Why do famous great scientists with low IQ's tend to be atheists?

Question

Famous great scientists with relatively low IQ's seem to tend to be atheists. Example: Charles Darwin (135), Richard Feynman (130), Francis Crick (119) etc, etc...
While famous great scientists with extremely high IQ's seem to tend to be theists. Example: Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, James Maxwell, Michael Faraday etc, etc....

Answer 1

They can't get beyond the effects to see the cause.

Answer 2

First of all an IQ of 135 is better then 98% of people on the planet earth. Second you'll find that Einstein and Hawking aren't exactly Christians. They may not label themselves full fledged atheists, but neither of them are real believers of the BS that religions offer. They are more of the school that you can't prove there's not a creator, and you can't prover there isn't, so I choose just to believe there is something just because it's nice to feel like there is.
Third even in today's society coming out and saying your atheist is a hard thing to do because most people are taught that atheists are evil. If Isaac Newton walked around trumpeting atheism in his day and age, the pope would have probably had him hung by his testicles or something. Not saying he was an atheist, but it was a lot more difficult to admit to it back in those days.
The primary reason for it though is because it takes a certain kind of person to totally commit to atheism. Even though I am one, even I would admit there is a possibility that there is some kind of creator. It's just that if there is, he's basically the equivalent of a kid sitting on his computer playing sim city. He doesn't hear our prayers, or send us to hell, care about our well being, or any of that other crap, he just created this universe as an experiment for his own entertainment. And if he actually does want us to worship him then he doesn't deserve to be worshiped.

If you sat down with Einstein or Hawking or almost anyone intelligent who's put any thought to it what so ever, thats about what they are going to tell you. They might still believe he exists, but as far as basing there life on it, and worshiping him like the rest of the sheep, don't bet on it.

Answer 3

First I have no idea why you are getting IQ test involved in this. There are many great scientists who existed before the IQ test was invented. So as a base line, you are going to run into trouble.

The second problem is, why do you this the distribution of atheists vs/theists in the scientific community is any different that that of say used car salesmen?

The third problem is, how are you defining "theist"? Does that include just people who believe in a personified god or does that also include those who believe only in a "prime mover"?

I have never see any correlation between intelligence and religious belief. Form what I have seen, the two have little to do with each other.

Despite what the zealots on either side would have you believe.

Answer 4

Both have chosen to believe in something that they cannot prove, and both exercise faith in things unseen presently...either millions of years ago or thousands or years ago. A monkey turning into a human sounds just as ridiculous as someone raising a human through the power of God. Sadly, since people base their lives around the premise of whether there is a God or not a God, then you can see why this provokes such intense discussion.

For me, I would rather accept that obviously an entity that theoretically lives outside of the detectable range of a human can therefore not be proven nor disproven, simply because it would require a human to enter that range, and also would require the unanimous majority since we cannot trust minority groups with proving and disproving things (because of bias).

To even think that either of these are provable just shows the lack of logic in both groups, and their failure to understand that when you want to run induction tests on things, you need to have control of the subject. It would be like me asking two people to tell me whether a certain planet exists...millions of light years away...outside of the reach of any equipment we have. If one answers yes, and the other answers no...why do you assume that one of them is correct...since we have not the equipment to verify the answer?

Truly we have a schrodinger's cat situation then in the above model, since the planet theoretically exists and also just as much does not exist...since the only basis can be theoretical until the point of observation or lack of observation is reached, and thus God cannot be proven or disproven because the very concept of God is something unmeasurable to begin with, and outside of the control measures of humans.

Sometimes when taking a test, when trying to choose between (A) and (B), your mind is so busy weighing between the two that you don't even realize there is a (C) None of the Above option. It seems most humans on the planet are so confident of what they know, that in their humility they fail to realize the best answer is actually "unknown". If you want to know more about this, perhaps you should study "ego", which is quite a bit more relevant to these questions than "intelligence quotient"....believe it or not....

Answer 5

I saw somewhere that Newtons IQ was 'only'135 : just the same as Charles 'Thicky' Darwin. One should point out that IQ levels are set so that 100 is average. 119 is hardly 'low'. What's your IQ?

Neither Einstein nor Hawking were/are theists? Why do theistic Y/A questioners tend to be lying b*st*ards?

Answer 6

e fn w makes solid points.

