Are atheists better poker players than theists?

[bocablkr]

I have stated several times that I am amazed at the number of atheists on this forum. I believe it is due in part to the fact that in order to be a good poker player you need to be mathematical, logical and analytical. I also believe those traits are more common among atheists than theists. Any thoughts? I would also like to see both sides rate themselves as poker players.

I am an atheist and consider myself a pretty good poker player (subjective of course). I have won over $80,000 the last 2 1/2 years in live games. Obviously there are great poker pros on both sides but I am interested in our forum members especially Notready, RJT and the rest.

I would guess that atheists are better. Mainly because atheists are concerned with reality while theists are, well, not. Theists, by nature of their belief in a higher power, are probably much more likely to believe in silly superstitions and "luck." Of course I have no evidence whatsoever to back up anything I have said. Just kind of the way it would seem to be.

And yes, in case it wasn't obvious, I am an atheist.

[hmkpoker]

I think we need a larger sample size than that.

And for what it's worth, I'm an atheist, and I suck at poker ^_^

[RJT]

From what I gather, NotReady (he talked about his game once, I think) “got game”.

I am only learning the game. I started earlier this year. I hold my own. Not a winning player, yet. Although, I don’t have the time to spend that I wish I had (especially after finding this forum) For a novice, I’d say I am progressing fairly well. (Mostly because of 2+2 books and these forums.) My biggest problem right now is developing patience – to wait for the right hands. Since, I am playing at limits lower than my bankroll allows, I too often will make a call because it is a relatively minor amount for me.

The novelty of the game – that eagerness to get into the hand is wearing off also, so this will help my future game. Also, I am getting tired of not making a profit when I spend my time on it. Time is money, too, as they say. I have reached a new plateau and this is where I am now. Got the basics down, played enough hands that I no longer am playing just for the fun of it. Now on to the next step.

As far as atheist/theist – it certainly depends on the individual. I can see how one might lean towards atheist being a bit more objective. But, I wouldn’t discount the theist and his abilities to observe the intangibles (the table texture for example, or reads on folk in a live game) as a plus. I don’t think either group has a monopoly on things like the intangibles or logic.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t think either group has a monopoly on things like the intangibles or logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your input RJT. I agree with the intangibles being similar but I lean towards atheists being more logical.

[maurile]

Atheists are just luckier.

[imported_luckyme]

RJT - [ QUOTE ]
As far as atheist/theist – it certainly depends on the individual. I can see how one might lean towards atheist being a bit more objective. But, I wouldn’t discount the theist and his abilities to observe the intangibles (the table texture for example, or reads on folk in a live game) as a plus. I don’t think either group has a monopoly on things like the intangibles or logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raw initial talent - theist or not isn’t relevant. Essentially the observant, people-focused salesman have a head start. Analytical types usually bypass them later by better overall application but not always.

Doyle Brunson strikes me as an intelligent, observant people-reading competitor, but weaker on analytical skill than DS, for example. There are other personality factors that weigh in at the top level given reasonable skills in both those areas. Non-tilt is one. There are always players at every level that would be relatively awesome if they had a stabilizer bar. Similar with discipline in general. At the upper end of winners, I’d rate discipline in it’s various manifestations as a big factor.

Since there are many roads to atheism, I wouldn’t read too much into the impression we get from the 2+2 forum. It’s doesn’t give us ‘atheist players’ it gives us ‘atheist players that enjoy posting to an analytical web-forum" a self-selecting sample.

I suspect a correlation (not necessarily causation) but not convinced yet.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect a correlation (not necessarily causation) but not convinced yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

10-15% of the US population are non-believers. I suspect it is higher among the top pros and MUCH higher here on this forum. I think that is rather convincing.

[David Sklansky]

"I believe it is due in part to the fact that in order to be a good poker player you need to be mathematical, logical and analytical."

Probably only a few people remember that the start of all the religion debates occurred when someone put up a similar thesis, before this forum even existed, on the psychology forum and I replied something like:

"People who truly believe in the specifics of particular religions are much less likely to be good poker players given the importance of objective evidence evaluation that poker requires."

Nothing has changed in my mind.

[Bigdaddydvo]

Phil Hellmuth once said he can "look into his opponent's eyes and see into his soul"

PH obviously believes in an immortal soul and presumably a God who created it.

PH is thus a theist. Since PH is one of the best poker players in the world, we can necessarily deduce that theists outperform atheists at the poker table.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

Phil Hellmuth once said he can "look into his opponent's eyes and see into his soul"

PH obviously believes in an immortal soul and presumably a God who created it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know adamant atheists who make comments like that all the time. I have no idea how PH uses it but these boys mean "I understand him below his conscious level, I can read him at an emotional level." No theist implications at all. Not unlike when an atheist physicist talks about "god does not play dice", or "reading the mind of god"..it's just using the popular expression.

Even if PH is refering to some part of a person existing beyond this realm, there is no reason to think he means it's immortal or that it was created by a god ( although he well might).

If your interpretation is "obvious" from his useage... I'll have to start watching what I'm saying, g-damn it.

On a sidenote, I find it interesting how deductive thinkers believe an exception to an inductive 'majority of' conclusion disproves the conclusion. When I was younger, it would amaze me, now I essentially expect it. It's seems you are mocking the argument perhaps partly tongue-in-cheek but that still requires believing that others think this 'could be' a valid counter to the claim.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

The theist: Believes that <font color="red">God</font> is looking out for him, and his supposed long-shot will come through <font color="red">after death</font>.

The fish: Believes that <font color="red">Lady Luck</font> is looking out for him, and his supposed long-shot will come through <font color="red">on the river</font>.

