Need a good laugh? Go read the Independent’s ‘Religious people are less intelligent than atheists’

Rob Williams, an online journalist and sub-editor of The Independent, has written a piece under the headline ‘Religious people are less intelligent St Thomas Aquinathan atheists, analysis of over 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades concludes’. To give you an idea of the in built bias of both Rob Williams’ piece and the ‘scientific’ study just compare the definitions of ‘intelligence’ and ‘religiosity’.

According to the ‘scientific’ paper ‘intelligence’ is ‘the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

The criteria chosen to define ‘intelligence’ are very narrow and raise the following questions, ‘Solve what type of problems?’ Think abstractly about what? Comprehend what type of complex ideas? Learn from what types of experience? Why is learning quickly a sign of intelligence? Some knowledge and questions take a long time to comprehend and work through.

And ‘religiosity is defined as ‘ involvement in some (or all) facets of religion’.  ’Religiosity’ is restricted to a very stark, undefined ‘functionality’ with no attempt to examine the role of reason, or insight, the apprehension of truth and meaning, the intelligence of the heart, the perception of values, let alone the activity of grace, the response to revelation, the presence of God.

It should also be noted that the photograph chosen to accompany Rob Williams’ piece is one of hands joined in prayer holding a Holy Rosary, not a Muslim, Jew or Sikh at prayer. The Independent never misses a chance to give Catholics a good kicking.

Here is Rob Williams’ piece. Enjoy:

‘A new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.

A piece of University of Rochester analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies.

According to the study entitled, ‘The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations’, published in the ‘Personality and Social Psychology Review’, even during early years the more intelligent a child is the more likely it would be to turn away from religion.

In old age above average intelligence people are less likely to believe, the researchers also found.

One of the studies used in Zuckerman’s paper was a life-long analysis of the beliefs of 1,500 gifted children with with IQs over 135.

The study began in 1921 and continues today. Even in extreme old age the subjects had much lower levels of religious belief than the average population.

The review, which is the first systematic meta-analysis of the 63 studies conducted in between 1928 and 2012, showed that of the 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one.

Only two studies showed significant positive correlations and significant negative correlations were seen in a total of 35 studies.

The authors of the review looked at each study independently, taking into account the quality of data collection, the size of the sample and the analysis methods used.

The three psychologists carrying out the review defined intelligence as  the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

Religiosity is defined by the psychologists as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion.

According to the review, other factors – such as gender or education – did not make any difference to the correlation between intelligence and religious belief.

The level of belief, or otherwise, did however vary dependent upon age with the correlation found to be weakest among the pre-college population.

The paper concludes that: “Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme —the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better’.”

Criticisms of the conclusions include that the paper only deals with a definition of analytic intelligence and fails to consider newly identified forms of creative and emotional intelligence.

The psychologists who carried out the review also sought to pre-empt the secularist interpretation of the findings by suggesting that more intelligent people are less likely to have religious beliefs as they associate themselves with ideas around personal control.

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

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

Protect the Pope comment: ‘For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.”
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,  but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,  so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.’ (St Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians 1:19-29).

41 comments to Need a good laugh? Go read the Independent’s ‘Religious people are less intelligent than atheists’

  • Michael Petek

    “God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.”

    He had a very good reason for putting the humble little Mother of God up against all N of the evil spirits (Genesis 3:15).

    N is a positive integer, and the bigger the number you think of, the better.

  • Lynda

    The term “religious” is defined in such a loose, vague way as to be meaningless, of no effect. It is only of any use as an excluder of those who have no “involvement” whatever in any “facet” of “religion”. And how was “religion” defined? Probably same ill-definition. If terms are not well defined, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn. As for thinking abstractly, or dealing with complex ideas – I would say atheists have a hard time dealing with these, which is why they often cannot comprehend the philosophical questions, analysis of God and man. “Science” is only one, limited method of human inquiry, which is useful for explaining aspects of the material world. It was through theology that the thirst for knowledge of the material world was born and developed, and the “scientific method” developed. The researchers appear to equate “science” with “reason”, which shows a fundamental lack of knowledge and reason on their part. The scientific method, which has developed (with trial and error, I suppose) is a function of reason, but is only one mode of utilising reason. Atheists (self-identified) are reductionists who refuse or are incapable of the conceptual reasoning beyond “science” and without which “science” as such, would never have been constructed. Surveys in the U.S. of those who work in many fields of science, such as astro- and particle-physics have found that a majority believe in, and worship God. Indeed, for some, the more they study aspects of the material world, the more convinced they are of a Creator God. In my experience, many who claim to be atheists, are so in practical terms because they do not wish to make the effort to inquire into the fundamental philosophical questions, but rather just prefer to confine themselves to the superficial, and go with the prevailing secular outlook, which allows them to act as they desire.

