There are countless others I have met and that I know of who are devout Christians and are extremely intelligent. And I have no doubt I've met even more than I know, since most people tend not to be open about their beliefs in the workplace. I work in a technical field.
So, I wish it were as easy as saying that non-believers simply have higher IQ scores than the religious. But that's too broad of a generalization as there are MANY exceptions.
There are always going to be exceptions. Math, counting cards, and computer science are not exactly the same type of knowledge that would answer the questions to, "why are we here?" or "how we came to be." In the article they address that there are always going to be exceptions. They even gave an exception in the article. But what they are saying is most intelligent highly regarded scientists, do not believe in god. Did you read the article or are you just commenting on the comments?
0.6 correlation between IQ and disbelief in God. That's quite good. The study being referenced samples 137 countries though. I'd be more interested in seeing the results from industrialized nations, since IQ tests are known to be cultural and third world nations are bound to have lower results. Also, it's not clear what criteria is used to compare academics across different fields and nations. How do you compare the "educational attainment" of an English professor living in the US to a physics professor in Iran?
I like to stay leery of broad generalizations that reference IQ samples as supporting evidence. The article linked above is making such a generalization. With the same reasoning, one could make plenty of generalizations about intelligence and race based on The Bell Curve.
I think it's a mistake to assume a single (or even measurable!) metric of intelligence, which was my point by providing some (empirical) counterexamples. Using IQ samples to support an argument assumes a lot about the validity of IQ scores in the first place.
Plus, I'm seeing "intelligence" and "knowledge" being used interchangeably in this thread...
But you have to agree that most (not all) of religious texts says there is a creator. People that are led to believe this, and hold it true along with all of their other beliefs. But when you look at the evidence of evolution, that we did in FACT evolve, it starts to shed skepticism on other religious beliefs as well. Once one starts doubting the core of their belief system, they are more likely to question it, and try to find alternate answers for their questions. And when you look deeply into science, most of those questions do have answers. I do believe religion breeds ignorance, to at least some degree. But just because you are very knowledgeable in one field of study, doesn't mean you know everything. Religion is a business, it's in the business of selling peace of mind for the afterlife while keeping people subservient to what they want you to believe. And controlling what people believe is a very powerful tool. But most religions update their beliefs to modern times, if they would have stayed with their core beliefs and what they originally were, almost NO ONE would be religious anymore. But now that they have changed, people are okay with living within their guidelines in order to buy their ticket to nice place in the afterlife.
Intelligence isn't the same thing as knowledge and knowledge is useless without understanding the context of the information which is being presented. Where I feel a persons intelligence fits is in interpreting the context of the information and making those patterned recognition leaps that our brains have evolved to see.
There have been many different discussions on this site that often come around to the relationship of perceived intelligence and the atheistic stance. That there seems to be a casual link can't really be disputed, however as one person said there are many different ways to measure intelligence, so it isn't something that is easy to pin down and say... "ah ha! so that's the trigger".
From what I can see it the atheistic point of view is more of an emergent idea, facts and knowledge can help one get to there, but often times just are not enough in of themselves to help someone make the leap. Facts by themselves are not enough, even ones own intelligence is often not enough to provide proper context to the information being delivered. I guess what I am saying is that how information is presented and prepared often matters more then what the actual information is, how else could religion get away with what it says, the facts certainly don't hold up when put into proper context.
My answer to this question about curiosity is that I have noticed, that if a person is naturally curious enough about the world and how things work, and they are able to grok what is presented to them. I find that they are often able to see past the misinformation out there and grab onto the facts and the actual context at the same time, though this might work for some, for a lot of others it simply will not.
That is what I feel the atheism movement is really about putting proper context around religion, belief and the universe that exists around us. One piece by itself isn't enough, put enough pieces together however and you are able, to begin to see the actual picture of what the puzzle might look like when it is all put together.