That one dang genius who believes?

[RJT]

Using some stats that we have (I have no problem changing these %, if someone has other suggested %s) we know that perhaps 90% of geniuses in the science category do not believe in any god.

To makes things easier for me to write, let say we take the 1000 top scientist in the world. And out of these top 1000 we have 900 who think there is no god. We then have 100 who think there is some type of god.

We then want to narrow the top 1000 down to the top 100. Let’s say the % stays the same ( I have no problem agreeing it might go to higher than 90% when we do this). So we now have 90 -no god and 10 god.

Let say we narrow it down to 10.The score is 9 no god -1 god.

For this exercise it doesn’t really matter if the % stay the same. I want to reduce it to the lowest number in the group that still leaves us with 1 god person.

So we now have 1 believer and x number of non believers.

Now we have a conversation.

I want to know what the heck this one believer thinks.

What if he is the “Einstein” of the group. Then what?

I also want to know the lowest number we can get to and still have a Christian in the group.

What if he is the “Einstein” of the group. Then what?

[Jim T]

You are essentially bringing up a logical fallacy - "Appeal to (Unqualified) Authority"

[Prevaricator]

and there's the implied premise that it is possible for a christian to also be a "genius."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
and there's the implied premise that it is possible for a christian to also be a "genius."

[/ QUOTE ]

Newton

[A_C_Slater]

So what.

Bobby Fischer supposedely has a higher IQ than Einstein did and he believes in all sorts of wacky and inane things.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So what.

Bobby Fischer supposedely has a higher IQ than Einstein did and he believes in all sorts of wacky and inane things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just responding to the suggestion that genius and christian were mutually exclusive.

Newton was both.


chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
So what.

Bobby Fischer supposedely has a higher IQ than Einstein did and he believes in all sorts of wacky and inane things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this kind of illustrates my question, then what?

[jester710]

Clearly, geniuses are superior to us regular folk in every way.

Provided you get to pick your geniuses, of course.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, geniuses are superior to us regular folk in every way.

Provided you get to pick your geniuses, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like F. Scott Fitzgerald’s rich folk. To paraphrase: They are just like us, except they have more money.

[David Sklansky]

If Newton was alive now and was STILL a religious Christian, I would significantly alter my personal assessment about whether I thought Christianity is true.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
If Newton was alive now and was STILL a religious Christian, I would significantly alter my personal assessment about whether I thought Christianity is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you made this point believing that if Newton was alive today, you'd wager that he wouldn't be a Christian, yet considering Newton believed the Bible to be the inspired word of God and read from it daily, I think if he saw the possibility that the Book of Revelation may be fulfilled by looking at certain things in the world like that TIME Magazine story I made you aware of, it's a good chance he would still be a believer.

50/50 IMHO - He would either lose his faith entirely or be more certain of it.

Pity he's not alive so we could watch.

Cheers,
SDM

[David Sklansky]

I vehemently disagree. If you are right, and Newton is sane, almost everything else I say collapses. Perhaps that shows even more clearly where I am coming from.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I vehemently disagree. If you are right, and Newton is sane, almost everything else I say collapses. Perhaps that shows even more clearly where I am coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming Newton was alive today, and was more Christian than ever, and had passed various psychiatric examinations and was sitting accross the table from you, trying to convince you to become a Christian, wouldn't you have only two choices?

A) Accept his genius logic, and adopt his axioms.
B) Reject his genius logic, and maintain your axioms.

Cheers,
SDM

C) Offer a prop bet on the GRE for more money than he can afford.

[kitaristi0]

[ QUOTE ]
C) Offer a prop bet on the GRE for more money than he can afford.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[David Sklansky]

"Assuming Newton was alive today, and was more Christian than ever, and had passed various psychiatric examinations and was sitting accross the table from you, trying to convince you to become a Christian, wouldn't you have only two choices?

A) Accept his genius logic, and adopt his axioms.
B) Reject his genius logic, and maintain your axioms.

Cheers,
SDM"

First let me correct you about something. You mean to say accept his conclusions.

