Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism [Archive]

ZeeJustin

11-06-2007, 05:45 AM

The Claim:

I think the strongest single argument for atheism (yes I know the burden of proof is on the theists, that's not relevant) is the fact that there is a high correlation between atheism and intelligence.

Can anyone give a single example of a case in the course of all of human history where there was a high correlation between intelligence and a belief when the belief was wrong? Specifically, I mean a belief not held by everyone where there were 2 or more possible sets of belief, where the correct one was held by a group of lesser average intelligence.

If there is such a case, I think it is likely a fluke where the lesser intelligent people believed the right thing for the wrong reason.

The Evidence:

Wiki entry on Religiosity and Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence) :

[ QUOTE ]
The study concludes that, of the most intelligent respondents, a disproportionately high percentage did not believe in God or did not believe that it was possible to know whether or not God existed. Similarly, a disproportionately high percentage of the most intelligent surveyed considered that the bible was not the “inspired word of God.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I also recall a study where 20% of community college professors (obviously above avg intelligence and above average %) were atheist, while 40% of Ivy League professors were atheist.

A quick Google search led me to An article that drew a similar data set (http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/02/08/Features/Please.Forgive.Me.Professor.For.I.Have.Sinned-2706105.shtml?sourcedomain=www.tuftsdaily.com&MIIH ost=media.collegepublisher.com) containing this paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]
The study found that 23.4 percent of college and university professors describe themselves as either atheists or agnostics, with the remainder reporting some level of belief in God or another higher power. The authors also made a distinction between the general professoriate and those professors who teach at elite doctoral institutions, as defined by the US News and World Report's list of the 50 best doctoral-awarding universities. In the latter category, 36.6 percent of respondents described themselves as atheists or agnostics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Poll:

RJT

11-06-2007, 06:21 AM

ZJ,

I don’t know if you know this or not, but the biggest reason SMP talks so much about Religion stems from a post started by David S. a few years ago about a similar premise.

I did some research at the time and there has never been any good survey that shows definitively the correlation to what he suggested. (And to what you similarly are suggesting.) He suggested that because most intelligent people are not theists, then it is highly probably that Religions are probably bogus. Look to the smart people and they are more likely to be right on any random idea. We agreed he is probably right in his general point, but we never could prove the accuracy to the specific example of religion.

There are a variety of reasons that many highly intelligent people aren’t believers. The best one I found was quoted by, I think, Isaac Asimov. I can’t find the quote, but it went something like, “I decided to stop spending time on the idea.”

Just thought I’d give you some SMP history.

RJT

P.S. Actually a few of your post have already been discussed. Many similar to David S.’s OPs. You should have him take a paternity test.

Subfallen

11-06-2007, 06:32 AM

The mathematician Ramanujan said that he thought all religions were equally "true." Arriving at that conclusion is really the only useful result of thinking about religion. (Obviously you're lucky if you manage not to waste any time on it at all.)

Once you conclude that all religions have the same "truth" T, it doesn't really matter if you think T = 0 or T = infinity, it'll work out about the same.

David Sklansky

11-06-2007, 06:35 AM

I am not an atheist. I believe that it is highly unlikely that there exists an omnipotent god who is concerned specifically with humans. Specific religions are therefore more unlikely still.

A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

Drag

11-06-2007, 06:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I did some research at the time and there has never been any good survey that shows definitively the correlation to what he suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the top scientists in natural sciences are atheists. If we compile the list of Nobel Prize winners in Physics from 1907 to 2007, I'd be very surprised if we find more than 10% theists. (I haven't checked it.) I suspect that it's true for chemistry, biology, mathematics. Probably even economics.

Doesn't it qualify as a good survey?

From personal experience, most of the scientists that I know are atheists/agnostics. Even those who believe in some sort of god, think that bible and christianity is a human invention and not the true word of god, i.e. they are theists in a 'weak sense'.

Alex-db

11-06-2007, 06:42 AM

Subfallen

11-06-2007, 06:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not an atheist. I believe that it is highly unlikely that there exists an omnipotent god who is concerned specifically with humans. Specific religions are therefore more unlikely still.

A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like atheism to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too. It's clearly atheism about all culturally relevant gods...so I would just go ahead and call it "atheism."

RJT

11-06-2007, 06:57 AM

RJT

11-06-2007, 06:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the top scientists in natural sciences are atheists. If we compile the list of Nobel Prize winners in Physics from 1907 to 2007, I'd be very surprised if we find more than 10% theists. (I haven't checked it.) I suspect that it's true for chemistry, biology, mathematics. Probably even economics.

Doesn't it qualify as a good survey?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let’s first determine if that is a survey, then we can qualify it as good or not.

MidGe

11-06-2007, 07:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not an atheist. I believe that it is highly unlikely that there exists an omnipotent god who is concerned specifically with humans. Specific religions are therefore more unlikely still.

A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, like you:
I am not an atheist. I believe that it is impossible that there exists an omni benevolent god. Specific religions positing such being are therefore more impossible still.

A non benevolent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is possible in my mind. It will not even be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. No more or less likely either if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

Sorry for the part plagiarism! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Subfallen

11-06-2007, 07:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the top scientists in natural sciences are atheists. If we compile the list of Nobel Prize winners in Physics from 1907 to 2007, I'd be very surprised if we find more than 10% theists. (I haven't checked it.) I suspect that it's true for chemistry, biology, mathematics. Probably even economics.

Doesn't it qualify as a good survey?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let’s first determine if that is a survey, then we can qualify it as good or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF, you seriously doubt this? Here's (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) a 1998 survey of the National Academy of Sciences. Note that only 7% would qualify as theistic by the standards of Christian orthodoxy.

RJT

11-06-2007, 07:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the top scientists in natural sciences are atheists. If we compile the list of Nobel Prize winners in Physics from 1907 to 2007, I'd be very surprised if we find more than 10% theists. (I haven't checked it.) I suspect that it's true for chemistry, biology, mathematics. Probably even economics.

Doesn't it qualify as a good survey?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let’s first determine if that is a survey, then we can qualify it as good or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF, you seriously doubt this? Here's (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) a 1998 survey of the National Academy of Sciences. Note that only 7% would qualify as theistic by the standards of Christian orthodoxy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is not a survey of the National Academy of Sciences. That is a journal article about said survey. Find the actual survey, read the question posed then get back to me. This is one of the surveys I was referencing. If you read the actual questions posed I think you will find that this article, along with most articles written about the survey, is misleading.

Subfallen

11-06-2007, 07:59 AM

I don't know how to find the survey, if you can point it out to me I'd be obliged.

In summary, how is the survey misleading?

madnak

11-06-2007, 08:16 AM

The standard critique is that it uses an "overly narrow" definition of God - a personal, omnipotent God.

But it doesn't matter as the results of that study are bogus. Everyone knows the truth - all scientists believe in God (http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm).

Drag

11-06-2007, 08:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the top scientists in natural sciences are atheists. If we compile the list of Nobel Prize winners in Physics from 1907 to 2007, I'd be very surprised if we find more than 10% theists. (I haven't checked it.) I suspect that it's true for chemistry, biology, mathematics. Probably even economics.

Doesn't it qualify as a good survey?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let’s first determine if that is a survey, then we can qualify it as good or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF, you seriously doubt this? Here's (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) a 1998 survey of the National Academy of Sciences. Note that only 7% would qualify as theistic by the standards of Christian orthodoxy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is not a survey of the National Academy of Sciences. That is a journal article about said survey. Find the actual survey, read the question posed then get back to me. This is one of the surveys I was referencing. If you read the actual questions posed I think you will find that this article, along with most articles written about the survey, is misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that article they describe their methodology, i.e. how they chose their respondents, they describe the questions that they asked (such as: Do you believe in personal god?), and the options, that people could choose: Yes, No, I don't know (agnoscism). What else do you need?

I'd like to ask you how many scientists do you know? It looks like you are expressing doubts without any knowledge of the field.

P.S. Bible is not a holy book, it is just some words printed on the paper. I can compose lots of sentences like this about any religious subject. (I don't want to offend you, just show the logics that you use.)

Max Raker

11-06-2007, 09:13 AM

One argument against OP's view is that if God exists, many people are going to be right but for the wrong reasons. Lets the the bible is true, some guy in ancient greece would have been correct on the question "does God exist" but only beacuse he believes in god living on a mountain and throwing thunderbolts. When people are right based on luck it doesn't matter how smart they are beacuse they used bad logic to get there anyway.

Subfallen

11-06-2007, 09:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The standard critique is that it uses an "overly narrow" definition of God - a personal, omnipotent God.

But it doesn't matter as the results of that study are bogus. Everyone knows the truth - all scientists believe in God (http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that article brings back memories: a whole goddamn lifetime of staring at syllogisms like this...

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists in practice believe passionately in the rationality of scientific law. We are not dealing with an irrational, totally unaccountable and unanalyzable surd, but with lawfulness that in some sense is accessible to human understanding. Rationality is a sine qua non for scientific law. But, as we know, rationality belongs to persons, not to rocks, trees, and subpersonal creatures. If the law is rational, which scientists assume it is, then it is also personal.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and being silently horrified that the world was such an ugly, small place, a place that fit snugly inside the heads of these dull men with their clammy hands and claptrap thoughts.

THANKS A LOT. MAYBE A "NSFRC (Not Safe For Recovering Christians)" NEXT TIME?

