An Obnoxious Challenge To Catholic Theologians

[David Sklansky]

BluffTHIS wrote this:

"I am acquainted with several theology professors in Catholic seminaries who would meet the criteria you gave as many of them were late vocations to the priesthood and had advanced degrees in many of those subjects listed although not physics."

Although I am not disputing that, I dispute that any theology professor in a Catholic seminary is super smart. So even though I am now semi senile and haven't taken a multiple choice test in 30 years I offer the following bet:

I will take the math SAT or GRE aptitude test against ANY Catholic seminary theology professor in the United States and lay $50,000 to $25,000 odds. The test must be completed by both of us in half of the alloted time to lessen the chances of perfect score ties.

Almost certainly some of these guys, as BluffTHIS says, have Phd's, perhaps even in math. But if they do, they are almost certainly the plodding, less than brilliant Phds, given they are highly religious. So I'm not worried.

And please don't think this is an unfair challenge because I happen to be amazingly adept at these tests. Thirty five years ago yes. But now the number of people who would be favored over me in such a contest numbers into the thousands. I just don't believe that ANY of them are professors in Catholic seminaries.

PS To add to the obnoxiousness but putting my money where my mouth is, I would also bet 20K, even money, that even though Jews are outnumbered at least 20-1 and thus I should be 20-1 underdogs on the bet, if all American Catholic priests and theologians were to take this test, along with all American rabbis and Jewish theologians, I say a Jewish guy would get the highest score. (But he would still be a dog to at least 500 less religious people in this country.)

[sexdrugsmoney]

Great post David, pity it'll never come to fruition.

While we wait for BluffTHIS! to reply, a question for David:

Q. Why didn't you go to MIT or Harvard?

Cheers,
SDM

Great challenge.

But to me it seems like the big stack at the table is overbetting the pot when he's holding the nuts. Why not offer any bet up to 50K. Then there might a chance of this interesting event occurring, or at least more apologies from Catholic Apologists.

[David Sklansky]

Great post David, pity it'll never come to fruition.

While we wait for BluffTHIS! to reply, a question for David:

Q. Why didn't you go to MIT or Harvard?

Cheers,
SDM


Hey Bluff. He's Jewish. He's Jewish! No wonder he didn't want to tell you. (I mean you must be Jewish right? Because it is obvious that no Protestant theologian could beat the best Catholic ones on this test.)

As to you other question, I got C's and D's on all my non math/science classes in my senior year in high school. I was already a juvenile delinquent.

And just maybe it will come to fruition. It is a standing offer.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

Hey Bluff. He's Jewish. He's Jewish! No wonder he didn't want to tell you. (I mean you must be Jewish right? Because it is obvious that no Protestant theologian could beat the best Catholic ones on this test.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why I must be Jewish based on that reasoning, which means either your reasoning is wrong, or it's correct but I'm not smart enough to discern it, in which case I'm probably not Jewish considering the importance of education in most Jewish families.

[ QUOTE ]

As to you other question, I got C's and D's on all my non math/science classes in my senior year in high school. I was already a juvenile delinquent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wikipedia says you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sklansky) went to Wharton, and I naturally assumed because of it's reputation (Buffett, Trump, et al) that you "chose" it over places like MIT or Harvard. (I would have thought that high math scores alone would be sufficient for MIT, yet this is all assumption)

[ QUOTE ]

And just maybe it will come to fruition. It is a standing offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

One can only hope.

Cheers,
SDM

[David Sklansky]

"Wikipedia says you went to Wharton, and I naturally assumed because of it's reputation (Buffett, Trump, et al) that you "chose" it over places like MIT or Harvard. (I would have though high math scores alone would be sufficient for MIT, yet this is all assumption"

A perfect math SAT wasn't that unusual at MIT or Harvard. (At Penn it was). Of course I could have trounced 98% of other 800 scorers on a tougher test back in those days but they didn't know that. But I doubt I would have graduated from those places either.

[sexdrugsmoney]

I hope I'm not getting too personal here, but did you apply to MIT and/or Harvard or simply didn't bother with them?

Even if Wharton wasn't your first preference, it's pretty impressive.

Cheers,
SDM

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
As to you other question, I got C's and D's on all my non math/science classes in my senior year in high school. I was already a juvenile delinquent.

