Pride And Faith (The 50K Challenge)

[KUJustin]

While the shortcomings of any point David may have been trying to make with his 50K challenge have been well-examined, I want to get back to his initial point that he seemed to be implying. Essentially, that extremely smart people are rarely (or was it never?) "fundamentalist" Christians. I think that he is right for the most part, and indeed I think smarter people skew slightly away from Christian faith and even more away from fundamentalist Christianity.

[ QUOTE ]

PS A 90% percentalist is not stupid. But to say he is relatively stupid is not wrong. Because a 90% will almost never be right when he disagrees with a 99 percenter. Thereby making his opinions of no more use to a bystander than a 60 percenter as long as the bystander has access to everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a clumsy application of his point, given that no matter how this was measured even the 60 percenter is going to be right frequently within his areas of strength. But let's put that aside for a moment and assume the above makes sense and ask the following question:

Assuming they're aware of their percentile rank and the 60 percenter and the 90 percenter are both wrong, who is more likely to accept it and change their opinion?

In some situations, I think the answer is the 90 percenter. He is better able to understand the 99 percenter's ideas and proofs.

In many situation, I think the answer is the 60 percenter. Specifically, if the answer can't be readily "proven" and both the wrong and right answers have relatively sufficient positions I believe the answer will be the 60 percenter.

The 90 percenter is accustomed to being smarter than virtually everyone around him and likely has a reduced regard for the input of others. He is not likely to yield from any defendable position because there's little precedent for him needing to (witness the above post in which David says the 99 percenter is basically always right in when disagreeing with a 90 and 60 percenter). The 90 percenter's pride gets in the way of him seeing the correct answer.

The parallel here should be apparent. God is the 100 percenter and so even the most intelligent (and thus, theoretically, least likely to see their error) people will be below him on the smartness totem pole. Jesus even addresses it in some sense (though he is typically referring to the pride of thinking you don't need a savior).

My entire point being that just because smarter people tend away from Christianity does not by any means make it incorrect. Instead I think it is pride that is blinding those with the superior "intellect" and keeping them from faith.

Lengthy Bible Quotation below:
[ QUOTE ]
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."1 Corinthians 18:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=1&version=31#en-NIV-28367)

[/ QUOTE ]

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
My entire point being that just because smarter people tend away from Christianity does not by any means make it incorrect. Instead I think it is pride that is blinding those with the superior "intellect" and keeping them from faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are several posters on here that make a version of that claim. It's the only refuge.
In every other area of their life they take the other (sane) approach and prefer the opinion of the intelligent and informed.
It never ceases to amaze me the contortions people will go through to defend their irrational belief in the FSM.
'It's true because stupid people believe it's true' is one of my favorites.

luckyme

[KUJustin]

lucky, the problem here is that it's not only stupid people that believe it to be true. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people that also believe it to be true.

And if you can't see why a matter of faith would be different than most other areas of life then you need to be careful about what names you're calling other people.

[madnak]

You can't use the existence of God as a premise in an argument about the existence of God.

The consensus among 99%ers and above is that God doesn't exist. There is no consensus among 60%ers and below. There is a trend toward disbelief among those between 60% and 99%.

The situations we have, to simplify a bit, are these:

1 - God exists. The 99%ers are almost all wrong. A few of the 60-%ers are right, but most are wrong. Most of the 60%-99%ers are wrong.

2 - God doesn't exist. The 99%ers are almost all right. A few of the 60-%ers are right, but most are wrong. Many of the 60%-99%ers are right.

We don't directly know which of these situations is correct. Thus we must decide which is more likely to be correct based on the secondary data - that of human beliefs.

In other words, the relevant question is this:

If the 99%ers are in agreement that a certain proposition is true, many of the 90%ers agree on that proposition, and the 60%ers can't agree on anything, then is it likely the proposition suggested is false?

And no, of course it isn't likely.

You can say that if the proposition is false then the 99%ers are as likely to believe it's true as the 60%ers, which is meaningful to some degree. But the overwhelmingly correct conclusion is still that the 99%ers are correct. In fact, the results are only meaningless if you can establish that we can logically expect exactly the same results from the truth or falsehood of the proposition - in which case the existence of God must have no effect on human beings. So, deism is justified by your reasoning, theism is not. If God has an influence on human belief, then we would expect to see a distribution of "belief results" that correspond to the "God-expectation," but as it happens we see a distribution of "belief results" that correspond to a "no-God expectation."

[madnak]

Oh, I suppose if there were some kind of inverse effect, ie God is actively tricking the 99%ers into disbelieving, while neglecting to affect the 10%ers at all, that is, if God is actively creating an impact on the world that is identical to the impact we'd expect from his nonexistence, that would work too. That's basically just another version of the "God put dinosaur bones in the ground to trick us" hypothesis, however, and has strange implications.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
FSM

[/ QUOTE ]
?

Sorry if I'm asking something that I should know. But, what is FSM?

Free State Movement?
Faith is stupid mantra?


something else?

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
The consensus among 99%ers and above is that God doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in your argument you forgot that we were only pretending for a moment that there was such a thing as a 99%er when there actually is not any such thing. If you mean strictly in terms of simple math assessments then they exist but have little more merit to their argument than anyone else (and I should know as I'm one of them though I and a couple of friends missed the 99%er meeting where we reached a consensus).