Judge for yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
"People who truly believe in the specifics of particular religions are much less likely to be good poker players given the importance of objective evidence evaluation that poker requires."

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to me, to be pretty much the same as my statement that people with faith in God, the Bible, their pastor, ouija boards, etc, are much more apt to make irrational decisions. Yet, you seemed to have chided me by saying it's not about faith. "People who believe in the specifics of a religion..." sounds like faith to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Hellmuth once said he can "look into his opponent's eyes and see into his soul"

PH obviously believes in an immortal soul and presumably a God who created it.

PH is thus a theist. Since PH is one of the best poker players in the world, we can necessarily deduce that theists outperform atheists at the poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I didn't know you were a Christian, I'd think you were being sarcastic in this post. But, since you are a Christian... I'm not sure what to think. I guess this goes back to objectively weighing evidence like DS said...

[jt1]

Bocalbkr, Sklansky, and luckyme make the most sense, here. Creationists can ignore facts to better focus on what they are confortable with. That is a recipe for failing to improve past a certain level. Atheists are fortunate not to have this deficit. However, as luckyme said, if a Creationists has certain intangible skills like discipline and perception then his other deficits can be compensated for.

Similarly, tall people will always be better at basketball but if a short guy is incredibly quick.....Another example, since readers tend to be type B people who admire the romantic or exotic, type B romantics will always have an advantage in writing, but a type A person is likely to be more prolific and thorough.....

[IronUnkind]

I concede that the point you make here is probably true. The implications of your statement, though, are either too facile (and therefore flawed) or too subtle (and therefore easily misunderstood).

It is the second of these possibilities which I would like to address. Another respondant to this post (KipBond) seems like a smart enough fellow, but his comment suggests a profound misunderstanding of the point you are trying to make. You ought to clarify these things, lest you unwittingly invite the unjust criticism of dumb believers and provoke the unjust vitriol of the dumb unbelievers.

Poker ain't rocket science, not matter how much the WPT producers or book publishers hype it.

[ QUOTE ]
...amazed at the number of atheists on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they're mostly young white male internet junkies. Not too many believers among that group.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe it is due in part to the fact that in order to be a good poker player you need to be mathematical, logical and analytical. I also believe those traits are more common among atheists than theists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. To be a good poker player at all but the highest levels you need common sense and emotional control. If you have those two traits, a slightly above average intelligence is plenty of horsepower for poker. Hell, it's plenty of horsepower to write the book on poker.

I see no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that atheists are better players than theists. Using these forums as any kind of test is just selection bias and is poor science. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

To answer your question, I am an atheist and a winning player at small stakes (used to post as OOO before I got banned from OOT)

[David Sklansky]

"This seems to me, to be pretty much the same as my statement that people with faith in God, the Bible, their pastor, ouija boards, etc, are much more apt to make irrational decisions. Yet, you seemed to have chided me by saying it's not about faith. "People who believe in the specifics of a religion..." sounds like faith to me."

No one has faith in ouija boards. Not by the definition I was using. And most people believe that their brand of religion makes a lot of sense. These are the people who tend to make worse poker players.

[David Sklansky]

"Nonsense. To be a good poker player at all but the highest levels you need common sense and emotional control. If you have those two traits, a slightly above average intelligence is plenty of horsepower for poker. Hell, it's plenty of horsepower to write the book on poker.

I see no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that atheists are better players than theists. Using these forums as any kind of test is just selection bias and is poor science."

Would you say the same for bridge or backgammon? And does the highest levels include 30-60? And I see plenty of evidence outside these forums.

[ QUOTE ]
"This seems to me, to be pretty much the same as my statement that people with faith in God, the Bible, their pastor, ouija boards, etc, are much more apt to make irrational decisions. Yet, you seemed to have chided me by saying it's not about faith. "People who believe in the specifics of a religion..." sounds like faith to me."

No one has faith in ouija boards. Not by the definition I was using. And most people believe that their brand of religion makes a lot of sense. These are the people who tend to make worse poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

People have faith in ouija boards, by the definition I was using: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." What definition of faith are you using?

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Hellmuth once said he can "look into his opponent's eyes and see into his soul"

PH obviously believes in an immortal soul and presumably a God who created it.

PH is thus a theist. Since PH is one of the best poker players in the world, we can necessarily deduce that theists outperform atheists at the poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please reply, Bigdaddydvo, and let us know if this was a joke or sarcasm?

If its serious it must be one of the silliest attempts at logic I have ever seen. And possible adds weight to the theist=illogical angle?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
"I believe it is due in part to the fact that in order to be a good poker player you need to be mathematical, logical and analytical."

Probably only a few people remember that the start of all the religion debates occurred when someone put up a similar thesis, before this forum even existed, on the psychology forum and I replied something like:

"People who truly believe in the specifics of particular religions are much less likely to be good poker players given the importance of objective evidence evaluation that poker requires."

Nothing has changed in my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad this subject has reemerged because I believe there is a significant factor being missed here. The reason there appear to be more athiests on this website and who play poker in general is the traditional social regard to gambling. Especially in the United States, gambling is seen in a very negative light among the religious. Poker is only now becoming more mainstream. Now that it is more widely accepted, more and more theists will emerge as top players, especially at the tournament level.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad this subject has reemerged because I believe there is a significant factor being missed here. The reason there appear to be more athiests on this website and who play poker in general is the traditional social regard to gambling. Especially in the United States, gambling is seen in a very negative light among the religious. Poker is only now becoming more mainstream. Now that it is more widely accepted, more and more theists will emerge as top players, especially at the tournament level.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting supposition - time will tell if it pans out.

