Challenge: PROVE That Atheists Are Smarter, Mr Sklansky

I'm sick of hearing that atheists are more likely to be more intelligent, more logical, more analytical, and better poker players. As an atheist I'm embarassed by it.

So I issue this challenge: Prove, or provide some supporting evidence, that the average atheist is:

- More intelligent than the average theist
- More analytical than the average theist
- A better poker player than the average theist
- Better at evaluating evidence before making a decision (the irony here is thick)

If your point is specifically that "people who believe and accept far out stories are less likely to be intelligent/analytical", isn't this obvious?

But you go a step further and use the terms 'atheists' and 'theists'. This is unreasonable. Many atheists aren't atheists because of evidence, many theists aren't theists because they're poor thinkers. Are atheists more likely to be logical, clear thinkers about any topic? In my experience (and I've spent a lot of time around atheist types), this is not the case. Most self identified atheists are atheists because of ambivalence, rebellion, lack of a religious upbringing, or an inability to accept and believe in something larger than themselves. Very few of the many atheists I have met can clearly and rationally state a case for their unbelief.

Further blurring the distinction are the many BluffThis types who are intelligent and clear thinkers but are unable to think clearly about their own religion because of childhood brainwashing and various emotional incapacities.

So to summarise I contend that your statement that atheists are more intelligent, more logical, etc, isn't based in fact. You're the one making the claim, please provide some supporting evidence for it.

[David Sklansky]

I've got some bad news for you. I pretty much agree with everything you just said. You wrote.

"If your point is specifically that "people who believe and accept far out stories are less likely to be intelligent/analytical", isn't this obvious?"

You would think so. But that really was my only point. I never claimed the average atheist is that smart, cause he is not. Or that the religious person who believes unspecific concepts about God while admitting no good evidence for it, is dumb. Meanwhile your comment

"Further blurring the distinction are the many BluffThis types who are intelligent and clear thinkers but are unable to think clearly about their own religion because of childhood brainwashing and various emotional incapacities."

made me smile. Because I was visualizing BluffTHIS or RJT or Iron Unkind, reading your post and cheering you on, only to be abruptly pulled up short, halfway through the quoted paragraph.

Amen, brother. Praise the ... ummm... I agree. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bocablkr]

Just posted this on another thread -

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.

I have used google. The only thing I found was a list, cut and pasted on various atheist sites, summarising the studies that have been done. None of these are referenced with links to journal articles for any of the studies which directly test IQ and religiosity.

As to the poll you quoted, I have used it myself from time to time. But all it shows is that scientists as a group are less religious than the rest of the population. There could be many reasons for this not related to intelligence. The National Academy poll (the elite scientists) also suffered from the problem of voluntary responses; many did not reply.

What does this tell us? Not much I think. I would like to see a large scale study that directly compares IQ with various religious beliefs. If such a study has been done, please direct me to it.

BTW, read this interesting page on the religions of Mensa members. These people are 130+ IQ, in the top 2% of the population.

http://www.mwm.org/faq/people.html
[ QUOTE ]
49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion

[/ QUOTE ]

The numbers are from a 44,000 member survey. mensa.org no longer hosts this for some reason, but it is cached at Google cache (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:z2gn7McdrxcJ:www.mensa.org/demographics.php+religion+site:www.mensa.org&hl=en &client=firefox-a) so the numbers are real.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]

You would think so. But that really was my only point. I never claimed the average atheist is that smart, cause he is not. Or that the religious person who believes unspecific concepts about God while admitting no good evidence for it, is dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. I did not know if this was what at debate or not (no doubt do in large part to read these threads pretty hastily).

As evidenced in my previous posts, I find it more interesting to speculate on what basis people who are at least moderately intelligent accept or reject religious beliefs, as well as to look for the source for the divide between religious and scientific beliefs.

