Are atheists better poker players than theists?

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you strengthened DS's claim and I'll use this quote as an example. One of DS's conditions has been theists who believe the specific trivia of their sect is True and it is Logically so. The people you describe in that section obviously don't fit the suit.

Your post contains versions of this - [ QUOTE ]
There is no such equivalent way to assess the truth value of many religious propositions.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if it's those theists who claim there is a logical way to establish the truth value of their pet beliefs that are the ones DS is making his claims about, then the people you're referring to don't match up. They have either no theistic beliefs or just some version of the vague warm-fuzzies. no prob.

You need to come with " I know 100 top theoretical physicists and 80 of them believe they're drinking the actual blood of jesus and that they have logical proof they are"... then I'd be mightily impressed and it would relate to DS's major claim.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, it's not a matter of them accepting a unfalsifiable claim ( although that does matter to some degree), it is them claiming there are logical reasons to do so. That's not what you are claiming they do, so you have not presented any counter evidence. There may be some out there, but this wasn't it.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

That was a well thought out and basically true post. But as luckyme said, it didn't refute my point. The biggest reason is that the religious, logically inclined people, as you say, examine their beliefs so as to reject the insane ones and admit that those that are left for them are theoretically possible but not actually very reasonable.

PS. I believe mathmeticians are quite a bit more likely to have specifc religious beleifs than physicsts and chemists. But still a lot less likely than the general public.

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). 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).

A question that thus springs to mind is does this phenomenon also exist in the field of poker? Since poker requires a lot of skills that overlap with skills required in the physical sciences it is reasonable to think it would. The logic/math/analyical skill set required for poker however is relatively small compared with what is needed to get a PhD and become a sucessful professor. The process of becoming a good poker player simply isn't all that "faith testing".

Most people's first religion is that of their parents and usually they only change their religious belief system when choose to look into their beliefs more deeply, or experience thrusts a re-evaluation upon them. Sometimes they find a new religion, sometimes they cease to be religious at all, and sometimes they go back to their parent's religion more ardent than ever. Of course, a lot of people (perhaps a majority in North America) never question the faith of their parents.

All this, of course, has very little to do with poker. As a result, it is prefectly possible (and likely) that a person can become a great poker player without ever bothering to analyze the faith their parents brought them up in.

The big question is, i think, are the analytically minded more likely to engage in a thourough evaluation of their religious beliefs, and if so, how likely are they to come out non-believers?

Presonally, I suspect that the answer to both parts of this question is "yes". I think it's safe to say that analytically minded people are more likely to rigorously analyze their religious beliefs and a disproportinate number of them will wind up non-believers. Since I'm an atheist I'm also inclined to believe that some form of non-belief is the most likely conclusion such a person will come to. Therefore, I suspect that non-believers are disproportionately analytical by nature compared to the general population. Therefore, you'd think that we'd be disproportionately better at poker.

And maybe we are, but it's also important to realize that not all non-believers become so via this rational inspection of religion. There's also the group that goes through a far more emotional process. These atheists may be no more inclined to be good poker players than most theists, and so if they make up the majority of non-believers then there may be little to no difference between teh poker skills of atheists and non-atheists.

Finally, there is the important distiction to be made between atheists in general being better poker players than theists (or not) and atheists being over represented in the upper echelons of professional poker. It is quite possible that there is no difference between the level of play of the average atheist and the average theist. However, if analytical people are more inclined to test their faith and find it wanting and if they are more likely to become atheists in proportion to their analytical skills (this is highly debatable) then it may be inevitable that atheists pop up at the elite levels of poker just as they do in academia.

Anyway, that's my 2+2 cents onthis issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, there is the important distiction to be made between atheists in general being better poker players than theists (or not) and atheists being over represented in the upper echelons of professional poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... If they are over represented in the upper echelons of professional poker, then they must be better at it, it seems to me, whether by inclination, skills, or whatever!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Finally, there is the important distiction to be made between atheists in general being better poker players than theists (or not) and atheists being over represented in the upper echelons of professional poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... If they are over represented in the upper echelons of professional poker, then they must be better at it, it seems to me, whether by inclination, skills, or whatever!

[/ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that atheists can be over represented at the upper levels of poker and still not be any better than theists on average. Things that cause certain groups to pop up at the elite levels quite often have nothing to do with what is going on among the great masses.

For example, just because Americans win more gold medals per capita than say the French (maybe they do, maybe they don't) it does not follow that the average American must be more fit than the average Frenchman.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, just because Americans win more gold medals per capita than say the French (maybe they do, maybe they don't) it does not follow that the average American must be more fit than the average Frenchman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you here, but it isn't the same. What you are not saying is that because Americans win more gold medals per capita than say the French (maybe they do, maybe they don't) it does not follow that the average American must win more gold medals than than the average Frenchman. Yes they do (well they probably do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

[David Sklansky]

Another well thought out post. But you wasted a lot of words. Because once you said:

"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). 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)."

It is of little importance whether poker players are in a similar group. I'm sure they are. But those debating the other side are not interested in proving me wrong about that if it doesn't imply that your quoted statement above is also wrong.

[sweetjazz]

I don't quite get what's being debated here. Obviously, there are a lot of doltish people who accept and/or promote bad logical reasoning, and no doubt it is among this (large) group of people you will find people who believe that they can prove their religious beliefs through logical reasoning. Such people are clearly none too bright. I doubt their religious beliefs cause them to be gullible (because such individuals typically believe all kinds of foolish things), but rather their foolishness leads them to believe fanciful religious beliefs. (Believing that wine can be turned into the blood of Jesus Christ is merely unreasonable or unjustifiable through logical means. Believing that one can prove it is so -- a claim, by the way, that almost no theologian or serious religious scholar would make -- is fanciful.)

So if the point being made is that doltish people -- the kind that are led to accept dubious religious propositions simply because they have appealing consequences or they were raised that way -- are likely to be horrible at poker and other such activities, this seems undeniable.

But this is a rather shallow view of religion. It seems similar to analyzing atheists and assuming that they reject all Judeo-Christian moral principles. (One typically then deduces all of the bad consequences that would ensue from not having a society that accepts Judeo-Christian moral principles.) But while there may be such atheists (perhaps even in large numbers for all I know), there are many reasonable atheists who accept some of the Judeo-Christian moral principles (obviously on different grounds than divine law).

I do agree that once you look into segments of the population where doltish religious creeds are not accepted, then people are much more likely to reject even mere theism. I am not sure that proves much about the link between religious faith and intelligence, other than a high degree of intelligence will (likely) prevent one from accepting fanciful religious propositions.

So if the claim made by David and/or others is that people who do well in games and science tend not to claim that they can logically prove religious beliefs, sure this is irrefutable. It's also trivial and doesn't address any of the serious religious beliefs that people have. As I said above, almost no serious religious believer claims he can logically prove his religious beliefs. (The strongest claim I regularly here made is that belief x is undeniably true. But when pressed for the basis for this assertion, the justification is faith.)

In brief, I appear to be missing something the discussion, as it seems akin to saying "All atheists think that murder is acceptable." And then including in the definition of atheist a person who (irrationally) rejects all Judeo-Christian moral principles (presumably out of hatred for Judaism and Christianity). Perhaps such people exist, but it's absurd to define atheism in such a way as to limit its scope to such people.

[David Sklansky]

"As I said above, almost no serious religious believer claims he can logically prove his religious beliefs."

Most, however, claim that arguments and evidence by itself should lead one who understands those arguments and evidence, to think their specifc beliefs are likely or at least highly reasonable. Especially Protestants and Muslims.

[ 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?