Anyway if he did do that I would ask for a six month leave of abscence to study up on specifics of both his religion and science. Then I would have a debate with him. Which means that there is a third, very possible alternative. Namely that he would change HIS mind.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Assuming Newton was alive today, and was more Christian than ever, and had passed various psychiatric examinations and was sitting accross the table from you, trying to convince you to become a Christian, wouldn't you have only two choices?

A) Accept his genius logic, and adopt his axioms.
B) Reject his genius logic, and maintain your axioms.

Cheers,
SDM"


First let me correct you about something. You mean to say accept his conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think 'accept his axioms' makes more sense. Being a genius, one would expect him to draw the correct conclusions from his axioms.

[David Sklansky]

"No, I think 'accept his axioms' makes more sense. Being a genius, one would expect him to draw the correct conclusions from his axioms."

Axioms can be whatever you want them to be as long as they don't contradict each other. But I don't think Newton would have any different axioms than mine. He believed in Christianity because he didn't know about DNA, Fractal geomety, Chaos theory, Quantum Theory, Relativity Theory Nuclear Fusion and Siefried and Roy. He didn't even know about atoms. All things that suggest either no god or a God who washed his hands of us billions of years ago.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Axioms can be whatever you want them to be as long as they don't contradict each other. But I don't think Newton would have any different axioms than mine. He believed in Christianity because he didn't know about DNA, Fractal geomety, Chaos theory, Quantum Theory, Relativity Theory Nuclear Fusion and Siefried and Roy. He didn't even know about atoms. All things that suggest either no god or a God who washed his hands of us billions of years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Ummmm, yeahhhhh. I'm going to have to sort of...disagree with you there..."

Seriously, I disagree. Discovery of the things you mentioned doesn't necessarily suggest that God doesn't exist, but rather gives us a greater insight into God's creation.

Look at DNA, for example. The Bible says that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14). Going back to Hebrew, the word translated as "wonderfully" is "Pah'lah" which means "to distinguish or set apart". The word "fearfully" is "Ya're", from the root "to revere". In other words, we are all unique. The idea of our uniqueness fits right in with the discovery of DNA.

So, I wonder if Newton's faith would not be strengthened with the recent discoveries of science.

[KidPokerX]

and who would that be?

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
If Newton was alive now and was STILL a religious Christian, I would significantly alter my personal assessment about whether I thought Christianity is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reliance on arguments from academic authority, is perhaps characteristic of the American educational system.
Right through undergraduate level it appears to involve the regurgitation of facts and arguments based on "those more learned than I".

This IMHO leads to a mis-understanding of scientific models as actual insights into the way reality supposedly is, rather than as predictive models.

If I found a quote of Newton stating 2+2=3 (in 'normal', non-modulo base ten arithmetic) would you reconsider your pot odds calculations???

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
"Assuming Newton was alive today, and was more Christian than ever, and had passed various psychiatric examinations and was sitting accross the table from you, trying to convince you to become a Christian, wouldn't you have only two choices?

A) Accept his genius logic, and adopt his axioms.
B) Reject his genius logic, and maintain your axioms.

Cheers,
SDM"

First let me correct you about something. You mean to say accept his conclusions.

Anyway if he did do that I would ask for a six month leave of abscence to study up on specifics of both his religion and science. Then I would have a debate with him. Which means that there is a third, very possible alternative. Namely that he would change HIS mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, this last line is rather proud.

Remember, in our scenario if Newton is alive, he HAS been up to date with modern science etc yet still remains a Christian. (more Christian than ever now the Book of Revelation has a probable application)

Yet you alter your position from taking a genius as your guide to saying you may have a chance to convince the genius of his folly.

Remember Newton and Leibniz independantly discovered Calculus, that's a pretty big thing!

Therefore the only choices you seem to have are:

A) Accept his genius conclusions, and adopt his beliefs.
B) Reject his genius conclusions, and maintain your beliefs. (ie- "cling" to another genius than was an athiest)

Cheers,
SDM

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway if he did do that I would ask for a six month leave of abscence to study up on specifics of both his religion and science. Then I would have a debate with him. Which means that there is a third, very possible alternative. Namely that he would change HIS mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a huge result sexdrugsmoney. It clearly shows that his atheism is the result of personal belief and opinion, and not a deference to those more intelligent as he's been alluding to. It seems that was mostly just talk.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at DNA, for example. The Bible says that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14). Going back to Hebrew, the word translated as "wonderfully" is "Pah'lah" which means "to distinguish or set apart". The word "fearfully" is "Ya're", from the root "to revere". In other words, we are all unique. The idea of our uniqueness fits right in with the discovery of DNA.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just stunningly ignorant, of both scripture and DNA. People (like dogs, cows and cats) were obviously unique before they even discovered DNA. All you had to do was notice that no two people (apart from identical twins) looked identical or had the same personality. And yet somehow you think this indicates the bible was talking about DNA? This is precisely why religion will be around for eons to come, despite Sklansky's best efforts.