Given that, I'm not sure what to do with the rest of your arguments though I'll try to address them a bit.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't use the existence of God as a premise in an argument about the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was using it as the basis for a hypothetical in the same way that if I told you it was raining outside you would say "Okay, if it were raining outside then I'd expect to see rain out the window and people coming in wet." Was it wrong to look at how things would be if the proposed premise were correct and then compare it to how things are? I'm not formally trained in logic or anything so let me know if I've missed something, it's entirely possible.

edit: As for the inverse effect, that's basically what I was trying to show as being possible, but I never proposed it involved God tricking people. It's obvious that people can blind themselves to any number of different truths in any number of different ways, you see it all the time. I just proposed one specific method of blinding about one specific truth.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FSM

[/ QUOTE ]
?

Sorry if I'm asking something that I should know. But, what is FSM?

Free State Movement?
Faith is stupid mantra?


something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Flying Spaghetti Monster

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Was it wrong to look at how things would be if the proposed premise were correct and then compare it to how things are?

[/ QUOTE ]

IF fairies cause the rain, then every raindrop is proof of fairies. ergo, there are fairies.

luckyme

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
IF fairies cause the rain, then every raindrop is proof of fairies. ergo, there are fairies.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, if fairies cause rain then rain doesn't disprove fairies. Did you really think that what you wrote was analgous?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was it wrong to look at how things would be if the proposed premise were correct and then compare it to how things are?

[/ QUOTE ]

IF fairies cause the rain, then every raindrop is proof of fairies. ergo, there are fairies.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

KU,

I think Lucky is bringing up a point you're missing. A priest told me along time ago that the Bible isn't proof of God's existence - the Bible assumes you've already accepted that premise as true.

Whether you think they're 'blind' for not accepting that premise, or they think they're 'too intelligent' to accept it is irrelevant. For whatever reason the premise was rejected, and hence any conclusions are also rejected.

You're attempting to use your conclusions as proof of your premise, and you can't do that. (As per Lucky's example.)

[keith123]

Don't you think the more scientific minds are more likely to ignore the non-scientific data that might support the existence of God? Why do the blind hear more perceptively than those that can see? I am not saying that it is the case, but it isn't particularly unlikely.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was it wrong to look at how things would be if the proposed premise were correct and then compare it to how things are?

[/ QUOTE ]

IF fairies cause the rain, then every raindrop is proof of fairies. ergo, there are fairies.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


Proposed premise - fairies cause the rain.
How thing are - it is raining.

I have no idea what it proves or disproves, to me, nothing.

Proposed premise - There is a god that can cause anything.
How thing are - X is occurring.

see reaction above. what am I missing?

luckyme

[KUJustin]

lucky, I think we're on the same page now and I'm getting you.

No one has tried to prove or disprove God as far as I can tell. David was (I think..) trying to put forth evidence that the fundamentalist Christian view is wrong. I was trying to counter said evidence because I personally don't think it's very good.

Does that make more sense? Certainly if my post were taken as an attempt to prove God it would be terrible. But I hope I'm smart enough to not try to prove or disprove God.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think the more scientific minds are more likely to ignore the non-scientific data that might support the existence of God? Why do the blind hear more perceptively than those that can see? I am not saying that it is the case, but it isn't particularly unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're not ignoring the data and evidence. They're ignoring it being presented by circular logic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

Wiki example:
The Bible says God exists;
The Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God;
So God exists.
Obviously enough, no one who doubts the conclusion has any reason to accept the second premise, which presupposes it.

[vhawk01]

All people are arrogant and belligerent to some degree but if you think the 99%ers are going to be more so than the 60%ers I'd love to see your reasoning. Its been OVERWHELMINGLY my experience that the opposite is true, and 'being used to being the smartest person' is rarely a match for 'being used to not being able to grasp arguments and so doggedly holding fast to my preconceived notions.'

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
David was (I think..) trying to put forth evidence that the fundamentalist Christian view is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't understand his claim that way. I took it as -
You have belief X, therefore it's very unlikely you have intelligence/knowledge level Y.

You can clarify it with DS ( I usually just take a wild stab at what he's trying to prove).
If I'm right then one of his points would be just that X and Y are unlikely to exist in the same mind and he's willing to bet on that.

luckyme

[keith123]

oh well, i wasn't responding to a particular line of reasoning. i was just saying that if God exists and somehow communicates His existence to everyone in the same manner seperate from reason and in a manner which is as understandable to a near-moron as it is to a 99%er, which group is more likely to appreciate that communication and which is more likely to ignore it or reason it away?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
oh well, i wasn't responding to a particular line of reasoning. i was just saying that if God exists and somehow communicates His existence to everyone in the same manner seperate from reason and in a manner which is as understandable to a near-moron as it is to a 99%er, which group is more likely to appreciate that communication and which is more likely to ignore it or reason it away?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're arguing that some people are just too smart to believe in god? Well, I suppose I can agree with that.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
oh well, i wasn't responding to a particular line of reasoning. i was just saying that if God exists and somehow communicates His existence to everyone in the same manner seperate from reason and in a manner which is as understandable to a near-moron as it is to a 99%er, which group is more likely to appreciate that communication and which is more likely to ignore it or reason it away?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're arguing that some people are just too smart to believe in god? Well, I suppose I can agree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

no no. i am saying that if God does exist, it wouldn't be surprising that scientific minded people might be less likely to accept His existence than other people.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
My entire point being that just because smarter people tend away from Christianity does not by any means make it incorrect. Instead I think it is pride that is blinding those with the superior "intellect" and keeping them from faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

To spurn faith is today quite fashionable. Throughout history the rejection of religion is a fairly solid sign of impending cultural colapse or significant change (rarely for the better). How serious is it right now? In America it's not encouraging. The wide base keeps the faith but the cultural icons actively ridicule it. In Europe it's an Epicurean's delight, unless you're Moslem, and soon Europe will be yours without any armed conquest needed.