As for the OP, if you grant that there are objective ways of measuring intelligence (IQ tests or other means of testing thinking abilities), then the claim that atheists are smarter than theists is that the average score of the sample of individuals who reject the existence of God would be higher than the average score of the sample of individuals who accept the existence of God. David does not claim to have done such an exhaustive study (nor that one is worthwhile), but only that were one done, atheists would score higher. A smaller study could be done and statistical conclusions about the likelihood that the hypothesis is true could be made. David's justification (I believe) is based on similar reasoning, by estimating what the scores would be among the sample of atheists he has encountered as well as the sample of theists. While this reasoning is not definitive, when I engage in a similar project, I reach a similar conclusion. (I think there are more interesting claims that can be made than the one that David made, but I don't see what is controversial about what he said.) When you a similar thought experiment as outlined above among the people you have encountered, do you not find a similar result?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, read this interesting page on the religions of Mensa members. These people are 130+ IQ, in the top 2% of the population.

http://www.mwm.org/faq/people.html

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion


[/ QUOTE ]

The 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion = 19.6% basically non-believers. This is a MUCH higher percentage than in the general population - don't you agree? Notice Jews at 9% were also much higher. You don't think this correlates IQ with belief?

I will see if I can locate some more polls.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
"Further blurring the distinction are the many BluffThis types who are intelligent and clear thinkers but are unable to think clearly about their own religion because of childhood brainwashing and various emotional incapacities."

made me smile. Because I was visualizing BluffTHIS or RJT or Iron Unkind, reading your post and cheering you on, only to be abruptly pulled up short, halfway through the quoted paragraph.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

The only thing I’ll be cheering for is the Notre Dame Fighting Irish this Saturday as I watch them live defeat Navy under the watchful eye of touchdown Jesus.* I will probably stop by the Grotto and light a candle and say a prayer for you, David - just for spite – lol.

And in case you are thinking about placing a bet against ND – perhaps “just for spite”; I’d advise against it. One never wins when betting an ND game. Take it from someone who has studied that matter. If you bet against ND they’ll win, but by more than the spread – I think it is 23 or 23 ½. If you bet on ND, they’ll still win but won’t cover the points.

RJT

*For those who don’t know – there is a large mosaic on the library building of Christ with hands stretched upward – like the officials do when a touchdown is scored. From inside the stadium the mosaic can be seen.

[ QUOTE ]
please provide some supporting evidence for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the posts of NotReady, Peter666, and txaq007 were evidence enough.

Just in fun, guys. Sort of.

[bocablkr]

Here are some links and results of IQ VS. Religious Belief -

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001523.html
http://w-uh.com/posts/031226a-religion_vs_IQ.html

Gene Expression bloggers razib and godless were bored, so they plotted and graphed "religion important" vs. IQ for different countries. If you're in the mood, you can add the population data and have a real math fest. The bottom line: "religion and IQ are strongly negatively correlated (-.886)."

http://w-uh.com/images/IQ_vs_religion.gif

Remember my missive about correlation vs. causality? We're not entitled to conclude causality from these data, but there are three possibilities:

1. Considering religion important lowers measured IQ (unlikely, since IQ is substantially genetic whereas belief is not).

2. The causality is via other factors not considered, such as socio-economic conditions, cultural history, or physical environment (definitely possible).

3. Having a higher measured IQ lowers your likelihood of considering religion important (my personal favorite, given the absence of evidence to the contrary).

Please note: these are data, not opinion. (The sources are noted in razib's and godless' posts.) Possible interpretations of the data are opinion, of course.

These data lend credence to the implied correlation between the definitions of bright /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

The sources you give are terrible. Firstly, the data comes from a book, "Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations", which is highly controversial and did no research of their own. Read about it in this Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ). The list of changes they made to the numbers is embarassing.

Secondly, click on "the population data" (http://w-uh.com/articles/030831-IQ_and_populations.html) link on that site and you'll be taken to THEIR page where they claim world average IQ is falling! This is in direct contradiction with the findings of credible researchers such as Flynn and the accepted truth in this field: http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eintell/flynneffect.shtml (among many others)

Clearly, these jokers have no credibility whatsoever. Nor was this data published in any reputable journal.

[ QUOTE ]
The 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion = 19.6% basically non-believers. This is a MUCH higher percentage than in the general population - don't you agree? Notice Jews at 9% were also much higher. You don't think this correlates IQ with belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

From andyfox's link, over 14% of the American population are atheist, agnostic, or nonreligious. So I wouldn't say 19% was a much higher percentage. This is well within sampling error. If it was 5% vs 20% you might have something to go on. But these are a group of exclusively the most intelligent people in the world (130+ IQ), and there is barely a difference in their religious affiliations! Surely this has more weight than the Nature survey of scientists (which definitely have an ave IQ way below 130).

