Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   Science, Math, and Philosophy (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=49)
-   -   Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=539536)

ZeeJustin 11-06-2007 05:45 AM

Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
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 :

[ 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 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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.

Subfallen 11-06-2007 06:45 AM

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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 ]

I did not mean to imply you were or were not atheist. I have a bit of an understanding of your “philosophy” but was not trying to speak for you.

Oh, never mind, I got it, you were just pointing out there would be no need for a paternity test.

RJT 11-06-2007 06:59 AM

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Subfallen 11-06-2007 07:13 AM

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
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.

Drag 11-06-2007 08:53 AM

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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.

[/ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

RJT 11-06-2007 09:55 AM

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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 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

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 ]

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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that in 1600 everyone had the same thoughts regarding general relativity, you need an example in which the group of smart ppl was wrong while the less smart were right.

Drag 11-06-2007 10:29 AM

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 

From an Nature 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 

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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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 :

[ 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 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_releas...-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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
<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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism
 
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

Re: Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Ath
 
[ 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.../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

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 ]

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.