Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

"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?

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

thesnowman22,

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

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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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?

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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?

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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".

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

Only 40% of Ivy league professors are atheists.

*sigh*

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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."

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

people that cant do it on their own

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ 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.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

Surely the 'right' group is the one that has the most adaptive and or happy beliefs.

You wana do correlatory scores on fat lonely boffins V collectivist societys for happiness?

LMAO.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

[ 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 ]

Whenever science was wrong the less intelligent group was right. The idea of Ether was probably believed only by scientists who most likely were more intelligent than the rest.
Similarly sometimes the weaker chess player (the less intelligent) beats the stronger one which means that he was right when analizing a number of key positions. (He possibly didn't even think of something that was misevaluated by his opponent)
This are only exceptions though and I agree with your original proposition.

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whenever science was wrong the less intelligent group was right. The idea of Ether was probably believed only by scientists who most likely were more intelligent than the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm. I'm surprised the coalminer even knew about light waves never mind he had a correct explanation for them. Was it the quantum one or ??

luckyme

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whenever science was wrong the less intelligent group was right. The idea of Ether was probably believed only by scientists who most likely were more intelligent than the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm. I'm surprised the coalminer even knew about light..

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I didn't know they couldn't come out.