religions like Taoism which lack a god).
Again, you really don't listen.
You talk about "Secular Humanism", but you fail to acknowledge the meaning of secular: not overtly or specifically religious


However, they include beliefs about the purpose of the universe and a moral or ethical code which are autocratically accepted based on faith.
Again, no.
faith:
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion


You intentionally ignored this, and solely focused on a "belief in or worship of a God" (when "belief in a God" by itself isn't even a "religion") - you did this on purpose just so you could deny that these elements exist in secular religions and belief systems as well.
Again, you need to correct your use of the word "secular".


It's beside my point. Comparing a 6th grade education on science to the knowledge of a legendary scientist such as Einstein or Newton isn't in the same ballpark.
Again, you seriously need to take some courses in logic as you repeatedly blur issues together wherever convenient for you.
You can't talk about intelligence of the population and then use people like Einstein or Newton as an attempted refutation point. It gets back to the problem with "anecdotal evidence".
 
  • Like
Reactions: intangible child
Feb 2006
14,513
3,051
California
ROFLMAO!
You highlighted the wrong parts which clearly demonstrate you fail to appreciate the limitations at hand...

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.​

Science is not about "purpose of the universe". The fact that "AND" is in there demonstrates all three need to be present.
Science does not have "superhuman agency or agencies". It doesn't have "devotional or ritual observances".



Again, you really don't listen.
You talk about "Secular Humanism", but you fail to acknowledge the meaning of secular: not overtly or specifically religious



Again, no.
faith:
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion



Again, you need to correct your use of the word "secular".



Again, you seriously need to take some courses in logic as you repeatedly blur issues together wherever convenient for you.
You can't talk about intelligence of the population and then use people like Einstein or Newton as an attempted refutation point. It gets back to the problem with "anecdotal evidence".
It all depends on the way someone looks at reality, or if they believe what their told!

1573865696441.png
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
ROFLMAO!
You highlighted the wrong parts which clearly demonstrate you fail to appreciate the limitations at hand...

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.​
Science is not about "purpose of the universe".
Science is not "Secular Humanism".

Secular Humanism is a set of beliefs or principles held on faith. If you want to argue that it's a philosophy rather than a "religion", then I don't care, but that's what it is regardless.


The fact that "AND" is in there demonstrates all three need to be present.
This is untrue, a religion does not require "belief in a God" or something "supernatural" to be a religion.

Science does not have "superhuman agency or agencies". It doesn't have "devotional or ritual observances".
The religion of Taoism does not have "devotional or ritual observances".

Again, you really don't listen.
You talk about "Secular Humanism", but you fail to acknowledge the meaning of secular: not overtly or specifically religious
That's not what Secular Humanism is, Secular Humanism is a set of positive beliefs or axioms, not merely a "lack of belief" in a god.

Again, no.
faith:
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
Sigh...


belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

Again, you need to correct your use of the word "secular".
You're playing with words. "Secular" and "Secular Humanism" are not the same thing; there are many secular beliefs or philosophies aside from secular Humanism anyway.

Again, you seriously need to take some courses in logic as you repeatedly blur issues together wherever convenient for you.
What you're doing is intentionally conflating "religion" or "faith" with a belief in God or something supernatural, when a religion or system of belief can lack references to God or Supernatural agency, and still be just that.

You can't talk about intelligence of the population and then use people like Einstein or Newton as an attempted refutation point. It gets back to the problem with "anecdotal evidence".
There is no problem with anecdotal evidence.[/QUOTE]
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
I've seen evidence that there is a negative relationship between intelligence and reproductive success.