Mendacious

11-06-2007, 09:48 AM

I am not much persuaded by this argument.

A 6 point difference between the IQ's of atheists and "believers" of some sort does not really impress me. The fact that the atheists win 103 to 97 is slightly interesting but not decisive on the ultimate question.

Moreover, I would be willing to wager that if it were possible to ascertain the total number of people that are 2 standard deviations from the mean (which I think is the definition of genuis) since the 1600's or so, the number of atheists would be dwarfed by the number of those who believed in some sort of God.

InTheDark

11-06-2007, 09:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the strongest single argument for atheism (yes I know the burden of proof is on the theists, that's not relevant) is the fact that there is a high correlation between atheism and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is essentially a selfish position. You likely seek validation for personal reasons.

I see the strongest arguments for and against atheism as those that bear on the future success of the species and its overall happiness along the way. I await the historical record of the stunningly successful atheist society, something on a par with that of western Christianity. None exists unless you engage in academic gyrations of gymnastic proportion (and this board has many such athletes). In situations where religion is supressed, overall societal happiness falls like a rock.

So if you wish to prove the value of atheism for society, meer theory regarding the future won't get it done. Study history like it matters and you may come to realize that humanity fares best with religion in general and has done very well indeed under Christianity. Sadly, none of this is any longer common wisdom.

Alex-db

11-06-2007, 09:54 AM

RJT

11-06-2007, 09:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the top scientists in natural sciences are atheists. If we compile the list of Nobel Prize winners in Physics from 1907 to 2007, I'd be very surprised if we find more than 10% theists. (I haven't checked it.) I suspect that it's true for chemistry, biology, mathematics. Probably even economics.

Doesn't it qualify as a good survey?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let’s first determine if that is a survey, then we can qualify it as good or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF, you seriously doubt this? Here's (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) a 1998 survey of the National Academy of Sciences. Note that only 7% would qualify as theistic by the standards of Christian orthodoxy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is not a survey of the National Academy of Sciences. That is a journal article about said survey. Find the actual survey, read the question posed then get back to me. This is one of the surveys I was referencing. If you read the actual questions posed I think you will find that this article, along with most articles written about the survey, is misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that article they describe their methodology, i.e. how they chose their respondents, they describe the questions that they asked (such as: Do you believe in personal god?), and the options, that people could choose: Yes, No, I don't know (agnoscism). What else do you need?

I'd like to ask you how many scientists do you know? It looks like you are expressing doubts without any knowledge of the field.

P.S. Bible is not a holy book, it is just some words printed on the paper. I can compose lots of sentences like this about any religious subject. (I don't want to offend you, just show the logics that you use.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but:

[ QUOTE ]
He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a quote from the article. It is not a quote from Leuba.

The table in the article is the article’s table, it is not a table from the survey.

Alex-db

11-06-2007, 09:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the strongest single argument for atheism (yes I know the burden of proof is on the theists, that's not relevant) is the fact that there is a high correlation between atheism and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is essentially a selfish position. You likely seek validation for personal reasons.

I see the strongest arguments for and against atheism as those that bear on the future success of the species and its overall happiness along the way. I await the historical record of the stunningly successful atheist society, something on a par with that of western Christianity. None exists unless you engage in academic gyrations of gymnastic proportion (and this board has many such athletes). In situations where religion is supressed, overall societal happiness falls like a rock.

So if you wish to prove the value of atheism for society, meer theory regarding the future won't get it done. Study history like it matters and you may come to realize that humanity fares best with religion in general and has done very well indeed under Christianity. Sadly, none of this is any longer common wisdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand correctly you are being very pragmatic; considering truth to be irrelevant in deciding whether atheism is 'correct'.

I have never heard of a hypothesis accepted or rejected based on how well we expect to like its effects.

Mendacious

11-06-2007, 10:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I would be willing to wager that if it were possible to ascertain the total number of people that are 2 standard deviations from the mean (which I think is the definition of genuis) since the 1600's or so, the number of atheists would be dwarfed by the number of those who believed in some sort of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that this is a useful point to make?

If you asked every genius since the 1600s if they agreed with General Relativity you'd get a similar answer, 'proving' geniuses believe it to be untrue /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes & No. No, I don't think the essential question can be resolved by statistical intelligence arguments. Yes, assuming my premise it is true, I think think what people thought about God in the 1600s is totally statistically relevant. Unlike your example of relativity-- I think people of the 1600's and even earlier have been giving considerable-- probably greater weight and though to this question and the essential tools for examining the question remain (at least if you buy in to ZeeJustin's premise) unchanged, namely human intellect and understanding.

I would be hard pressed to say that any of the scientific advancements of the last 400 years have made the case for "God" particularly more or less compelling. And I mean that regardless of whether you view God as a force of creation or God as an establishment of Good vs Evil.

InTheDark

11-06-2007, 10:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the strongest single argument for atheism (yes I know the burden of proof is on the theists, that's not relevant) is the fact that there is a high correlation between atheism and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is essentially a selfish position. You likely seek validation for personal reasons.

I see the strongest arguments for and against atheism as those that bear on the future success of the species and its overall happiness along the way. I await the historical record of the stunningly successful atheist society, something on a par with that of western Christianity. None exists unless you engage in academic gyrations of gymnastic proportion (and this board has many such athletes). In situations where religion is supressed, overall societal happiness falls like a rock.

So if you wish to prove the value of atheism for society, meer theory regarding the future won't get it done. Study history like it matters and you may come to realize that humanity fares best with religion in general and has done very well indeed under Christianity. Sadly, none of this is any longer common wisdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand correctly you are being very pragmatic; considering truth to be irrelevant in deciding whether atheism is 'correct'.

I have never heard of a hypothesis accepted or rejected based on how well we expect to like its effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

What end is served by proving atheism 'correct'? Leave aside the fact the proof will not come. What do we, society, gain?

valenzuela

11-06-2007, 10:28 AM

Drag

11-06-2007, 10:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]

No offense, but:

[ QUOTE ]
He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a quote from the article. It is not a quote from Leuba.

The table in the article is the article’s table, it is not a table from the survey.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get your objection. You doubt the integrity of the author, assuming that he falsified the figures?

In this case you can repeat his survey and sent it to the same journal claiming that they used a misleading methodology or falisfied the data. That's the way science is done, normally scientists doesn't try to mislead each other. In a few cases when the manipulation of the data did take place, it was found quite fast by people who tried to reproduce the results.

luckyme

11-06-2007, 10:30 AM

From an Nature (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) correspondence on a 1998 survey duplicating Leuba's 1914 one-

[ QUOTE ]
Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1998

Personal belief 27.7 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 20.8

Belief in human immortality 1914 1998

Personal belief 35.2 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 23.3

[/ QUOTE ]

There does seem to have been a major change, whatever one thinks of the questions. In both surveys the results would seem very different from what one would expect if we surveyed coalminers in Kentucky at the same time. same questions.

luckyme

tame_deuces

11-06-2007, 10:47 AM

While I don't dispute with the survey that finds correlation between atheism and intelligence, I disagree with the statement that intelligence leads to correctness.

Usually you have hindsight when judging who was the most intelligent of two parties, and we often incorrectly attribute the 'right' ones with greater intelligence.

Piers

11-06-2007, 10:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the strongest single argument for atheism (yes I know the burden of proof is on the theists, that's not relevant) is the fact that there is a high correlation between atheism and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true for someone who does not have confidence in their own judgement, typically due to understanding of the impact of thier lack of intelligence. Personally I am arrogant enough to ignore other’s opinion in this matter, however intelligent they are.

madnak

11-06-2007, 11:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not much persuaded by this argument.

A 6 point difference between the IQ's of atheists and "believers" of some sort does not really impress me. The fact that the atheists win 103 to 97 is slightly interesting but not decisive on the ultimate question.

[/ QUOTE ]

The average difference is irrelevant. Very high IQs actually get very low representation that way - the IQ scale is statistical, higher IQs are more rare by definition. Therefore those in the 100 range are going to represent the majority, by definition. Even if everyone with a 150+ IQ is atheist, the mean difference between atheists and theists may be relatively small. We're looking at how the tendency toward atheism grows with intelligence, and mashing things together into an average isn't a good way to look at that. The correlation is relevant, not the mean difference.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I would be willing to wager that if it were possible to ascertain the total number of people that are 2 standard deviations from the mean (which I think is the definition of genuis) since the 1600's or so, the number of atheists would be dwarfed by the number of those who believed in some sort of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also irrelevant. In a general population that is >99.99% nominally religious, of course any subset of the population is going to contain more theists than atheists. The question is whether the proportion of atheists in the subset is consistent with the proportion of atheists in the general population. If only 0.01% of the general population are atheists, then if even 1% of scientists are unbelievers atheists are over represented by a factor of 100. That is, very smart people are 100 times more likely to be atheists. And I think you would find this to be true since 1600. It has certainly been true since Leuba's time.

I think ZJ overstates his case, but it definitely means something if smart people are many times (tens or even hundreds of times!) more likely to be atheists than people of average intelligence. It doesn't necessarily mean the atheists are right - maybe smart people tend to be prideful, and pride leads to atheism, there are other explanations - but it's a striking phenomenon and it should be a concern for theists (assuming that theists are interested in being rational).

Splendour

11-06-2007, 11:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Claim:

I think the strongest single argument for atheism (yes I know the burden of proof is on the theists, that's not relevant) is the fact that there is a high correlation between atheism and intelligence.

