Search
online and you'll quickly find claims that atheists are, on average, more
intelligent than religious believers. But what does that really mean?
Are we
implying that the validity of a worldview is determined by someone’s slightly
better ability to learn, understand, and reason? After all, things are rarely
that simple.
For
instance, recent investigations into this so-called intelligence gap concluded
that the differences in religiosity “…support the hypothesis that behavioural
biases, rather than impaired general intelligence, underlie differences in
religiosity.”
Moreover,
emotional intelligence plays a major role not only in personal success but also
in limiting the influence of cognitive biases—biases that inevitably hinder our
pursuit of truth and understanding.
In light of
this, one could argue that someone with reasonable intelligence and an open
mind is more likely to develop a rational worldview than a smarter individual influenced
by unconscious biases.
Intellectual
Foolishness
Take
Professor Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s most prominent atheists. Despite
his obvious intelligence and stature in evolutionary biology, he frequently
equates belief in a metaphysical deity with belief in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
But when
held up against real-world evidence and lived experience, such extreme
comparisons not only fail to hold up—they begin to look absurd.
As will be discussed
further in my article “Richard Dawkins and the Flying Spaghetti Monster”, consider
MIT professor, scientist, inventor, engineer, and author Dr Rosalind Picard.
Now imagine I told you that this highly accomplished woman genuinely believes
in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or that the entire universe can be explained
through a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Would any serious thinker take that claim
seriously?
Yet, taken
to its logical conclusion, that’s exactly what Dawkins is suggesting. And who
are we to question Professor Dawkins and his followers? After all, millions
uncritically embrace his views—some even with near religious fervour.
You see, Dr
Picard isn’t someone clinging to childhood religious indoctrination, as Dawkins
often suggests. She belongs to a growing group of former materialists who,
rather than dismissing anomalies that challenge their worldview, investigate
them. Many have discovered that the evidence they find no longer supports an
atheistic position.
Yet Dawkins
appears to dismiss such academics and their research outright—a reaction that
strongly indicates confirmation bias. Hardly reflective of the intellectual
honesty he champions.
Reason-Based
Thinking—or Reason for Doubt?
Reason-based
thinking is one of Dawkins’ hallmark virtues. So, what explanation would he
offer for these accomplished individuals shifting towards the metaphysical? Will he argue
that an increasing number of scientists simply got bored of atheism and decided
to believe in God for no good reason?
Or is it
more logically sound to conclude that these scholars—based on research and
real-world observations—have reached informed positions that challenge Dawkins’
assumptions?
The
Evidence That Challenges Atheistic Certainty
Consider
this: the evidence these scholars encountered had to be persuasive enough to
override their own atheistic biases and materialist assumptions. That alone is
significant.
But here
lies Dawkins’ dilemma: acknowledging these scientists means acknowledging their
evidence. And that would require him to reconsider—if not relinquish—his
unwavering atheism.
His silence
on this matter, both in his writings and interviews, speaks volumes, a
silence that strongly suggests confirmation bias. If so, the certainty
underpinning Dawkins’ worldview may rest more on denial than on evidence—an
irony not lost on those familiar with his critiques of religion.
Taken to
its logical conclusion, Dawkins' unwavering confidence begins to resemble the very
absurdities he mocks; as if a growing number of respected academics had
suddenly decided to believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The Allure
of Intellectual Tribalism
You don’t
need a PhD to see how complex humans are. So, it’s rather absurd to imply that
the truth of a worldview’s validity could rest solely on intelligence. But what
of the millions who latch onto this false idea—that atheism equals
intelligence?
Well, who
wouldn’t want to be part of the intellectually elite? Especially if all that’s
required is identifying as an atheist. But isn’t that precisely how cults
operate? By making followers feel superior and special.
If the
desire to prove atheists are more intelligent stems from a need for validation,
it might point more to insecurity than to objective reasoning. Just look at the
countless keyboard warriors hurling insults at theists across social media.
That’s not debate—its tribalism dressed up as enlightenment.
Either way,
as we saw with Dawkins, the validity of a worldview is rarely reducible to
intellect. It depends heavily on unconscious biases, emotional identities, and
the mental frameworks we carry.
In
Conclusion
Claiming
that atheism is a sign of superior intelligence is as illogical as suggesting a
host of world-class scholars have suddenly decided to believe in Santa or a
cosmic pasta god.
As for
Dawkins’ indisputable intellect—if he genuinely upholds reason and evidence,
then he cannot continue ignoring the science of cognitive biases. This field is
backed by research arguably far more robust than that supporting evolution as
the ultimate explanation for life, consciousness, and our very being. And if truth is truly his goal, he must engage with the uncomfortable
findings that even experts are often blind to their own severe biases.
In
examining Dawkins objectively, it becomes hard to ignore how deeply unconscious
biases may shape his beliefs. His certitude begins to appear less as a product
of rational thought and more a result of psychological entrenchment—a
vulnerability that affects us all.
In the end,
Dawkins’ reliance on ridicule and his childish analogies don’t just insult
opposing views—they hinder genuine understanding. And perhaps that confirms an
old but powerful truth:
“Intellect
without wisdom is lower than ignorance.”