I don't think the high Jewish membership say anything other than jews are disproportionately represented in high IQ societies. Note that this is their reported RELIGION, not their race. These people are still religious.

By the way, don't get me wrong, I would very much like to see some solid evidence that atheists as a group are more intelligent than theists, or that groups of highly intelligent people include far more atheists. In some ways it would make sense if this was the case. But it's an open question as far I'm concerned, and I've never seen compelling evidence either way. The Mensa data is the closest I've seen to a large scale survey of people with measured high IQs, and it shows very little difference.

Part of my motivation for posting was the hope that someone would have decent studies published in journals which answer this question one way or another.

[RJT]

Phil,

Here is that thread where we discussed some of the surveys that have been done. Read through the whole thread as some of the replies (my own included) give added information. None of the surveys are very helpful - they really don’t tell us much of anything.

And they have little to do with David’s point. The data neither confirms nor negates what he has to say. I only post it for your reference, since you were talking about surveys or lack of surveys. These are the only ones I have found even remotely related to your subject.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3366255&page=0&fpart=all &vc=1)

RJT

Thanks. I am OOO by the way, I posted in that thread (I got banned in OOT for calling [censored] a (censored)).

And yes, it doesn't relate to David's point. He expressed his position clearly in this thread and has always done so. It's nice to get a clarification now and again though, lest it grow into something it's not. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[RJT]

Hey Phil,

I remember seeing you post that you were he. Now I can formally call you the poster formerly known as OOO with the umlauts, similar to before. Now it is official.

What is it with you atheists getting banned all the time (kidluckee did too you know)? Are you guys just practicing so you are prepared for when you get kicked out of Heaven?

Good to see you around.

RJT

Pascal proved mathematically that being religious was the only logical choice though. No, I'm not too serious here, but his little calculation is a fun little tidbit that should please any poker player since it in essence is using game theory and +EV as its arguments. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I hope it is okay to post a wikipedia link, not a commercial site as far as I know so..

Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager)

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Pascal proved mathematically that being religious was the only logical choice though. No, I'm not too serious here, but his little calculation is a fun little tidbit that should please any poker player since it in essence is using game theory and +EV as its arguments. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I hope it is okay to post a wikipedia link, not a commercial site as far as I know so..

Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager)

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG not again!

1) You can't choose to believe.
2) God might not be what you are counting on.

and, I forget who pointed this out first, but, do you think God will be happy that you took him on a freeroll?

[ QUOTE ]
do you think God will be happy that you took him on a freeroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm multi-tabling. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pascal proved mathematically that being religious was the only logical choice though. No, I'm not too serious here, but his little calculation is a fun little tidbit that should please any poker player since it in essence is using game theory and +EV as its arguments.

I hope it is okay to post a wikipedia link, not a commercial site as far as I know so..

Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager)

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG not again!

1) You can't choose to believe.
2) God might not be what you are counting on.

and, I forget who pointed this out first, but, do you think God will be happy that you took him on a freeroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe, did I sound like I used this little calculation to chose my beliefs? I'm fairly aware of the criticism this thing deserves, and I think anyone who thinks 2 seconds about it will see its flaws too. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Aytumious]

We appreciate your involvement, but good ol' Pascal is brought up a few times a week by theists thinking they are clever. Hence the lack of patience with your post.

Yes, I understood that too. I guess I should have understood that too before I posted. My apologies.

Then let me state my opinion on the issue at hand.

t needs a definition of intelligence, the whole intelligence concept is widely debated so it is a horrible word to use. The concept of IQ is old, debated and misused in many circumstances and there is not necessarily a connection between intelligence and IQ. I'm not debating if IQ is valid here, but it is important to keep an open mind and realize IQ may mean little.

It would be more interesting to ask if atheists statistically possess traits more likely to make them better poker players...but the question does have some pitfalls to cross:

1.) Religious people may be less inclined to gamble, making it hard to find a fair sample to compare too.
2.) Current measurements of intelligence traits may measure traits more commonly found in people attracted to gambling.
3.) Current measurements of intelligence traits may measure traits more commonly found in people less inclined to have non-empirical beliefs.
4.) Can an experienced poker player be used at all in such a test? He may have learned the skills needed to become a better poker player underway regardless if he was an atheist or religious.
5.) Can becoming a better poker player make a person more inclined to become more analytical, less inclined to accept belief without evidence and can it actually make a person achieve higher rankings on current measurements of intelligence traits?

