← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun
Thread ID: 9836 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2003-09-17
2003-09-17 04:41 | User Profile
**Leading Scientists Still Reject God
The popular media balyhoo the fiction that science is supportive of religion. A recent issue of Newsweek (July 20, 1998) featured a cover story "Science finds God" which gave many innocent readers the impression that scientists in droves were finding scientific "evidence" allowing for God and an afterlife and were jumping on the religion bandwagon. Some of these 1998 reports were stimulated by a June 1998 Science and the Spiritual Quest Conference organized by Robert John Russell, and sponsored by The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS) at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. Since this is an organization devoted to the reconcilation of science and religion it's no surprise the the speakers were supportive of the idea of the possibility of god and/or an afterlife, though some of the papers were so speculative and abstruse that it's hard to tell whether they were profound philosophy or mere moonshine. One wonders whether some speakers came just for the stipend provided by the John Templeton Foundation. Several Nobel-Prize winning scientists gave papers at this meeting. The papers were mostly philosophical and speculative. No new hard evidence was produced. News reports failed to put these wishful speculations in perspective by pointing out that most scientists are, in fact, not religious. And the percent of "leading" scientists who hold religious beliefs has been declining from around 30% in 1914 to less than 10% in 1998. Wayne Spencer, editor of The Skeptical Intelligencer (a publication of the Association for Skeptical Inquiry) has provided me with this summary of an article in the journal Nature which documents this fact.
[Links to the CTNS are provided above, but this does not mean that I in any way endorse the opinions expressed at those web sites. For a detailed critique of these bogus science rationalizations, see Victor Stenger's excellent Has Science Found God?, a draft of an article for Astronomy magzaine. For a broader perspective on the science/religion questions, see these Religion and Philosophy links and these Science, Religion and Philosophy links. I also highly recommend Michael Koller's Essays on Science, Philosophy, and Religion. Also see the skeptic links on my web page.] ââ¬â Donald E. Simanek.
[Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.]
Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.
The results were as follows (figures in %):
BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0 Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2 Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8 ** BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998**
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9 Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7 Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high. The authors elaborated on these figures:
Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).
Larson and Witham close their report with the following remarks:
As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools.... The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral'. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' **Our survey suggests otherwise." **
There is a review of earlier studies of the religiosity of scientists at pp 180ff of:
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi and Michael Argyle. The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience. London & New York: Routledge, 1997. ISBN: 0-415-12330-5 (hbk) or 0-415-12331-3 (pbk).
On the subject of eminent scientists, they mention unpublished data collected by one of the co-authors: [color=blue]"Beit-Hallahmi (1988) found that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from." [/color]The reference is to: Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1988). The religiosity and religious affiliation of Nobel prize winners. Unpublished data.
[url=http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm]http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm[/url]**
2003-09-17 05:02 | User Profile
**Intellect & religious belief "Are atheists smarter"?
On Belief Steven Waldman
Not Such a Bright Idea
Some nonbelievers are calling themselves 'Brights.' But is what they imply about religious people valid?
This originally appeared as a commentary on National Public Radio. Listen here.
A group of people with a "naturalistic worldview" are trying to improve their image. They want to leave behind their old names -- atheists and agnostics -- and are adopting a new one: The Brights. They are promoting this new term in op-ed pieces in major papers in the United States and Europe and, of course, on the Internet. Commentator Steven Waldman says that some of their goals are laudable, while others are questionable.
Are atheists and agnostics smarter than everyone else? A group of them have managed to assert that idea-and disprove it-in one swift marketing initiative.
Not sure what the image buffers were aiming for, but the name "the brights" succinctly conveys the sense that this group thinks it's more intelligent than everyone else (the rest of us would be "the Dims," I suppose). Daniel C. Dennet wrote in a recent New York Times Op-Ed, "We Brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny-or God."
Let's put aside the questionable intelligence of trying to improve your image by choosing a title that makes everyone hate you. They might as well have chosen The Smugs or The Smarty Pants. Let's instead examine the substance of their platform.
One of their assertions is valid. Our political culture has increasingly marginalized atheists, agnostics and secular humanists. Whether it's Ten Commandments in the Court room or a president who invokes God continuously, any rationalist would be perfectly justified in thinking society views them as second class citizens whose views are not worthy.
But what about their bolder assertion--or implication--that people who believe in God or the supernatural are just not as, well, bright?