    • Rob

      “The term “religious” is defined in such a loose, vague way as to be meaningless”

      Agreed. Non-religious is also a vague term. People’s beliefs fit onto a spectrum. They do not fit well into binary catagories and people describe themself in inacurate ways (there was a Canadian study which found that something like 30% of those who call themself catholic do not believe in God, but that 25% of those who call themself non-religious do believe in God!) There is some rather interesting work on the demographics of religion by Luke Galen which makes an attempt to tease out the different sorts of people in the atheist and religious camp. He has some tentative evidence that the happiest people are found at both ends of the spectrum with those certain of their atheism and those certain of their religious faith being the most happy and those who are plagued by doubts being less happy. That means that any study which tries to find out if religious people are happier or less happy than non-religious people is skewed by whether the less happy middle ground the people for whom you could just as easily honestly put inthe athiest or the religious camp identify as religious or non-religious (and a simple change in how you word the question will change how such people self-identify) This explains how perfectly decent and honest studies contracdict each other so often.

      I wonder if you have the same affect with intelligence. Smart people have thought about the question long and hard and reached a conclusion and are therefore either firm believers or firm atheists. The majority of people of middling intelligence haven’t contemplated the question very hard (because let’s face it is is a difficult thing to think about and many people lack the tools for philosophical enquiry having never been taught them). If those people identify as religious then they bring the average intelligence of the religious group down and if they attatch themselves to the atheist camp they bring the average intelligence of the atheist camp down. It is a reasonable assumption in most of the western world that the “default position” at least for the moment is to self-identify as religious thereby making that group appear of below average intelligence. I hypothesise that in countries were self describing as an athiest is the default option (prehaps China might qualify as such a country) you would find that those in the small religious camp are brighter.

      Just a thought but these studies are fraught with difficulty.

  • Michael B Rooke

    The book of Wisdom states the reverse that by making an act of unbelief the critical faculties are reduced.

    Love righteousness,* you who judge the earth;a
    think of the LORD in goodness,
    and seek him in integrity of heart;b
    2 Because he is found by those who do not test him,
    and manifests himself to those who do not disbelieve him.c
    3 For perverse counsels separate people from God,
    and his power, put to the proof, rebukes the foolhardy;d
    4* Because into a soul that plots evil wisdom does not enter,
    nor does she dwell in a body under debt of sin.e
    5For the holy spirit of discipline* flees deceit
    and withdraws from senseless counsels
    and is rebuked when unrighteousness occurs.f

  • Michael B Rooke

    The historical evidence that Christianity was a premise for the explosion of science and technology in the West is clear for all see.

    1.The early Christian Church sought to build on the accomplishments of Greece and Rome.
    Anglo Saxon Alcuin, headmaster of the Cathedral school at York, wrote to Charlemagne saying

    “If many are infected by your aims, a new Athens will be created in France, nay an Athens finer than the old, for ours ennobled by the teachings of Christ will surpass all of the wisdom of the Academy. The old had only the disciplines of Plato for a teacher and yet inspired by the seven liberal arts it still shone with splendour : but ours will be endowed besides with the sevenfold plenitude of the Holy Ghost and will outshine all of the dignity of secular wisdom.”

    2. It was Christianity that produced the university system with a commonality of knowledge and academic standards that enabled scholastic interchange between universities.

    3. Gerbert of Aurillac (Pope around AD1000) wrote “The just man lives by faith but it is good that he should combine science with his faith”.

    4. Robert Grossetest, bishop and scholar in the C12th wrote down the steps for performing an experiment.

    5 Franciscan Roger Bacon in the C13th wrote “Without experiment nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth unless it finds it by way of experiment.”

    The Christian Church was at the forefront of empirical science.

    Here is a list of scientific thinkers who were Christian.

    Here is a list of Catholic clerics who were also scientists.