[/ QUOTE ]

My level of hero worshipness just increased.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I could have trounced 98% of other 800 scorers on a tougher test back in those days but they didn't know that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you take the preliminary tests for the International Math Olympiad in high school? I believe these exams were called AHSME, AIME, and AMO

If so, how far did you get? If not, why not, since these are specifically designed to separate math super sharpies from just regular math sharpies, unlike SAT's or GRE's which are only designed to separate regular sharpies from average Joes.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I was already a juvenile delinquent.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I am not being Christian, I like to live by this philosophy:

You’re only young once, but you can be immature forever.


The only reference I have for my quote is a buddy at college told it to me. It might be a very famous philosophical argument for all I know. Do you agree with the policy (The thought itself more so than whether one should live it or not.)?

[RJT]

I defer to your expertise in the matter of “the theory of relativity of geniuses” (not sure if this comes under general or special - lol). So, I decline the wager.

Take this with that fact it comes from someone not a genius (me): I have read and/or taken classes or know of a few (less than 5) “pretty” smart (genius types) Catholic dudes and/or priests . I think you might be surprised (albeit, perhaps not impressed )with their level of intelligence . Maybe, I say this because I can’t recognize the differences of geniuses once you (plural) are all over a certain level like you can. I am guessing that you have never met any genius ones, though - I suggest that is because you would never have had the opportunity to meet any combined with the fact that there are so few.

I did just note that you limited your wager to those in seminaries. Hands down you win that one. Do you have a number if you open it up to all universities? I still decline, but interested in your answer.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I did just note that you limited your wager to those in seminaries. Hands down you win that one. Do you have a number if you open it up to all universities? I still decline, but interested in your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it might get interesting.

chez

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you take the preliminary tests for the International Math Olympiad in high school? I believe these exams were called AHSME, AIME, and AMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you pronounce the names phonetically? Cause people at my HS did. But I went to a math/science high school where everyone was required to take the AHSME so I figured maybe it got discussed more at my HS than at others.

(az-mee, ay-mee, yoo-suh-mo (which includes "US" before "AMO") )

[Darryl_P]

I went to school in Canada where these US exams are hardly known at all, so we just said the letters as they were written, except there was always an extra "eh" at the end (just kidding).

Our school did very well on the Canadian competitions so our math dept. head decided to give the US tests a shot.

I remember getting 132 out of 150 on the AHSME, 11 out of 15 on the AIME, and something horrible on the USAMO. Apparently just getting that far was quite an achievement so I was wondering if I outdid the grand Pooh-bah on these.

I never did SAT's or GRE's since I had no ambitions to attend any prestigious schools.

[MCS]

I don't know how old you are, but in the years I was taking it, 11 out of 15 was a spectacular score. One year I got 8 of 15 and tied for first in my state (and it was a pretty big state /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[Darryl_P]

It was 1985 and the cutoff for the USAMO was 10 out of 15 that year.

Since only 64 people in the whole country qualified, I think it was indeed a spectacular score, but with a little help from luck. The questions just happened to click (unlike a lot of past exams) and I remember a question which I just guessed on and it turned out to be right. It's pretty hard to guess since the answers are all numbers from 0 to 999, effectively multiple choice with 1000 choices for each question.

What year did you take it?

[BluffTHIS!]

This is an interesting proposition David, although I note that you are only willing to have it be on the basis of math and not verbal test as well. I will actually look into this although since you state this is a standing offer won't feel obliged to hurry. I would like to know however whether you are willing to drop the requirement for an opponent to have to reside in the United States since some of those I mentioned being acquainted with are residents of other countries, albeit being english speakers as well. In particular, are you willing to extend this to seminary professors in Britain?

And regarding SDM, you will note in other threads that when I make comments questioning his beliefs and motivations, that he always responds with questions while never explicitly stating that I am wrong in assuming that there is the strong possibility that he is not a believing and practicing christian (i.e. regular christian churchgoer).