In fact, two surveys earlier this year, one from Harris and one from Gallup, indicate that even supernatural religious beliefs are held not only by most Americans but by the majority of well-educated Americans.
Listen to these numbers:
55% of people with POST graduate degrees - this is lawyers, doctors, dentists and the like - believe in the Devil 53% believe in hell 72% believe in miracles
Remember these are people with post graduate educations.
78% of them believe in the survival of the soul after death 60% believe in the virgin birth and 64% believe in the resurrection of Christ.
Yes, these percentages were even higher for people with less education, but those gaps were not nearly as interesting as the fact that the most highly educated people also share some of these views.
You can't get a post-graduate degree without being taught rigorous examination of evidence--figuring out which symptoms indicate a particular disease, or what facts could justify a lawsuit. These people are among the most rational of our society and yet they still believe non-rational things.
Why? Skeptics would say that the human need for something beyond the realities we can touch is so strong that even highly educated people end up manufacturing delusional belief systems.
But there is another possibility--that some of these rationally-oriented people have found actual proof for their beliefs. Maybe they've had a personal supernatural experience with prayer that makes them believe in God or an afterlife. Maybe they've found a compelling logic to their view - perhaps theyââ¬â¢ve looked at the universe and said something made the Big Bang happen or marveled at human development and concluded that "the development of this blob of cells into a conscious human being cannot be explained just through science."
For some highly educated people, faith is NOT a matter of faith. Rather, they see around them evidence -- evidence that is, to be sure, hard to explain or prove to others, but is nonetheless quite concrete to them.
Perhaps the Brights would dispute the evidence or assert that they have never seen it themselves, and that's fine. But they certainly cannot argue that religion is just for dumb people.
[url=http://beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?p...p;boardID=63366]http://beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?p...p;boardID=63366[/url]**
Razib (http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000985.html) comments:
**1) Not all graduate degrees are created equal by the Creator.... Many people with "post-graduate" educations are teachers, social workers and accountants, not the doctors & lawyers who are mentioned above. 9% of Americans have graduate degrees. There are 700,000 doctors, 490,000 lawyers1 and somewhere north of 500,000 scientists and engineers with doctoral degrees-about 2 million people out of the 16 million with "postgraduate" educations. Fair & balanced? Selection bias? Readers might find it interesting that 87% of doctors believe in a "Supreme Being" as opposed to 40% of scientists (I assume that a lawyer's belief is predicated on God's retainer fee).
2) Most educated believers and non-believers have never examined Aquinas' Five Ways to prove the existence of God2 nor do they come to their faith or lack of via rational or empirical paths. Granted, some do, but most people of high intellectual capacities have in my experience a tendency to rationalize positions rather than reach their conclusion through reason. Granted, a higher percentage of those of high intellect tend to follow the latter path than the general population, but as the bright writer above notes, the difference between the bright and less so is not particularly large in these matters. Soren Kierkegaard rationalized (OK, philosophized) a pietist Lutheran faith that the common man took for granted, and no doubt received much more comfort from. Who was the smart one on that?
Is the "Bright" movement counter-productive? Though I do not doubt Dennett et al.'s ability to weave and bob through the realms of logic and data, they are obviously lacking in social grace and tact, and confirming the prejudices of believers toward secularists. An NPR commentator should be bright enough to end it at that rather than wandering off in a Maureen Dowdish manner into the territory of trying to figure out why people think what they think.... Addendum: I have been informed by a reliable source that I wasn't very clear in the above post. So let me re-state in a different way: both religious & non-religious people tend to interpret patterns of belief in a way that is overly simplistic. For instance, it is a fact that the most eminent American scientists are far less religious than most scientists-who are themselves far less less religious than the average American.
A secularist, taking this data could make the following conjecture: Since lack of religious belief seems positively correlated in this context with greater intellectual capacities-these individuals are subjecting religious axioms to skepticism and finding it wanting. In contrast, a religious individual could assert that hubris is what is driving this trend away from religious faith, as scientists are men & women filled with arrogance and lack of respect for the work's of God. Both these positions are interesting stories, but certainly not the end of any analysis, though this where popular discussions often end.