What would it take to bring the intellectuals back into religion? I'm not sure. From my own point of view I hang my faith on two items. The origin of all matter (the singularity), pre-big bang, is #1. I imagine this will remain an unsettled issue for >20 generations so no outs there.

The other is the origin of life. If extra-terrestrial life is discovered then this will settle the issue for me one way or the other. If it has similar structure as earth then I become a full time believer. If it is totally unrelated in structure then I continue as a non-believer. Here's something for the faithful to hang on to. Life has proved to be impossible to create in the lab. What is assumed to be little more than an accident 3.5 billion years ago defies all of science to recreate. If it is lab generated then faith will be dealt a serious blow. I don't see it happening. The more I study the subjects involved the more I see the potential for the hand of God. Life seems unlikely to be a fortunate accident. I don't see this resolving in my lifetime.

I'm also open the the God of Abraham shoving some obvious miracle in my face.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also open the the God of Abraham shoving some obvious miracle in my face.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question raised in this thread is will you be humbly stupid enough to recognize it ? :-)

luckyme

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
To spurn faith is today quite fashionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have next-to-zero faith. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=820692 0&Searchpage=1&Main=8206920&Words=%26quot%3BI+have +next-to-zero+faith%26quot%3B+HeavilyArmed&topic=&Search=tr ue#Post8206920)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I hang my faith on two items. The origin of all matter (the singularity), pre-big bang, is #1. The other is the origin of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have next-to-zero faith. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=820692 0&Searchpage=1&Main=8206920&Words=%26quot%3BI+have +next-to-zero+faith%26quot%3B+HeavilyArmed&topic=&Search=tr ue#Post8206920)

[/ QUOTE ]

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm also open the the God of Abraham shoving some obvious miracle in my face.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question raised in this thread is will you be humbly stupid enough to recognize it ? :-)

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have to be both humble and stupid to get to heaven, HeavilyArmed would only be halfway there. He doesn't strike me as being all that humble.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
To spurn faith is today quite fashionable. Throughout history the rejection of religion is a fairly solid sign of impending cultural colapse or significant change (rarely for the better). How serious is it right now?

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) Says who?
(2) What about all the cultures that had different faiths?
(3) Is this implying that a faith is necessary?
(4) Regardless of the answer to #3-- you realize that this does nothing to prove the existence of God. IE- you can need Faith without the object of your Faith actually being real. If there is any truth to your stated premise (rejection of religion leads to societal downfall) then it is likely that Faith is giving something to soceity REGARDLESS of what God is being worshipped -- be it a value system, laws, a shared community, etc. In other words, it doesn't really matter if they're worshipping a GOD or worshipping a Boysenberry Bush. The religion is providing some benefit.

To worship a God that, for all intents and purposes, is likely a creation of man's imagination simply because you think society needs it is irrational.

[ QUOTE ]
What would it take to bring the intellectuals back into religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Either 'proof' or electro-shock therapy mind do it. Bash them in the head so they're not so intellectual?

[ QUOTE ]
From my own point of view I hang my faith on two items.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's as illogical as any other Faith based believer.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To spurn faith is today quite fashionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have next-to-zero faith. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=820692 0&Searchpage=1&Main=8206920&Words=%26quot%3BI+have +next-to-zero+faith%26quot%3B+HeavilyArmed&topic=&Search=tr ue#Post8206920)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I hang my faith on two items. The origin of all matter (the singularity), pre-big bang, is #1. The other is the origin of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have next-to-zero faith. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=820692 0&Searchpage=1&Main=8206920&Words=%26quot%3BI+have +next-to-zero+faith%26quot%3B+HeavilyArmed&topic=&Search=tr ue#Post8206920)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

What, you believed him?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To spurn faith is today quite fashionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have next-to-zero faith. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=820692 0&Searchpage=1&Main=8206920&Words=%26quot%3BI+have +next-to-zero+faith%26quot%3B+HeavilyArmed&topic=&Search=tr ue#Post8206920)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I hang my faith on two items. The origin of all matter (the singularity), pre-big bang, is #1. The other is the origin of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have next-to-zero faith. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=820692 0&Searchpage=1&Main=8206920&Words=%26quot%3BI+have +next-to-zero+faith%26quot%3B+HeavilyArmed&topic=&Search=tr ue#Post8206920)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

What, you believed him?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course not. i just wanted to point out his lie.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To spurn faith is today quite fashionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have next-to-zero faith. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=820692 0&Searchpage=1&Main=8206920&Words=%26quot%3BI+have +next-to-zero+faith%26quot%3B+HeavilyArmed&topic=&Search=tr ue#Post8206920)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I hang my faith on two items. The origin of all matter (the singularity), pre-big bang, is #1. The other is the origin of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have next-to-zero faith. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=820692 0&Searchpage=1&Main=8206920&Words=%26quot%3BI+have +next-to-zero+faith%26quot%3B+HeavilyArmed&topic=&Search=tr ue#Post8206920)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

What, you believed him?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course not. i just wanted to point out his lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you are able to see only what you want to see but there are no inconsistencies in my position.

