Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism

[Subfallen]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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]

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]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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]