[ QUOTE ]
Now that it is more widely accepted, more and more theists will emerge as top players, especially at the tournament level.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not fair if you have an all-mighty infinite being helping to crack aces.

[David Sklansky]

"I'm glad this subject has reemerged because I believe there is a significant factor being missed here. The reason there appear to be more athiests on this website and who play poker in general is the traditional social regard to gambling. Especially in the United States, gambling is seen in a very negative light among the religious. Poker is only now becoming more mainstream. Now that it is more widely accepted, more and more theists will emerge as top players, especially at the tournament level.

Interesting supposition - time will tell if it pans out."

The hypothesis seems reasonable if it weren't for this:

The better the player, the less likely he is to be religious.

Assuming that is true, (and all my personal experience tells me it is), it makes my case regardles of the percentage of devout theists presently playing.

Of course this whole idea is simply a special case of a general concept. Theists are also much less likely to be great in Bridge, Backgammon, Logic puzzles, Chemistry, Physics, IQ tests, Probability, Analytic Geometry, Trading Options, Molecular Biology, or anything else requiring analytical thought. Don't tell me social mores are the blame all of that. Either religion makes you dumber (or at least less intellectually curious) or dumb people are more likely to become religious. Or a combination of both.

[garion888]

Here, Here
\raises glass...

[Ace-Ex]

So are there any top-level pros who pray regularly at the table? I mean do you know of the religious beliefs of most of these guys and gals?

[imported_luckyme]

DS summerized -
[ QUOTE ]
"People who truly believe in the specifics of particular religions are much less likely to be good poker players given the importance of objective evidence evaluation that poker requires."

[/ QUOTE ]

DS has expressed it from a few angles, none of which are caught by this much more general statement of Txag007 -
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is only now becoming more mainstream. Now that it is more widely accepted, more and more theists will emerge as top players, especially at the tournament level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if 80% of top players of the future are theists ( the approximate american population ratio of theist - nontheist) that would have no bearing on DS's claim. It's a specific mindset about their faith that is an indicator of the style of thinking not helpful in shifting analytical strategy situations where everything is relative, poker, bridge, military strategy ( not so much tactics), theoretical physics, for instance.

General theistic beliefs based on a leap of faith doesn't automatically send out the warning signals. It's the dogmatic specific parts of the faith ( whatever it is) being defended as arrived at logically that is the 'tell'.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course this whole idea is simply a special case of a general concept. Theists are also much less likely to be great in Bridge, Backgammon, Logic puzzles, Chemistry, Physics, IQ tests, Probability, Analytic Geometry, Trading Options, Molecular Biology, or anything else requiring analytical thought. Don't tell me social mores are the blame all of that.

[/ QUOTE ]
We've been over this in other threads, David. This is your opinion. It is NOT fact, and yet you continue to regard it as such.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
General theistic beliefs based on a leap of faith doesn't automatically send out the warning signals. It's the dogmatic specific parts of the faith ( whatever it is) being defended as arrived at logically that is the 'tell'.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I find humorous is the numerous posts that claim Christianity is illogical, when the poster obviously knows little about the church. Sklansky is the worst.

SKLANSKY:
[ QUOTE ]
"People who truly believe in the specifics of particular religions are much less likely to be good poker players given the importance of objective evidence evaluation that poker requires."

[/ QUOTE ]
SKLANSKY: (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=38 26832&amp;Searchpage=5&amp;Main=3821693&amp;Words=David+Sklans ky&amp;topic=&amp;Search=true#Post3826832)
[ QUOTE ]
I resort to those arguments a lot because I'm not knowledgeble about any religions specifics. When you claim that if I studied Christianity I would change my mind I can't prove you wrong because I'm not going to go to the trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
What I find humorous is the numerous posts that claim Christianity is illogical, when the poster obviously knows little about the church.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post isn't helping your cause. My statement certainly wasn't about xtianity and for sure not "the church" ( there is only one?) it's about using evidence of very poor skill at inductive logic in one subject ( theistic specifics, in this case, but it could be about moon-landings, or dog-breeding) and treating that as the basis for expecting poor abilities in that area of intelligence in another area. It's not guessing, or just somebodies opinion, logic is 'testable', it's not some secret methodology. Some people are good at inductive logic some people aren't, there is no social stigma attached. People good at inductive logic are often poor at some other areas of life that people also value. Everybody can't be good at everything or such a grade would have no meaning.

We just have to learn to deal with our weaknesses not deny them.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[IronUnkind]

It is probably true that dumb people are more likely to become religious than are smart people (even though this is not, as you assume, monocausal).

But it is also probably true that dumb people are more likely to become religious than they are to become atheists. And this contributes to the verity of your conjecture.

Should St. Peter begin proctoring IQ tests outside the gates of heaven, in order to maintain the intellectual respectability of the joint?

[IronUnkind]

I think it was a jopke.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
It's seems you are mocking the argument perhaps partly tongue-in-cheek but that still requires believing that others think this 'could be' a valid counter to the claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pull your head out. He was just being silly.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
He was just being silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the point of my "tongue in cheek" remark, allowing for that. But nagging at me was seeing in other threads the use of similar sounding "I found an exception to the general expectation, therefore the general expectation is wrong" examples, it's not unreasonable to be prepared for 'kidding-serious' or worse.

He caught DS's eye in the military thread with his "FYI I was standing next to a Brigidier General at Mass today."