No. I've reconsidered. I have no idea what it is you see or how you see it. I doubt we share any common ideological ground.

[madnak]

Sorry if I'm cranky, a big ugly troll just stuck his tongue out and I'm a bit annoyed.

David's point is that if smart people agree on something, then it's more likely to be true. That there are exceptions to this doesn't invalidate the point - in general, it's definitely true. The fact that a potential explanation exists for intelligent people being incorrect about God is irrelevant unless it can be verified. In fact, such potential explanations exist for literally everything. They are irrelevant. Without concrete information regarding God directly, the smart people logically have most of the weight.

Second, most stupid people disbelieve in the Christian God. If God were somehow showing himself in a way that smart people were resistant to, but not dumb people, then we'd expect to see a disproportionate amount of dumb people believing in God. But dumb people, and the virtually universal majority of all religious people, exist under social conditions that handily explain their belief. Stupid people believe what their parents believed or what their culture accepts. Occasionally they'll change, but it's basically always after a major crisis, when they're seeking "a change" even before being exposed to the new religion. The patterns are very consistent through the populations. That is, the Christian God isn't remotely over-represented.

Thus, in order for the "inverse effect" to hold, God must either have no effect on people at all, or have only a deceptive effect. It's also possible that he's getting into a kind of "slow burn" effect - that could be a popular interpretation given that Christianity is currently the most popular world religion. But remember that reasoning applies to every other religion that has ever been most popular, and certainly doesn't affect Sklansky's reasoning. If the Christian God were giving people revelations, then we would expect to see patterns of Christian faith that can't be accounted for by social dynamics. But we don't. There are plenty of other predictions that certain premises about God imply, and none of them happen. In fact, one of the remarkable things about Christianity is that it has never made a concrete prediction that has come true. It has made some vague predictions that have come true, and other vague predictions that can be argued to have "come true" based on certain metaphorical interpretations, but when Christian sects have made concrete predictions they've always failed. That's really shockingly bad performance from a rational standpoint. Even this guy (http://timecube.com/) has made some valid predictions.

But of course, now it's the habit of Christians to make no concrete predictions at all - which is logically valid. But it also indicates that Christianity is just as likely to be true as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a valid analogue in this case. Just as with the FSM, there is no empirical evidence and smart people disbelieve, while "less smart" people react as their cultures would tend to predict.

In other words, part of the problem is that you're not saying that "if it were raining we'd expect to see wet people." I'm saying "if it were raining we'd expect to see wet people, but everyone is dry." Then you're saying "but if it were raining, it's possible the rain could be blown away from the people, and nobody would get wet, so you can't prove it's not raining." And I'm saying "well, the fact people aren't wet is strong evidence that it's not raining. Your point doesn't refute that evidence."

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you are able to see only what you want to see but there are no inconsistencies in my position.

No. I've reconsidered. I have no idea what it is you see or how you see it. I doubt we share any common ideological ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe i can see it if you explain it to me. you say you have "next-to-zero" or "a lower case epsilon" of faith. when you emphasize how close your "level of faith" is to zero, it indicates to me that there is "basically no difference" between you and someone with no faith at all. if you meant to emphasize that you do have faith and consider it real and significant, i have to say it really looks like the mistake is yours.

when you imply that people are "spurning faith" because it's "fashionable," it's not the kind of thing that someone who has basically "spurned faith" himself would do.

then you talk about "your faith" being based on things, and nobody would read your post and think "my faith" refers to "my faith that barely exists at all, it's really almost nothing."

[ QUOTE ]
No. I've reconsidered. I have no idea what it is you see or how you see it. I doubt we share any common ideological ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know what any of this has to do with "ideology" unless you think i'm dismissing an ideology that basically equates "lower case epsilons" of faith with "levels of faith" you'd expect from your average christian.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
It never ceases to amaze me the contortions people will go through to defend their irrational belief in the FSM.
<font color="white"> . </font>
'It's true because stupid people believe it's true' is one of my favorites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gold.

[David Sklansky]

"i am saying that if God does exist, it wouldn't be surprising that scientific minded people might be less likely to accept His existence than other people."

txaq said the same thing. Can't you see that the statement means nothing? Replace "God" with the Easter Bunny if you don't.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
"i am saying that if God does exist, it wouldn't be surprising that scientific minded people might be less likely to accept His existence than other people."

txaq said the same thing. Can't you see that the statement means nothing? Replace "God" with the Easter Bunny if you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

the OP isn't intended to provide direct evidence for anything. what it's trying to do is show that "a stong tendency among very smart people to determine that any idea is false is evidence of its falsehood" is not a useful argument when the idea in question has other properties, in addition to possible untruthiness, that would make the superintelligent more disposed to reject it.

i know that sentence kind of sucks and it's my fault if you have to read it more than once, but i'm pretty sure that's what txag, kj, etc. are trying to say.

edit: they're not saying it's evidence for christian god, they're saying the viability of the 50k challenge is not evidence against christian god, because (they claim) the demographics of believers if it's true might look pretty similar to those if it's false.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe i can see it if you explain it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't merit any more of my time.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maybe i can see it if you explain it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't merit any more of my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

How about 50,000 centuries instead?

Even then...

Oh, yes.

