% of religious and smart people vis a vis Hurricane Katrina?

[RJT]

Will there be more religious people or more smart people helping the victims in Louisiana and Mississippi? If it is that more religious people will be pitching in, what does that say about them? If it is the converse, why would intelligent people interrupt their lives to help total strangers, would they? What are the opportunity cost that they are giving up?

[xniNja]

I'd guess more religious people because those institutions are better at getting their vict.. members to donate time and money. To me all this says is that it is possible they believe helping these people is a matter of their faith, rather than a "smart" person who decided based on his financial and work situation, that he could take time off to help those who needed help.

This isn't to say that all of the religious people will blindly show up and help because their pastor or priest told them to, but I do think they are much more likely to do so.

[RJT]

“…rather than a "smart" person who decided based on his financial and work situation, that he could take time off to help those who needed help.”

I don’t understand what this means. If one could afford to, one would help? What would be his logic (reasons be) for helping? Why wouldn’t he simply stay working and make more money? If he could afford to take time off anyway, why isn’t he doing something else with that spare time if he would choose to take the time when a hurricane comes along?

[David Sklansky]

Religious people are more likely to help. They are also more likely to devote their time to finding a method to stop hurricanes if they thought it would do some good. But since they know that it requires among other things an intimate knowledge of partial differential equations, which is probably forever beyond their grasp, they don't even try.

[RJT]

LOL

[xniNja]

I just mean to imply the smart person would have some set of reasons for going to help. It could be a personal cost benefit analysis where he views helping people as more important than working overtime this weekend. The negative implication I'm insinuating is that the religious people will not think so much (if at all) and probably consider it more of their duty as a "Christian."

[David Sklansky]

I'm not sure what that response meant. But here is a specific contention that, if wrong, negates much of what I have said on this topic:

Select 100,000 religious Christians at random. Give them three years to study math with a focus on partial differential equations.(Assume they will do it.)

Select 100,000 people randomly who are not religious Christians but have approximately the same educational backgrounds as the religious Christians. Give them the same three years to study.

After three years give the 200,000 a tough partial diffential equation exam.

I say that the average of the top 1000 scores of the religious Christians is well below the average of the top 1000 scores of the other group.

I say that not because believing makes you stupid but rather because a belief that the stories of the Christian religion are probably true (as opposed to simply hoping they are true) is not something as likely to occur in a brain that is capable of doing excellent thinking.

PS it is not necessary that the excellent thinkers know the intricacies of Christianity for the point to hold. They need only know that Christians believe that there is a God who intervenes in our lives, that Mary was a virgin, that Jesus was ressurected, etc.

[RJT]

“I'm not sure what that response meant.”

I thought you were being facetious regarding many believers and their level of intelligence. I guess I underestimated your own sense of superiority.

[David Sklansky]

"I thought you were being facetious regarding many believers and their level of intelligence. I guess I underestimated your own sense of superiority."

What a lame way to try to get out of the issue at hand. What does this have to do with my sense of superiority given I was comparing religious Christians to EVERYBODY ELSE?

Now please tell me if you disagree with my contention regarding the math test?

[Lexander]

The two groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive, something almost implied by the topic.

I am a Christian, and I do consider myself intelligent by some measure. I do accept that the probability a person is a Christian is negatively correlated with a person's intelligence (my probabilities are assigned by empirical observation over time). Interestingly, it is my understanding of probability that allows me to accept both the concept of miracles and the concept of a universe governed by mathematical laws.

I will state that I tend to have to compartmentalize certain things, since my desire for scientifically supportable conclusions is at odds with a willingness to accept certain things on faith. But I take the view that science and mathematics have clear limits on what they can properly address, and that philosophy has never properly disproven the existence of God (I know that an inability to disprove does not constitute a proof, but it allows at least for the possibility).

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
it [finding a method to stop hurricanes] requires among other things an intimate knowledge of partial differential equations

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke?

(edited for clarity)

[xniNja]

I bet a lot more math and physics would be needed than just diff eq.

[RJT]

Your assumptions would have to be changed to - given the same level of intelligence. (Did you not say this because you actually believe that it would not be possible to find 100,000 intelligent Christians?)

Do you actually think that Christians don’t realize what they believe is not proven fact? Do you think that we do not know that it does not follow logic. Belief (Faith is a better word) is the key word in your exercise.

I really think your point would be very easy to prove by simply polling a random number of scientist. Find our if they were always agnostic/atheist or if they decided such as an adult. Then find out how much actual in depth study of any religion they have done before they decided to be agnostic.

If you find the majority (not born into an agnostic family) have always know themselves to be such or have seriously studied any religion in depth, then your theory that scientist come from a pool of agnostics might have some validity after all.

I don’t see that to be the case at all. I don’t “believe” it. Proof of this is much more tangible then trying to prove that Christians generally can’t be scientist.