[MCS]

I took the AIME from 1994 through 1997. I qualified for the USAMO in 1997 (which was when I got the 8 on the AIME), and got like 1.5 out of 6 on the USAMO.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting proposition David, although I note that you are only willing to have it be on the basis of math and not verbal test as well. I will actually look into this although since you state this is a standing offer won't feel obliged to hurry. I would like to know however whether you are willing to drop the requirement for an opponent to have to reside in the United States since some of those I mentioned being acquainted with are residents of other countries, albeit being english speakers as well. In particular, are you willing to extend this to seminary professors in Britain?

[/ QUOTE ]

W00t.

[ QUOTE ]

And regarding SDM, you will note in other threads that when I make comments questioning his beliefs and motivations, that he always responds with questions while never explicitly stating that I am wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

When Jesus was ministering, the Pharisees always tried to trap him with questions and Jesus many times responded with clever counterquestions.

[ QUOTE ]

... in assuming that there is the strong possibility that he is not a believing and practicing christian (i.e. regular christian churchgoer).

[/ QUOTE ]

One can't practice without belief, so it should read and/or, not simply "And".

Furthermore, I fail to see how being a 'regular churchgoer' has anything to do with anything.

BTW Read David's post again, he thinks I'm Jewish apparently.

Cheers,
SDM

[slickpoppa]

This would be a much better challenge if you used some other test than the GRE. As others have pointed out, the math GRE is pretty easy and aceable. Taking the test in half the reccommended time is a bad barometer of intelligence IMO. Being slightly faster at solving easy math problems doesn't prove much. I think a better test would involve harder problems.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
When Jesus was ministering, the Pharisees always tried to trap him with questions and Jesus many times responded with clever counterquestions.

[/ QUOTE ]

"You're no John F. Kennedy", SDM.

Cheers 2

RJT

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When Jesus was ministering, the Pharisees always tried to trap him with questions and Jesus many times responded with clever counterquestions.

[/ QUOTE ]

"You're no John F. Kennedy", SDM.

Cheers 2

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand the reference, did JFK do this or something like it?

Cheers,
SDM

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When Jesus was ministering, the Pharisees always tried to trap him with questions and Jesus many times responded with clever counterquestions.

[/ QUOTE ]

"You're no John F. Kennedy", SDM.

Cheers 2

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand the reference, did JFK do this or something like it?

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

SDM,

You just gave David and Bluff a clue to your age, SDM. Thought that might happen. You are younger than x years of age.

Sorry, bud. But I like a mystery story as well as the next guy.

Cheers 2,

RJT

To answer your question, no JFK did not.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When Jesus was ministering, the Pharisees always tried to trap him with questions and Jesus many times responded with clever counterquestions.

[/ QUOTE ]

"You're no John F. Kennedy", SDM.

Cheers 2

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand the reference, did JFK do this or something like it?

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

SDM,

You just gave David and Bluff a clue to your age, SDM. Thought that might happen. You are younger than x years of age.

Sorry, bud. But I like a mystery story as well as the next guy.

Cheers 2,

RJT

To answer your question, no JFK did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that really long enough ago for people to be too young to know what your talking about.

Makes me feel really old.

chez

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

You just gave David and Bluff a clue to your age, SDM. Thought that might happen. You are younger than x years of age.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

[ QUOTE ]

To answer your question, no JFK did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I don't understand how your JFK reference corresponds to my "Jesus-Pharisee" comment, please enlighten me.

Cheers,
SDM

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that really long enough ago for people to be too young to know what your talking about.

Makes me feel really old.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

"I was older then, I'm younger then that now." Bob Dylan.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You just gave David and Bluff a clue to your age, SDM. Thought that might happen. You are younger than x years of age.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

[ QUOTE ]

To answer your question, no JFK did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I don't understand how your JFK reference corresponds to my "Jesus-Pharisee" comment, please enlighten me.

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

"Here's another clue for you, the walrus was Paul". The Beatles - I think Lennon wrote this line, chez might argue Paul did.

Ok, seriously here is a clue. And this relates directly to your own search for the answer to my riddle - you can't see for forest for the trees.

Cheer 2,

RJT

[RJT]

How about this. For every time I (or anyone else who wants to help me) answers one of your questions here with this riddle, you have to answer one of either David's or Bluff's. I already answered one of your questions by answering it with another clue.

You can answer theirs with a direct answer or a clue too.

Deal?