For instance-assume you have two newly minted Ph.D.s from a good university. Scientist A is a religious church-goer, while scientist B is a secularist. It seems plausible that scientist A would have less discretionary time to devote to research, church might take up much of his Sundays. Additionally, church is a good way to meet women, so it would be unsurprising if scientist A ends up with a family, while scientist B remains single, or barring that, marries another scientist who shares the same devotion to their craft. Over time, these small differences could result in a great chasm of priorities and accomplishments so that the non-religious scientist is elected to the National Academy of Science while the religious one is not, and rather is happy to be viewed by his fellow parishoners as a good father and citizen. Of course, this is another "just so" story, but the important point is that there are MANY just-so stories out there, and we tend to pick the ones that are most congenial our own world-views. Additionally, the various factors are probably confounded and contribute to feed-back loops (a slight bias of non-religious NAS members chould increase over generations as scientists that are known to be very religious have diminished chances of being elected simply because they are considered strange or out-of-the-ordinary, and not in a good way). Though I think that some people with postgraduate educations come to their beliefs rationally, seeing as how polls show most people tend to follow the religion of their parents, the answers are probably more conventional and nuanced....
And yes Dick, it doesn't take a smart person to observe any of this ;) 1 A non-trivial number of J.D. holders do not go on to practice law-I suspect a far higher number than those who do not practice medicine after medical school. 2 Most of the Five Ways are descended from and precede some common variations, cosmological, teleological, ontological, etc. Norman Malcolm and Richard Swinburne are two contemporary authors that have tackled the "Proof of God" question from a theistic perspective.**
2003-09-17 05:40 | User Profile
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Frederich, there are so many holes in this I don't know where to begin. This hardly convinced me to return to Atheism.
Our political culture has increasingly marginalized atheists, agnostics and secular humanists. Whether it's Ten Commandments in the Court room or a president who invokes God continuously, any rationalist would be perfectly justified in thinking society views them as second class citizens whose views are not worthy.
Excuse me but its the atheists who are often bitching about any sort of display of religious practice anywhere. I myself got all huffed and puffed over any kind of display of anything related to religion. Just because the President invokes God's name does mean this country is a theocracy.
I believe more atheists should follow the example I did during my later days as an atheist, in that I adopted an attitude quite common in the Far East towards religion. In this view: praying in a Buddhist temple doesn't mean you're a Buddhist, getting married in a Shinto temple a Shintoist does not one make, displaying a Hindu religious symbol in a Buddhist temple doesn't mean the temple endorses Hinduism. Likewise, saying "under God" in the pledge doesn't mean you believe in god, getting married in a Christian church doesn't mean you're a Christian, and a courtroom displaying the ten commandments doesn't mean this country is a theocracy!
I found out that once I adopted that form of attitude, I actually found it easier to get along with the world(which is predominately religious). It'd be wise if other atheists and secularists did the same!
For instance-assume you have two newly minted Ph.D.s from a good university. Scientist A is a religious church-goer, while scientist B is a secularist. It seems plausible that scientist A would have less discretionary time to devote to research, church might take up much of his Sundays. Additionally, church is a good way to meet women, so it would be unsurprising if scientist A ends up with a family, while scientist B remains single, or barring that, marries another scientist who shares the same devotion to their craft. Over time, these small differences could result in a great chasm of priorities and accomplishments so that the non-religious scientist is elected to the National Academy of Science while the religious one is not, and rather is happy to be viewed by his fellow parishoners as a good father and citizen.
Apparently this argument doesn't take into effect that scientist B probally has hobbies outside of scientific research. It also assumes that all scientists who are secularists will marry fellow scientists, while scientist A types will not. It also assumes that all secularist scientists will be elected to the National Academy of Science out of virtue of his secularism.
** But there is another possibility--that some of these rationally-oriented people have found actual proof for their beliefs. Maybe they've had a personal supernatural experience with prayer that makes them believe in God or an afterlife. Maybe they've found a compelling logic to their view - perhaps theyââ¬â¢ve looked at the universe and said something made the Big Bang happen or marveled at human development and concluded that "the development of this blob of cells into a conscious human being cannot be explained just through science."**
Alot of secularists and athiests based their beliefs on some personal beef they had with religion some time in their life. They got all pissed over the sexual teachings, they were molested by a priest, or in the case of the Italian composer Verdi being kicked during services by a priest. So Atheism and secularism is hardly more driven by rationalistic justifications, often atheists and secularists rationalize their personal beefs with religion.
Come on Braun you can do better than this. I'll reply to more later.
2003-09-17 06:06 | User Profile
Perun,
Relax -- stay cool.