Keep in mind that this line of 'rebuttal' is common in exchanges, and used as if it were valid, and just as silly as these comments, so there's no easy way to distinguish the serious from the semi-serious to the downright goofy. What was unusual about this one that was the clue it was "just being silly", we see tons of them essentially at the same level of sanity?

if it was a total joke, that's the risk one takes with net-humor. bin der dun dat.

luckyme, humourless in seattle

[RJT]

David,

I am not asking this as anecdotal evidence for or against the issue, I am just curious.

Is Dan Harrington atheist? For some reason, I don’t put him on being atheist.

RJT

[TheFatPimp]

I would like to point out that Doyel Brunson is a God fearing man, and I thought I read somewhere that Chip Reese became a Christian, sometime during the 80's, both men have seemed to have survived o.k., in this Godless poker universe.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

I would like to point out that Doyel Brunson is a God fearing man, and I thought I read somewhere that Chip Reese became a Christian, sometime during the 80's, both men have seemed to have survived o.k., in this Godless poker universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

IronUnKind - HEEEEEELPPP !!

Before I respond to this post... am I being suckered again and this is somebody just being silly or is this the typical illogical rebuttal that I was referring to?

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

"Of course this whole idea is simply a special case of a general concept. Theists are also much less likely to be great in Bridge, Backgammon, Logic puzzles, Chemistry, Physics, IQ tests, Probability, Analytic Geometry, Trading Options, Molecular Biology, or anything else requiring analytical thought. Don't tell me social mores are the blame all of that.

We've been over this in other threads, David. This is your opinion. It is NOT fact, and yet you continue to regard it as such."

I never said that I knew for a fact that this is true. But it isn't a matter of opinion and it would be testable. And I would gladly lay $100,000 to $25,000 against someone who didn't know for sure that I was wrong. Keep in mind that I am not including mildly religous people who might call themselves Methodist or Jewish, etc. I'm speaking about people who are quite sure the specifics of their religon is correct.

Meanwhile I'm wondering why you even bother to dispute me. The other religious people on the forum grant that I'm probably correct but say it doesn't matter. If you were sure I was right it wouldn't change anything in your mind, so why bother to dispute it.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
"Of course this whole idea is simply a special case of a general concept. Theists are also much less likely to be great in Bridge, Backgammon, Logic puzzles, Chemistry, Physics, IQ tests, Probability, Analytic Geometry, Trading Options, Molecular Biology, or anything else requiring analytical thought. Don't tell me social mores are the blame all of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone else's reply and then

[ QUOTE ]

I never said that I knew for a fact that this is true. But it isn't a matter of opinion and it would be testable. And I would gladly lay $100,000 to $25,000 against someone who didn't know for sure that I was wrong. Keep in mind that I am not including mildly religous people who might call themselves Methodist or Jewish, etc. I'm speaking about people who are quite sure the specifics of their religon is correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm new to the debate and not particulary passionate about it. But I am interested and have some insight (I hope) into some of these matters.

I will point out that many religious people and humanists (who may be theists, atheists, or agnostics) believe, to some degree, that the purpose of human existence is to help others and develop interpersonal relationships. Most of the activities you listed, David, are not closely related to these goalas. Thus, they have less incentive to pursue these fields than someone whose attitude toward life is, to some degree, to maximize self-gratification. (I simplify here as most people fall somewhere in a spectrum here, wanting to help others without expecting full compensation in return and also pursuing their own self interests at other times.)

I happen to have some experience in academia and can describe my observations of some of the top mathematics departments in the country. These are the empirical observations that I have made:

* The percentage of mathematicians I have encountered who are atheists or agnostic is significantly higher than in the mainstream population. Obviously it would depend how you polled them, but I would say that probably half (perhaps a bit less) would answer affirmatively to the question, "Do you believe in the existence of a spiritual being that is responsible, in some form or fashion, for the existence of the universe?" Very few would accept the Genesis account literally.

* That said, I personally found little correlation between religious beliefs and mathematical aptitude. That is, I found that trying to predict the likelihood of someone's religious fervor based on their success in terms of peer-reviewed mathematical publications to be unreliable. In fairness, my knowledge of the religious beliefs of some were often incomplete or completely lacking (as it wasn't something I had a vested interest in determining) and often my knowledge of their mathematical reputation wasn't reliable. Thus, my observations are nowhere near definitive here, but they do suggest (albeit tenuously) that any correlation, if it exists, may not be as strong as is often asserted.
* Almost all of the mathematicians I have met have been very respectful toward the practice of different religions or no religion at all. There is little desire to impose religious customs on others (in contrast to large parts of the general population), but there is a willingness to accomodate needs for religious exemptions and to be respectful towards the religious beliefs of others (be they theistic or atheistic or indifferent).
Lastly, I am sure this point has been made oftentimes before, but most people who are skilled at logical analysis and yet still have beliefs in god are often quite aware that they lack evidence for their belief in god. They also tend to form beliefs for which there is not contrary evidence. (So they might believe that there is a spiritual being whose existence was necessary for the creation of the universe, but would reject the idea that the earth is only several thousand yeras old.) I see no reason why having a belief about a proposition for which there is no readily apparent (to me, at least) method of gathering evidence in favor or not in favor and acknowledging that it is just such a belief is any way in conflict with the ability to analyze data logically.

So I am not really sure what your point is, David. If it is simply that the mass of people, those who have little skills in logical analysis, are willing to accept dubious claims (such as the age of the earth being several thousand years), then I find what you are saying to be painfully obvious. Of course, such people can be duped in just about any matter and surely make for suckers in a poker game.