    Both lists seem to have omitted (at the time of writing) Pier Antonio Micheli who discovered aspergillus moulds which he named after the aspergillum , the holy water sprinkler in church.

    The lists are so comprehensive they show clearly that science and technology developed in the West because of the Judeo-Christian belief that a consistent God made a consistent universe and that point of view enabled science to flourish.

    Every parish library and every college student should have a copy of “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilisation” by Thomas E. Woods. Jr.

    • ms Catholic state

      Thank you for that Michael. Also…a little known fact (carefully concealed out of sight methinks) is that the birth of modern science is dated to 1277 when the Bishop of Paris banned the teaching of Aristotelian physics in universities. Aristotle was a genius in many ways…but woefully mistaken in other ways…and his approach to physics held science back for centuries. He was deemed almost infallible before 1277….and when his erroneous assumptions were banned…science was free to advance which it did fruitfully within Christendom.The funny thing is that the smart-alecs of the day ignored the Church’s ban….hence continuing up a blind alley.

      This episode is known as The Condemnations of 1277. Why is it not taught in Catholic or secular schools?!

      • (X)MCCLXIII

        Are you sure about this? I’m not.

        • ms Catholic state

          Why on earth are you not sure?! Maybe it’s because it is a long lost secret…..that secularists want to keep buried…and Catholics are too nice and polite to ‘crow’ about. We hear nothing about the central role of the Church in the advance of modern science….except that unfortunate, misunderstood and insignificant spat between Galileo and the Church.

          But there’s lots on the internet about the Condemnations of 1277….except people have never heard of it, so can’t possibly look it up. I even saw one secularist berating the Church for not condemning Aristotelian physics sooner! Sigh…the Church it seems can never win!

      • Michael B Rooke

        Thank you very much for that information. I for one had overlooked it. I will respond shortly

    • Diego Tovar


      This is a beautiful piece of apologetics. I ask you permission to reproduce it on the billboard of my University (INRS, Quebec).

  • BJC

    I suppose the counter arguments will now begin.

    From the Daily Mail:

    “Also, although the review encompasses all studies conducted from 1928 to 2012, it only does so for studies written in the English language.
    And Zuckerman also warns that, despite there being thousands of participants overall, ranging among all ages, almost all of them belong to Western society.
    More to the point, 87 percent of those involved in the studies were from the U.S. the UK and Canada – making the study mainly about Protestants, not Jews or Catholics.”

  • Lola

    Deacon Nick, nothing academic to contribute to your blog entry but, all the same:

    One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

    The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”

    God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this, let’s say we have a man making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “OK, great!”

    But God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.” The scientist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

    God just looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!”

    And, here’s another:

    More than a century ago, a proud university student boarded a train in France and sat next to an older man who seemed to be a peasant of comfortable means. The brash student noticed that the older gentleman was slipping beads through his fingers. He was praying the Rosary.

    “Sir, do you still believe in such outdated things?” the student inquired.
    “Yes, I do. Don’t you?” the man responded.
    The student laughed and admitted, “I do not believe such silly things. Take my advice. Throw the Rosary out the window, and learn what science has to say about it.”
    “Science? I do not understand this science. Perhaps you can explain it to me,” the man said humbly.

    To avoid hurting the older person’s feelings the university student said, “Please give me your address, and I will send you some literature to explain the matter to you.”

    The man fumbled in the inside pocket of his coat and pulled out his business card. On reading the card, the student lowered his head in shame and was speechless. The card read: “Louis Pasteur, Director of the Institute of Scientific Research, Paris.”

    • ms Catholic state

      That must be why Ireland is up the creek without a paddle these days.

      • Ian

        Going to university casts the scales from their eyes.

        • ms Catholic state

          I think it actually encrusts them with more scales actually. The job of a pagan university these days seems to consist in mainly encrusting and propagandising.

          • Ian

            With respect the job of a university is to teach people to take nothing at face value, but to question everything and use logic. The students concerned have obviously done that.

          • ms Catholic state

            No….the job of a university is to search for the truth! To question everything is a snide and negative attitude….that actually can end up undermining the truth and wasting time. Do today’s students learn to question 2+2=4? No wonder serious researchers are heading to the Far East for research projects.

            Let’s not be too smart….but humble in our quest for academic truth! Of course the Catholic Church is in the business of providing Truth and then investigating material truth…..which is why she set up the world’s first universities.

