What's The Odds That The Man Who Stops Hurricanes

[spaminator101]

im only a teenager but i plan on being some kind of engineer

[David Sklansky]

But the person who stops hurricanes will almast certainly disagree with you so why should we believe you rather than him? You just don't get my point. Which has nothing to do with man's pride. Change it to martians.

The point simply is:

If a martian is more likely to figure out how to stop hurricanes than you, he is more likely to be correct if he disagrees with you about any subject assuming you have spent the same time and effort investigating it. Religion baseball, tuning a piano, or even coming up with a good joke. He has the same type of advantage over you that you have over a retarded person. Even if that advantage came from Stephen Hawking's God that has nothing to do with Jesus.

Zapt, I'm not saying that all home schooling is religious or Christian based, just that a disproportionate amount is. Randomly select any home-schooled kid today and ask him if he is a fundamentalist Christian and you will have a higher likelihood that he will say yes then if you just randomly select any kid period. I'd be shocked if you could prove otherwise, but if you could then I would retract my argument that Christians and home-schooling have anything to do with each other.

Now, onto your other point about institutions being less than ideal. While these institutions certainly may not be perfect and could be improved, you seem to be arguing that these institutions get in the way of learning. So by your logic, if we shut down the doors of Harvard, Yale, M.I.T., Stanford, etc., we will have a better chance of creating this scientist who figures out how to stop hurricanes than if we left their doors open. I whole-heartedly disagree with that.

So what I'm saying is that a Christian when compared to a non-religious kid is disproportionately more likely to take the home-school and then Oral Roberts or Bob Jones University route while the non-religious kid in comparison to the Christian is disproportionately more likely to take the advanced magnet school and then Ivy League route. And it is disproportionately more likely that this Ivy League scientist will go on to stop hurricanes.

And therefore this is one of the reasons that Sklansky was wondering about for why this could be.

[David Sklansky]

This post and the replies typify a bogus approach to the questions involved. The false syllogism implied by this is:

1. Smart people will try to solve human problems.
2. Christians don't try to solve human problems.
3. Christians aren't smart.

A similar bogus syllogism is:

11. Smart people will only believe what's true.
2. Smart people don't believe Christianity.
3. Christianity isn't true.

I imply neither syllogism.

The better syllogisms are

1. People who are both well meaning and smart have a chance to figure out how to stop a hurricane.

2. A religious person has no chance to figure out how to stop a hurricane

3. Since religious people are well meaning, they must not be smart.

The second syllogism should be changed to:

1. Smart people are more likely to be right than non smart people about subjects they have thoroughly investigated.

2. Smart people who investigate specific religions are more than 99% sure that any particular religion is wrong.

3. Therefore there is a greater than 50% chance (not 99%-see why?) that any particular religion is wrong.

For the record I am not saying that I am sure about the premises. I'm just fixing the syllogisms to more accurately reflect my points.

[RJT]

I believe you have posted previously that the large majority of scientists/mathematicians are agnostic/atheists. So, haven’t you already answered your own question?

What you really want to know, it seems to me, is the answer to your second question, “Why is that?”

I can think of a number of reasons. We would need further survey to find out why. But, to throw out some ideas regarding why so many are agnostic:

- They were raised in a family of the same (weren’t you?).
- They might or might not be religious, but rather choose to devote their full attention to the sciences.
- They choose not to believe in things that cannot be studied in the manner they are accustomed to. They therefore decide on the easy answer that it cannot be so - there is or cannot be proof.
- They like many folk in modern society they simply abandon religion out of convenience and/or a more self centered life-style. ( I am not using “self -centered” in the pejorative sense.)
- They have never spent time studying any religion. How any scientists, for example, have read any of the mystic Saints? That is the Saints who have had (in their own minds at least) encounters with God. (Basically, these encounters happen during serious contemplative prayer)

On the other side:

What are the statistics of religious to non-religious in other careers? Especially high power careers like scientist that are similarly non-social interacting.

Corporate executives for example often spend as much time chairing fund raisers, chambers-of commerce and the like. Being a church-goer is generally considered a good thing in the corporate world.

Politicians - like John Lennon said “If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao. You ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.”