Can anyone give a single example of a case in the course of all of human history where there was a high correlation between intelligence and a belief when the belief was wrong? Specifically, I mean a belief not held by everyone where there were 2 or more possible sets of belief, where the correct one was held by a group of lesser average intelligence.

If there is such a case, I think it is likely a fluke where the lesser intelligent people believed the right thing for the wrong reason.

The Evidence:

Wiki entry on Religiosity and Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence) :

[ QUOTE ]
The study concludes that, of the most intelligent respondents, a disproportionately high percentage did not believe in God or did not believe that it was possible to know whether or not God existed. Similarly, a disproportionately high percentage of the most intelligent surveyed considered that the bible was not the “inspired word of God.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I also recall a study where 20% of community college professors (obviously above avg intelligence and above average %) were atheist, while 40% of Ivy League professors were atheist.

A quick Google search led me to An article that drew a similar data set (http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/02/08/Features/Please.Forgive.Me.Professor.For.I.Have.Sinned-2706105.shtml?sourcedomain=www.tuftsdaily.com&MIIH ost=media.collegepublisher.com) containing this paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]
The study found that 23.4 percent of college and university professors describe themselves as either atheists or agnostics, with the remainder reporting some level of belief in God or another higher power. The authors also made a distinction between the general professoriate and those professors who teach at elite doctoral institutions, as defined by the US News and World Report's list of the 50 best doctoral-awarding universities. In the latter category, 36.6 percent of respondents described themselves as atheists or agnostics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Poll:

[/ QUOTE ]

How do we know that atheists are smarter? Maybe the less intelligent atheists are not making any arguments so they are never in the limelight for us to assess their intelligence? How do we know that some less intelligent atheists aren't hanging out in churches pretending to be theists because of social/family/career pressures they perceive as dictating they do that?

The Jesuits are a religious group and history consistently tells us that they were an exceptionally brilliant class of theists.

Today's culture may be subverting people into no faith or weaker manifestations of faith. Peer pressure has a lot of influence on shaping people. A perfect example of this is the the military which is famous for using peer pressure to break people down so they can rebuild them in the military mode. How do they break people? They apply peer pressure.
They say do this right or the whole group will pay. If the individual fails to do something right the whole group pays then the group applies its social condemnation of the individual putting further pressure on that individual to conform.

Today it looks like the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. For a couple of thousand years people have been striving to do right using what they perceive as God's boundaries from their religions, but along comes atheism saying "Hey, exalt yourself! Follow your urges. Nevermind your heart your intellect is enough". Now we have a society that is negatively reinforcing some of the worst urges.

Peer pressure can be used for both evil and good purposes. Evil peer pressure: see Hitler. Good peer pressure: see the Amish on the slaughter of their children.
Someone throwing off evil peer pressure: see that 5th guy in the recent rape article someone posted in a thread showing the craziness of some Pennsylvania judge's ruling. He could have followed the crowd instead he chose to get that woman out of a bad situation.

Here's an interesting slant on intelligence, belief and performance:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/sfri-swb013107.php

Do non-theists focus on random chaos while theists focus on order? Is the whole world a balance between the 2?

madnak

11-06-2007, 11:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How do we know that atheists are smarter?

[/ QUOTE ]

The claim being made is that smart people are atheists, not that atheists are smart people. These are two very different claims.

Splendour

11-06-2007, 11:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not an atheist. I believe that it is highly unlikely that there exists an omnipotent god who is concerned specifically with humans. Specific religions are therefore more unlikely still.

A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like atheism to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too. It's clearly atheism about all culturally relevant gods...so I would just go ahead and call it "atheism."

[/ QUOTE ]

Alexdb and Subfallen,

You don't see any impertinence in insisting David Sklansky is an atheist. You think you can judge him on his posts?

He's an individual and has his own right to claim who he is. I doubt DS has posted all his thoughts in this forum, but anyways doesn't he have an individual right to determine his own identity?

RJT

11-06-2007, 11:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No offense, but:

[ QUOTE ]
He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a quote from the article. It is not a quote from Leuba.

The table in the article is the article’s table, it is not a table from the survey.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get your objection. You doubt the integrity of the author, assuming that he falsified the figures?

In this case you can repeat his survey and sent it to the same journal claiming that they used a misleading methodology or falisfied the data. That's the way science is done, normally scientists doesn't try to mislead each other. In a few cases when the manipulation of the data did take place, it was found quite fast by people who tried to reproduce the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get your objection. You doubt the integrity of the author, assuming that he falsified the figures?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is written by a journalist I bet. I would be very surprised to find it was written by a scientist. He does not falsify numbers. He takes numbers and misleads the reader. For example, he suggests that a question was posed in the survey “Do you believe in the existence of God?” No such question was asked.

I don’t have a link to the actual survey (actually “surveys”, the original one and the one repeated years later.)

The survey is not misleading. The author of the article misleads the reader by not correctly capturing the results of the survey.

Lestat

11-06-2007, 11:32 AM

<font color="blue">A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. </font>

Did you really mean to say reasonably likely?

*It's reasonably likely you'll get through today without being involved in a fatal car crash.

*It's NOT reasonably likely that anyone you had lunch or differ with in the past week will flop two straight flushes in a row today.

**
How do you rate a non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort with these two possibilities?

As someone who professes (and is looked up to) for his innate sense of math and probabilities, you should really be more careful in choosing your words when it comes to what is and is not reasonably likely.

I don't think I'm being a nit here. Had you said "within reason", I'd probably have no qualms. But there is no reason whatsoever for a rationally minded person who is well versed in probabilities to think that any sort of a supreme being is reasonably likely. It is still many times more likely to not be the case than it is to be true.

David Steele

11-06-2007, 11:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't the conscious computers use the same design principles that the hypothetical designer used?

Either way, I put the probability that somewhere in the universe, human level consciousness will be synthesized at 99.9% certain. If it can't be done, the new theory of computability will be extremely interesting ( which architectures allow for the most capability and why only
natural biology based architectures can support consciousness )

As for the double slit experiment, it is explained precisely with quantum mechanics, tough luck that small "non-things" don't seem intuitively like macroscopic "things". On the bright side, we don't have an infinite regress of "things" that need their properties explained.

D.

madnak

11-06-2007, 11:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The article is written by a journalist I bet. I would be very surprised to find it was written by a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

"You bet." How about you actually read the damned article? It was written by Edward Larson and Larry Witham, the very people who conducted the survey. They used the model created by James Leuba in 1916. There is nothing fishy going on.

I don't think there's a free copy online, but there are plenty of reviews. I've seen this referenced before and have just run it through Google and nobody appears to have any issues with the method except that the definition of God is too narrow (see my post earlier in this thread). You are being an ass and refusing to do your own homework. The high incidence of atheism among scientists is well-documented and no amount of hand-waving is going to change that.

bocablkr

11-06-2007, 11:45 AM

Zee,

You are correct. I have posted several links about this in the past (disputing RJT's claim about lack of correlation) and I will try and see if I can find them again.

When you start looking at the Super IQ geniuses it is almost univeral that they are Atheists.

Drag

11-06-2007, 11:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The article is written by a journalist I bet. I would be very surprised to find it was written by a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the posted link it is witten:

NATURE CORRESPONDENCE

I hope you know what it is.

Then there is a reference to the original article:

Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

or THE LINK
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html

You can actually buy this article for a small fee, if you doubt that the link correctly reflects its content.

And in the end there are names of the autors:

Edward J. Larson
Department of History, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia 30602-6012, USA
e-mail:edlarson@uga.edu

Larry Witham
3816 Lansdale Court, Burtonsville,
Maryland 20866, USA

It seems that you don't even tried to think about it and check anything, claiming that 'this is journalist'. This shows the difference between scientists, who try to tests everything and open to new ideas and believers who choose only the right things to believe.

luckyme

11-06-2007, 11:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You don't see any impertinence in insisting David Sklansky is an atheist. You think you can judge him on his posts?

He's an individual and has his own right to claim who he is. I doubt DS has posted all his thoughts in this forum, but anyways doesn't he have an individual right to determine his own identity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no we don't.
"I have red eyes" can be disputed by anyone looking at your eyes.
"I'm a jolly fellow" can be disputed.
"I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist" have objective meanings also, otherwise a person may just as well say thehathuthuchih.
Does DS believe god(theistic) exists. If he does he's a theist. If he doesn't he's an atheist. He doesn't even have to know the meaning of those words to fit into one of the categories ( it's a X-notX situation).

So, we decide by what he states his belief is and don't worry if he gets the names wrong at times.

luckyme

madnak

11-06-2007, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'm being a nit here. Had you said "within reason", I'd probably have no qualms. But there is no reason whatsoever for a rationally minded person who is well versed in probabilities to think that any sort of a supreme being is reasonably likely. It is still many times more likely to not be the case than it is to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis? There is no way to probabilistically consider a basic abstraction. Any probabilistic claim is actually just subjectivity and intuition. You can talk about probabilities of specific gods, but not of general gods.

Subfallen

11-06-2007, 11:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]

You don't see any impertinence in insisting David Sklansky is an atheist. You think you can judge him on his posts?
He's an individual and has his own right to claim who he is. I doubt DS has posted all his thoughts in this forum, but anyways doesn't he have an individual right to determine his own identity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dearest -

Alex and I are just quibbling about semantics, we're not trying to misrepresent <font color="red">DS</font>. What's the point of having labels like "atheist" if we don't inform those labels according to the cultural zeitgeist?