Since you do not specify xtianity, those charging you with defending xtianity are as narrow-minded as the worst xtians, themselves. To your credit you do speak in terms of theism/atheism.

I don't remember learning that Darwin was an atheist. I don't remember learning Crick was an atheist. I'm not motivated by your question to research this, but also, the way your question is worded, I find myself highly skeptical of these claims.

IQ tests have their time, place, and use. Attempting to assign a level of IQ to someone who died before the tests were developed is flawed and highly unscientific.

Atheists may argue that I'm being easy on you because I have spiritual beliefs (I do), but the truth is, if you'd posted the mirror of this question, I'd approach it the same... Disclaimers in place, here's my answer:

It has been my personal observation that theism vs. atheism is a factor dependent upon personal experiences and ***independent*** of intelligence.

I've known religious fanatics, sworn atheists, brilliant scientists and mildly retarded service workers. Over my lifetime I have observed no correlation between intelligence and spiritual belief.



Bonus fact! While you list Darwin amongst those "atheist" with "low" IQs, both labels which I regard suspect, please know that Stephen Jay Gould, last time I heard him speak, was theist AND a strong advocate of evolution. He even has even developed a new theory of evolution which incorporates something called punctuated equilibrium.

e fn w types truth.

Answer 7

Some one once wrote a book to show that the number 13 is indeed unlucky, listing all the disasters that took place on the 13th. It was later found that he would have got the same result had he gone for any other day of the month.

Look up the question 'Half-truth? Is it a truth or a lie?', posted by packa a month ago.

Answer 8

Okay, your facts are really messed up. Charles Darwin is estimated to have an IQ of 165, not 135. I doubt that your other estimates are correct either. And even if his IQ or anyone's IQ was 135, they are still a heck of a lot smarter than you or me or any average person is. Get your facts straight first, then ask a question.

Answer 9

Let's see, Darwin's estimated IQ was 165, Hawking and Einstein were 160, so already your hypothesis comes into question. So where's your proof, oh i forgot, you're religious...you don't need proof, you base things on faith.

Quotes from eminent people (like deathbed conversions) have a way of appearing more or less out of thin air. This is especially true in areas that are desperate for credibility. It's the old appeal to authority trick: Any dubious idea can be made to appear slightly less dubious if some respected scientist puts stock in it. Not just any respected scientist, mind you: they don't go for last year's Northern Wisconsin Regional Science Teacher of the Year. No, if you're going to quote, quote big. Or dead. Big and dead is best, and Newton fits the bill.

(How the asker knows that Newton's IQ was high is anyone's guess, since French psychologist Alfred Binet didn't invent the first IQ test until 1905, 178 years after Newton died. But anyway. Although he was a genius in many ways, he fell into the classic trap of "I don't understand how this could have come about naturally, therefore God did it".
btw, it is said Newton believed in astrology too and also dabbled in alchemy and the occult.)

Answer 10

First of all, in Sir Isaac Newton's day, a scientist had to be very very careful because they could be deemed a heretic if they didn't profess a belief. Secondly, if you would do a web search on Albert Einstein, you would see that he clearly expressed wonder about all that was out there to discover and all that was unknown, but he also made it clear that he did not have or believe in any sort of "personal god". Here are a few Einstein quotes, real ones: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." "I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Other things this very smart man spoke about showed that he held hope for world peace only if the world could eventually be united under one government and religion was a big factor for why that wasn't happening. He saw perhaps Buddhism as being a religion that would not threaten world peace, but he himself did not adopt Buddhism as a religion. This being said, I am not against anyone due to their religious or lack of religious background, it just seems like that "us against them" line of thinking where "non-believers" are "bad" or "stupid" while any number of religious adherents to a plethora of religions, believe they hold the only key to life in the now and in their varied "hereafter" scenarios. This is why Bin Laden demands people convert to Islam and be spared, or why "Christian" elders went through Salem and other area towns and villages and rounded up "witches" to burn and to hang until dead. I wouldn't call that anything based on "intelligence".

Answer 11

Because they spend all their time thinking of their science, perhaps feeling they have time for nothing else; whereas the others kick back and think of other things besides their projects... maybe?

I'm so kicked back right now I can think of scarcely anything, and prob'ly shouldn't have tried to answer your question. But perhaps in 'simple-minded' there lies an answer to part of it! We can only hope at this point. ;-}