Yes. You need to have an objective description of intelligence. The most popular single measure of intelligence is criticized for not being accurate enough.
I think a logical way would be to have more dimensions for the different kinds of intelligence.
So, instead of using this one dimensional gaussian like curve, I think it should instead use a multivariate gaussian instead. In case of multiple dimensions, the ordering of different points in the curve would make comparison difficult. So, we would have to measure them using Mahalanobis distance from the origin. For that, we would have to assign weights to the different dimensions, which can change the distance from the origin.
So, in order to compare intelligence, we would have assign some weights, which would be subjective anyway.
I think this would be a pointless exercise.
If we do use the conventional measure, despite the flaws, the distribution of scientists does have a higher average measure of iq. The distribution of scientists, despite being small, would still be higher than any other group's distribution.
Also, your point about scientists being a tiny fraction doesn't make much difference. I just shared something which showed a group, which is highly atheistic and does have the highest iq. I didn't try to show it for all atheists. Even for that, studies do show a negative correlation for religiosity and intelligence.
Actually according to quantum mechanics, we know about states which aren't deterministic. Unless we have a non local deterministic theory, it is safe to assume that it is non-deterministic.
Assume a true random number generator made up of a qubit is used to decide upon a classical deterministic decision. The randomness of the previous random number generator will make sure that the further action cannot be predicted through deterministic mechanics.
So, reality needn't be deterministic. Yet, it can still be predicted to a certain degree. If anything, people can consider axioms which explain things the truth. We probably don't need a god for explaining that.
He was not able to accept the proximity of his own demise, and the shadow of impending death instilled great fear in him.[208] He invited a Catholic priest, Father Anselm Strittmatter, O.S.B., to visit him for consultation.[18][207] Von Neumann reportedly said, "So long as there is the possibility of eternal damnation for nonbelievers it is more logical to be a believer at the end," referring to Pascal's wager. He had earlier confided to his mother, "There probably has to be a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't."[209][210][211] Father Strittmatter administered the last rites to him.[18] Some of von Neumann's friends (such as Abraham Pais and Oskar Morgenstern) said they had always believed him to be "completely agnostic".[210][212] Of this deathbed conversion, Morgenstern told Heims, "He was of course completely agnostic all his life, and then he suddenly turned Catholic—it doesn't agree with anything whatsoever in his attitude, outlook and thinking when he was healthy."[213] Father Strittmatter recalled that even after his conversion, von Neumann did not receive much peace or comfort from it, as he still remained terrified of death.
If someone says that religion is real, then I would say that it is only a cultural thing instead of the truth.
For the question on the existence of something which may or may not exist, it is impossible to disprove the non existence of any deity or a higher power. So, it is more logical to be agnostic rather than a believer or an atheist.
Von Neumann didn't believe in the same. It was out of fear, that he did try to use Pascal's wager to justify his belief in his final days.
Pascal's wager is too simplistic of an argument to make. Something similar on the other side would be the atheist's wager.
The most obvious conclusion would be that despite anecdotal evidence, this study shows that scientists are less religious in general.
A bolder claim from this would be that scientists, whom I would say are more intelligent on average, become more irreligious, because they study things more methodically, apart from religions being at odds with science.
Something interesting, which I found counterintuitive was that younger scientists are more religious than older ones. I think a probable reason for that may be because they might not have completely formed their views and may be reflective of the beliefs of their family and friends.
Another interesting thing I found is that the younger people seem to be more decisive of their views. Only 3 percent are shown to not know or didn't share.
While on the other hand, physicists are shown to be the most undecided or not their claim to not know. It isn't surprising to be honest. Their field of study does involve a lot of about matter and how things exist/how processes happen. So, it makes sense that they could claim to not know because it is a very difficult question.
Also, chemists seem to believe in gods more than most groups. I think a reason for that could be that they abstract out chemistry and keep it separate from religion. On the other hand, biologists seem to believe lesser. It is intuitive as well, because they do study about cells, organisms, the possible mechanisms about how things in organisms work.
So, while physicists and biologists believe in gods to a lesser extent, their perspectives are shaped by the questions they ask themselves. Such as the nature of life and the way matter/energy/waves exist and interact and interact. Chemists on the other hand would have a different perspective though.
I would really want to know what the percentages for psychologists and historians are.