Cheers 2,

RJT

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, seriously here is a clue. And this relates directly to your own search for the answer to my riddle - you can't see for forest for the trees.

Cheer 2,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain how your JFK reference corresponds to my "Jesus-Pharisee" comment.

Are you sure there is no presupposition here?

Cheers,
SDM

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ok, seriously here is a clue. And this relates directly to your own search for the answer to my riddle - you can't see for forest for the trees.

Cheer 2,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain how your JFK reference corresponds to my "Jesus-Pharisee" comment.

Are you sure there is no presupposition here?

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a second question? Do you agree to the deal? I will answer this second question if you agree to the deal and agree that we now have 2 questions that David and/or Bluff(total of 2 combined - not 2 each) can ask you.

Cheers 2,

RJT

[Darryl_P]

I guess your year must have been harder than mine on the AIME, assuming a similar number qualified. Any other USAMO qualifiers from your school in any year? There were no others from mine that I know about.

In college did you enter the Putnam competition? I took it 4 times and ranked in the top 100 once and got mediocre scores the other 3 times.

I wonder if Sklansky ever entered any of these competitions!? I doubt it or he wouldn't focus his bragging on SAT's and GRE's

[David Sklansky]

"This would be a much better challenge if you used some other test than the GRE. As others have pointed out, the math GRE is pretty easy and aceable. Taking the test in half the reccommended time is a bad barometer of intelligence IMO. Being slightly faster at solving easy math problems doesn't prove much. I think a better test would involve harder problems."

Granted. Keep in my though that my point was essentially that there are NO American Christain theologians in the top 1000 as far as analytical smarts go. That's a pretty strong statement. But how am I going to prove that? The closest practical way available to me is by coming up with a contest where I am NOT in the top 1000 (anymore, but only because the test doesn't include check raising, or getting females less than one half your age to have sex with you) that does correlate highly with analytical ability and in spite of that, betting that I would beat ALL such theologians.

If I used a more difficult math test, (that I personally would now suck at), it would mean I had to somehow find the non super religious person who was ranked slightly worse than 1000 and bet on him or her. Not practical. But I if I could find him, I would bet on him too.

As to whether I would bet against non American Christian Theologians or Jewish ones, the answer is no. Meaning that I'm not as sure that there isn't perhaps one or two in the whole world that can't beat me in my semi alzheimers state.
But the reason is that such theologians, because of cultural pressures or whatever, were destined for mathematical greatness but had it stunted. But I would like to point out that I believe that if such thologians exist, they are almost certinly much more agnostically inclined than they could ever admit.

Truly believing that a specific flavor of a personal god is actually more likely to be correct than not, means you have a mind that is uneducated, inferior, brainwashed or abnormal. And that is what this challenge is trying to help demonstrate. It isn't about me.

[sexdrugsmoney]

Sorry my friend, but you waited 43 minutes (after my 1:11am post) for nought.

Cheers,
SDM

[Alex/Mugaaz]

You may regret this bet if there is a theologian out there who was very smart before, but due to some horrible tragedy lost meaning in life and became religous. Such a person would probably devote himself to something at least slightly intellectual and become a Bible scholar. In that case we would have a battle of 2 people in an Alzheimer state.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Truly believing that a specific flavor of a personal god is actually more likely to be correct than not, means you have a mind that is uneducated, inferior, brainwashed or abnormal. And that is what this challenge is trying to help demonstrate. It isn't about me.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, are Orthodox Jews:

A) Uneducated
B) Inferior
C) Brainwashed
D) Abnormal

Cheers,
SDM

[college kid]

I know of many people who are BRILLIANT, truly brilliant, and their one "fault" is being highly religious. I myself might attempt to find one of them and scrounge up 25K-- I'm 99% sure I could find somebody who could beat you and also fits your criteria and that they'd win much more than one time out of three. But nah, I'm too tired right now.

My point is--you won't win two-thirds of these. While I think you are right for the criticism, you underestimate the fact that even brilliant people can have this one thing which is stupid and still be brilliant in all other areas. I recommend Michael Shermer for a more in depth discussion about this. Now then, off to bed. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[RJT]

Here is what I am having a hard time understanding. Please be patient now, David. Not all top geniuses agree that there is no god, right?