I don't want to convince you (or anyone else) to go back to atheism (or become atheist).:rolleyes:
2003-09-17 17:23 | User Profile
There was a reply to this from somebody else, but it got deleted because of the url change. It said something about most scientists today are atheists and secularists because atheists see scientific research as their seminary and that people who study natural sciences are constantly indoctrinated in athesitic views.
Science is not a religion, but atheists and secularists use it to advance their own agendas.
2003-09-17 19:09 | User Profile
Perun,
My angry, gloomy theist friend.
You should visit "The Raving Atheist" once in a while for some theistically incorrect good laughs.
[url]http://www.ravingatheist.com/[/url]
2003-09-17 20:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE]*Originally posted by friedrich braun * [B]Perun,
My angry, gloomy theist friend.
You should visit "The Raving Atheist" once in a while for some theistically incorrect good laughs.
[url]http://www.ravingatheist.com/[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not angry or gloomy. And yes I do have a sense of humor when it comes to religion. And I do believe I've visited that website before during the good old days! :D
2003-09-20 16:58 | User Profile
Myth: Intelligent people tend to be more religious.
Fact: Intelligent people tend to be more secular.
Summary
The broad consensus of research shows that people with higher IQs tend to be less religious, not more so.
Argument
Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious.
To place these studies in perspective, it is helpful to know the general religious attitudes of Americans today. According to a February 1995 Gallup poll, 96 percent of all Americans believe in God, and 88 percent affirm the importance of religion. However, the degree of religiosity within this group varies considerably. Only 35 percent can be classified as "religious," using a definition that requires them to consider religion important and attend religious services at least once a week. And a March 1994 Gallup poll found that only 20 percent of all Americans belong to that politically active group known as "Christian conservatives."
The following is a review of several studies of IQ and religiosity, paraphrased and summarized from Burnham Beckwith's article, "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith," Free Inquiry, Spring 1986: (1)
STUDIES OF STUDENTS
Thomas Howells, 1927 Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."
Hilding Carlsojn, 1933 Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic towardââ¬Â¦ atheism."
Abraham Franzblau, 1934 Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.
Thomas Symington, 1935 Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental abilityââ¬Â¦ There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligenceââ¬Â¦"
Vernon Jones, 1938 Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."
A. R. Gilliland, 1940 At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."
Donald Gragg, 1942 Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.
Brown and Love, 1951 At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."
Michael Argyle, 1958 Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."
Jeffrey Hadden, 1963 Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.
Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966 Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.
James Trent, 1967 Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.
C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967 The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.
Robert Wuthnow, 1978 Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.
Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974 Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.
Norman Poythress, 1975 Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).
Wiebe and Fleck, 1980 Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."
STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS
Rose Goldsen, 1952 Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; North Carolina 68.
National Review Study, 1970 Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.
Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977 Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.
Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978 In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26 percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.
STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS
Terman, 1959 Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."
Warren and Heist, 1960 Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.
Southern and Plant, 1968 Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.
STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS
Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.
Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.
Kelley and Fisk, 1951 Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]
Ann Roe, 1953 Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attendââ¬Â¦ All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their livesââ¬Â¦ A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"
Francis Bello, 1954 Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."
Jack Chambers, 1964 Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative menââ¬Â¦ significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16 percent for the most eminent chemists.
Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965 Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.
Conclusion
The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.
This is the result even when the researchers are Christian conservatives themselves. One such researcher is George Gallup. Here are the results of a Fall 1995 Gallup poll:
Percentage of respondents who agreed with the following statements:
Religion is Religion can "very important "answer all or most Respondents in their life" of today's problems"
Attended college 53 percent 58 percent No college 63 65
Income over $50,000 48 56 $30,000 - $50,000 56 62 $20,000 - $30,000 56 60 Under $20,000 66 66 Why does this correlation exist? The first answer that comes to mind is that religious beliefs tend to be more illogical or incoherent than secular beliefs, and intelligent people tend to recognize that more quickly. But this explanation will surely be rejected by religious people, who will seek other explanations and rationalizations.
A possible counter-argument is that intelligent people tend to be more successful than others. The lure of worldly success and materialism draws many of these intellectually gifted individuals away from God. After all, who needs God when you (apparently) are making it on your own?