          • ms Catholic state

            In fact Ian….serious researchers want answers…not questions (they aren’t interested in wasting money!). I guess that’s where our universities are going wrong. They produce students who ask funny questions….but have no answers.

            Sounds familiar?!

          • van Rensselaer

            @ms Catholic state

            How does one pursue truth without asking pesky questions?

  • Edi Nugroho

    I believe arguments are not needed for the believer and non-believer alike. One’s point of view will not be changed by any argument. Just do good, love your fellow human being, especially the poor, give to charity, and through this act eyes will be opened.

    • ms Catholic state

      I largely agree with you Edi. We can argue with atheists till we are blue in the face….but they ignore the logic underlying the Faith. As Christ said….there is none so blind as they who will not see.

      Following God’s commandments and living a life of Faith….raising your family and bearing witness to Christ….these are more important in the long run. But a little explanation is required every now and then.

      • Ian

        We use the same argument. There are none so blind as those who follow faith blindly.

        As far as God’s commandments are concerned there are 613 of the little perishers. Do you believe in following them all? That includes stoning to death rebelious children, working on the sabbath? Or do you pick and chose.

        And do you believe that those who commit truly horrendous acts against children and then confess their sins will go to heaven but the atheist, irrespective of how good a life they lead, will go to ‘hell’?

        • ms Catholic state

          Who is ‘we’. I hope you are not equating yourself with Jesus Christ! As for your infantile reading of the Holy Bible….let me give you another cutting remark from Jesus Christ….’they look but do not see, listen but do not hear’! To paraphrase….they read but do not understand!

          Also…it is up to the individual whether they want to get to Heaven or not. Apparently many choose not to…and this choice will be respected. ‘The road is wide that leads to destruction…and many take it’! Jesus Christ.

          • Ian

            Infantile? As I said there are 613 commandments all from the OT. Jesus said he was a Jew: Mathew 5:17 I come not to break the law but to uphold it and to honour the Prophets

            There are 613 commandments ( Which do you choose to ignore? It’s a simple question.

            And you haven’t answered my question. Do you believe that a person who commits horrendous offences against children could be forgiven his sins by a Catholic priest so that he would go to heaven, whereas you appear to believe that a non-believer such as me, irrespective of how I live, would go to hell?

            I use the word ‘we’ because I am an atheist and we do use that argument:- There are non so blind as those who follow faith blindly.

        • ms Catholic state

          And I have never known a blind follower of Jesus Christ. It’s an oxymoron. Those that follow Jesus Christ….walk in the light so are not blind.

          • Ian

            You still won’t answer the question I posed, neither have you commented on the remainder. Of course you can ignore it but in failing to respond I consider it my right to draw my own conclusions to your reticience.

            However, do you believe that a Catholic priest can absolve a person who commits horrendous offences against children so that they can go to heaven? Secondly, that I, as an atheist, irrespective of the life that I lead, will automatically go to hell?

            By the way all national legal systems that follow that English legal systems were/are based on (some) of the 613 commandments. Not just criminal law but civil and merchantile law as well; in addition what we now call the reserve system of banking was devised by a Jewish money lender/bank from Frankfurt by the name of Amschel Bauer. His sign was a red shield or, in German Rot Schild, now known as Rothschild ~ small world init?

            Blind or not, it’s all subjectivity.

          • ms Catholic state

            I don’t respond to your question….because if you were not a time waster…you could easily have found the answer on the internet. You are simply a time waster with a chip on your shoulder…and I don’t have the time to waste on you.

            And the more I see of our pagan legal system….the more I want one firmly based on Christian precepts. Oh….and Truth is not subjective…since humans didn’t create it. Let our society not expect to lead the world….when we eschew basic logic.

        • Ioannes

          Ian, you are obviously sincere, but like most atheists you don’t take the trouble to understand the institution you criticize, no doubt because you despise it so much you don’t want to waste your precious intellect on it. That accounts for the “do you seriously believe …” type of question, which isn’t really a question at all, simply a jibe based on ignorance. In recent times so-called rational freethinkers have hitched their waggon to all sorts of bogus ‘science’ – phrenology, racialism, eugenics, Freudian psychology, ‘scientific’ Marxism and so on.