So what are you saying about the top ones that think there is some form of God? Or are you saying that they float to the bottom and the “real” geniuses are at the top.

If not then why don’t these god geniuses also think no god like the rest? What is in their heads?

You do appear to be saying that even among the god geniuses, NONE believe in any organized religion or close to an organized religion’s beliefs.

I don’t really know much about the science field and those at the top in it. You have an insiders view.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Truly believing that a specific flavor of a personal god is actually more likely to be correct than not, means you have a mind that is uneducated, inferior, brainwashed or abnormal.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean that literally, it is a stunningly ignorant statement. There are at least two possibilities -- to my mind, obvious -- for which you do not account. One is a sense of personal revelation, which none of us are qualified to judge with any confidence. The other is the valid recognition of faith as an alternate epistemology to reason and empiricism.

If, on the other hand, you do not believe that the above statement is literally true, then it's simply a case of trolling -- your boards, so your prerogative . . . but still uncouth.

[David Sklansky]

A C and perhaps D

[David Sklansky]

"The closest practical way available to me is by coming up with a contest where I am NOT in the top 1000 (anymore, but only because the test doesn't include check raising, or getting females less than one half your age to have sex with you)"

Upon rereading these words I realized that I must hasten to add that, although I would score better on this revised test, I would no longer bet against Catholic theologians. I know my limitations.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
A C and perhaps D

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your answer as "C), and perhaps D)" because due to the lack of commma after A, and because it is at the start of the sentance.(therefore capitalized)

I also can't imagine most Orthodox Jews being uneducated as I see many at Universities sporting Yarmulkes.

But upon re-reading your answer I see that you may believe they are also uneducated?

I'm truly perplexed by your answer David.

Cheers,
SDM

[Darryl_P]

Same here. I have more respect for Orthodox Jews than that and I'm definitely more anti-Semitic than most.

[David Sklansky]

"Truly believing that a specific flavor of a personal god is actually more likely to be correct than not, means you have a mind that is uneducated, inferior, brainwashed or abnormal."


"If you mean that literally, it is a stunningly ignorant statement. There are at least two possibilities -- to my mind, obvious -- for which you do not account."

Although I could argue with you on your points, its easier to change my statement slightly. To:

"Truly believing that all thinking people should would be reasonable in thinking that the same flavor of a personal god is actually more likely to be correct than not, means you have a mind that is uneducated, inferior, brainwashed or abnormal."

[ QUOTE ]
"The closest practical way available to me is by coming up with a contest where I am NOT in the top 1000 (anymore, but only because the test doesn't include check raising, or getting females less than one half your age to have sex with you)"

Upon rereading these words I realized that I must hasten to add that, although I would score better on this revised test, I would no longer bet against Catholic theologians. I know my limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What revised test are you reffering to? Add check raising and having sex with young girls to the SAT or GRE? I dont see why you wouldnt have more confidence in this test. Allthough Catholic theologians probably do have an edge when it comes to convincing people fractions of their age to have sex with them.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
"Truly believing that a specific flavor of a personal god is actually more likely to be correct than not, means you have a mind that is uneducated, inferior, brainwashed or abnormal."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

"Truly believing that all thinking people should would be reasonable in thinking that the same flavor of a personal god is actually more likely to be correct than not, means you have a mind that is uneducated, inferior, brainwashed or abnormal."

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying the only difference between these two statements is that to escape being branded either A), B), C) or D) (or a mix of) one must acknowledge that their beliefs are unreasonable?

Cheers,
SDM

[David Sklansky]

Basically yes. (Defining "unreasonable beliefs" to mean those that have no objective reason to be more likely to be right than wrong.)

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically yes. (Defining "unreasonable beliefs" to mean those that have no objective reason to be more likely to be right than wrong.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Orthodox Jews believe that the Torah was given directly (ie- not 'inspired') from God to Moses and can never be altered or rejected in any way, would you define this belief as unreasonable?

[BluffTHIS!]

It should be clear by now to everyone that SDM's thought processes and debating style show the dangers of long term mental masturbation.

[ QUOTE ]
It should be clear by now to everyone that SDM's thought processes and debating style show the dangers of long term mental masturbation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone needs to quaff some Christ haemoglobin.