I just hope you were joking.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
It clearly shows that his atheism is the result of personal belief and opinion...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is highly likely to be true.

[ QUOTE ]
... a deference to those more intelligent as he's been alluding to...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what he is saying the rest of us less than (lesser for those of you to whom it applies) geniuses should do.

[txag007]

Reading comprehension.

[ QUOTE ]
Reading comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Here is what you said in response to David's contention that modern science makes it less likely to believe in God:

1. Recent discoveries give us a greater insight into God's creation
- If you have an a priori belief that God created the universe, this a tautology.

2. The bible says "we are all unique"(your words)
- I question your interpretation of that passage. But it doesn't matter in this case. Let's say it stands.

3. "We are all unique"
- Any child over the age of 5 would agree with this idea. A remote tribe in New Guinea would agree. It's freaking obvious, and has nothing to do with the bible.

4. When we discovered DNA, we discovered nature's mechanism for uniqueness.

Are you saying this discovery validates God or builds upon what the bible teaches? That's what I was referring to in my reply. If you weren't saying that, then the only content in your paragraph was the first sentence: "Seriously, I disagree". The rest was meaningless because of the tautology in (1). Forgive me for assuming it actually had some content, and replying to that.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
"No, I think 'accept his axioms' makes more sense. Being a genius, one would expect him to draw the correct conclusions from his axioms."

Axioms can be whatever you want them to be as long as they don't contradict each other. But I don't think Newton would have any different axioms than mine. He believed in Christianity because he didn't know about DNA, Fractal geomety, Chaos theory, Quantum Theory, Relativity Theory Nuclear Fusion and Siefried and Roy. He didn't even know about atoms. All things that suggest either no god or a God who washed his hands of us billions of years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of those things are stumbling blocks for a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I disagree that they necessarily suggest an atheist or deist outlook.

[David Sklansky]

"This is a huge result sexdrugsmoney. It clearly shows that his atheism is the result of personal belief and opinion, and not a deference to those more intelligent as he's been alluding to. It seems that was mostly just talk."

It's not a huge result. Deference to scientific genuises is merely one of many reasons I disbelieve. I use it a lot because it is clearcut. But I never implied it was my main reason.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a huge result sexdrugsmoney. It clearly shows that his atheism is the result of personal belief and opinion, and not a deference to those more intelligent as he's been alluding to. It seems that was mostly just talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can that show anything when the whole scenario was fiction (first, Newton needs to still be alive, and then his faith needs to be stronger than ever) and Newton is but one of many men. Why should the beliefs of everyone else be thrown overboard just because SDM hypothesizes that Newton *might* still believe in God if still alive?

Wow, you guys are grasping at some very short straws.


This debate is equivalent to:
SDM: What if Newton came back and firmly believed that the universe was not expanding?
DS: I might convince him that it was.
OOO: Aha! See SDM, DS is just biased and is full of just talk!
Kid: You're an idiot.

[David Sklansky]

"Some of those things are stumbling blocks for a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I disagree that they necessarily suggest an atheist or deist outlook."

These things (DNA, Fractal geomety, Chaos theory, Quantum Theory, Relativity Theory Nuclear Fusion and Siefried and Roy) show how the world works perfectly fine without any present intervention from God. Until recently stuff happened (the sun burning, the mountains looking gorgeous, the fact that measles aren't caught twice, etc etc.) that were so unexplainable that invoking a God who kept a lookout on us seemed like a reaonable thing to do. When that changed the odds changed. A lot.

