Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism

[vhawk01]

[ 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 ]

Yawn, we've done this over and over, if Stalinist Russia counts as an atheistic society (your position) then so does the US, and the US is the greatest nation to have ever existed. Stop with this old saw any time.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Gods fit that criterion. I believe that was Leuba's stated purpose in selecting it. And yes, in the real world there are few who believe in a personal God but not in answers to prayers - Christianity is really the prime target here and there's no question of it in Christianity. I already mentioned that some people thought the definition was too narrow.

At any rate the criteria have been accepted for many decades. Nobody has raised any serious objections (even though I believe the study was used in the Scopes trial), and in none of the three studies has anyone come out to protest how the results are being used. I also don't think it's credible to suggest that the scientists didn't know what was going on, particularly since so many expressed disbelief rather than simple uncertainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

If most read “in expectation of receiving an answer” the same as if the question was asked something like “in the possibility or hope of receiving an answer”; then I guess I am being too literal in my interpretation of the question.

Given an incorrect understanding of the question on my part, my read on what the % actually say would be also be incorrect.

[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

[InTheDark]

[ 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.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the double slit experiment, it is explained precisely with quantum mechanics

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT...DS, I have no idea what you meant with the double slit remark. Regardless of whether you are Fred or Ginger, this is basic.

[calcbandit]

Allow yourself to assume that there is a high correlation between being intelligent and being an atheist. (This is very likely the case, but instead of quibbling about survey questions, just assume it.)

What does this imply for theists?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Gods fit that criterion. I believe that was Leuba's stated purpose in selecting it. And yes, in the real world there are few who believe in a personal God but not in answers to prayers - Christianity is really the prime target here and there's no question of it in Christianity. I already mentioned that some people thought the definition was too narrow.

At any rate the criteria have been accepted for many decades. Nobody has raised any serious objections (even though I believe the study was used in the Scopes trial), and in none of the three studies has anyone come out to protest how the results are being used. I also don't think it's credible to suggest that the scientists didn't know what was going on, particularly since so many expressed disbelief rather than simple uncertainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

If most read “in expectation of receiving an answer” the same as if the question was asked something like “in the possibility or hope of receiving an answer”; then I guess I am being too literal in my interpretation of the question.

Given an incorrect understanding of the question on my part, my read on what the % actually say would be also be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?typ...ase&ID=106

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?typ...ase&ID=106

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the Marxists: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. They actually thought communism would work economically. What they didn't expect was the key role that individual incentive plays in production.

[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]