[sexdrugsmoney]

Mental masturbation? Is that thinking for yourself? You should try it sometime. (BTW nice troll)

[David Sklansky]

"Orthodox Jews believe that the Torah was given directly (ie- not 'inspired') from God to Moses and can never be altered or rejected in any way, would you define this belief as unreasonable"

You are joking right?

[sexdrugsmoney]

Should I take your response as "Yes, that's unreasonable"?

[andyfox]

My money's would still be on you since you specified females.

[slickpoppa]

Why not just take an IQ test? Or are you implying that you would be in the top 1000 in terms of IQ?

My point is that taking a test that measures pure mathematical speed, like taking the GRE in half the time, is not an indication of anything. Why not just give each of you 50 numbers to multiply together and see who can do it fastest? There are some people who have amazing abilities to multiply large numbers in their head, but would have difficulty getting a Physics Phd.

[andyfox]

The bible encourages mental masturbation, no? It's the physical kind that is evil.

[David Sklansky]

"My point is that taking a test that measures pure mathematical speed, like taking the GRE in half the time, is not an indication of anything. Why not just give each of you 50 numbers to multiply together and see who can do it fastest? There are some people who have amazing abilities to multiply large numbers in their head, but would have difficulty getting a Physics Phd."

What's that have to do with the GRE math aptidude test? Forget about the speed part. I reckon 99% of those who can get an 800 in that test are intellectually capable of getting a physics Phd. And 95% of those who can't get a 700 are intellectually incapable of it. A lot stronger correlation than your multiplying numbers example. And also quite a bit stronger than IQ scores.

But the speed part DOES matter because those who can do the test in half the time are not usually faster, but in fact usually cleverer in finding shortcuts.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I could argue with you on your points, its easier to change my statement slightly. To:

"Truly believing that all thinking people should would be reasonable in thinking that the same flavor of a personal god is actually more likely to be correct than not, means you have a mind that is uneducated, inferior, brainwashed or abnormal."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a "slight" change in wording only; it's meaning is vastly different.

Of course, your new statement is inapplicable to the large majority of monotheists in the world. They talk about faith, not proof.

[David Sklansky]

"Of course, your new statement is inapplicable to the large majority of monotheists in the world. They talk about faith, not proof."

Not exactly. Because many of these guys go on to say that it is pretty obvious that others should believe the same way. Lest it not be unfair that those who don't, go to hell. Put differently, lots more than you imply base their faith to a large degree on what they think is logically likely. And they are stupid, uneducated, or mentally ill.

[KidPokerX]

Werd.

[Jcrew]

Does this challenge include people who attend church "religiously"? I scored in the top 2% of all the kids that were tested for the Gifted and Talented Program which is given to the top 5% of kids that take the IOWA Basic Skill tests. I myself am not a believer in a specific religion but my former college roommate, who I view is at least half an order of magnitude smarter than me, is a big time Catholic(he had some thoughts on becoming a priest). If I had the bankroll, I would bet on him at even odds(but I would take the odds if given). Slanksy's bet is crazy. You can bring out Blaise Pascal and destroy Sklansky's premise. IQ and sanity* are loosely correlated at best.

*Not going to debate whether religous people are sane or not since my personal view is that sanity can be applied to a topic by topic basis.

So its impossible for someone to have a top-notch mathematical brain and also truly believe in something extraordinary (in this case, the Catholic faith)

And you can prove this by personally beating all catholics in math tests...

Stick to poker.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
I will take the math SAT or GRE aptitude test against ANY Catholic seminary theology professor in the United States and lay $50,000 to $25,000 odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting to note that you seem to concurr with our british lack of confidence in American academic credentials.

[college_boy]

Mr. jungle fever,
I didn't read the whole thread. Are you willing to present the same challenge to protestant theologians? If so I can promise you a match.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
"Orthodox Jews believe that the Torah was given directly (ie- not 'inspired') from God to Moses and can never be altered or rejected in any way, would you define this belief as unreasonable"

You are joking right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'll take that to be "Yes, that's unreasonable".