Sklansky doesn't believe in the Christian God or the Muslim God or the Jewish God or the Theosophist God or the Mormon God or the Zoroastrian God. If this doesn't define "atheist" for you, then what does?

bocablkr

11-06-2007, 11:53 AM

Here is one old post - looking for others.

Interesting fact - many scientific studies done on the relationship of intelligence vs. belief in God have shown that as the IQ level increases the percentage who believe in God decreases. This doesn't mean that some smart people don't believe in God or that some less intelligent ones can't be atheists. Below is an excerpt from one study.

Polling Scientists on Beliefs

According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."

The survey, by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia, was intended to replicate one conducted in 1914, and the results were virtually unchanged. In both cases, participants were drawn from a directory of American scientists.

Others play down those results. They note that when Dr. Larson put part of the same survey to "leading scientists" - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation's most eminent scientific organization - fewer than 10 percent professed belief in a personal God or human immortality.

RJT

11-06-2007, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Zee,

You are correct. I have posted several links about this in the past (disputing RJT's claim about lack of correlation) and I will try and see if I can find them again.

When you start looking at the Super IQ geniuses it is almost univeral that they are Atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say there was or was not correlation. I said I have not seen a good survey taken that addresses the actual quesion.

Lestat

11-06-2007, 12:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'm being a nit here. Had you said "within reason", I'd probably have no qualms. But there is no reason whatsoever for a rationally minded person who is well versed in probabilities to think that any sort of a supreme being is reasonably likely. It is still many times more likely to not be the case than it is to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis? There is no way to probabilistically consider a basic abstraction. Any probabilistic claim is actually just subjectivity and intuition. You can talk about probabilities of specific gods, but not of general gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I'm not a math guy so I shouldn't be debating this, but...

There may not be a way to actually determine probabilistic abstraction, but we should be able to consider it.

Just because we do not know the answer to something, doesn't mean it's correct to promote any idea to being reasonably likely.

Of course, much of this depends on how one defines a god. If we include in the criteria to contain everything from super intelligent aliens to David's 5th dimensional kid and his chemistry set as potential gods, the probability does go up. But I'd still quibble that it becomes reasonably likely.

bocablkr

11-06-2007, 12:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Zee,

You are correct. I have posted several links about this in the past (disputing RJT's claim about lack of correlation) and I will try and see if I can find them again.

When you start looking at the Super IQ geniuses it is almost univeral that they are Atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say there was or was not correlation. I said I have not seen a good survey taken that addresses the actual quesion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to do better research. There was a Scientific America study on this IIRC. I am trying to find the link.

This is basically indisputable. What is disputable is whether the fact that the more intelligent you are the more likely it is that you are an Atheist means anything.

bocablkr

11-06-2007, 12:22 PM

Here is one link with reference to the Article in the September 1999 issue of Scientic American - http://www.godless.org/sci/herosci.html

Excerpt from the Article - An even more lopsided majority of those scientists who are honored by their peers with membership in the National Academy of Science are disbelievers -- more than 90%.

RJT

11-06-2007, 12:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The article is written by a journalist I bet. I would be very surprised to find it was written by a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

"You bet." How about you actually read the damned article? It was written by Edward Larson and Larry Witham, the very people who conducted the survey. They used the model created by James Leuba in 1916. There is nothing fishy going on.

I don't think there's a free copy online, but there are plenty of reviews. I've seen this referenced before and have just run it through Google and nobody appears to have any issues with the method except that the definition of God is too narrow (see my post earlier in this thread). You are being an ass and refusing to do your own homework. The high incidence of atheism among scientists is well-documented and no amount of hand-waving is going to change that.

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies for assuming the article was written by a journalist.

I didn’t read this correspondence thoroughly, I glimpse through it and it seemed to be similarly written as those I posted about a few years back.

I still contend the article and the table summarized in the survey do not accurately depict the questions asked.

[ QUOTE ]
According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."

[/ QUOTE ]

This for the most part was the gist of the survey. If you feel the table accurately reflects that question than I will have to concede defeat. (I doubt there are many theists who actually expect to receive answers to prayers. Does that imply they don’t believe in a personal God?)

madnak

11-06-2007, 12:49 PM

The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Gods fit that criterion. I believe that was Leuba's stated purpose in selecting it. And yes, in the real world there are few who believe in a personal God but not in answers to prayers - Christianity is really the prime target here and there's no question of it in Christianity. I already mentioned that some people thought the definition was too narrow.

At any rate the criteria have been accepted for many decades. Nobody has raised any serious objections (even though I believe the study was used in the Scopes trial), and in none of the three studies has anyone come out to protest how the results are being used. I also don't think it's credible to suggest that the scientists didn't know what was going on, particularly since so many expressed disbelief rather than simple uncertainty.

madnak

11-06-2007, 12:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There may not be a way to actually determine probabilistic abstraction, but we should be able to consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if we have an agreed-upon context in which to consider it.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because we do not know the answer to something, doesn't mean it's correct to promote any idea to being reasonably likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but ideas can only be evaluated relative to other ideas. There's no concrete standard. Further, it's not necessarily incorrect to promote all ideas to "reasonable." The only trouble would be applying that consistently.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, much of this depends on how one defines a god. If we include in the criteria to contain everything from super intelligent aliens to David's 5th dimensional kid and his chemistry set as potential gods, the probability does go up. But I'd still quibble that it becomes reasonably likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd quibble on what basis?

vhawk01

11-06-2007, 01:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the strongest single argument for atheism (yes I know the burden of proof is on the theists, that's not relevant) is the fact that there is a high correlation between atheism and intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is essentially a selfish position. You likely seek validation for personal reasons.

I see the strongest arguments for and against atheism as those that bear on the future success of the species and its overall happiness along the way. I await the historical record of the stunningly successful atheist society, something on a par with that of western Christianity. None exists unless you engage in academic gyrations of gymnastic proportion (and this board has many such athletes). In situations where religion is supressed, overall societal happiness falls like a rock.

So if you wish to prove the value of atheism for society, meer theory regarding the future won't get it done. Study history like it matters and you may come to realize that humanity fares best with religion in general and has done very well indeed under Christianity. Sadly, none of this is any longer common wisdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yawn, we've done this over and over, if Stalinist Russia counts as an atheistic society (your position) then so does the US, and the US is the greatest nation to have ever existed. Stop with this old saw any time.

RJT

11-06-2007, 01:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Gods fit that criterion. I believe that was Leuba's stated purpose in selecting it. And yes, in the real world there are few who believe in a personal God but not in answers to prayers - Christianity is really the prime target here and there's no question of it in Christianity. I already mentioned that some people thought the definition was too narrow.

At any rate the criteria have been accepted for many decades. Nobody has raised any serious objections (even though I believe the study was used in the Scopes trial), and in none of the three studies has anyone come out to protest how the results are being used. I also don't think it's credible to suggest that the scientists didn't know what was going on, particularly since so many expressed disbelief rather than simple uncertainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

If most read “in expectation of receiving an answer” the same as if the question was asked something like “in the possibility or hope of receiving an answer”; then I guess I am being too literal in my interpretation of the question.

Given an incorrect understanding of the question on my part, my read on what the % actually say would be also be incorrect.

GaSSPaNiCC

11-06-2007, 01:54 PM

Chris Langan a person who has been recorded with the highest IQ in the world believes you can prove the afterlife and God through Mathematics, and no he is not religious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA0gjyXG5O0

InTheDark

11-06-2007, 02:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Jesuits are a religious group and history consistently tells us that they were an exceptionally brilliant class of theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're looking for secular outliers, run an IQ test on a cohort of Rabbis.

borisp

11-06-2007, 02:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As for the double slit experiment, it is explained precisely with quantum mechanics

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT...DS, I have no idea what you meant with the double slit remark. Regardless of whether you are Fred or Ginger, this is basic.

calcbandit

11-06-2007, 02:47 PM

Allow yourself to assume that there is a high correlation between being intelligent and being an atheist. (This is very likely the case, but instead of quibbling about survey questions, just assume it.)

What does this imply for theists?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Gods fit that criterion. I believe that was Leuba's stated purpose in selecting it. And yes, in the real world there are few who believe in a personal God but not in answers to prayers - Christianity is really the prime target here and there's no question of it in Christianity. I already mentioned that some people thought the definition was too narrow.

At any rate the criteria have been accepted for many decades. Nobody has raised any serious objections (even though I believe the study was used in the Scopes trial), and in none of the three studies has anyone come out to protest how the results are being used. I also don't think it's credible to suggest that the scientists didn't know what was going on, particularly since so many expressed disbelief rather than simple uncertainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

If most read “in expectation of receiving an answer” the same as if the question was asked something like “in the possibility or hope of receiving an answer”; then I guess I am being too literal in my interpretation of the question.

Given an incorrect understanding of the question on my part, my read on what the % actually say would be also be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn

11-06-2007, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone give a single example of a case in the course of all of human history where there was a high correlation between intelligence and a belief when the belief was wrong? Specifically, I mean a belief not held by everyone where there were 2 or more possible sets of belief, where the correct one was held by a group of lesser average intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=release&ID=106

Splendour

11-06-2007, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone give a single example of a case in the course of all of human history where there was a high correlation between intelligence and a belief when the belief was wrong? Specifically, I mean a belief not held by everyone where there were 2 or more possible sets of belief, where the correct one was held by a group of lesser average intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=release&ID=106

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the Marxists: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. They actually thought communism would work economically. What they didn't expect was the key role that individual incentive plays in production.