On the other hand, there are still religious claims that one can make which are construed in such a way that they cannot be analyzed through the collection of empiricial evidence. While one might question whether such statements have meaning or significance, it doesn't seem that believing that there is a meaning and significance and truth to them is paricularly relevant to one's ability to handle a completely different situation: logical analysis when there is sufficient data to draw conclusions.

Well this has gotten long and I didn't get a chance to address what is probably much more interesting: religious beliefs, such as the belief that Jesus Christ was resurrected, for which there is no direct evidence to suggest that such events did not or could not have taken place but for which there is inductive evidence that would refute the belief (in this case, the inductive knowledge that human beings cannot be resurrected from the dead).

I am too tired to fully explain my thoughts in this regard, but I will say that most intelligent religious believers are aware that beliefs in such propositions are not justified by recourse to evidence-based reasoning (and some even recognize that they would disbelief the relevant proposition if their belief were completely determined by evidential analysis). This is where the notion of faith comes in -- a willingness to believe a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence (or some would go so far as to say: for which there might even be evidence against, but it is not direct enough to be sufficiently conclusive). Thus, a Christian would believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected, even though he acknowledges that no other human being has been resurrected and there is no scientific basis which suggests that resurrection is possible. Hence, the need to have faith in certain theological propositions which are designed to explain how this is possible, given the preponderence of inductive evidence to suggest otherwise.

Now you can certainly argue as to whether choosing to have faith in such beliefs is sensible or not. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are, in fact, many people who do hold such beliefs and yet are entirely capable of competently analyzing other situations (such as the play of a poker hand) in a completely evidence-based manner. Unlike poker or other similar activities, there is no concept equivalent to EV when it comes to assessing religious beliefs. That is, a person can assess different poker plays by calculating their relevant EVs and determining which one is maximal. Similarly, a scientist can assess different theories by making predictions and then conducting an experiment to determine which prediction is closest to the actual result. There is no such equivalent way to assess the truth value of many religious propositions. Consider the statement about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Given our inability to say much about what happened during the historical time in which he lived, we certainly don't yet have recourse to the field of history to refute the Christian's claim. The closest thing we have to assess the competing beliefs on the matter is their consistency. Unfortunately, the religious believer's belief is that the laws of nature / workings of the world are not consistent (and, in fact, have departed radically from their usual consistency a few times for divine purposes). This may or may not be a very sensible interpretation of the way the world has operated in the past, but there's no way to gather evidence for or against it. You can make good philosophical arguments for choosing not to believe in statements that are, in some sense, constructed so as not to be falsifiable. But that is a very far cry from saying that someone who does accept at least one such statement is not capable of logically analyzing statements that are falsifiable.

Well, I'm tired...hope my arguments and claims are clear, though I am afraid they probably are not nearly as clear and concise as they ought to be.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There is little desire to impose religious customs on others (in contrast to large parts of the general population), but there is a willingness to accomodate needs for religious exemptions and to be respectful towards the religious beliefs of others (be they theistic or atheistic or indifferent).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you strengthened DS's claim and I'll use this quote as an example. One of DS's conditions has been theists who believe the specific trivia of their sect is True and it is Logically so. The people you describe in that section obviously don't fit the suit.

Your post contains versions of this - [ QUOTE ]
There is no such equivalent way to assess the truth value of many religious propositions.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if it's those theists who claim there is a logical way to establish the truth value of their pet beliefs that are the ones DS is making his claims about, then the people you're referring to don't match up. They have either no theistic beliefs or just some version of the vague warm-fuzzies. no prob.

You need to come with " I know 100 top theoretical physicists and 80 of them believe they're drinking the actual blood of jesus and that they have logical proof they are"... then I'd be mightily impressed and it would relate to DS's major claim.

[ QUOTE ]
But that is a very far cry from saying that someone who does accept at least one such statement is not capable of logically analyzing statements that are falsifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, it's not a matter of them accepting a unfalsifiable claim ( although that does matter to some degree), it is them claiming there are logical reasons to do so. That's not what you are claiming they do, so you have not presented any counter evidence. There may be some out there, but this wasn't it.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

That was a well thought out and basically true post. But as luckyme said, it didn't refute my point. The biggest reason is that the religious, logically inclined people, as you say, examine their beliefs so as to reject the insane ones and admit that those that are left for them are theoretically possible but not actually very reasonable.

PS. I believe mathmeticians are quite a bit more likely to have specifc religious beleifs than physicsts and chemists. But still a lot less likely than the general public.

It is a simple fact, shown in poll after poll, that the higher one's level of education, the lower a person's religious fervor is (on average). This is especially true of people educated in the physical sciences (particularily physics a field that flys directly in the face of most literal religious belief).

A question that thus springs to mind is does this phenomenon also exist in the field of poker? Since poker requires a lot of skills that overlap with skills required in the physical sciences it is reasonable to think it would. The logic/math/analyical skill set required for poker however is relatively small compared with what is needed to get a PhD and become a sucessful professor. The process of becoming a good poker player simply isn't all that "faith testing".

Most people's first religion is that of their parents and usually they only change their religious belief system when choose to look into their beliefs more deeply, or experience thrusts a re-evaluation upon them. Sometimes they find a new religion, sometimes they cease to be religious at all, and sometimes they go back to their parent's religion more ardent than ever. Of course, a lot of people (perhaps a majority in North America) never question the faith of their parents.

All this, of course, has very little to do with poker. As a result, it is prefectly possible (and likely) that a person can become a great poker player without ever bothering to analyze the faith their parents brought them up in.

The big question is, i think, are the analytically minded more likely to engage in a thourough evaluation of their religious beliefs, and if so, how likely are they to come out non-believers?