Maybe not the most interesting questions, I'm just wondering if the question can be at all possible to answer. It would seem we need samples of religious people, atheists...randomly select experiment groups and control groups...set standards of measurement for being a good poker player and commence testing. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Unless we do this, all we have to rely on is statistics, some which I have understood is debatable...and as everyone here knows (because 99% of the people here know more about math than I ever will)...statistics does not infer causation, it only shows correlation which may be caused by confounding variables.

Could for instance one claim that poor people are more inclined to be religious, less inclined to possess higher education and can higher education also correlate with intelligence scores in current tests, if so...statistics may skew the picture. /images/graemlins/smile.gif



My two cents, hope it was more interesting than my previous blunder. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[purnell]

Sorry, I guess I came off pretty harsh there. It wasn't intended as a flame.

[Jman28]

Right here (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=13464)

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
The sources you give are terrible. Firstly, the data comes from a book, "Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations", which is highly controversial and did no research of their own. Read about it in this Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ). The list of changes they made to the numbers is embarassing.

Secondly, click on "the population data" (http://w-uh.com/articles/030831-IQ_and_populations.html) link on that site and you'll be taken to THEIR page where they claim world average IQ is falling! This is in direct contradiction with the findings of credible researchers such as Flynn and the accepted truth in this field: http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eintell/flynneffect.shtml (among many others)

Clearly, these jokers have no credibility whatsoever. Nor was this data published in any reputable journal.

[ QUOTE ]
The 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion = 19.6% basically non-believers. This is a MUCH higher percentage than in the general population - don't you agree? Notice Jews at 9% were also much higher. You don't think this correlates IQ with belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

From andyfox's link, over 14% of the American population are atheist, agnostic, or nonreligious. So I wouldn't say 19% was a much higher percentage. This is well within sampling error. If it was 5% vs 20% you might have something to go on. But these are a group of exclusively the most intelligent people in the world (130+ IQ), and there is barely a difference in their religious affiliations! Surely this has more weight than the Nature survey of scientists (which definitely have an ave IQ way below 130).

I don't think the high Jewish membership say anything other than jews are disproportionately represented in high IQ societies. Note that this is their reported RELIGION, not their race. These people are still religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil,

I think you are missing a few points. 76% of the general population is Christian, only 49% among mensa. That is very telling. .9% atheist and agnostic vs 10.6% in Mensa. That is a statistically big difference. Also, I am Jewish and an atheist so I am not sure how I would have answered the mensa 'what are you question'. I suspect some of those who answered Jewish are also atheist or agnostic.

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect some of those who answered Jewish are also atheist or agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where the confusion comes in, I think, wwith respect to Judaism. There is the meaning of Jewish by faith, or the meaning of Jewish by virtue(?) of birth /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
76% of the general population is Christian, only 49% among mensa. That is very telling. .

[/ QUOTE ]
What does it tell us exactly?

[ QUOTE ]
.9% atheist and agnostic vs 10.6% in Mensa. That is a statistically big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
It just seems like it. Differently worded questions or multiple choice options can account for this. Many laypeople may not identify themselves specifically as agnostic or atheist so they put 'no religion' or 'secular'.

I think you're mining for data and missing the big picture here. Here it is, in bold:

3.6% of a sample of America's most intelligent people are atheists

7% are agnostics. 20% in total are 'not religious'. These aren't just some nerdish schmucks who did well on their SAT, these guys are two S.D.'s from the mean, the top 2% of the population as measured by supervised, standardised tests that specifically test for intelligence. And yet, about the same proportions of them are religious/non religious.

If this data suggests anything it's that the correlation between intelligence and religion is very small, if it exists at all.

But, I admit that a voluntary survey (even though it was responded to by most (44,000) members) can have flaws. So, I still await a published study which shows such a correlation. The links you have provided so far have not been from credible sources, or even semi credible sources. It seems the only data we have is this Mensa data and the Nature Survey.