Mendacious

11-06-2007, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is also irrelevant. In a general population that is >99.99% nominally religious, of course any subset of the population is going to contain more theists than atheists. The question is whether the proportion of atheists in the subset is consistent with the proportion of atheists in the general population. If only 0.01% of the general population are atheists, then if even 1% of scientists are unbelievers atheists are over represented by a factor of 100. That is, very smart people are 100 times more likely to be atheists. And I think you would find this to be true since 1600. It has certainly been true since Leuba's time.

I think ZJ overstates his case, but it definitely means something if smart people are many times (tens or even hundreds of times!) more likely to be atheists than people of average intelligence. It doesn't necessarily mean the atheists are right - maybe smart people tend to be prideful, and pride leads to atheism, there are other explanations - but it's a striking phenomenon and it should be a concern for theists (assuming that theists are interested in being rational).

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed where the studies showed any numbers like you describe. In the survey I looked at, 16% of the world's population is non-religeous-- and more like 25% if you don't include religeons with deities (such as budhism). The data that I looked at from OP's post was 1) data that suggested the countries with higher intelligence tended to have more atheists, and a study that shows that a high percentage of academics/scientists who presumably have high IQ's are atheist.

It is not remotely surprise to me that a very small intelligent subset of the world who's professions require them to be dispassionate and emperical are non-believers.

It would be equally unsurprising that the vast majority of those with moronic intelligence (who can't think for themselves) are believers. So far, I am unpersuaded that there is much validity to the statistics, and even less persuaded that the greater weight of intelligence is a particularly compelling argument for the existence or non-existence of God.

tame_deuces

11-06-2007, 05:12 PM

M: On the point on scientists being dispassionate, I have found the best scientists to be very passionate about what they do. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

David Sklansky

11-06-2007, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not much persuaded by this argument.

A 6 point difference between the IQ's of atheists and "believers" of some sort does not really impress me. The fact that the atheists win 103 to 97 is slightly interesting but not decisive on the ultimate question.

[/ QUOTE ]

The average difference is irrelevant. Very high IQs actually get very low representation that way - the IQ scale is statistical, higher IQs are more rare by definition. Therefore those in the 100 range are going to represent the majority, by definition. Even if everyone with a 150+ IQ is atheist, the mean difference between atheists and theists may be relatively small. We're looking at how the tendency toward atheism grows with intelligence, and mashing things together into an average isn't a good way to look at that. The correlation is relevant, not the mean difference.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I would be willing to wager that if it were possible to ascertain the total number of people that are 2 standard deviations from the mean (which I think is the definition of genuis) since the 1600's or so, the number of atheists would be dwarfed by the number of those who believed in some sort of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also irrelevant. In a general population that is >99.99% nominally religious, of course any subset of the population is going to contain more theists than atheists. The question is whether the proportion of atheists in the subset is consistent with the proportion of atheists in the general population. If only 0.01% of the general population are atheists, then if even 1% of scientists are unbelievers atheists are over represented by a factor of 100. That is, very smart people are 100 times more likely to be atheists. And I think you would find this to be true since 1600. It has certainly been true since Leuba's time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your two perfectly correct points are themselves good exmples of why highly intelligent people are so much more likely to get things right. Both your points immediately struck me as well when I first read the post you were refuting, even as I realized most people wouldn't see it. In fact most people will have difficulty seeing it even after reading your post.

MrBlah

11-07-2007, 11:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ] What makes you think that this designer would be non omnipotent? Why would our rules of logic also apply outside of our universe?

Alex-db

11-07-2007, 12:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ] What makes you think that this designer would be non omnipotent? Why would our rules of logic also apply outside of our universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because omnipotence is a rediculous super-power and we have no indication its possible for anything to posses it; at the moment its nothing more than a word that humans made up.

Why assume logic would not apply?

Mendacious

11-07-2007, 01:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not much persuaded by this argument.

A 6 point difference between the IQ's of atheists and "believers" of some sort does not really impress me. The fact that the atheists win 103 to 97 is slightly interesting but not decisive on the ultimate question.

[/ QUOTE ]

The average difference is irrelevant. Very high IQs actually get very low representation that way - the IQ scale is statistical, higher IQs are more rare by definition. Therefore those in the 100 range are going to represent the majority, by definition. Even if everyone with a 150+ IQ is atheist, the mean difference between atheists and theists may be relatively small. We're looking at how the tendency toward atheism grows with intelligence, and mashing things together into an average isn't a good way to look at that. The correlation is relevant, not the mean difference.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I would be willing to wager that if it were possible to ascertain the total number of people that are 2 standard deviations from the mean (which I think is the definition of genuis) since the 1600's or so, the number of atheists would be dwarfed by the number of those who believed in some sort of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also irrelevant. In a general population that is >99.99% nominally religious, of course any subset of the population is going to contain more theists than atheists. The question is whether the proportion of atheists in the subset is consistent with the proportion of atheists in the general population. If only 0.01% of the general population are atheists, then if even 1% of scientists are unbelievers atheists are over represented by a factor of 100. That is, very smart people are 100 times more likely to be atheists. And I think you would find this to be true since 1600. It has certainly been true since Leuba's time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your two perfectly correct points are themselves good exmples of why highly intelligent people are so much more likely to get things right. Both your points immediately struck me as well when I first read the post you were refuting, even as I realized most people wouldn't see it. In fact most people will have difficulty seeing it even after reading your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how either of these responses was a "refutation". On the first point, we were in agreement, the slight difference around the "fat part" of the bell curve is NOT persuasive of anything.

As to the second point, I questioned the breadth of the data. His saying (falaciously) that 99.9% of the general population is nominally religeous is NOT a refutation, it is just a false statement. And making up data that "very smart people" are 100 times more likely to be atheists isn't either-- though if it were true it would have a lot more persuasive value and I would agree.

The two studies that I looked at dealt with atheism and the average intelligence of populations, AND an incredibly small sample of the intelligent population's (namely scientists and academicians, whose fields tend to promote strict empiricism) beliefs. I don't think I could cherry pick a group more inclined to be atheist and intelligent.

My point in bringing up the 15th Century was to raise the following questions:

1) Excluding scientific knowledge, are the "geniuses" of today posess any greater reasoning capacity than the "geniuses" of prior eras. (I would say negligbly if any).

2) To what extent have advancements in science provided any conclusive evidence for or against a divine being responsible for creation-- assuming that is a minimal definition of "God" shared by the predominate religions of our time. (I would say science has shed no light on this at all, but those more inclined towards science would probably disagree, or find the lack of evidence more compelling).

But assuming both of these points to be true, AND that the geniuses of today are less likely to believe in God, how does this change the interpretation of the data? I would argue it has more to do with the "training" of geniuses of different eras, and that therefore this has more to do with a bias towards a certain type of education and methodology than any greater power of reasoning. Especially since the "geniuses' surveyed invariably are the MOST rigorous adherants to the methodology of the day.

I will put it one final way.

I would assume that the greater one's capacity to comprehend and explain the world in empirical terms, the LESS accepting they are of the propositions that some things defy comprehension or explaination in empirical terms.

When no one is left that believes in God, we will have become him.

ZeeJustin

11-07-2007, 02:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1) Excluding scientific knowledge, are the "geniuses" of today posess any greater reasoning capacity than the "geniuses" of prior eras.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does evidence that the exodus never happened count as non scientific knowledge? Do statistics of how many religions there are (which is PROOF that the vast majority of people are wrong) count as non scientific knowledge? Etc.

[ QUOTE ]
2) To what extent have advancements in science provided any conclusive evidence for or against a divine being responsible for creation-- assuming that is a minimal definition of "God" shared by the predominate religions of our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

God(s) was often invented just to explain the unexplainable. Science shows we can explain almost everything.

Science has effectively refuted basically every major religion, whether it be through carbon dating, evolution, or even finding grammatical errors in the Qur'an.

So I would say yes, science has shed A LOT on the matter at hand, and there is more reason now than there ever has been before to not believe in god. Even most theists will admit that is true, especially those that disagree with evolution, and think evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume that the greater one's capacity to comprehend and explain the world in empirical terms, the LESS accepting they are of the propositions that some things defy comprehension or explanation in empirical terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it baffling that you use this as reason to believe that there probably is a God.

Mendacious

11-07-2007, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Excluding scientific knowledge, are the "geniuses" of today posess any greater reasoning capacity than the "geniuses" of prior eras.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does evidence that the exodus never happened count as non scientific knowledge? Do statistics of how many religions there are (which is PROOF that the vast majority of people are wrong) count as non scientific knowledge? Etc.

[ QUOTE ]
2) To what extent have advancements in science provided any conclusive evidence for or against a divine being responsible for creation-- assuming that is a minimal definition of "God" shared by the predominate religions of our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

God(s) was often invented just to explain the unexplainable. Science shows we can explain almost everything.

Science has effectively refuted basically every major religion, whether it be through carbon dating, evolution, or even finding grammatical errors in the Qur'an.