However, this argument does not withstand closer scrutiny. Most of the studies outlined above describe the religious attitudes of students, who have yet to enter the working world, much less succeed in it. Some might then argue that the most intelligent students are nonetheless succeeding in school. But "success" in school (for those who may have forgotten!) is more measured in terms of popularity, sports, physical attractiveness, personality, clothes, etc. Grades are but one of many measures of success in a young person's life -- one that is increasingly becoming less important, as many social critics point out.
The simplest and most parsimonious explanation is that religion is a set of logical and factual claims, and those with the most logic and facts at their disposal are rejecting it largely on those grounds.
Return to Overview
Endnotes:
2003-09-21 01:50 | User Profile
There are many holes in this one as well. I like it how they never show what kinds of questions and such they asked the testees or by what configuration they determine "religiousity" except "going to church once a week".
I think there was a recent study done by a university in Texas that determined that nationalists and conservatives on average had lower IQs than Liberals. The higher educated and higher paying the job, the more liberal and/or pro-Marxist you are. Conservatives tend to be the opposite.
There's all sorts of studies showing that the more educated people of Germany opposed Hitler while less educated and paid people supported him. Even now, many studies will show that less educated and paid people will think more highly of Hitler than those higher in education and pay.
Then this recent BBC article talks about how women are outclassing men in higher education [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3110594.stm[/url], because "women are becoming smarter than men".
Also I'm sure you'll find more support for marijuana legalization among higher paid higher educated people than among lower paid and less educated.
All these studies are ridiculas and are often based on flimpsy circumstancial evidence. Just because you get all A's and go to Harvard doesn't mean you're more intelligent than average joe. In fact many of the world's greatest genius failed in school and/or college or did poorly. GPAs seem to be based more on how much paperwork and kissing the teacher's ass you can do. Need we forget Hitler didn't do well in school, so clearly he was an idiot right?
This is why most studies trying to prove "whose more intelligent" are ridiculas and don't prove anything because its mostly based on circumstancial evidence at most. It also depends on what kind of enviroment the people were put through. What was the cirriculum they were taught. What kind of friends they hang out, and so on. It cannot be completely controlled unless you took babies from the time they were born, and raise some in an atheist enviroment and raise others in a religious enviroment and studied the results till they all turn 25 or whenever. But even then its still flimsy.
A more believable study would about say certain health risks. Are you in more risk of getting this if you are an atheist or if you were a theist.
So this does not impress me Friederich.
Am I arguing that theists are smarter than atheists? No, I'm just arguing that atheists are not smarter than theists.
2003-09-21 05:49 | User Profile
Wow! That was one rambling, meandering post!!! :)
I don't know what 2/3 of it had to do with the topic at hand.
"There's all sorts of studies showing that the more educated people of Germany opposed Hitler while less educated and paid people supported him. Even now, many studies will show that less educated and paid people will think more highly of Hitler than those higher in education and pay."
Not so.
I wrote a paper, when I was doing my undergrad, on AH's electorate. The middle class voted for him (not the working class or the lower-middle class).
Don't believe Jew propaganda.
A useful source (it's out of print, but your local library should have it):
[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691093954/104-3389146-2305529?v=glance[/url]
Hamilton, Richard F. Who Voted for Hitler? Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1982.
In Who Voted for Hitler?, sociologist Richard Hamilton porposes a correction to the customary response of the previous fifty years. Instead of the traditional answer that German Catholics and the country's lower middle class were responsible, Hamilton argues that [COLOR=Navy]empirical evidence confirms that the Protestants and the upper middle class provided the impetus for Hitler's rise to power[/COLOR]. Examining 1928 to 1933 voting records of fourteen of Germany's thirty largest cities, as well as rural districts, Hamilton presents facts to support his revisionist hypothesis. Based on his data, Hamilton concludes that"the explanation that the lower middle class or petty bourgeoisie provided exceptional support for Hitler's party appears to be without substantial foundation, and in some key respects, is fundamentally mistaken: (p.6). Hamilton further contends that Hitler's National Socialist party evolved from a minor splinter party in 1928 to a formidable political force in 1932-thus setting the stage for Hitler's appointment to the chancellery in January 1933-by adapting their rhetoric to gain the votes of deliberately targeted constituencies. According to Hamilton, Hitler's party adapted their message and methods to include-based on the intended audience-planned opportunism (the Reichstag fire preceding the January 30, 1933 election), coarse antisemitism (mostly avoided in non-antisemitic regions), and stormtrooper violence (where welcomed). Hamilton also suggests that pro-Nazi editiorials and news accounts in newspapers preferred by middle- and upper-class German voters made the National Socialists an acceptable selection compared to Germany's myriad alternative parties. By successfully combining numerical information with narrative interpretations, Hamilton furnishes ample support for his revisionist assertions.