Presonally, I suspect that the answer to both parts of this question is "yes". I think it's safe to say that analytically minded people are more likely to rigorously analyze their religious beliefs and a disproportinate number of them will wind up non-believers. Since I'm an atheist I'm also inclined to believe that some form of non-belief is the most likely conclusion such a person will come to. Therefore, I suspect that non-believers are disproportionately analytical by nature compared to the general population. Therefore, you'd think that we'd be disproportionately better at poker.

And maybe we are, but it's also important to realize that not all non-believers become so via this rational inspection of religion. There's also the group that goes through a far more emotional process. These atheists may be no more inclined to be good poker players than most theists, and so if they make up the majority of non-believers then there may be little to no difference between teh poker skills of atheists and non-atheists.

Finally, there is the important distiction to be made between atheists in general being better poker players than theists (or not) and atheists being over represented in the upper echelons of professional poker. It is quite possible that there is no difference between the level of play of the average atheist and the average theist. However, if analytical people are more inclined to test their faith and find it wanting and if they are more likely to become atheists in proportion to their analytical skills (this is highly debatable) then it may be inevitable that atheists pop up at the elite levels of poker just as they do in academia.

Anyway, that's my 2+2 cents onthis issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, there is the important distiction to be made between atheists in general being better poker players than theists (or not) and atheists being over represented in the upper echelons of professional poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... If they are over represented in the upper echelons of professional poker, then they must be better at it, it seems to me, whether by inclination, skills, or whatever!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Finally, there is the important distiction to be made between atheists in general being better poker players than theists (or not) and atheists being over represented in the upper echelons of professional poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... If they are over represented in the upper echelons of professional poker, then they must be better at it, it seems to me, whether by inclination, skills, or whatever!

[/ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that atheists can be over represented at the upper levels of poker and still not be any better than theists on average. Things that cause certain groups to pop up at the elite levels quite often have nothing to do with what is going on among the great masses.

For example, just because Americans win more gold medals per capita than say the French (maybe they do, maybe they don't) it does not follow that the average American must be more fit than the average Frenchman.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, just because Americans win more gold medals per capita than say the French (maybe they do, maybe they don't) it does not follow that the average American must be more fit than the average Frenchman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you here, but it isn't the same. What you are not saying is that because Americans win more gold medals per capita than say the French (maybe they do, maybe they don't) it does not follow that the average American must win more gold medals than than the average Frenchman. Yes they do (well they probably do /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

[David Sklansky]

Another well thought out post. But you wasted a lot of words. Because once you said:

"It is a simple fact, shown in poll after poll, that the higher one's level of education, the lower a person's religious fervor is (on average). This is especially true of people educated in the physical sciences (particularily physics a field that flys directly in the face of most literal religious belief)."

It is of little importance whether poker players are in a similar group. I'm sure they are. But those debating the other side are not interested in proving me wrong about that if it doesn't imply that your quoted statement above is also wrong.

[sweetjazz]

I don't quite get what's being debated here. Obviously, there are a lot of doltish people who accept and/or promote bad logical reasoning, and no doubt it is among this (large) group of people you will find people who believe that they can prove their religious beliefs through logical reasoning. Such people are clearly none too bright. I doubt their religious beliefs cause them to be gullible (because such individuals typically believe all kinds of foolish things), but rather their foolishness leads them to believe fanciful religious beliefs. (Believing that wine can be turned into the blood of Jesus Christ is merely unreasonable or unjustifiable through logical means. Believing that one can prove it is so -- a claim, by the way, that almost no theologian or serious religious scholar would make -- is fanciful.)

So if the point being made is that doltish people -- the kind that are led to accept dubious religious propositions simply because they have appealing consequences or they were raised that way -- are likely to be horrible at poker and other such activities, this seems undeniable.

But this is a rather shallow view of religion. It seems similar to analyzing atheists and assuming that they reject all Judeo-Christian moral principles. (One typically then deduces all of the bad consequences that would ensue from not having a society that accepts Judeo-Christian moral principles.) But while there may be such atheists (perhaps even in large numbers for all I know), there are many reasonable atheists who accept some of the Judeo-Christian moral principles (obviously on different grounds than divine law).

I do agree that once you look into segments of the population where doltish religious creeds are not accepted, then people are much more likely to reject even mere theism. I am not sure that proves much about the link between religious faith and intelligence, other than a high degree of intelligence will (likely) prevent one from accepting fanciful religious propositions.

So if the claim made by David and/or others is that people who do well in games and science tend not to claim that they can logically prove religious beliefs, sure this is irrefutable. It's also trivial and doesn't address any of the serious religious beliefs that people have. As I said above, almost no serious religious believer claims he can logically prove his religious beliefs. (The strongest claim I regularly here made is that belief x is undeniably true. But when pressed for the basis for this assertion, the justification is faith.)

In brief, I appear to be missing something the discussion, as it seems akin to saying "All atheists think that murder is acceptable." And then including in the definition of atheist a person who (irrationally) rejects all Judeo-Christian moral principles (presumably out of hatred for Judaism and Christianity). Perhaps such people exist, but it's absurd to define atheism in such a way as to limit its scope to such people.

[David Sklansky]

"As I said above, almost no serious religious believer claims he can logically prove his religious beliefs."

Most, however, claim that arguments and evidence by itself should lead one who understands those arguments and evidence, to think their specifc beliefs are likely or at least highly reasonable. Especially Protestants and Muslims.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a simple fact, shown in poll after poll, that the higher one's level of education, the lower a person's religious fervor is (on average).