[SNOWBALL]

This is a clever way of describing an idea somewhat familiar in christian apologetics. As with the rest though, your argument lacks a demonstration that anyone at all is communicating with god, much less a demonstration that he exists at all.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]


The other is the origin of life. If extra-terrestrial life is discovered then this will settle the issue for me one way or the other. If it has similar structure as earth then I become a full time believer. If it is totally unrelated in structure then I continue as a non-believer. Here's something for the faithful to hang on to. Life has proved to be impossible to create in the lab.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are 100 billion billion planets in the universe, and ours has life whereas the others don't, isn't it reasonable to assume a chemical reaction with a similar improbability? BTW, the labwork trying to create life HAS created precursors for life. Give them another 100 billion billion trials, and they'll definitely surprise you with the results.

note: I'm paraphrasing Dawkins in this post.

[KUJustin]

HeavilyArmed, get your own thread for this nonsense. Anyway...

[ QUOTE ]
David's point is that if smart people agree on something, then it's more likely to be true. That there are exceptions to this doesn't invalidate the point - in general, it's definitely true. The fact that a potential explanation exists for intelligent people being incorrect about God is irrelevant unless it can be verified. In fact, such potential explanations exist for literally everything. They are irrelevant. Without concrete information regarding God directly, the smart people logically have most of the weight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to type a response to this but found a better one already in the thread:

[ QUOTE ]
the OP isn't intended to provide direct evidence for anything. what it's trying to do is show that "a stong tendency among very smart people to determine that any idea is false is evidence of its falsehood" is not a useful argument when the idea in question has other properties, in addition to possible untruthiness, that would make the superintelligent more disposed to reject it.

[/ QUOTE ]

An example of these other properties is an offense to what the intelligent believe should be true, or want to be true. I addressed this in a PM, but look at all those who are Christians but believe that "good people" will go to heaven. This defies any kind of logic. If you believe in God how can you believe in this idea that contradicts His very nature, and how can you do so when the entirity of the Bible is against such an idea. Did God try to use his book to deceive us?

You would think such a belief would be relegated to the least intelligent believers, but guess what? I would propose (as would David) that people who believe that "good people" can get into heaven are generally smarter than fundamentalists. Now why would that happen?

[ QUOTE ]
"i am saying that if God does exist, it wouldn't be surprising that scientific minded people might be less likely to accept His existence than other people."

txaq said the same thing. Can't you see that the statement means nothing? Replace "God" with the Easter Bunny if you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see exactly what you're saying, BUT given the above, it wouldn't make any sense to try to disprove the Easter Bunny by saying that smart people don't believe in it, would it? It would be a very foolish endeavor. So I'm going to turn your comparison right back at you.

Your statement will accomplish one thing in your favor though which is confusing people who don't "get it" into thinking that I obviously lost the argument since someone compared my God to an Easter Bunny and the comparison held. I could start a 10-page thread on how much it bothers me that people are duped by the Easter Bunny and FSM fallacies.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
the OP isn't intended to provide direct evidence for anything. what it's trying to do is show that "a stong tendency among very smart people to determine that any idea is false is evidence of its falsehood" is not a useful argument when the idea in question has other properties, in addition to possible untruthiness, that would make the superintelligent more disposed to reject it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And David covered that in, for example, his consideration of bias. A possible interpretation of why intelligent people might be wrong doesn't qualify as a statistically meaningful property, and the purpose of these refutations is to indicate that. The "idea in question" doesn't have any inherent properties that make it an exception. You're confusing an explanation of how intelligent people might be wrong about the subject for an identification of a special property that is relevant. There is no equivalence. Such explanations exist for literally all hypotheses, and such properties do not exist for the proposition of the Christian God.

[ QUOTE ]
An example of these other properties is an offense to what the intelligent believe should be true, or want to be true. I addressed this in a PM, but look at all those who are Christians but believe that "good people" will go to heaven. This defies any kind of logic. If you believe in God how can you believe in this idea that contradicts His very nature, and how can you do so when the entirity of the Bible is against such an idea. Did God try to use his book to deceive us?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a red herring. As such I'm definitely not going to pursue it, though I think I know the answer. At any rate, you need to establish a bias based on specific predictions of the proposition you're supporting in order for this kind of reasoning to be valid. Saying that smart people may be biased isn't the same as demonstrating that smart people can be expected to be biased. You can suggest that smart people may be biased against the luminiferous ether, but that doesn't lend the theory any strength. If you can establish that smart people are biased against the luminiferous ether, then you will lend the idea strength - but not enough to begin to overcome the other obstacles presented by the resistance of smart people to the idea. That is, while it can certainly be hypothesized that smart people are opposed to the luminiferous ether, and it may even be true, it doesn't matter. The luminiferous ether is highly unlikely to exist.

[ QUOTE ]
I see exactly what you're saying, BUT given the above, it wouldn't make any sense to try to disprove the Easter Bunny by saying that smart people don't believe in it, would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it would. That's the entire point. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but you seem to be missing the point. The fact that intelligent people don't believe in the Easter Bunny is strong evidence against the Easter Bunny. In fact, it's some of the strongest. In fact, if intelligent people believed in the Easter Bunny that evidence would weigh heavily enough against all evidence to the contrary that it would give most of us in this thread pause. If the majority of intelligent people believed in the Easter Bunny, I certainly wouldn't leap on the boat and immediately believe myself (and that's one criterion of intelligent people that makes them so strong - they tend to form their opinions more independently than other). But I would examine the evidence very carefully, look over the claims of the intelligent people, and probably come to a conclusion, but not a conviction, that the Easter Bunny is unlikely to exist.