[url]http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/kelly/_5346disc/0000003f.htm[/url]
2003-09-21 06:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.
The results were as follows (figures in %):
BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0 Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2 Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9 Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7 Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high. The authors elaborated on these figures:[/QUOTE] I have long been aware of these figures Friedrich. They are of course for the members of the National Academy of Sciences, who are a social and academic elite in the U.S.
Your interpretation of the difference between regular Ph.D's and "elite" Ph.D's is that among the "high quality" Ph.D's belief declines compared with regular Ph.D's. Did it ever occur to you that there is something rather odd in a so-called ultraconservative (what most people would call people with your views) in finding significance in such a finding?
To recognize what is odd, you have to determine the cultural significance of such differences in values between "average" and "elite" scientists. I would, briefly, for someone like you who seems abysmaly ignorant of social realities in the U.S, especially for an ultra-conservative/ultra-nationalist, to compare these differences between the religious and political beliefs in other high prestige fields and academic disciplines.
As you go up the ladder in outside the natural sciences, in social sciences, humanities, media, entertainment, and even business, you find the same phenomena. The higher you rise, the more leftist they become on social issues, on (except perhaps -surprise for business) on politics in general, and on religion (i.e. secular).
And one other thing, they become disproportionately Jewish as well.
Once again, on the inherent virtue of a Jew-dominated elite's cultural superiority to the lower echelons and masses, as with your liberal sexual views, you view yourself seemingly much more in sympathy with the New York Intellectuals than with the popular masses.
As an aside, it makes me curious actually with your views how you still felt the GDR so repellent. From an American cultural viewpoint there seems quite a bit of similarity between german communist elitism/disdain of the American common culture and people and German NS elitism/disdain for the American culture and people. That is why many American natonalists make such a point of viewing German N.S. ers as anathema. But we can ge to that later, first 'd like your specific comments on your vs. my cultural interpretations of our country - we can get to yours later.
2003-09-21 07:17 | User Profile
One more thing, I'm not saying that "believers" are dumb or deluded, etc. Far from it, that would be disrespectful (and wrong).
Pull up a chair Perun uncle Friedrich has a little anecdote.
When I was doing grad work at a certain Canadian university that shall remain anonymous (as will the field of my grad studies), I stayed at a students' residence run and operated by the Catholic prelature Opus Dei (or the "Work of God", as they humbly call it). Now, I donââ¬â¢t know if you know anything about Opus Dei, but itââ¬â¢s a secretive, rich (our residence was a spacious little castle in the most expensive part of town ââ¬â with house servants, etc.), and powerful institution. Opus Dei selects its numerary and supernumerary members amongst the highly educated, wealthy, and influential members of society. Opus Dei actively seeks out the Catholic elite. The typical member is very well dressed and exudes a certain European charm (most members are Europeans). Their mannerisms are vaguely aristocratic.
The celibate members of Opus Dei are called numeraries and stay in such opulent residences; along with students that the prelature chooses to admit. Since Opus Dei (or just ââ¬Åthe Workââ¬Â, for its members) never advertises, students are ââ¬Åaskedââ¬Â (or ââ¬Åtapped on the shoulderââ¬Â) by a member, or someone close to the Work, if they would like to stay at an Opus Dei residence. Of course, youââ¬â¢re not told right away that the residence is in fact an Opus Dei residence. At first, you know nothing. Membership in the prelature is very secret; in other words, a member wonââ¬â¢t tell you that heââ¬â¢s a member. The Prelature is the only Catholic institution that doesnââ¬â¢t make its membership list public.
Numeraries and supernumeraries (members who are allowed to marry, if they so wish) typically have professional degrees (as well as the students who are selected and allowed to stay in Opus Dei residences -- mansions) and are strongly encouraged (pressured) to get Ph.Ds, LL.Ds, etc. Even though they constantly deny the charge, Opus Dei is incredibly elitist.
While living with members of Opus Dei I have met many highly intelligent people with graduate degrees from excellent universities who were committed, orthodox Catholics. Hence, I know that itââ¬â¢s possible to have a very high IQ and be religious. Many Opus Dei members are professors.