These two examples don’t seem to fit the same category as scientist.

Writers and artists seems to fit the scientist, non-social interacting category. I would venture to say that a large number in these careers are also agnostic or non-religious.

Poker players, although certainly social interacting, the actual work of playing poker is strictly self absorbing. What is the percentage of poker players who are agnostic? Judging from this forum, quite a few.

I have had a theory for a while that long (and/or perhaps even early ) periods of masturbation before any lengthy heterosexual experiences might have something to do with homosexuality. That is, one becomes subconsciously overly accustomed with one’s own body leading to becoming more comfortable with one’s own sex.

If this theory has any validity(even if my theory is bogus), couldn’t we compare it to scientists who are constantly absorbed in their own minds with their work? They simply become comfortable in the immediate non God filled environment.

[David Sklansky]

Posts like yours make it seem like religion is a sociological subject. "They are not comfortable with the concept of god". Stuff like that. But the stuff I am talking about is purely factual. Did the lamp in the temple last eight days when there was only fuel for one. Did God part the Red Sea? Was Mary a virgin?

The smarter people are, the more likely they are to say no. For the same reason they are more likely to believe that OJ is guilty or that there is no dice system that wins. Those who try to say that those other psychological things are the main reason for smart people's beliefs are just deluding themselves.

[RJT]

I am not saying religion is a sociological subject. Your question “Why is that?” is the sociological subject.

First of all perhaps we are talking about two different things. I am talking about agnostics. Are you talking about only those who decide that the major religions are bogus? To discuss whether the religions are or not bogus without deciding or including whether or not God is bogus first seems -well I don’t know what it seems - but it makes no sense to me why one would want to talk about the validity of religions alone (absent the God exists or not question).

It also seems that you are saying that the scientist have decided against God/or religion after studying the issue. If the studies show this, that is one thing. Then I stand corrected. Are you saying that? I do not assume this to be true.

If there are no such studies, I say that there is as good a likelihood that they are agnostic for a number of other reasons - and perhaps more so - than because they have deduced and decided God is unlikely.

I am only going from an earlier post of yours in which you alluded to a study about the large percentage of agnostics in the scientific community. No reference to any particular survey was cited in that post.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, onto your other point about institutions being less than ideal. While these institutions certainly may not be perfect and could be improved, you seem to be arguing that these institutions get in the way of learning. So by your logic, if we shut down the doors of Harvard, Yale, M.I.T., Stanford, etc.,

[/ QUOTE ]I did not say these were my positions or my logic. I would not make a generalization like: we'd be better off without institutional learning. Some will be better off without it, some will be better off with it.

Nor did I say that most home schooling is secular. Just that not all of it is non-secular. I've done some research in preparation for home-schooling my own kids, and I will concede that probably more than half of the home-schoolers out there take a non-secular approach. But, I don't think it is as high as 75%.

BTW, there are homeschooled children that end up at Harvard and MIT.

[RJT]

“If a martian is more likely to figure out how to stop hurricanes than you, he is more likely to be correct if he disagrees with you about any subject assuming you have spent the same time and effort investigating it.”

I read this as: The scientists (who are smarted than the average Joe) who have decided on being agnostic have spent they same amount of time as the average Joe investigating various religions and have decided that they are bogus. They are smarter than the average Joe and are right more often then he. Therefore, they probably are right about religions being bogus.

Is this what you are saying? Or am I an idiot who simply cannot understand what you write (or am I assuming too much when you say such things)?

Without proof that the agnostic scientists have studied the religions with even a slight modicum of sophistication, I don’t see how one can assume that they have. I know you would not use yourself as an example and I mean no insult when I say to you that judging from what you have written about Christianity, you have no clue what it is about. You have gotten even some of the basics wrong in the past. I would need further proof that these scientist have a clue what most religions are really about.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

1. People who are both well meaning and smart have a chance to figure out how to stop a hurricane.

2. A religious person has no chance to figure out how to stop a hurricane

3. Since religious people are well meaning, they must not be smart.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know you said you're not sure about the premises, but how can you establish 2. in the first set of statements? This sounds suspiciously like circular reasoning.