Now, if you examine the evidence carefully, look over the claims of intelligent people, and come to a conclusion, but not a conviction, that God exists, that's entirely justified. It still doesn't mean that God is likely to exist - only that your opinion regarding the existence of God is justified. That most people with justified opinions disagree with you still means the existence of God is unlikely from an objective standpoint, so long as they too have examined the evidence and ideas thoroughly.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maybe i can see it if you explain it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't merit any more of my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running late for a tractor pull?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
A possible interpretation of why intelligent people might be wrong doesn't qualify as a statistically meaningful property, and the purpose of these refutations is to indicate that. The "idea in question" doesn't have any inherent properties that make it an exception. You're confusing an explanation of how intelligent people might be wrong about the subject for an identification of a special property that is relevant. There is no equivalence. Such explanations exist for literally all hypotheses, and such properties do not exist for the proposition of the Christian God.

[/ QUOTE ]

i came close to deleting this post a few times but i really want to understand this problem for some reason. try to help me.

in the "stumbling blocks" thread and this one, the theists had some success in getting people to admit that, if christianity were "true," the very intelligent would still be expected to reject it.

when the atheists are trying to think of what the smartest people would believe if christianity were true, they're imaging a world where "the evidence still points to it being untrue."

the question the theists really want answered is "assume christianity is true and the reason the most intelligent don't believe is a result of pride." they're taking the "effect of pride" as something that is also real if christianity is.

if the atheists admit that if christianity were true, then the highly intelligent would be more likely to reject it (by "willfully" misinterpreting the evidence) out of pride (they are assumed to be more prideful), then the theists have made their point. the highly intelilgent always reject "things like christianity" whether they're true or false, because they are generally incapable of correctly analyzing evidence that points to a conclusion that assaults their pride.

i don't think it's important that the "pride" effect may work just as well with the FSM (or any fanciful idea), because the theists can just say "if it is, then i reject '50k challenge type evidence' against the FSM as well as against christianity."

[Sephus]

ugh. basically the christians are asking: "if 'christianity' were true, are you confident that the demographics of believers would look significantly different?" the atheists should be saying "yes," and people should be arguing about that. it doesn't seem like we're at that point yet.

edit:

[ QUOTE ]
At any rate, you need to establish a bias based on specific predictions of the proposition you're supporting in order for this kind of reasoning to be valid. Saying that smart people may be biased isn't the same as demonstrating that smart people can be expected to be biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry i missed this. this in an excellent point. try to do this.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
in the "stumbling blocks" thread and this one, the theists had some success in getting people to admit that, if christianity were "true," the very intelligent would still be expected to reject it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they? I'd like to see quotes. It seems to me that they succeeded in getting atheists to admit that it's a plausible hypothesis, assuming the existence of God. Not that it's a result that would be expected based on the existence of God. To use the rain analogy again... If it's raining, we expect things to get rained on. Things are not getting rained on. Therefore it's unlikely to be raining. But if we acknowledge that it's raining, and nothing's getting rained on, then the hypothesis that the wind is preventing things from getting rained on is plausible. That doesn't make the proposition that it's raining very credible - just because it's possible for it to rain without anyone getting wet doesn't mean it's likely to be raining when nobody is getting wet.

[ QUOTE ]
when the atheists are trying to think of what the smartest people would believe if christianity were true, they're imaging a world where "the evidence still points to it being untrue."

[/ QUOTE ]

Which tends to lead off into other subjects. We're trying to isolate the "smart-people" evidence, and therefore it's not useful to consider other evidence. It just complicates things. But we must consider what we would expect to see if the Christian God were to exist - and we would expect to see things that are very different from what we actually see. The relevance is that narrower descriptions of God may reduce the effect of the "intelligent consensus" - for example, for a God that has absolutely no effect on the world we'd predict that most smart people would conclude there is no God. And for similar reasons, there actually is no evidence against the existence of God defined in the broadest sense! However, if we accept that God has no effect on the world, then Christianity becomes even less likely to be true, so that doesn't save them. In other words, narrowing the criteria is relevant but harmful to the position of the Christians - and the principle depends on the criteria in the first place, so you can't go switching them out.

On that note, just because most smart people believe something doesn't mean it's likely to be true. It simply means that it's more likely to be true than the things stupid people believe. Which is another flaw in the OP - we aren't dealing with God the "100%er," we are dealing with God's minions. That is, we're trying to decide whether the Christians - the human beings, the 60-%ers - are more likely to be right than the atheists - the human beings, the 90+%ers. If God wants to come down and present his own arguments, that will change the equation somewhat. But given that only a subgroup of the 60-%ers support the idea of the Christian God, and that the 99+%ers almost all reject it, it is very likely, not that the smart folks are right, but that the dumb folks are wrong. In this case it's the same thing, because it's one or the other. And in this case the atheists are, at least based on this evidence, much more likely to be right. But that's not the mechanic.

