Are atheists better poker players than theists?

[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.