top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureLuke Mackie

Are Atheists More Intelligent?

In 2013, Zuckerman et al. conducted research into the link between intelligence and religious beliefs. They found that there was a correlation between intelligence and religiosity which indicated the more religious somebody was the less intelligent they were. The correlation ranged from -0.20 to -0.23, which for those of you who aren’t statisticians is a weak correlation – certainly there was an effect, but it is very mild. It is important to note that this kind of correlation means that if you were to meet a religious person or an atheist you would have pretty much no idea on how intelligent they are from this information alone. This study was then repeated in 2020 to confirm the results, with additional research included, and the effect remained the same (Zuckerman et al. 2020).

These studies gave various reasons for these findings. They found that analytic cognitive style partially affected somebody’s likeliness to be religious, which would indicate that a more analytic perspective on life could lead to analysing and criticising religious beliefs more, and therefore becoming less likely to be religious. They found links like this to intelligence in various other factors such as self-regulation, attachment style, and self-enhancement. The basic concept is that people who are able to regulate their emotions properly, have secure attachments, and are able to enhance themselves independently are less likely to need religion to be able to cope with the stresses of life. These skills are associated with a higher intelligence which is why we see the disparity. However, the 2020 study also suggests (and refers to it as a less interesting reason - although for me the true reason is always the most interesting) that all of this could just be due to cognitive ability, as this is what they all link to.

Statistics can be interpreted, however. Correlation does not equal causation is a key sentiment taught in any competent statistics lesson. Whilst further analysis will be needed to find the true reason behind these findings, I have a suggestion that will do no harm to be heard (or indeed acted on).




Atheism is a weird phenomenon. It does not make any positive claims, and is a lack of belief in something, yet has a label and is widely regarded as taking a position. An analogy I heard from a YouTuber called CosmicSkeptic is this; if I play golf then I am a golfer. There is no term for somebody who doesn’t play golf, because there doesn’t need to be. However, being atheist is a deviation from the norm and therefore requires a label in order to define a set of beliefs simply and without garnering too many clarifications. What society has been really bad at is providing people without religious beliefs a non-religious framework that helps them cope with situations that are difficult. Death is the easiest example for this, as its traumatising effects are pretty much universally understood. There is an unspoken, underlying understanding within society that there is an afterlife of some sort. This is taught in many schools, it is expressed in many films and TV shows, and it is the first quasi-religious belief to manifest in people who are otherwise skeptical about religion (especially after being bereaved). Of course this type of society is going to prime people to be in a position of belief, and you will have to work out how to get into a position of non-belief of your own will.


This brings me to the point I really want to make. Atheism has had to fight to be recognised and accepted in the way it is today. Much of that fighting has occurred in the intellectual battlefield, where scientific and philosophical arguments have had to be utilised to justify the atheistic position. Whilst making atheism a socially acceptable position to hold, this has made atheism somewhat inaccessible to people who might not be able to understand these topics as easily. Logical fallacies, philosophical apologetics, and complex scientific concepts from a plethora of different fields (including neuro-psychology, evolutionary biology, and astro-physics) don’t particularly lend themselves to people who might struggle to wrap their head around these concepts - or even for people who are more focused on daily living than researching the finer details of these areas. Furthermore, atheism does not provide people with an alternative lifestyle framework. It does not tell people how to cope with grief without the concept of an afterlife. It does not tell people how to be moral beings in a way that they can understand easily, such as the Ten Commandments or various soundbites from Jesus. Secular Humanism may be an answer to this question, but I would argue (from what I have seen of it so far) that it is still predicated on complex and inaccessible concepts, and does not regularly enough address these fundamentals. Perhaps atheists are generally more intelligent than people who are religious. I don’t for one minute believe that that is a statement of superiority. What I see is an ideology that needs to organise itself in a way that is accessible to everyone rather than maintaining itself solely on the intellectual battles that it has its foundation in. Let’s find a way to give people an atheism that gives the hope, comfort, community and love that they get from their religions, without requiring them to be overly intelligent to do so. Atheism has so much to offer, but we can't help people find that value if its submerged in (unintentional) intellectual gate-keeping.


Zuckerman, Silberman & Hall; 2013:- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921675/

Zuckerman, Li, Lin, & Hall; 2020:- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610740/

69 views1 comment

Recent Posts

See All

Death

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page