So I would say yes, science has shed A LOT on the matter at hand, and there is more reason now than there ever has been before to not believe in god. Even most theists will admit that is true, especially those that disagree with evolution, and think evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume that the greater one's capacity to comprehend and explain the world in empirical terms, the LESS accepting they are of the propositions that some things defy comprehension or explanation in empirical terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it baffling that you use this as reason to believe that there probably is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you understood my point in 1) My point was are we possessed of greater reasoning capacity as a species than we were 400 years ago? I suspect not.

2) There is definitely a lot of truth to your second point. I guess I don't see this necessarily as a refutation of God, rather than more of a chrystalization of what the concept must embody-- or a seperation of the unnecessary and false. It certainly should explode a lot of false notions about God in any rational person.

3) I didn't set out to prove God's existance or provide reasons for it. I was simply trying to point out where I saw problems with the persuasiveness of your point. I viewed it as a virtual truism that the MORE you can explain the less likely you are to believe in the unexplainable...(which coincides's perfectly with the statistics) however this very natural correlation sheds absolutely no light whatsoever on whether God exists. It is just a natural confidence that one derives from believing he has it all figured out.

As for myself, I struggle to know if there is a God, and what is his/her nature. I really don't presume to know. I can understand how some would unequivically believe in God, especially those who feel they have experienced contact firsthadn, and I can understand how some would be agnostic. Atheism makes no sense to me at all. But I don't think it is bad, just puzzling and sad.

I find Human's almost universal tendancy to believe in an external source for concepts of "higher" morality, and to attribute creation to a "being" to be fascinating. I am frustrated that I will never be able to undo the fact that these concepts are also very socialized, but I feel that they are innate as well. We seem wired to believe in God, and that certainly gives me reason to inquire further into understanding of why.

madnak

11-07-2007, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As to the second point, I questioned the breadth of the data. His saying (falaciously) that 99.9% of the general population is nominally religeous

[/ QUOTE ]

In Europe in 1600. When the penalty for heresy is death, people tend to say they're religious. I don't think there exist any actual statistical data so 99.99% is obviously speculative (as is 1%). The goal was to have something appropriate for the era and with the same ratio as today.

[ QUOTE ]
is NOT a refutation, it is just a false statement. And making up data that "very smart people" are 100 times more likely to be atheists isn't either-- though if it were true it would have a lot more persuasive value and I would agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, less than .5% of the general population in the US are atheists. But almost 50% of the scientists (considerably more of the top scientists) are. This is based on adherents.org and the Larson/Witham study discussed in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Excluding scientific knowledge, are the "geniuses" of today posess any greater reasoning capacity than the "geniuses" of prior eras. (I would say negligbly if any).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people are much, much smarter today than they have ever been in the past.

As for the rest, I don't much care.

madnak

11-07-2007, 04:16 PM

Oh also, the position of some on these boards is that scientists and mathematicians are the smartest people in the world. The point in the OP is probably being made on the basis of that assumption.

ZeeJustin

11-07-2007, 04:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh also, the position of some on these boards is that scientists and mathematicians are the smartest people in the world. The point in the OP is probably being made on the basis of that assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like the way you phrased it, but I think they are MUCH smarter than average, and their profession makes them even more likely to be right than their intelligence would indicate.

madnak

11-07-2007, 04:29 PM

Well, they're almost all "geniuses" by Mendacious's standard.

Mendacious

11-07-2007, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, less than .5% of the general population in the US are atheists. But almost 50% of the scientists (considerably more of the top scientists) are. This is based on adherents.org and the Larson/Witham study discussed in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also took my statistics from adherents.com and they placed the % of non-religeous God worldwide at 16% and if you add budhism (which is not based on a supreme being) it is more like 22%. They state the population of atheists/agnostics in the US at between 3-9% (very strange range). See links below.

As for Larsen, again, "scientists" is a very "cherry picked" portion of the population of intelligent people. A portion which has historically been at odds with the Church for centuries, and almost religeously empirical only in there evaluation of any proposition.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

[ QUOTE ]
I think people are much, much smarter today than they have ever been in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

tame_deuces

11-07-2007, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh also, the position of some on these boards is that scientists and mathematicians are the smartest people in the world. The point in the OP is probably being made on the basis of that assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

This explains a lot. I'll grant that they are potentially extremely useful, but smarter...nah. That just sounds like inbred arrogance to me.

Phil153

11-07-2007, 04:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I would be willing to wager that if it were possible to ascertain the total number of people that are 2 standard deviations from the mean (which I think is the definition of genuis) since the 1600's or so, the number of atheists would be dwarfed by the number of those who believed in some sort of God.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about people who are living right now?

Your stipulation "since the 1600s or so" is interesting. The thing is, prior to discovery of evolution, cells, the brain, the age of the earth, an understanding of emergence, and the universe beyond our solar system, it was almost reasonable to believe in a designer of some sort. Just like it was entirely reasonable for natives of just about every civilization to believe that the weather was caused by spirits or Gods or that sickness was caused by demons or God's displeasure (as opposed to tiny men multiplying in your bodily fluids). In the absence of a causative link, or even a plausible theory, people default to putting familiar purpose on things.

The thing is, God is the default position, and was especially in the 1600s in the West. Just like in a Muslim country, belief in Muhammed was/is default. Or in India, belief in Hinduism. People of centuries past were raised with Christianity as truth. They were indoctrinated with all kinds of strange tales such as Noah's flood, and taught them as absolute fact. Social pressures and reinforcements kept them believing (not to mention, the threat of being accused of heresy).

So to become an atheist, someone has to first see, and then be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is no God as defined by Christianity. Only recently did the knowledge of our world become sufficient that God was expelled from most of his hidey-holes, and biblical stories once presented as fact were shown to blatant falsehoods, nothing more than the tales of silly tribes wandering the desert.

Comparing the 1600s is like asking the smartest four year olds if they believe in Santa. They simply don't know enough about the world to know if Santa is possible or likely, and the Santa belief is reinforced by all those around them. Plus, presents magically appear under the tree! Even the smartest don't have the tools to find a way out of that one.

The 1900s is like asking a kid who's 10 or so - he's learnt so much about his world that he can start to make informed commentary about things he can't see.

And I'm not sure about the situation in the OP - perhaps intelligence was also correlated with atheism in the 1600s.

[ QUOTE ]
I find Human's almost universal tendancy to believe in an external source for concepts of "higher" morality, and to attribute creation to a "being" to be fascinating. I am frustrated that I will never be able to undo the fact that these concepts are also very socialized, but I feel that they are innate as well. We seem wired to believe in God, and that certainly gives me reason to inquire further into understanding of why.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you find the almost universal tendency to attribute the weather to God(s) interesting as well? Because it's exactly the same mechanism. People tend to humanize and add conscious purpose to things they don't understand. They used to do that with just about everything we now know to be purely indifferent mechanics. It seems that everywhere a light is shone into a dark area of human knowledge, God disappears, scuttling like a cockroach to his next hiding place.

MrBlah

11-07-2007, 05:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A non omnipotent intelligent designer of some sort, who had something to do with the big bang, the laws of physics, and perhaps even the existence of consciousness, is reasonably likely in my mind. It will be less likely if conscious computers are ever made. Less likely still if the double slit experiment is ever explained better.

[/ QUOTE ] What makes you think that this designer would be non omnipotent? Why would our rules of logic also apply outside of our universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because omnipotence is a rediculous super-power and we have no indication its possible for anything to posses it; at the moment its nothing more than a word that humans made up.

Why assume logic would not apply?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not assuming that logic does not apply. I read DS's statement as, "we know very little about what's happening or happened outside of our universe, so let's not assume too much" and therefore found it an odd specification. I was honestly curious about his reasoning and didn't mean to imply that it was wrong.

Mendacious

11-07-2007, 06:09 PM

Phil, I agree belief in God seems to be a default position. Clearly there is a very large social component to this, and to some degree a component of convenience of explanation. I tend to think there is more at work-- especially when it comes to notions of "good and evil".

As to your remarks about thinkers of past eras, I strongly disagree. Questions of this nature have been dissected by some incredible minds for milleniums. And, I don't think most of the thought hinges on totally primative notions. People all over the world have been using math to predict and scientific methodology to track the unknown for such a long time...see the many very precise astrological calculalations and structures based on those calculations throughtout the ancient world. People have been bringing reasoning, observation and rational thought to bear on these issues for many many centuries. Moreover, the dominant religeons have not been about "explaining the weather" for milleniums as well. The teachings of Jesus are almost entirely philisophical and have nothing to do with explaining the weather, or attempts to establish theocracy-- far from it.

Don't get me wrong, science has dispelled a great deal of mythology, but count me amongst the people that the more they understand of the Universe, the more persuaded they are of the existence of an architectural force, AND the more my experience leads me to believe that there is an aspect of conciousness that exceeds any laws of physics or biology.

madnak

11-07-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I also took my statistics from adherents.com and they placed the % of non-religeous God worldwide at 16% and if you add budhism (which is not based on a supreme being) it is more like 22%. They state the population of atheists/agnostics in the US at between 3-9% (very strange range). See links below.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, .com not .org.

But I'm not talking about agnostics. I'm talking about atheists. From the main ranking page (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) on the secular/nonreligious/agnostic/atheist section:

"This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States."

