Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism

[RJT]

[ 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.

[Mendacious]

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.

[Alex-db]

[ 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]

[Mendacious]

[ 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.

[valenzuela]

[ 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.

[madnak]

[ 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).

[Mendacious]

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

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

[tame_deuces]

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]

[David Sklansky]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[Mendacious]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will put it one final way.

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

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