https://thecatholicherald.com/worlds-hig...l%20media.
Is it ok to question the world’s smartest person? Should we accept his intelligence because his IQ is off the charts?
From article:
Quote: YoungHoon Kim, a South Korean scientist reputed to have the highest recorded IQ in the world, has publicly affirmed his Christian faith on social media. 
Quote: Alongside proclaiming his faith, Kim has recently entered the sphere of American politics. On 22 June, he posted a widely shared message on X declaring his support for President Donald Trump. He wrote: “As the world’s highest IQ record holder, I recognise that Donald Trump is the only President chosen by God in American history.” The post came in the same week as escalating international tension following US airstrikes in the Middle East.
Personally, I’m have my doubts he's that exceptional only because of his supposed religious belief and because I’m atheistic I have a problem with either of above. My mantra is and always will be… believe what you want but don’t try and sell it to me (or anyone else for that matter) without any evidence.
Is intelligence separate from religion when rating intelligence?
I am deeply suspicious of IQ as a measure of one's intelligence. In the very least a high IQ may indicate little more than that you are really good at taking tests. That is a learned skill ingrained in us from years of becoming schooled. How to access your vast database quickly and accurately on cue.
But if that is the essence of being intelligent, then really smart people would be little more than fact-reciting search engines. They MAY be that. But they are also far more, capable of thinking and having ideas that aren't already part of their database.
And there are probably many ways of thinking and being intelligent as per the research of Howard Gardner. A highly intelligent believer in religious axioms, or even of science for that matter, is however an unlikely critter IMO due to the simple fact that all belief is the cessation of thinking and questioning. When we settle for a belief system we show the world that this topic is no longer open to being explored and discussed. The ideology or dogmas impart a false sense of certainty and empowering purpose that stands in for the knack of intuitively grasping what is true or untrue that only comes from firsthand wrestling with the universal issues of human existence.
Intelligence probably is relevant to philosophical metaphysics, to the attempt to understand the fundamental nature of reality, or understanding the fundamental concepts that we use to cognize reality, or however we define 'metaphysics'. The reality and nature of "God" probably falls within that scope. Natural theology: first cause, the fundamental ground-of-being, the source of cosmic order, and similar metaphysical issues.
But I'm not convinced that religion or religious practice is really all that dependent on being a good metaphysician. It might be more a matter of the heart, of spirituality we might say. (Whatever that is.) A particular kind of emotional receptivity. Perhaps more akin to aesthetics than to science. Our being receptive to beauty isn't dependent on our understanding of what beauty is or precisely how it is known.
I suppose that intelligence is probably relevant to understanding academic theology: the history and doctrines of one's tradition.
But once again, I don't for a moment believe that being an adherent of an established religious tradition is necessary for religiosity.
This is why I like the early Buddhism of the Pali canon. It doesn't include the 'God' concept so prominent in the Hebrew inspired 'Abrahamic' religions. It explicitly tries to avoid metaphysical speculation. What it does is teach an ethical and meditative practice that isn't really a matter of intellectual understanding at all. What it offers is first-person experience of what we might call 'salvation'.
Even if IQ did lend credence to religion, would that sway you?
Probably not, so it's a moot point. The same could be said of IQ and UFOs without compelling evidence.
Most people are not really "convinced" of a religion. They slowly come to believe, either being raised and immersed in it or coming to that conclusion through experience, later in life.
(Jun 23, 2025 10:06 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ][...] Is intelligence separate from religion when rating intelligence?
Ostro's own "smartest man in the world" icon comes to mind (Langan). Which is to say, those stumping for some theory that God falls out of may tend to highlight IQ as some kind of hoodoo for repelling crankhood ascriptions. (Which, of course, never work -- as far as their critics go, anyway.)
For folks aspiring to be a big fish in a big pond - a religion can offer a ready-made 'big pond' - Trump (obviously) being an excellent example of the type.
On further thought I should admit there ARE in the domain of Judeo-Christian theology some highly intelligent thinkers. Such heavy hitters as Soren Kierkegaard, Gabriel Marcel, G K Chesterton, Paul Tillich, Thomas Merton, Paul Ricour, Martin Buber, and C S Lewis. I myself have benefited from their broader more philosophical approaches to God and the spiritual life. These minds have managed to remain open and questioning with regard to religion opening up new interpretations for its ideas and teachings. None of them however advocate the sort of dogmaticism and literalism we see in Christian fundamentalism. That whole mindset is a conversational stalemate from the get go.
Quote: Even if IQ did lend credence to religion, would that sway you?
No. I figure the smart guys are just that, using their brains to sell the belief. Like there’s something in it for them
Quote: Ostro's own "smartest man in the world" icon comes to mind (Langan). Which is to say, those stumping for some theory that God falls out of may tend to highlight IQ as some kind of hoodoo for repelling crankhood ascriptions.
When I first saw article I thought of Ostro & Langan right away. Maybe Kim has his proof too.
Quote: For folks aspiring to be a big fish in a big pond - a religion can offer a ready-made 'big pond'
Most smart guys and gals usually become CEO’s and sit on many boards, good at finances. What’s religion offer other than power and no taxes? I’d say spiritual advice but I doubt spirits actually exist.
Anyone know what Marshall Applewhite’s IQ was, or if Koresh and Jones had great intellect?
(Jun 23, 2025 10:06 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ][...] From article:
Quote: YoungHoon Kim, a South Korean scientist reputed to have the highest recorded IQ in the world, has publicly affirmed his Christian faith on social media.
Take away the dysfunctional Christians who are heavily into sex, drugs, and R&R lifestyles... Then, the remaining less hypocritical Christians -- who regularly attend church and engage in community help and outreach services -- do seem to output the most education-oriented, disciplined students and eventually successful people in small towns and rural areas. A major driver of it seems to be the social skills, speech-making abilities, and good practice habits that the church environment encourages. Even the most reclusive kid from a hog farm learns how to communicate adeptly to an audience.
And once they work their way up to the scholarly hilltop, they're going to promote the system that got them there. The path/plan to accomplishment is already laid-out and does work, and a "robot" isn't going to waste time wandering off that beaten trail exploring feral detours and sampling unconventional attractions that a "freethinker" can sometimes get wasted on and bogged down in.
IQ is really about being able to think your way out of the box, Religion usually ends with you being in a box and perhaps being set fire to.
Joking aside, Intelligence is really about problem solving, using a mixture of wisdom from what you know and have picked up as well as the capacity to attempt to logically rationalize how to achieve the goal.
Religion is therefore as subjective as Sport. Smart people can like various sports (or not) and might support teams that are useless (or not), simple pleasures doesn't require a giant brain (since it's stimulation/sensory based.)