This figure is validated in other places. The standard of self-described atheism is a bit different in practice (but not in theory) from the standard of disbelief in God (used in the scientist survey), and you might argue that as much as 2% of the population fits the "disbelief" standard. I say you're mincing words, but even if top scientists are "only" 25 times more likely to be atheists, that's something. I think your explanation is satisfactory based on what we know now, but the discrepancy is certainly huge enough to merit some investigation.

Phil153

11-07-2007, 06:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Questions of this nature have been dissected by some incredible minds for milleniums.

[/ QUOTE ]
Incredible minds with barely any knowledge about anything. I'm not sure that people realize the amazing leap in understanding that has happened in the last two centuries. We take the knowledge of genes, germs, evolution, geology, meteorology, cosmology, the brain, microscopy and so on for granted these days. They didn't exist a few hundred years ago. All people knew was a mysterious world and an even more mysterious "heavens", where nothing really made sense without a designer. Thus the God hypothesis was perfectly reasonable.

Now, we have a direct and strong link between almost everything we know and the basic laws of physics. Almost every spot where God was hypothesized has been shown to be not God at all. That should give any thinking man incredible pause when invoking God for the mysterious. No other hypothesis in the history of mankind has such a horrible record at being wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, science has dispelled a great deal of mythology, but count me amongst the people that the more they understand of the Universe, the more persuaded they are of the existence of an architectural force

[/ QUOTE ]
The universe is awe inspiring and miraculous, but it's also fundamentally strange. The odds of it conforming to simplistic human understanding and expectation (i.e. a conscious dad-like figure who loves us made the world) is minuscule. The Copernican Principle has been validated over and over and the God hypothesis has been crushed again and again.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the dominant religeons have not been about "explaining the weather" for milleniums as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. But the idea is the same - people invoke a conscious entity behind forces or structures they can't understand. Western knowledge has just set the bar at a different point.

Consciousness remains a mystery, I agree, but a lot less than it once was with a direct link between basic physics and the intelligence via the brain and its cells. If you want to invoke God in the last remaining mysteries of life, that's fair enough. But be aware that people have been doing exactly that for thousands of years, and history has made fools of them.

And a final point...why God? Why can't the universe just "be", without invoking retarded notions of a conscious entity that we can relate to? If God exists, the concept of God is not God.

Mendacious

11-07-2007, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also took my statistics from adherents.com and they placed the % of non-religeous God worldwide at 16% and if you add budhism (which is not based on a supreme being) it is more like 22%. They state the population of atheists/agnostics in the US at between 3-9% (very strange range). See links below.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, .com not .org.

But I'm not talking about agnostics. I'm talking about atheists. From the main ranking page (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) on the secular/nonreligious/agnostic/atheist section:

"This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States."

This figure is validated in other places. The standard of self-described atheism is a bit different in practice (but not in theory) from the standard of disbelief in God (used in the scientist survey), and you might argue that as much as 2% of the population fits the "disbelief" standard. I say you're mincing words, but even if top scientists are "only" 25 times more likely to be atheists, that's something. I think your explanation is satisfactory based on what we know now, but the discrepancy is certainly huge enough to merit some investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am willing to accept that a much larger percentage of scientists (most of whom are highly intelligent) are atheist than the general population. As to whether this is a persuasive argument that God does not exist, I don't believe it is very conclusive, but it does make interesting fodder for discussion/investigation. As I have said in other posts, I would expect this correlation with intelligence to some degree, that it is as high as it is amongst scientists either suggests HUGE bias, or merits further consideration.

madnak

11-07-2007, 06:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am willing to accept that a much larger percentage of scientists (most of whom are highly intelligent) are atheist than the general population. As to whether this is a persuasive argument that God does not exist, I don't believe it is very conclusive, but it does make interesting fodder for discussion/investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's much of an argument. It's certainly no more convincing to me than "most people are religious, so religion must be correct."

[ QUOTE ]
As I have said in other posts, I would expect this correlation with intelligence to some degree, that it is as high as it is amongst scientists either suggests HUGE bias, or merits further consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think it merits investigation regardless of religious persepctive. We don't understand much about how people form their beliefs, so it's possible that these anomalies can teach us something.

CrayZee

11-07-2007, 07:27 PM

Proof by authority heuristic?

How much should the avg person appeal to this? 80%? So when someone says, "Do you believe in God?" They can say, "Absolutely, 20%."

What about something like global warming?

Mendacious

11-07-2007, 10:05 PM

One thing I find interesting about this thread. Despite the fact that many appear to believe that science has shed greater light on this question (than we was known in the 1600s), I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God. Instead, interestingly, DS cited two facts of modern science (the photon/slit experiment) and our lack of ability to produce computers with conciousness) as evidence that God may exist.

In fact, I would say that Zee Justin's argument/premise is an argument that probably could have been made in principle (though with far less statistical accuracy) by the ancient Greeks very efficiently. (Hell it probably WAS made by some ancient Greek Philosopher).

At its core this remains more a question of philosophy than science.

Sephus

11-07-2007, 10:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

how could it? all it can do is help refute arguments presented in support of the existence of god.

madnak

11-07-2007, 11:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I find interesting about this thread. Despite the fact that many appear to believe that science has shed greater light on this question (than we was known in the 1600s), I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God. Instead, interestingly, DS cited two facts of modern science (the photon/slit experiment) and our lack of ability to produce computers with conciousness) as evidence that God may exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science says nothing about God. Period.

I think David is a sloppy thinker in this regard. He believes in a "God of the gaps." When something is unexplained, he considers God to be a rational explanation. That's why the double slit experiment is relevant to him, and why he thinks the justification for believing in God was greater in the past.

But whether or not a phenomenon has been explained has no bearing on the question of God.

ZeeJustin

11-07-2007, 11:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every popular definition of God has been refuted by science.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead, interestingly, DS cited two facts of modern science (the photon/slit experiment) and our lack of ability to produce computers with conciousness) as evidence that God may exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I'm concerned, David is an atheist, even if he refuses to call himself one. He acknowledges the possibility of a non omnipotent creator, as do I. But that's more because of the simulation argument than being religious. In other words, if science progresses to the point where we can create universes, that does not make us Gods. We are still mortals.

Furthermore, citing two of the only scientific uncertainties out there as reason to believe in God is completely unfair. Going by past data, it's reasonable to assume we will figure those out within the next 15 years, and more importantly, the burden of proof is obviously on the theists.

Mendacious

11-07-2007, 11:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

how could it? all it can do is help refute arguments presented in support of the existence of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I will grant the proving a negative is a much more difficult proposition. I suppose the "burden of persuasion" should be on those who say God exists.

David Sklansky

11-08-2007, 01:28 AM

"I think David is a sloppy thinker in this regard. He believes in a "God of the gaps." When something is unexplained, he considers God to be a rational explanation. That's why the double slit experiment is relevant to him, and why he thinks the justification for believing in God was greater in the past."

I may have never spelled it out because I thought it was self evident. But you are totally wrong when you say that I think that God is a rational explanation for unexplained events. It is only very specific unexplained stuff that relates to the things that God is supposed to care about, that makes me wonder. The fact that we can't explain why the speed of light is a certain number of proton widths per second is also unexplained, as far as I know. Do you think I think that is evidence for God?

madnak

11-08-2007, 01:44 AM

Why do the results of the double-slit experiment represent any greater evidence of God than the values of the universal constants? If religious people had special healing powers, or if prayers had measurable effects, or if very specific religious prophecies came true, it would be another story.

thesnowman22

11-08-2007, 03:50 AM

This is such a dumb argument.

First of all, people who are "highly intellignet" are many times almost socially deficient and lack much common sense. Also, many people who are theists are highly intelligent.

If 80% of americans believe in a supreme being, that in itself almost guarantees that the reults are skewed.

Also, belief in some knd of supreme being is such a wide range- this covers Christians, Muslims, and thousands of other religous and non-religous people.

Also, the people who talk about how atheists are smarter are atheists, which obvioulsy is a bias.

I know I see countless people in our country who are succcessful, intelligent and also believe in God.

I look at many of our leaders and they are theists.

I have been around people in my life who are "more intelligent" than me as far as IQ (ok, thats not true- a few though), but I have never met one who is "smarter". The ability to use common sense, relate to people socially, understand others' point of view, and the ability to admit when you are wrong seem to be traits such "highly intellignet' people lack. I was in Academically gifted classes with a kid who was unreal smart, but ended up working at Mickey D's because he was so socially and common sense defecient.

If there is a God, and i believe their is, I'm guessing he really doesnt care how smart u think u are.

And the bottom line here, as ive said before, is that none of us really know. We can believe all we want, but by the time we find out the truth, it will be too late.

The difference is, if Im wrong I dont lose anything.

Alex-db

11-08-2007, 06:55 AM

thesnowman22,

I think you just added a vote in favour of the atheists position /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Basically, each sentence contains something that is factually wrong or spurious at best. Your beliefs contain a lot of prejudices and assumptions that are not thought through in the spririt of science or philosophy.

Drag

11-08-2007, 09:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The difference is, if Im wrong I dont lose anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to adress just this part of your post.

If you wrong you lose a lot, as you could have lived this life another way (better way). You could have made better decisions, if you didn't think that you have an eternity in heavens.

Or to make an analogy.
Imagine that your belief requres that you doesn't move more than 100 km from the place of your birth. Are you really sure that you lose nothing if you follow such a rule?

Tree Surgeon

11-08-2007, 10:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that we can't explain why the speed of light is a certain number of proton widths per second is also unexplained...

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, really?