[ QUOTE ]
the question the theists really want answered is "assume christianity is true and the reason the most intelligent don't believe is a result of pride." they're taking the "effect of pride" as something that is also real if christianity is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is also unsupportable. The "pride hypothesis" becomes plausible if Christianity is true, but it is not the only plausible hypothesis. Moreover, it's highly improbable if Christianity isn't true. Finally, it's a way of explaining data that contradict the expectation - thus it actually lends weight to the atheists, not the theists. That's arguable, of course - some people might argue that if God is real, we'd expect atheists to be prideful. But I don't think you'll see many people agreeing with that, unless they already incidentally believe it based on other factors. After all, if a person believe in Christianity, and thus believes the smart people are wrong, then he must put his faith in some explanatory hypothesis that allows him to justify that. It's impossible for a Christian to suggest that Christianity might predict anything other than reality, because a Christian starts with the assumption that reality is the expression of Christianity. That is, they are literally incapable of using reason to approach the subject, which to me is more evidence against them, but to them may simply represent some "higher" way of knowing. Nevertheless, in discussing the truth or falsehood of a proposition, it becomes necessary to let that proposition "go," as it were.

This tendency relates to the Christian habit of circular logic (as in this thread) because Christians are inherently predisposed toward accepting Christianity as a fundamental premise. For them to immediately assume "God may not exist" as a premise, which is necessary for a logical approach to the question of God's existence, is intolerable. Thus, their reasoning freqently and fallaciously rests on "God exists." Atheists, on the other hand, are typically able to accept the premise that "God may exist," and are therefore capable of more logical discussion of the subject (in general).

[ QUOTE ]
if the atheists admit that if christianity were true, then the highly intelligent would be more likely to reject it (by "willfully" misinterpreting the evidence) out of pride (they are assumed to be more prideful), then the theists have made their point.

[/ QUOTE ]

But such assumptions are hard to verify. Moreover, they still apply only within the Christian-approved framework.

[ QUOTE ]
the highly intelilgent always reject "things like christianity" whether they're true or false, because they are generally incapable of correctly analyzing evidence that points to a conclusion that assaults their pride.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, inane speculation.

[ QUOTE ]
i don't think it's important that the "pride" effect may work just as well with the FSM (or any fanciful idea), because the theists can just say "if it is, then i reject '50k challenge type evidence' against the FSM as well as against christianity."

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but consensus plays a bigger role in the FSM hypothesis. In other words, by doing such a thing, by removing any consensus-related evidence against the FSM, they're implicitly stating that the existence of the FSM is entirely plausible. If they use this type of reasoning to establish that God is plausible, then they must also accept the other consequence of the reasoning - that the FSM is equally plausible. And some may be content with that - especially those who believe that FSM and God are equally likely according to logic, but that God wins points based on some "higher" faculty. Still, the idea of God is logically about on par with the idea of the FSM, and therefore attempts to wield the "sword of God" in a logical discussion can be wholly countered by use of the "sword of FSM."

[Sephus]

heh, part of the reason i almost deleted my post is that i was terrified of getting a long reply, but you took the time so i'll do my best.

[ QUOTE ]
Did they? I'd like to see quotes. It seems to me that they succeeded in getting atheists to admit that it's a plausible hypothesis, assuming the existence of God. Not that it's a result that would be expected based on the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

several people said things like

[ QUOTE ]
Yes but who would be easier to convince a flying spaghetti monster DOES exist? Smart/wealthy or less intelligent/poor?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm wasn't saying people were agreeing "yes they would be more likely to reject it because of pride." people were saying "yes they would be more likely to reject it."

[ QUOTE ]
Which tends to lead off into other subjects. We're trying to isolate the "smart-people" evidence, and therefore it's not useful to consider other evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

the "smart people" evidence is against christianity. some people would say (indulge me here) that part of believing in christianity is expecting the "smart people" evidence to be "against" christianity (based on things the bible (especially paul) says about faith/wisdom/intelligence).

perversely, a christian could make the case that "if more intelligent/educated people believed than their counterparts" it would actually cast more doubt on the divine inspiration of the bible, because it would contradict scripture directly. (i won't try to support this scripturally myself, but i know people could/would try.)

[ QUOTE ]
It just complicates things. But we must consider what we would expect to see if the Christian God were to exist - and we would expect to see things that are very different from what we actually see.

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you're right, but i don't think anyone has demonstrated convincingly that we would expect to see a "very different" smart/dumb distrubution of believers "from what we actually see." that's what the theists are saying. and maybe they're wrong about that, but i don't think it's obviously so.

[ QUOTE ]
On that note, just because most smart people believe something doesn't mean it's likely to be true. It simply means that it's more likely to be true than the things stupid people believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're on the same page there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the question the theists really want answered is "assume christianity is true and the reason the most intelligent don't believe is a result of pride." they're taking the "effect of pride" as something that is also real if christianity is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is also unsupportable. The "pride hypothesis" becomes plausible if Christianity is true, but it is not the only plausible hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, it's highly improbable if Christianity isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

this has to be a big part of our problem. not only do i disagree that it's unsupportable, i think that it's not only plausible but almost necessary if you start assuming that the particular brand of christianity in question is "true" (including that the bible is divinely inspired).

as for the second quote, i don't think that probability is relevant, because we're focusing on the hypothetical where christianity is true.

if this is the core of our misunderstanding i'm happy just disagreeing about this, because the last thing i want to do is start pulling up tons of bible quotes and trying to interpret them. i want to help the theists out but i have my limits.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if the atheists admit that if christianity were true, then the highly intelligent would be more likely to reject it (by "willfully" misinterpreting the evidence) out of pride (they are assumed to be more prideful), then the theists have made their point.