[BadBoyBenny]

And still believed in owning slaves should we reexamine the 13th ammendment?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
"This is a huge result sexdrugsmoney. It clearly shows that his atheism is the result of personal belief and opinion, and not a deference to those more intelligent as he's been alluding to. It seems that was mostly just talk."

It's not a huge result. Deference to scientific genuises is merely one of many reasons I disbelieve. I use it a lot because it is clearcut. But I never implied it was my main reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I want to precisely define my position on this matter.

First of all my definition of genuis is about the normal one except I don't rate spatial relations, musical ability, or the like as a big part of the assessment. I'm talking about analytical ability. The ability to EASILY get a Phd in subjects like physics, logic, economics, or maybe even law. Not just pure math ability.

My next contention is that such a genuis is a monster favorite to be right when he disagrees with a merely intelligent person in the genuis's chosen field. I doubt that is debatable.

My more debatable contention is that the genuis is a rather big favorite over a moderately intelligent person even when he disagrees about fields outside his expertise, and even if the questions have not yet been decided. AS LONG AS:

1. The genuis has studied the field almost as hard as the other guy (which automatically counts me out even if I otherwise qualified.)

2. The genuis is almost certain about his conclusions (which almost certainly means he DID study the subject)

3. The genuis is not one of those idiot savant, can't tie, his shoe types.

4. The subject has a degree of logical thinking involved with it and doesn't require a lot of artistic type talent.

If those four criteria are met, then if you were able to bet on who was right between a random genuis, and a random, kind of smart, person, I say you could certainly lay a big price on the genuis. Exactly how big depends on the subject. But religion definitely is one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to your position, if Newton was alive and was more Christian than ever, he would be a "monster favorite" over you to be right, therefore it would be -EV for your soul if you disagreed with him. (consdering all religion is a 'wager' anyway)

Cheers,
SDM

[txag007]

Worldview.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what.

Bobby Fischer supposedely has a higher IQ than Einstein did and he believes in all sorts of wacky and inane things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just responding to the suggestion that genius and christian were mutually exclusive.

Newton was both.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

contemporary genius.

i highly doubt today that if newton was alive today that he would still accept christianity.

BTW this is different from a belief in a creator, non-intervening god. Once you allow a god who can fiddle with the laws of physics, you run into trouble. That is why all the stuff in christianity is nonsense.

[siegfriedandroy]

It's not as if Newton existed as a caveman in the stone age of thousands of years past. I'm sure Newton was exposed to many of the same 'secular' arguments that Sklansky finds incontrovertible, yet was not convinced. Despite Newton's brilliance in physics, he still at the same time believed in the existence of supernatural and the possibility and even past occurrence of miracles.

[siegfriedandroy]

i appreciate the reference

[David Sklansky]

"I'm sure Newton was exposed to many of the same 'secular' arguments that Sklansky finds incontrovertible,"

Nope

[siegfriedandroy]

I dont see how all these new and more advanced formulations in modern physics make it so insurmountably obvious that there cannot be a God who intervenes in and upholds the universe. So what if things are incredibly complicated and esoteric? Even the most advanced of the great physicists who Sklansky worships know less than .00000000(ad infinitum zeroes)1 of all there is to know. Yet somehow many of the atheists on this site (who i believe truly know even far less than the above stated #, if that were possible), are continually arrogant, presumptuous, and sometimes disingenous, elevating their foolish, childish theories (fantasies) to godlike status, and an idol of sorts.

And to go back to Sklansky's Newton hypothesis, much of what he explained was very complicated (ie law of gravity). Yet this was not somehow bulletproof evidence against the possibility of God existing and intervening in the world.

Many of the atheist posters are clearly very intelligent (in their own ways, and in SOME areas). However, in my opinion most of them are also completely blinded to the immensity of what they do not know, putting in place of this vast ignorance a super inflated self ego and infatuation with unsubstatiated, suspect theories that none of them really know much about.

Socrates: "I know because I do not know." (or something to that effect)

[siegfriedandroy]

I think you are incorrect, in return, Mr Sklansky.

As surely as you would destroy me on the SAT (at least i think you would judging by your posts on wagering propositions!- I scored 1490 in high school (many years ago), but did not prepare much for it in my defense), Im nearly just as certain that many of the same arguments against God, Christianity, etc. that you find so persuasive have been around for hundreds of years, and were definitely considered and soundly rejected by Newton. Must I elaborate and spell them out; you really cannot think of any???