PairTheBoard

11-08-2007, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Jesuits are a religious group and history consistently tells us that they were an exceptionally brilliant class of theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're looking for secular outliers, run an IQ test on a cohort of Rabbis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget about Scientists, Jesuits and Rabbis. Let's poll the Bartenders.

[ QUOTE ]
GaSSPaNiCC -

Chris Langan a person who has been recorded with the highest IQ in the world believes you can prove the afterlife and God through Mathematics, and no he is not religious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA0gjyXG5O0

[/ QUOTE ]

At the end of the video Langan says he works in a bar.

PairTheBoard

thesnowman22

11-10-2007, 11:39 AM

I dont have time yo respond this sec- Ill try to later. But obvioulsy we disagree.

thesnowman22

11-10-2007, 01:45 PM

Please excuse my misspells, when i type fast and think fast my fingers dont keep up hope u can read it anyway.

ok Alex, lets examine my statements.

1) "Many people who are "highly intellignet" are many times almost socially defecient and lack common sense"- Notice I said "many", not "most" or "on average". The "highly intell." people we are talking about are the very upper limit of IQ, and to argue that this is not a problem with a nuber of them is wrong.

2) "If 80% of Americans believe in a supreme being, that in itslef almost guarantees the results are skewed" - This is the only statement I made u could argue is wrong. However, a large % of people who "believe in a supreme being" are not really religous, but merely are theists, two different things. Anyway, I mite give u a little credit for this one, but its pretty minor.

3) "Belief in a supreme being is such a wide range" My point obvioulsy is that some people who believe in a supreme being are Christians, some are Muslims, some are not religous at all but just believe in some type of supreme being. To lump all of these together is wrong. They can be so different as to not even really resemble each other. The devout Muslim who prays 5x a day has little or nothing in common with the redneck in the traioler park who doesnt even go to church but believes in a God, and to lump them together is ridiculous.

4) "People who talk about atheists being smarter are atheist, which in itself is a bias"- While i actually might not argue with the premise that the average IQ of the whatever % of Americans is hgiher than that of the other whatever %, the fact is if you play on the team you think more highly of your team. If youre a Democrat, you are more likely to think Dems are correct, so I think any argument made by a person for thier owngroup could be biased. i mean, I love athletics, and I would argue fervently for their worth, but even if Im right, my bias still exists.

5) "I see many countless people who are successful and intelligent who are theists"- No way to argue with this statement. Obvioulsy you could change the word "theists" to atheists" and it would still be true, but to argue its false is ludicrous.

6) "I look at many of our leaders and they are theiests"- Also impossible to dispute. Notice I didnt say that "most" or "the majority" of leaders fit this.

7) The next paragraph is about a personal experience, and while there is one sentence in it which says something about "many" highly intell. people lacking certain traits, AGAIN- It was not meant to appl y to all people who are super smart, just a %.

8) ' "If there is a God, and i believe there is, I'm guessing he really doesnt care how smart u think u are"- Notice I said IF there is a God and "Im guessing" to show it was MY opinion. Im admitting its my opinion guy, its not represented as fact.

9) "the bottom line is none of us really know"- Well die one day. Until then, were all arguing opinion anyway.

10) "If im wrong I dont lose anything" Im speaking in terms of eternal life, not happiness on earth. of course i am happy, and if I found out tommorrow there was no God, I would not immediatley go on a drunken sex spree anyway.

YOUR statement that "your beliefs contain a lot of prejudices and assumptions that are not thought through in the spirit of science and philosophy"- Now, "beliefs" are OF CORSE made up of a person's prejudices and assumptions, thats why they are personal beliefs. What does that have to do with anything? As for the "spirit" of science or philosophy, I could give a rats azz about that. We need to seperate the religous discussion on this board to their own forum then, because "science" is never going to fit with the religous arguments anyway. Cant we just have a good argument?

Look, the actual discussion is not wheteher the average atheist is smarter than the average theist, but that this is a good argument for atheism. Two different discussions.

The bottom line is there are very intellignet atheists, and very intelligent theists. If you are a theist and u suddenly turn atheist, you dont get smarter. So to "argue for atheism" is silly. So if u convince me youre right and i turn atheist, do i gain 10 IQ points?

The gist of my post was that the argument itself is silly. To argue that "atheism is better because the average atheist is smarter" or that "there is no God because the people who do not believe in God are smarter than those who do" is ridiculous. There are just too many people on both sides who dont fit one mold. I know blindingly intelligent theists and blindingly dumb atheista and vice versa.

So I dont see how "each sentence contains somethign factually wrong".

Subfallen

11-10-2007, 02:12 PM

snowman -

ZJ's argument depends on belief trends, not on specific believers. So when you say...

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is there are very intellignet atheists, and very intelligent theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

...you're completely missing the point. The bottom line is that, among very intelligent people, atheists are wildly over-represented.

If you don't believe God's existence is a subject amenable to rational inquiry, obviously you don't believe this trend means anything...except maybe that God hates smart people.

But if you believe there is a rationally "best" response to the proposition "God exists", then this trend constitutes a strong argument that belief in God is irrational.

dragonystic

11-10-2007, 02:24 PM

Only 40% of Ivy league professors are atheists.

*sigh*

thesnowman22

11-10-2007, 02:55 PM

I realize what you are saying, sub, but what im saying is that even if athiests are overly represented among highly intelligent people, that is not really an argument for atheism.

And I really dont think were even discussing whether God exists, we're discussing one portion of an argument.

And the "rational" response is not always the correct one. We really cant come up with the answer as to whether God exists, even if you could win the "rationality" arguemnt. Of course, i could argue the other side of that one too, but we werent really discussing that.

I would argue, and obvioulsy I havent done a scientific study, but I think many "highly intellignet" people can be very inflexible and have a blind spot as to their own knowledge and abilities. "IQ" intellignece and applied intelligence is not always the same. All you have to do is read some of Sklanky's posts on here to see that.

To argue that one side of an argument having more "smart" people than another automatically makes it correct is just dreaming. A lot of "highly intellignet" people make stupid decions daily.

And i guess I do think that God's existence is able to be argued for or against rationally, i dont think it can be absolutely determined, and certainly not by which side has the higher average IQ.

Subfallen

11-10-2007, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of "highly intellignet" people make stupid decions daily.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're equivocating by using "intelligence" in so many different ways. The only kind of intelligence relevant to this discussion is the kind that extrapolates from observation to rational truth. Yes, Godel starved himself to death and Newton couldn't get laid, but that's irrelevant to Incompleteness and Classical Mechanics.

If you believe God's existence is in the domain of rational metaphysics, then atheism is a strong favorite to be the best rational interpretation of reality. Not even close.

But, again, most religions consider God's existence to be in the realm of faith, not reason, so ZJ's argument is irrelevant to a true believer anyways.

madnak

11-10-2007, 06:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe God's existence is in the domain of rational metaphysics, then atheism is a strong favorite to be the best rational interpretation of reality. Not even close.

But, again, most religions consider God's existence to be in the realm of faith, not reason, so ZJ's argument is irrelevant to a true believer anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, this makes ZJ's argument circular and mostly irrelevant to everyone - believer and atheist alike.

txag007

11-10-2007, 07:39 PM

Speaking Biblically, you can't come to Christ through intelligence. You come to Christ through surrender.

Who is more likely to admit he can't do it on his own? The same character traits that often lead to wordly success can pave the road to eternal damnation.

I'm speaking generally of course, but there is certainly more to your poll than "smart people believe it so it must be true."

Sephus

11-10-2007, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Biblically speaking, you cannot come to Christ through logic. You come to Christ through surrender.

Who is more likely to admit he can't do it on his own?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't answer the question "can i do it on my own?" without employing logical reasoning.

dragonystic

11-10-2007, 08:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Who is more likely to admit he can't do it on his own?

[/ QUOTE ]

people that cant do it on their own

ZeeJustin

11-10-2007, 10:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you believe God's existence is in the domain of rational metaphysics, then atheism is a strong favorite to be the best rational interpretation of reality. Not even close.

But, again, most religions consider God's existence to be in the realm of faith, not reason, so ZJ's argument is irrelevant to a true believer anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, this makes ZJ's argument circular and mostly irrelevant to everyone - believer and atheist alike.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same thing when I read snowman's point. Very unfortunate indeed when logic and reason are made irrelevant.

madnak

11-11-2007, 01:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking the same thing when I read snowman's point. Very unfortunate indeed when logic and reason are made irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still, if the believers don't really have God telling them to believe, then their position won't hold out forever against the onslaught of sensible thinking. It could take many generations, but eventually religion (as we know it) will fade away.

tame_deuces

11-11-2007, 10:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
snowman -

ZJ's argument depends on belief trends, not on specific believers. So when you say...

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is there are very intellignet atheists, and very intelligent theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

...you're completely missing the point. The bottom line is that, among very intelligent people, atheists are wildly over-represented.

If you don't believe God's existence is a subject amenable to rational inquiry, obviously you don't believe this trend means anything...except maybe that God hates smart people.

But if you believe there is a rationally "best" response to the proposition "God exists", then this trend constitutes a strong argument that belief in God is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a more apt description would be 'currently irrational'. We shouldn't reject what we can't know based on what a proposed 'elite' of thinkers holds as a majority view.

If we did this we would risk blocking developments in knowledge. You have some bad examples of this in science. Phlogiston theory is my favourite.