[/ QUOTE ]

But such assumptions are hard to verify. Moreover, they still apply only within the Christian-approved framework.

[/ QUOTE ]

but again, when you're considering the hypothesis "what if christianity were true," you pretend you've accepted all the assumptions i'm making because (imo) they follow from christianity being true. (once again, i don't want to prove this, and if you like you can just reject it and be done with it.) they don't need to be verified, and they don't need to apply to the non-christian framework.

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but consensus plays a bigger role in the FSM hypothesis. In other words, by doing such a thing, by removing any consensus-related evidence against the FSM, they're implicitly stating that the existence of the FSM is entirely plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

i stronly disagree, because i think you can ignore consensus-related evidence against the FSM without changing much of anything.

[madnak]

You're in luck because I have to finish a paper and get to class asap. I'll respond later tonight.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
You're in luck because I have to finish a paper and get to class asap. I'll respond later tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, just so you know i'm going to try my best to give you the last word so questions may go unanswered (by me anyway). hopefully the christians can come back and take over if they approve of my arguments.

i genearally hate getting into long discussions on online forums, i just want to see if i'm making an error of statistical inference that i can understand.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maybe i can see it if you explain it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't merit any more of my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a weird deviation for you. Your usual pattern is make an inflammatory, baseless assertion, respond to someone in a very condescending and dismissive way, and then run away and repeat from the top in order to avoid addressing peoples refutations. This whole "explaining why you are running away" thing is out of character.

[madnak]

Okay, first a big part of my problem is that assumption from the start that Christianity is true. It means that the reasoning of the theists doesn't bear on a world in which Christianity might not be true. I don't agree about the likelihood, but it's not a path worth going down. Let's say I give you all that, and say that the smart people are going to disbelieve no matter what.

So we know what the smart people believe. What about the stupid people? The ones in-between? If God is affecting us at some level, if people really are being "saved" by God and receiving revelations of his power, etc, then we would expect some kind of anomalies in the distribution of believers/unbelievers. But the beliefs patterns of Christianity don't differ in any significant way from the belief patterns of other religions.

Obviously I could go on. But yes, I suppose if we accept certain assumptions, then we can consider the specific opinions of smart people as being "neutralized" by religion. Carrying that logic along, though, leads to some real disasters for the theists. And I don't accept those assumptions in the first place.

As for the FSM, I think consensus-related evidence is a big deal. I believe that inherently the FSM is more likely than the Christian God (and actually I think it's very strongly so). If the FSM had ancient documents and 30% of the world on its side, I think you'd see it in a very different light.

[keith123]

Wow. The Easter Bunny is a terrible analogy. Though to be fair, there might not be any good analogies.

1. The Easter Bunny is a physical being on earth, according to the popular understanding, so there would be some evidence of his existence expected, and there is none. God is popularly understood to be either a non-physical entity, so there would not be any expected physical evidence, or understood as a particular being that existed on earth whose existence is highly evidenced (let's just leave alone the evidence of that being's divinity for now), or some combination.

2. It is common for adults to do certain things and give credit to the Easter Bunny in whom those adults themselves do not believe. There may be some cases where people do certain things and pretend that they did not do them but rather God did (while not believing that God did) to trick others, but it is not a common thing.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. The Easter Bunny is a terrible analogy. Though to be fair, there might not be any good analogies.

1. The Easter Bunny is a physical being on earth, according to the popular understanding, so there would be some evidence of his existence expected, and there is none. God is popularly understood to be either a non-physical entity, so there would not be any expected physical evidence, or understood as a particular being that existed on earth whose existence is highly evidenced (let's just leave alone the evidence of that being's divinity for now), or some combination.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why FSM was invented.

[ QUOTE ]
2. It is common for adults to do certain things and give credit to the Easter Bunny in whom those adults themselves do not believe. There may be some cases where people do certain things and pretend that they did not do them but rather God did (while not believing that God did) to trick others, but it is not a common thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again FSM, and I highly disagree. You don't think God is used as a marketing ploy? And does anyone really think that all those televangelists are sincere?

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
Again FSM, and I highly disagree. You don't think God is used as a marketing ploy? And does anyone really think that all those televangelists are sincere?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you would have a hard time finding a single person that doesn't think God's name is purposefully misused at times. However, my point wasn't about the frequency of this misuse, but rather that many more people actually believe in God, then pretend to in order to trick others. And even if you believe otherwise, certainly the percentage of believers/tricksters is higher when it comes to God than with the Easter Bunny.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again FSM, and I highly disagree. You don't think God is used as a marketing ploy? And does anyone really think that all those televangelists are sincere?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you would have a hard time finding a single person that doesn't think God's name is purposefully misused at times. However, my point wasn't about the frequency of this misuse, but rather that many more people actually believe in God, then pretend to in order to trick others. And even if you believe otherwise, certainly the percentage of believers/tricksters is higher when it comes to God than with the Easter Bunny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant that, of course. But not higher than various other gods. Regardless, this is an argument based on consensus. "Most people disbelieve in the Easter Bunny, therefore the EB is unlikely to exist." Well, if you give extra weight to the opinions of smart people, where does that argument get you?

I mean, there was a time when people believed in the "Easter Bunny," Eostre. And yes, now the "EB hypothesis" is propagated as a false idea. But that's not so relevant - and certainly children propagate it to other children as truth.