Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism

[RJT]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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).