% of religious and smart people vis a vis Hurricane Katrina?

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
it [finding a method to stop hurricanes] requires among other things an intimate knowledge of partial differential equations

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke?

(edited for clarity)

[xniNja]

I bet a lot more math and physics would be needed than just diff eq.

[RJT]

Your assumptions would have to be changed to - given the same level of intelligence. (Did you not say this because you actually believe that it would not be possible to find 100,000 intelligent Christians?)

Do you actually think that Christians don’t realize what they believe is not proven fact? Do you think that we do not know that it does not follow logic. Belief (Faith is a better word) is the key word in your exercise.

I really think your point would be very easy to prove by simply polling a random number of scientist. Find our if they were always agnostic/atheist or if they decided such as an adult. Then find out how much actual in depth study of any religion they have done before they decided to be agnostic.

If you find the majority (not born into an agnostic family) have always know themselves to be such or have seriously studied any religion in depth, then your theory that scientist come from a pool of agnostics might have some validity after all.

I don’t see that to be the case at all. I don’t “believe” it. Proof of this is much more tangible then trying to prove that Christians generally can’t be scientist.

[RJT]

My parenthetical “not born into an agnostic family” disclaimer might not be necessary. The reason I even mentioned it at all is that I bet you will find more scientist born into agnostic families than in the general population. I am not sure if this will skew the study or not.

[David Sklansky]

The vast majority of scientific based agnostics, I believe, became that way not because they were born into an agnostic family and not after becoming full fledged scientists either. Fo most it occurred graduallly as they learned more and more about science, probability, and the Amazing Randi.

[KidPokerX]

I cannot find any reason why your theory would be correct.
I am by no means a religious follower, but I do not criticize those who are (mearly for the fact that it makes them a better individual).
Your point that the non-believers would somehow score higher on a math exam is irrelevent to their beliefs. A religious person can study and learn just as easy as a non-believer. Put another way, a religious follower has no more of a limited capability to read, comprehend, and learn math than does anyone else ... in your hypothesis the two never get in the way.
Having said that, I do agree with you in that the average religious follower can not adapt as easily to higher levels of logical thinking than the average non-believer. This, in my opinion, is due to their faith "getting in the way" so to speak.
From what I have seen, many religious followers accept the things they do not understand as extraordinary, thus eliminating new-age science from their thinking. This is a flaw in the common religious follower (although one which will probably never be changed in our lifetimes).
I think you could come up with a better theory to prove this point (because it is very much proovable).

[David Sklansky]

"Put another way, a religious follower has no more of a limited capability to read, comprehend, and learn math than does anyone else"

I disagreee. Because of what insurance companies call "adverse selection". Suppose instead of "religious follower" above I substituted the words "someone who is sure dice can be beaten"?

[RJT]

Right. Perhaps many were Christians. So your point that Christians can’t find the cure for the common hurricane starts from the wrong premise, doesn’t it?

Scientists often eventually choose not to believe. So with the diminishing number of religious scientists, of course the odds are against a Christian finding the answer to hurricanes.

[David Sklansky]

"Scientists often eventually choose not to believe. So with the diminishing number of religious scientists, of course the odds are against a Christian finding the answer to hurricanes."

But only very smart people become great scientists. Religious Christians are not just likely to have an underrepresentation of scientists. They have an underepresentation of people smart enough to become scientists. (Especially the kind who would have the slightest chance to stop a hurricane).

[RJT]

Again, maybe we are talking about two different things. How are you defining your term “ religious Christians“?