I found this awhile back
Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the “intellectual elite” considered themselves atheists than the national average.
A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.
But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded “simplistic” by critics.
Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.
A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.
A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.
Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.
He told Times Higher Education magazine: “Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God.”
He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time as people became more intelligent.
I used to admire Lynn’s “scholarship,” but apparently he doesn’t read most of the papers he cites. For example:
Upon reading the original reference, they found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain. Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ cohorts (the “Flynn” effect) on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved.
However, I still admire some of his ideas and I think his views on eugenics are correct, although I do not share his views on racial differences anymore. I realized that how shoddy his methodology is while he was “calculating” the National IQs by assuming a universal and homogenous Flynn effect and relying on non-representative samples. However, I must also admire him for his fearlessness and lack of trepidation while adressing controversial topics. Some of his unpalatable ideas are probably correct, but I dislike the certitude conveyed in his demeanor.
Unfortuntely, I still think many secularists would still use this to project their own sense superior.