Therefore since an Orthodox Jew won't admit his belief is unreasonable, you say he is "A C and perhaps D" (uneducated, brainwashed, and perhaps abnormal)

So If an Orthodox Jew got a Phd from a University, that would rule out A) (uneducated), and since many Orthodox Jews do gain University degrees, and Phds, A) has to be ruled out. (¬A)

That leaves C) and D). (Though I question D)s validity because many Orthodox Jews live relatively "normal" and successful lives having their own families etc, so I don't know how abnormal they are)(¬D)

So at the heart of it, is C) - brainwashed.

Therefore aren't you saying that:

"Anybody who believes in Religion is "brainwashed" at best. At worst they are uneducated, inferior and abnormal and these traits seem to correspond to those with lower IQs and/or psychological problems"

So by your logic, even if Newton was alive and was a convinced believer in Christianity, you would still dismiss his claims citing 'brainwashing' because he obviously is educated (¬A), obviously a genius (¬B), & obviously "normal" (¬D), therefore he must be brainwashed (C) and if so his opinion doesn't matter anyway.

Is that an accurate assumption or have I erred?

Cheers,
SDM

[David Sklansky]

"Mr. jungle fever,
I didn't read the whole thread. Are you willing to present the same challenge to protestant theologians? If so I can promise you a match."

If you mean by theologian, someone who believes and preaches this stuff, and isn't just an expert on it, the answer is yes.

[David Sklansky]

"So If an Orthodox Jew got a Phd from a University, that would rule out A) (uneducated), and since many Orthodox Jews do gain University degrees, and Phds, A) has to be ruled out. (¬A)"

When I said "uneducated", I meant in the scientific subjects where vast knowledge leads to religious skepticsm. Doubt many Orthodox Jews have a Phd in those subjects. (Or if they do they have secretly become less religious).

"So by your logic, even if Newton was alive and was a convinced believer in Christianity, you would still dismiss his claims citing 'brainwashing' because he obviously is educated (¬A), obviously a genius (¬B), & obviously "normal" (¬D), therefore he must be brainwashed (C) and if so his opinion doesn't matter anyway.

Is that an accurate assumption or have I erred?"

VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION on your part. Before I answer it let me make it clear that under the heading of brainwashing or abnormal I also include what might be called a strong or even pathological, psychological need to believe. Because to some, the implications of non belief are so depressing or horrifying. But with that being said I still could not dismiss Newton's beliefs as being caused by these things.

The reason is that brilliant scientific minds can almost always FIGHT OFF emotion caused irrationalities. This is an important point that I should have accentuated earlier. John Nash realized "they weren't getting any older". An apocryphal story, to be sure but it makes my point. If you are both brilliant in and trained in logic, probability and science, you have strongly learned to distrust your insincts. Similar to the way Tversky describes rare trained people in Judgement Under Uncertainty.

In other words, Newton would have to be much more "sick" than the average person to believe in Christianity if he had present day knowledge. Since such a severe sickness is very rare, I would not be able to easily ascribe his belief to such a thing and would have to take his belief seriously.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"So If an Orthodox Jew got a Phd from a University, that would rule out A) (uneducated), and since many Orthodox Jews do gain University degrees, and Phds, A) has to be ruled out. (¬A)"

[/ QUOTE ]

When I said "uneducated", I meant in the scientific subjects where vast knowledge leads to religious skepticsm. Doubt many Orthodox Jews have a Phd in those subjects. (Or if they do they have secretly become less religious).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what your definition of "many" is, but the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists (http://www.aojs.org/history.asp) boasts more than 2000 members (Not all 2000 have Phd's I would guess) which considering it doesn't count Conservative, Reform, & Reconstrcutionist Judaism, I'd say it's not bad for an ethnic minority group.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"So by your logic, even if Newton was alive and was a convinced believer in Christianity, you would still dismiss his claims citing 'brainwashing' because he obviously is educated (¬A), obviously a genius (¬B), & obviously "normal" (¬D), therefore he must be brainwashed (C) and if so his opinion doesn't matter anyway.

Is that an accurate assumption or have I erred?"

[/ QUOTE ]

VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION on your part. Before I answer it let me make it clear that under the heading of brainwashing or abnormal I also include what might be called a strong or even pathological, psychological need to believe. Because to some, the implications of non belief are so depressing or horrifying. But with that being said I still could not dismiss Newton's beliefs as being caused by these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ofcourse not David, that's why I chose an Orthodox Jew with a Phd for our example and not someone like Jewish comedian Richard Lewis who has struggled with alcoholism throughout his life.