[/ QUOTE ]
Please provide 3 polls which directly support this claim. One would be a good too, but you are implying there are many. Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
This is especially true of people educated in the physical sciences (particularily physics a field that flys directly in the face of most literal religious belief)."

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think there's a selection bias here? People in highly urbanised areas are also less religious. Is that because they're smarter, or is it lifestyle factors? Jews are recognised as being intelligent, and hold a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, yet they have one of the most retarded religions on the planet in terms of specific, obviously false beliefs. Again, intelligence? Cultural factors? What gives here?

[sweetjazz]

Another perspective: I find it no more problematic that the common person's religious beliefs are fanciful and not based on logical analysis than that the common person's scientific beliefs are fanciful and not based on logical analysis. (Indeed, in both cases the beliefs are often based on choosing to defer to particular authorities, one reason that traction cannot be made in the evolution v. intelligent design debate. For the common person, choosing sides is a matter of deferring to one set of beliefs over another, as opposed to analyzing which set of beliefs is science and which isn't.)

Among such people, it is clear that they will never have much success in science or business or much of anything that doesn't involve them doing as they are told.

To me, it is much more interesting to examine people who do have the ability to think for themselves. Such people may become good poker players or scientists or options traders, but they may equally well become a theologian or a minister. (Of course, not all of those careers consist entirely of people who are good at logical analysis.) There are and have been some brilliant theologians, people who assume (and typically believe) a certain set of propositions based on religious texts and traditions, and then use analytical thinking to try to deduce the consequences those beliefs have in formulating and verifying (or debunking) other interesting propositions.

Among such people -- people with a well-trained ability to analyze data and reason from hypothesis to conclusions using logical principles -- I suspect the decision of what to pursue in life is largely dictated between their attitude toward the purpose of their existence. To the extent that they tend to see it as fulfilling their own wishes and desires, they are less likely to be interested in religious thought and more interested in, for example, playing poker. To the extent that they tend to see it as serving some higher purpose (possibly but not necessarily divine), they are more likely to be interested in religious and cultural and political fields, and less so in games like poker or bridge or fields such as mathematics and physical sciences.

In other words, we can divide people into those capable of analytical thinking and those not. (Of course, we cannot really do this, as there would be a spectrum of analytical thinking skills, not a binary set of possibilities.) Among those without analytical skills, we acknowledge that there is a higher propensity for religious belief, often accepted because it was passed down from their parents or simply because its teaching are comforting. Nevertheless, even among those with analytical skills, there is still a significant amount of religious belief. Thus, we cannot conclude that religious belief precludes the development of analytic thinking or that analytic thinking leads one to reject religious beliefs. It only indicates that among analytic thinkers, religious belief is nearly as common as in the culture at large.

I don't see any connection among analytic thinkers (returning now to seeing analytic skills as a spectrum) between their skill in analytical reasoning and their religious beliefs. That is, if we sample the entire population, then obviously non-believers will test higher in e.g. IQ tests than believers. But if we choose to sample only those with a certain minimal amount of analytic reasoning skills, we would find that there are still a large number of believers and non-believers and I posit that in this sample, the IQ test scores would be much closer. (There would be a certain bias toward people who routinely solve puzzles and play games.) This was my point about the observations I made in regard to the very intelligent people I have met. They are much more likely to be non-religious than the mainstream population, but within this sample, I could detect no difference in ability between religious and non-religious. There are even extreme examples of rather literalist religious believers who are quite good mathematicians, though literalist believers are very uncommon in the sample.

[David Sklansky]

"Jews are recognised as being intelligent, and hold a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, yet they have one of the most retarded religions on the planet in terms of specific, obviously false beliefs. Again, intelligence? Cultural factors? What gives here?"

What gives here? Listen carefully Mr. Hi Falootin philospher who gets tough concepts but not easy ones. The reason they have a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes in spite of the retarded beliefs of the Jewish religion, is because for the most part THEY DON'T SHARE THOSE BELIEFS.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is a simple fact, shown in poll after poll, that the higher one's level of education, the lower a person's religious fervor is (on average).

[/ QUOTE ]
Please provide 3 polls which directly support this claim. One would be a good too, but you are implying there are many. Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
This is especially true of people educated in the physical sciences (particularily physics a field that flys directly in the face of most literal religious belief)."

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think there's a selection bias here? People in highly urbanised areas are also less religious. Is that because they're smarter, or is it lifestyle factors? Jews are recognised as being intelligent, and hold a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, yet they have one of the most retarded religions on the planet in terms of specific, obviously false beliefs. Again, intelligence? Cultural factors? What gives here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try using google - you WILL find numerous polls. I have included a reference to one below.

Interesting fact - many scientific studies done on the relationship of intelligence vs. belief in God have shown that as the IQ level increases the percentage who believe in God decreases. This doesn't mean that some smart people don't believe in God or that some less intelligent ones can't be atheists. Below is an excerpt from one study.

Polling Scientists on Beliefs

According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."


The survey, by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia, was intended to replicate one conducted in 1914, and the results were virtually unchanged. In both cases, participants were drawn from a directory of American scientists.


Others play down those results. They note that when Dr. Larson put part of the same survey to " leading scientists " - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation's most eminent scientific organization - fewer than 10 percent professed belief in a personal God or human immortality.

[sweetjazz]

I agree that there are a large number of religious believers, for example many Protestants, who seek to find evidence for their claims. Their arguments run along the lines of: x is documented in the Bible; there is reason to believe the Bible is an accurate account of events of Jesus' time; it is not possible (or a weaker variant: replace possible with plausible) that Jesus was not resurrected given that x happened. For example, x might be the appearance of Jesus to the apostles after he was crucified.

