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

[RJT]

Will there be more religious people or more smart people helping the victims in Louisiana and Mississippi? If it is that more religious people will be pitching in, what does that say about them? If it is the converse, why would intelligent people interrupt their lives to help total strangers, would they? What are the opportunity cost that they are giving up?

[xniNja]

I'd guess more religious people because those institutions are better at getting their vict.. members to donate time and money. To me all this says is that it is possible they believe helping these people is a matter of their faith, rather than a "smart" person who decided based on his financial and work situation, that he could take time off to help those who needed help.

This isn't to say that all of the religious people will blindly show up and help because their pastor or priest told them to, but I do think they are much more likely to do so.

[RJT]

“…rather than a "smart" person who decided based on his financial and work situation, that he could take time off to help those who needed help.”

I don’t understand what this means. If one could afford to, one would help? What would be his logic (reasons be) for helping? Why wouldn’t he simply stay working and make more money? If he could afford to take time off anyway, why isn’t he doing something else with that spare time if he would choose to take the time when a hurricane comes along?

[David Sklansky]

Religious people are more likely to help. They are also more likely to devote their time to finding a method to stop hurricanes if they thought it would do some good. But since they know that it requires among other things an intimate knowledge of partial differential equations, which is probably forever beyond their grasp, they don't even try.

[RJT]

LOL

[xniNja]

I just mean to imply the smart person would have some set of reasons for going to help. It could be a personal cost benefit analysis where he views helping people as more important than working overtime this weekend. The negative implication I'm insinuating is that the religious people will not think so much (if at all) and probably consider it more of their duty as a "Christian."

[David Sklansky]

I'm not sure what that response meant. But here is a specific contention that, if wrong, negates much of what I have said on this topic:

Select 100,000 religious Christians at random. Give them three years to study math with a focus on partial differential equations.(Assume they will do it.)

Select 100,000 people randomly who are not religious Christians but have approximately the same educational backgrounds as the religious Christians. Give them the same three years to study.

After three years give the 200,000 a tough partial diffential equation exam.

I say that the average of the top 1000 scores of the religious Christians is well below the average of the top 1000 scores of the other group.

I say that not because believing makes you stupid but rather because a belief that the stories of the Christian religion are probably true (as opposed to simply hoping they are true) is not something as likely to occur in a brain that is capable of doing excellent thinking.

PS it is not necessary that the excellent thinkers know the intricacies of Christianity for the point to hold. They need only know that Christians believe that there is a God who intervenes in our lives, that Mary was a virgin, that Jesus was ressurected, etc.

[RJT]

“I'm not sure what that response meant.”

I thought you were being facetious regarding many believers and their level of intelligence. I guess I underestimated your own sense of superiority.

[David Sklansky]

"I thought you were being facetious regarding many believers and their level of intelligence. I guess I underestimated your own sense of superiority."

What a lame way to try to get out of the issue at hand. What does this have to do with my sense of superiority given I was comparing religious Christians to EVERYBODY ELSE?

Now please tell me if you disagree with my contention regarding the math test?

[Lexander]

The two groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive, something almost implied by the topic.

I am a Christian, and I do consider myself intelligent by some measure. I do accept that the probability a person is a Christian is negatively correlated with a person's intelligence (my probabilities are assigned by empirical observation over time). Interestingly, it is my understanding of probability that allows me to accept both the concept of miracles and the concept of a universe governed by mathematical laws.

I will state that I tend to have to compartmentalize certain things, since my desire for scientifically supportable conclusions is at odds with a willingness to accept certain things on faith. But I take the view that science and mathematics have clear limits on what they can properly address, and that philosophy has never properly disproven the existence of God (I know that an inability to disprove does not constitute a proof, but it allows at least for the possibility).