The point with the "well-educated Orthodox Jew" example was to 'break away' any other factors like "emotional need to believe in something" (such as Alcoholic Anonymous preaches) or inferiority (either mentally or physically afflicted, thus the belief in a higher power that one day "things will be better") or abnormality.

If those things were removed that would only leave Brainwashing.

[ QUOTE ]

The reason is that brilliant scientific minds can almost always FIGHT OFF emotion caused irrationalities. This is an important point that I should have accentuated earlier. John Nash realized "they weren't getting any older". An apocryphal story, to be sure but it makes my point. If you are both brilliant in and trained in logic, probability and science, you have strongly learned to distrust your insincts. Similar to the way Tversky describes rare trained people in Judgement Under Uncertainty.

In other words, Newton would have to be much more "sick" than the average person to believe in Christianity if he had present day knowledge. Since such a severe sickness is very rare, I would not be able to easily ascribe his belief to such a thing and would have to take his belief seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I would wager that removing emotions (which we agree Newton would overcome), that Newton may only be a Christian today based on the Book of Revelation and current technology. (Time magazine story, New Scientist story etc)

Without that aspect (prophecy) the Judaism wouldn't exist today (look at the Samaritans and the Sadducces, both rejected the prophets and are now extinct*) & Christianity just seems like another unverifiable ancient story on a shelf with the hundreds of other stories (like Judaism, Islam etc) in the 'questionable fiction' section of the library in academia.

Cheers,
SDM

<font color="#666666">* Actually the Samaritans are only 'virtually extinct', technically there around 650 left today.</font>

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I will take the math SAT or GRE aptitude test against ANY Catholic seminary theology professor in the United States and lay $50,000 to $25,000 odds. The test must be completed by both of us in half of the alloted time to lessen the chances of perfect score ties.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you revise this to include all Catholic priests -- not just seminary professors? The smartest priests are more likely to be university professors (in subjects like math, physics, etc.) than seminary professors.

[David Sklansky]

As long as they pass a lie detector test when asked if they are virtually certain Jesus is the son of God.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as they pass a lie detector test when asked if they are virtually certain Jesus is the son of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question doesn’t make much sense to me.

Either I missed the point or you do not really understand the “thinking” of believers.

Believers have faith. I’ll use Christianity as an example. We (I say we , but I am really just talking for myself and I’ll assume others do this.) do not think, “Yes this makes logical sense. I am virtually certain it must be true. How can anyone not see the “logic“ of it.”

We think “This all seems to fit together. I understand what the Bible is telling me, what Jesus was saying”. We understand the thinking behind different interpretations and teachings. We place degrees in our belief in what we consider eye witness accounts.

We make a conscious decision to have faith. Some go through a deep process of discernment. Others simply make it an easy choice. Either way we all work at having faith.

It isn’t like studying a mathematical formula and once you understand it, then you are certain of it. It isn’t like scientists being are able to say “I am virtually certain that evolution is true”. Scientist are able to make such statements.

I suspect said priest would probably say, “ I have strong faith that He is”. Perhaps he might even be able to make this statement: I am virtually certain (or nearly 100 % confident) in my faith that Jesus is the Son of God. (If you are indeed asking this, then I still don’t see how his being truthful or not would make much difference to you.)

We don’t place degrees in the truth of certain statements, per se. We place degrees in our faith. The degrees of one’s faith in whether Jesus is the Son of God is really the only thing one can speak of.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

Believers have faith. I’ll use Christianity as an example. We (I say we , but I am really just talking for myself and I’ll assume others do this.) do not think, “Yes this makes logical sense. I am virtually certain it must be true. How can anyone not see the “logic“ of it.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't assume.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as they pass a lie detector test when asked if they are virtually certain Jesus is the son of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a friend in university who was actively involved in the Catholic Church and would certainly pass a lie detector test on the above question. He also consistently ranked among the top 20 contestants in Canada on various national mathematical competitions.

[miami32]

David,

I find it hard to believe that you were indeed, a juvinile delinquent.