Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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?

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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%.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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?)

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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?

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

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 ]

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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?typ...ase&amp;ID=106

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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?typ...ase&amp;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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is also irrelevant. In a general population that is &gt;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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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 &gt;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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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?

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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?

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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 &gt;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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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 ]

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

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?