          Absolution is conditional on repentance and a desire to amend one’s life. If an atheist commits horrendous crimes against children or anyone else, and truly repents (since he has a conscience although he does not believe it is God-given) then he is not presumed to be damned.

          As an historian I have found more bigotry and shameless and deliberate distortion of history in atheist publications than in any but the most fundamentalist Christian ones, and I can recognize bias when I see it. In fact atheism when elevated into a creed has much in common with religious fundamentalism.

  • Lynda

    The standard of “education” in universities over the past 15 to 20 years has plummeted. Logic and reason have been eschewed in many fields for ideological propaganda. Many people with higher degrees are incapable of reasoning or thinking independently. People have become more fearful of thinking out things rationally, or have been conditioned not to by the prevailing anti-God and anti-reason culture.

    • Ian

      I think that would find it incredibly difficult to be able to prove that statement.

      I would suggest that those who do learn to think objectively and, challenge any and all pre-existing ideas, do reach rational conclusions but I accept you comment regarding the higher degrees, there is no direct corrolation between intellect and intelligence which in turn can lead to some unsoughtafter conclusions:

      • Ioannes

        Ian, human progress (if we accept that it exists, which begs an awful lot of questions) does not wholly rest on challenging pre-existing ideas. Think about it.

        • Ian

          I don’t see how it can’t exist; if it didn’t we would still be hunter gatherers on the plains of Africa.

          Name me one currently held aspect of human progress that has not been arrived at, or evolved, from challenging pre-existing ideas.

          Have you noticed that the days of the week are all named after pagan gods?

    • ms Catholic state

      Couldn’t agree more with you Lynda. People don’t want to think….because it will eventually lead to God. They rather hide facts…than fact them. In fact our universities are busily airbrushing truth….and inventing their own. Sadly that will get them nowhere in the real competitive world.

  • Karla

    ‘Do Atheists Really Have Higher IQs than Believers?’

  • telson7

    In America Rochester’s university has been made scientific studies and analysis led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, which claims that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers. Estimation and criticism of the study behind the link.

  • Gavin

    How very predictable is the style and substance of most of the contributions here. Yes, clearly there are limits to a study of collated surveys. But is there no-one here who can just accept that the survey’s findings may simply be true. Is religiosity not a matter of faith rather than intelligence anyway. Where is the nature of your faith if it requires high intelligence?

  • In order to test the ‘reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity,’ Good Shepherd Church did a swift overview of some well known figures that have illumined our history.

    Sir Alexander Fleming, FRSE, FRS, FRCS (Engl) was a Biologist, Pharmacologist and Botanist.
    He qualified with an MBBS Degree with Distinction.
    Sir Fleming was awarded the Nobel Prize.
    He discovered penicillin.
    It is reported that when Sir Fleming was asked to what he attributed his success, he answered,
    “I can only suppose that God wanted penicillin, and that this was His Reason for creating Alexander Fleming.”
    Sir Fleming was a brilliant intellectual, and had belief in God.

    Scientist who believed in God;
    Galileo Galilei, who wrote; ‘I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God Who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.”

    Dr Albert Schweitzer studied at Sorbonne University; he was a Theologian; Physician; Philosopher; Musician; Medical Missionary, Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
    He was a brilliant intellectual who believed in God. Schweitzer considered his work as Medical Missionary to be his response to Jesus’ Call to become ‘fishers of men’.

    Dag Hjalmar Carl Hammerskjöld was Diplomat, Economist, Author, Second Secretary of the United Nations.
    He had obtained his Licentiate of Philosophy and Master of Laws Degrees.
    According to his Markings, he wrote;
    “God does not die on the day when we cease to believe in a personal Deity, but we die on the day when our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance, renewed daily, of a wonder, the Source of which is beyond all reason.”

    Thomas Anthony Dooley III was Physician, Humanitarian, Author, Naval Medical Officer.
    He graduated from Saint Louis University School of Medicine.
    His Foundation Medico assisted those in need of medical assistance, and his efforts to help those in need inspired many.
    Dr Dooley was a devout believer in God.
    His friend and colleague Dr Verne Chaney Founded Dooley Intermed International;
    Dr Dooley wrote in his letter to Fr Theodore Hesburgh CSC ,
    “How do people endure anything on earth if they cannot have God?”

