Are atheists better poker players than theists?

[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 ]

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[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