Surely that reasoning is confused. (The argument given suggests that the Bible is inaccurate in detail x because resurrection is impossible, not the other way around, since our available reasons for believing resurrection is impossible are much stronger than our reasons to believe that the Bible is an accurate account of what took place in Jesus' time.)

But many Christians, especially Catholics (as distinguished from the official teachings of the Catholic Church) and liberal Protestants, don't believe the Bible to be inerrant and admit that the parts of the Bible they believe in are based on faith. They assert that once this faith is had, one can come to a highly reasonable view of the world. This is different from what you are asserting (because their beliefs are not claimed to be highly reasonable based solely on outside evidence and arguments). Moreover, they assert that this faith is reasonable, that things could have transpired as they believe them to have.

The main objection to this line of though is that it's hard to jibe that assertion with their presumed belief that the world is governed by certain physical laws that are constant in time. This is one reason for the conflict between religion and science; ultimately religion can accept that today science is what it is. But in order to make religious faith consistent, it is often necessary (or at the very least convenient) to posit that God intervened in the world at certain historical moments and defied the scientific laws that otherwise govern us.

I suspect that it is this belief that most scientists reject and one reason that they tend not to be religious. While the claim is possible, it goes against what science is supposed to accomplish. If scientific laws are capable of exceptions for divine purposes, their usefulness for prediction diminishes. (E.g. The sun will rise tomorrow, unless there happens to be a divine reason for it not to.) OTOH, people who are not passionate about science may admit that the claim that God "changed the rules" for certain events (and further that he still does, depending on one's beliefs regarding transubstantiation) is a bit odd, but are unlikely to be deeply troubled by it. They are simply not invested in the project of science and find it easy to weaken the scope of what science can accomplish (on a practical level, no science is affected, but on a philosophical level, all science is affected).

I suspect this is why scientists are likely to reject religion more than any other group. The divide between religion and science, it seems to me, is over the uniformity and constancy of the laws of nature through all time. While there is a certain aestehetically unpleasing aspect to rejecting the constancy of the laws of nature, given that we have so much inductive evidence that they are indeed constant, it's a quite delicate and subtle matter, and I find it hard to be as critical of people who do so than I do of people who use rather silly reasoning such as that outlined at the beginning of this post.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
They are simply not invested in the project of science and find it easy to weaken the scope of what science can accomplish (on a practical level, no science is affected, but on a philosophical level, all science is affected).

[/ QUOTE ]

So when I go for my kidney transplant I can be confident nothing weird will go on with the physical happenings in our universe because, uh, because.. a)I'm invested in the project of science or b) because the universe doesn't care what I think or c) something weird may go on because I'm not invested in the project of science but not really because it only affects science on a philosophical level. good grief, get a grip.
Things fell down before Newton, events don't depend on our investment.

If the findings of science are cramping your style, just give it the finger and move on. Lot's do. Why torment yourself with twisted reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
The divide between religion and science, it seems to me, is over the uniformity and constancy of the laws of nature through all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the interesting areas of science is the study of whether 'laws' have been different at other times, whether universes can survive with different laws, different in black holes, etc, so at a basic level that's not a problem.

The divide is a territorial dispute. Science claims the universe is as we find it. Most religions dispute aspects of that to varying degrees and in certain areas wants it to be different and not how we find it, without evidence, naturally.

[ QUOTE ]
If scientific laws are capable of exceptions for divine purposes,..

[/ QUOTE ]

... then with 7 billion versions of what type and when that exception should/did occur we'll see lots of evidence of it... soon I'm sure. ( lots of prayer is intercession requests or thanks for).

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

There are no atheists at the final table.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
There are no atheists at the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There are no atheists at the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe there are only atheists at the final table.

chez

[RJT]

Phil,

If you are interested -

I did a summary of some of the polls a while back along with a few quotes from a source that is not often cited. I posted it in a separate thread. If I get a chance, I will try to link it. I probably won’t have time though – trying to get my work done, so I can take tomorrow off. This post was over a month ago but I don’t think more than two months – although time flies.

There are a few polls out there. I haven’t seen any that show anything other than correlation – if even that; i.e. none have shown any causation. The polls I have seen did not ask any questions that would be meaningful (in my view at least.)

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
What gives here? Listen carefully Mr. Hi Falootin philospher who gets tough concepts but not easy ones. The reason they have a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes in spite of the retarded beliefs of the Jewish religion, is because for the most part THEY DON'T SHARE THOSE BELIEFS.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

You are much more fun to be around when you show this more cheerful side of you. I always enjoy your posts when you show your wit while still making your point.

(I do understand your frustration when it “rears its head”. I, too, get frustrated sometimes when I have to deal with the many less intelligent than I in real life – and I am not even that smart, relatively speaking. I don't envy you in that regard.)

RJT

[Adam22]

i can't tell you how happy it makes me to know there are plenty of grown men who are still atheist/agnostic out there. i was under the impression that most just somehow mutated into god fearing dopes around the time of their midlife crisis.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is a simple fact, shown in poll after poll, that the higher one's level of education, the lower a person's religious fervor is (on average).

[/ QUOTE ]
Please provide 3 polls which directly support this claim. One would be a good too, but you are implying there are many. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiousness_and_intelligence

[ QUOTE ]
Jews are recognised as being intelligent, and hold a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, yet they have one of the most retarded religions on the planet in terms of specific, obviously false beliefs. Again, intelligence? Cultural factors? What gives here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity = Judaism + God-man-Jesus/resurrection. So, Christianity would have to be even more retarded than Judaism. I'd say Christianity is the middle-road between Judaism and Mormonism.