[ QUOTE ]
That's where the confusion comes in, I think, wwith respect to Judaism. There is the meaning of Jewish by faith, or the meaning of Jewish by virtue(?) of birth

[/ QUOTE ]

I would imagine that people with 130+ IQs are more likely than not to put down their correct religion in the space on the form that says:



Religion:_________________________________________

Or on the mutiple choice questions which says:

What is your religion?

[ ] Christian
[ ] Muslim
[ ] Judaism
[ ] Buddhism
[ ] Atheist
[ ] Agnostic
[ ] No Religion
[ ] Other:_______________

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's where the confusion comes in, I think, wwith respect to Judaism. There is the meaning of Jewish by faith, or the meaning of Jewish by virtue(?) of birth

[/ QUOTE ]

I would imagine that people with 130+ IQs are more likely than not to put down their correct religion in the space on the form that says:



Religion:_________________________________________

Or on the mutiple choice questions which says:

What is your religion?

[ ] Christian
[ ] Muslim
[ ] Judaism
[ ] Buddhism
[ ] Atheist
[ ] Agnostic
[ ] No Religion
[ ] Other:_______________

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I was salutatorian of my high school. Top 2% of my University. IQ over 130. And I am not sure if I would have selected atheist or Jewish. I am both.

[RJT]

Cab,

[ QUOTE ]
Why? I was salutatorian of my high school. Top 2% of my University. IQ over 130. And I am not sure if I would have selected atheist or Jewish. I am both.

[/ QUOTE ]

No wonder you weren't valedictorian /images/graemlins/wink.gif - the question is interested in your beliefs - put down atheist next time someone asks.

RJT

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Cab,

[ QUOTE ]
Why? I was salutatorian of my high school. Top 2% of my University. IQ over 130. And I am not sure if I would have selected atheist or Jewish. I am both.

[/ QUOTE ]

No wonder you weren't valedictorian /images/graemlins/wink.gif - the question is interested in your beliefs - put down atheist next time someone asks.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

You made me laugh... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Phil,

I remember seeing you post that you were he. Now I can formally call you the poster formerly known as OOO with the umlauts, similar to before. Now it is official.

What is it with you atheists getting banned all the time (kidluckee did too you know)? Are you guys just practicing so you are prepared for when you get kicked out of Heaven?

Good to see you around.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed hearing that kid got banned - what happened?

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're mining for data and missing the big picture here. Here it is, in bold:

3.6% of a sample of America's most intelligent people are atheists

7% are agnostics. 20% in total are 'not religious'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are mining for a lack of data (is that possible?) and missing the big picture. A smaller percentage of mensa is Christian than the general population. Also, the mensa #s don't add up to 100%. I'm guessing a lot of them didn't answer? My best guess is that if someone doesn't answer that question, they are more than likely not religious. So, up the 20% non-religious # to about 40%, compared with the national non-religious percentage of 14.2%. That is significant.

I agreed with your original post, that atheists are not on average more intelligent than theists. But, I do think that the higher one's intelligence, the more apt s/he is to be less religious. A lot of those non-answering mensa people, might be Deists, too. "Deism" isn't usually listed as a religion, so they might not check anything, or they might check "non-religious".

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76% of the general population is Christian, only 49% among mensa. That is very telling. .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What does it tell us exactly?


[/ QUOTE ]

This goes to the heart of what DS always says - that the IQ of those who truly believe in the dogma of their religion is generally less than those that don't. There are a lot less Christians than normal because those that have logically examined their beliefs have come to a different conclusion and no longer consider themselves Christian.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Phil,

I remember seeing you post that you were he. Now I can formally call you the poster formerly known as OOO with the umlauts, similar to before. Now it is official.

What is it with you atheists getting banned all the time (kidluckee did too you know)? Are you guys just practicing so you are prepared for when you get kicked out of Heaven?

Good to see you around.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed hearing that kid got banned - what happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

He said he has no idea. I looked at his posts to see if I could figure why - I didn't see any that would be considered a problem. Perhaps it got deleted.

He goes by Tyrus1972. He is still a pain though - just kidding, kid.

"He goes by Tyrus1972" (refering to the man formally known as kidlukee)

Whew! For a moment there I thought that he and Sexdrugsmoney had run off together. /images/graemlins/smile.gif