    Dr Martin Luther King was Clergyman, Activist and Leader in the Civil Rights Movement.
    Dr King graduated with a BA Degree in Sociology, B Div Degree and PhD.
    His activism and dedication changed the face of society.
    He wrote, “Use me, God. Show me how to take who I am, who I want to be, and what I can do, and use it for a purpose greater than myself.”

    Florence Nightingale OM, RRC was Social Reformer, Statistician, Pioneer in Visual Presentation of Information, Founder of Modern Nursing, Author.
    Ms Nightingale was awarded the Royal Red Cross and appointed a Lady of Grace of the Order of St John.
    Ms Nightingale studied at The Institution of Kaiserswerth, and went on to take the Post of Superintendent at the Institute for the Care of Sick Gentlewomen in Upper Harley Street, London.
    She had previously studied Italian, Latin, Greek, Philosophy, History, Writing and Mathematics.
    Ms Nightingale was known for her intense personal devotion to Jesus Christ, and wrote in her Diary :
    “God called me in the morning and asked would I do good for Him alone without reputation.”

    Queen Beatrix
    The luminous Queen Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard, former Queen Regnant of the Netherlands, studied Sociology, Jurisprudence, Economics, Parliamentary History and Constitutional Law at Leiden University.
    During the course of her studies, she also attended lectures on the cultures of Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles, the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, International Affairs, International Law, History and European Law. Queen Beatrix obtained her Law Degree in July 1961.
    On 8 February 2006 Queen Beatrix was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from Leiden University.
    Queen Beatrix was Grand Master of the Military Order of William (Militaire Willemsorde), is the 975th Member and Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, the 1,187th Dame of the Order of the Golden Fleece in Spain.
    Queen Beatrix has great faith in Almighty God. She affirmed that God’s Light has come on our world and the darkness has not overcome.

    Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie
    Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie is Bishop and Author.
    Bishop McKenzie received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park.
    Later she received Master of Divinity Degree from Howard University and her Doctor of Ministry Degree from United Theological Seminary in Ohio.
    Bishop McKenzie was elected and consecrated 117th Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.
    The Bishop has been honoured for her Leadership, Community Service and Outstanding Achievements.

    Gifts of Supreme Intelligence Quantifiably
    Demonstrated – and the Gift of Religiosity
    The educated and accomplished people listed above all have the gifts of supreme intelligence, quantifiably demonstrated by their academic achievements, and the gift of religiosity.
    The gift of religiosity by definition means the quality of being religious.
    Being religious means, in essence, believing in God.
    The noun religion means 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 religious observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    The adjective religious would thus pertain to this noun.

    In conclusion, then, it would seem that the hypothesis that there is a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity can be reliably disputed.

  • Ian

    To quite the Bard of Avon: ‘if you prick us do we not bleed?’

    the range of comments I have come across on this blog: I have been told that I am sincere, intelligent, would even make a good Catholic (that’s not going to happen), that I am a time waster, arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, and probably others as well.

    But the thing that strikes me most, I trend to duck the insults, is that Catholics do not like being pressed on their faith i.e when asked of they would agrre with the teaching of the Vatican if it meant that some harm migh befall their relatives, they either clam up or go on the attack e.g ‘I think you are disgusting’, they never answer the question. That says a lot.

    Another example was Ms Catholic State who called my commetn infantile, until I produced the evidence to confirm my original comment, then I became a time waster.

    The rather weak comment that if people thought more they would find God, whereas it’s thinking in great depth that leads people away from religon: the violence, mysogeny, genocide and much more that people with faith claim are only metaphors. Really? How do you pick the metaphors from the truth?

    Ioannes even think that atheism is a religion and has fundamentals; Well, as to whether there is a creator or not then I have to say I am an agnostic, but I am atheistic about the religions practised on this planet. He also states he is an historian and yes many atheists have been evil but sectarianism kills more, Ireland, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, the Levant ,Iraq, Iran, Chechnya, Somalia, Uganda, Nigeria, Mali, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, China and others. All the conflicts, and associated bloodshed in the worlds current hot spots have religion at their heart and yet it always someone else’s fault or responsiblity.

    It’s about time that those of you who claim that religion will being peace to the world really engaged brains, it really is. And, Deacon Nick, if that’s me being arrogant or cliaming some aspect of superiority over the religious then so be it. I won’t lose any sleep over it.

  • roy radin

    The media plays the game of divide to conquer……Dont play there game.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>