[RJT]

My parenthetical “not born into an agnostic family” disclaimer might not be necessary. The reason I even mentioned it at all is that I bet you will find more scientist born into agnostic families than in the general population. I am not sure if this will skew the study or not.

[David Sklansky]

The vast majority of scientific based agnostics, I believe, became that way not because they were born into an agnostic family and not after becoming full fledged scientists either. Fo most it occurred graduallly as they learned more and more about science, probability, and the Amazing Randi.

[KidPokerX]

I cannot find any reason why your theory would be correct.
I am by no means a religious follower, but I do not criticize those who are (mearly for the fact that it makes them a better individual).
Your point that the non-believers would somehow score higher on a math exam is irrelevent to their beliefs. A religious person can study and learn just as easy as a non-believer. Put another way, a religious follower has no more of a limited capability to read, comprehend, and learn math than does anyone else ... in your hypothesis the two never get in the way.
Having said that, I do agree with you in that the average religious follower can not adapt as easily to higher levels of logical thinking than the average non-believer. This, in my opinion, is due to their faith "getting in the way" so to speak.
From what I have seen, many religious followers accept the things they do not understand as extraordinary, thus eliminating new-age science from their thinking. This is a flaw in the common religious follower (although one which will probably never be changed in our lifetimes).
I think you could come up with a better theory to prove this point (because it is very much proovable).

[David Sklansky]

"Put another way, a religious follower has no more of a limited capability to read, comprehend, and learn math than does anyone else"

I disagreee. Because of what insurance companies call "adverse selection". Suppose instead of "religious follower" above I substituted the words "someone who is sure dice can be beaten"?

[RJT]

Right. Perhaps many were Christians. So your point that Christians can’t find the cure for the common hurricane starts from the wrong premise, doesn’t it?

Scientists often eventually choose not to believe. So with the diminishing number of religious scientists, of course the odds are against a Christian finding the answer to hurricanes.

[David Sklansky]

"Scientists often eventually choose not to believe. So with the diminishing number of religious scientists, of course the odds are against a Christian finding the answer to hurricanes."

But only very smart people become great scientists. Religious Christians are not just likely to have an underrepresentation of scientists. They have an underepresentation of people smart enough to become scientists. (Especially the kind who would have the slightest chance to stop a hurricane).

[RJT]

Again, maybe we are talking about two different things. How are you defining your term “ religious Christians“?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it [finding a method to stop hurricanes] requires among other things an intimate knowledge of partial differential equations

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke?

(edited for clarity)

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Modelling fluid and gas flow is largely partial differential equations.

The weather forecasts you get on TV are the outcomes of solving partial differential equations using super computers in America and Japan. Raw data (comprising pressure, temperature, humidity, etc) is sampled at various altititudes and locations around the planet, gathered by devices such as weather balloons. This data is then plugged into the equations and the partial differential equations are solved using numerical formulas, which involves an obscene amount of number crunching.

[housenuts]

[ QUOTE ]

PS it is not necessary that the excellent thinkers know the intricacies of Christianity for the point to hold. They need only know that Christians believe that there is a God who intervenes in our lives, that Mary was a virgin, that Jesus was ressurected, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

who believes that hogwash?

[ QUOTE ]
bet a lot more math and physics would be needed than just diff eq.

[/ QUOTE ]

To stop a hurricane you'd need divine intervention, for which you obviously must have faith in God. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

But seriously, Sklanksy's wrong. The choice to believe in a God is obviously not an "adverse selection." The belief provides many benefits- automatic social network, purpose in life etc. Does Sklanksy only believe that Christians are stupider than everyone else, or does he extend his claim to other religions. Many of the people widely recognized as the most intelligent in history were religious.

[J. Stew]

How do you define the distinction between intellectual mind and God-mind?

[RJT]

“Does Sklanksy only believe that Christians are stupider than everyone else, or does he extend his claim to other religions.”


He said “religious Christians”. So, I am not quite sure what he means. He could mean the Jerry Fallwell/Pat Robertson types. In which case that makes much more sense to me, than if he is using the term redundantly to mean all Christians. Who knows?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I say that not because believing makes you stupid but rather because a belief that the stories of the Christian religion are probably true (as opposed to simply hoping they are true) is not something as likely to occur in a brain that is capable of doing excellent thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Religious Christians are not just likely to have an underrepresentation of scientists. They have an underepresentation of people smart enough to become scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logical fallacy of affirming a consequent from a negative premise.

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose instead of "religious follower" above I substituted the words "someone who is sure dice can be beaten"?

[/ QUOTE ]

And now you have substituted a term that denotes someone holding beliefs that cannot be proved to be false, only at best to have a lower probability of being true, with a term that denotes someone who holds beliefs that are 100% demonstrably false. Nice.

Guess I should consider not debating with you in the future like you did with Andy.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]

Suppose instead of "religious follower" above I substituted the words "someone who is sure dice can be beaten"?

[/ QUOTE ]

beautiful.