[kbfc]

This is admittedly unresearched, but off the top of my head, I call your bluff.

Newton did not live to see the work of folks like (but not limited to) Hume, or Kant, or Nietzche, or ungrateful rebels like Thomas Paine. A great amount of secular arguments against theism are derived from these sources.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
This is admittedly unresearched, but off the top of my head, I call your bluff.

Newton did not live to see the work of folks like (but not limited to) Hume, or Kant, or Nietzche, or ungrateful rebels like Thomas Paine. A great amount of secular arguments against theism are derived from these sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

The one "red herring" perhaps is that since Newton (and Leibniz) "discovered" Calculus, he had an analytical brilliant mind (genius) and an eye for logic.

Yet Newton was a devout Christian, not one merely in name, he believed the Bible was the inspired word of God and read from it daily.

Newton must of saw some logic in Christianity far beyond what most 'emotional believers' and skeptics alike see in the religion, either that or he was 'brainwashed' which I don't think he was, nor apparently does Sklansky.

[kbfc]

This really isn't the point. You argued that Newton had been exposed to the common skeptical arguments. Now, rather than addressing the fact that you're probably wrong on this count, you're moving the goalposts.

That said, Newton may have been brilliant, but every man is at a disadvantage to those who follow him, in that there is less of a foundation to work with. Newton was a genius, but he didn't come up with Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, or hell, Evolution. He also didn't come up with the skeptical arguments that would come in later generations.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
You argued that Newton had been exposed to the common skeptical arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say this?

[ QUOTE ]

Now, rather than addressing the fact that you're probably wrong on this count, you're moving the goalposts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

[ QUOTE ]

That said, Newton may have been brilliant, but every man is at a disadvantage to those who follow him, in that there is less of a foundation to work with. Newton was a genius, but he didn't come up with Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, or hell, Evolution. He also didn't come up with the skeptical arguments that would come in later generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already acknowledged the fact that if Newton was alive today he'd either have lost his faith or been a deeper believer, it's 50/50 IMHO.

[kbfc]

Wow, reason #23252b why you one should stay away from messageboards at 4am. I had you completely confused with seigfriedandroy.

In my own defense, both names start with 's', end with 'y', and contain 15 characters. Since those 3 traits are the most important things for word recognition in the brain, I feel excused. Have you ever seen the article about this? The one where, in the process of describing the phenomenon, every word has the interior letters jumbled, yet it remains effortlessly readable. It's pretty amusing.

That all said, uh......uh......

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, reason #23252b why you one should stay away from messageboards at 4am. I had you completely confused with seigfriedandroy.

In my own defense, both names start with 's', end with 'y', and contain 15 characters. Since those 3 traits are the most important things for word recognition in the brain, I feel excused. Have you ever seen the article about this? The one where, in the process of describing the phenomenon, every word has the interior letters jumbled, yet it remains effortlessly readable. It's pretty amusing.

That all said, uh......uh......

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem.

And yes I have seen that research regarding jumbled middle letters and found it very interesting.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what.

Bobby Fischer supposedely has a higher IQ than Einstein did and he believes in all sorts of wacky and inane things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just responding to the suggestion that genius and christian were mutually exclusive.

Newton was both.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

contemporary genius.

i highly doubt today that if newton was alive today that he would still accept christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, no reason to think Newton wouldn't have had very different views today.

Anyone who wants to claim that Newton must have been right will presumably accept he was right about the bible. Plenty of information is available as he wrote so much and was an important man in his own time.

[ QUOTE ]
Affiliation: Anglican, Heterodox Newton was born into the Anglican church and publicly conformed to it. At about thirty, he convinced himself that Trinitarianism was a fraud and that Arianism was the true form of primitive Christianity. Newton held these views, very privately, until the end of his life. On his death bed he refused to receive the sacrament of the Anglican church.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
If Newton was alive now and was STILL a religious Christian, I would significantly alter my personal assessment about whether I thought Christianity is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's highly likely he was no more a Christian than Blair or Bush.

No guy that intelligent and connected would be a Christian. Although I'm sure that would be his public image.