Some links:
Pro
[url]http://www.opusdei.org/[/url]
Anti
[url]http://www.odan.org/[/url]
The best article Iââ¬â¢ve ever read on this controversial group:
[url]http://www.odan.org/leopards_in_the_temple.htm[/url]
2003-09-21 08:01 | User Profile
Okie,
I tried to read your post twice and I still don't know what your driving at. :confused:
I'm not a "sexual liberal". :glare: I believe in a heterosexual, monogamous, committed, lifelong relationship as the best and healthiest arrangement.
I live in North America, so I wouldn't say that I'm "ignorant" of what's happening on our continent either.
Your way is not the only way, Okie.
For e.g., who was more "American" than H.L. Mencken? Yet, I would say, from my readings, that Mencken and I would probably agree on the vast majority of points. I feel a great kinship of spirit. Do you want to excommunicate Mencken from "your" America, Okie?
Are you a W conservative?
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I have long been aware of these figures Friedrich. They are of course for the members of the National Academy of Sciences, who are a social and academic elite in the U.S.
Your interpretation of the difference between regular Ph.D's and "elite" Ph.D's is that among the "high quality" Ph.D's belief declines compared with regular Ph.D's. Did it ever occur to you that there is something rather odd in a so-called ultraconservative (what most people would call people with your views) in finding significance in such a finding?
To recognize what is odd, you have to determine the cultural significance of such differences in values between "average" and "elite" scientists. I would, briefly, for someone like you who seems abysmaly ignorant of social realities in the U.S, especially for an ultra-conservative/ultra-nationalist, to compare these differences between the religious and political beliefs in other high prestige fields and academic disciplines.
As you go up the ladder in outside the natural sciences, in social sciences, humanities, media, entertainment, and even business, you find the same phenomena. The higher you rise, the more leftist they become on social issues, on (except perhaps -surprise for business) on politics in general, and on religion (i.e. secular).
And one other thing, they become disproportionately Jewish as well.
Once again, on the inherent virtue of a Jew-dominated elite's cultural superiority to the lower echelons and masses, as with your liberal sexual views, you view yourself seemingly much more in sympathy with the New York Intellectuals than with the popular masses.
As an aside, it makes me curious actually with your views how you still felt the GDR so repellent. From an American cultural viewpoint there seems quite a bit of similarity between german communist elitism/disdain of the American common culture and people and German NS elitism/disdain for the American culture and people. That is why many American natonalists make such a point of viewing German N.S. ers as anathema. But we can ge to that later, first 'd like your specific comments on your vs. my cultural interpretations of our country - we can get to yours later.[/QUOTE]
2003-09-21 17:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Wow! That was one rambling, meandering post!!! :)
I don't know what 2/3 of it had to do with the topic at hand.
"There's all sorts of studies showing that the more educated people of Germany opposed Hitler while less educated and paid people supported him. Even now, many studies will show that less educated and paid people will think more highly of Hitler than those higher in education and pay."
Not so.
I wrote a paper, when I was doing my undergrad, on AH's electorate. The middle class voted for him (not the working class or the lower-middle class).
Don't believe Jew propaganda.
I don't believe Jew propaganda. I was actually trying to prove that most studies trying to show that "intelligent" people believe in certain things are often based on circumstancial evidence at most. That indeed there are "studies" that showed more "intelligent" people opposed Hitler. I don't believe them, I know full well that intelligent people supported Hitler's regime, just a few weeks ago there was even a thing on PBS about how many of Germany's top professors and intellectuals were involved with the SS.
I was giving examples of ridiculas studies showing that certain attitudes are prevelant among more "intelligent" people.
2003-09-21 21:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Okie,
I tried to read your post twice and I still don't know what your driving at. :confused:
If you don't undreestand that, mybe because it wasn't clear exactly what you were driving it, if anything.
The only clear message of substance, if you had one, was related to those two studies polls you cited on Scientists and Ph.D's. My point was these polls were meaningless for the purpose you seemed to want to use them for. Which makes your whole post, and the thread which it started, essentially superflous.
I'm not a "sexual liberal". :glare: I believe in a heterosexual, monogamous, committed, lifelong relationship as the best and healthiest arrangement. We've been through this before.
I live in North America, so I wouldn't say that I'm "ignorant" of what's happening on our continent either.
Well maybe you're equally ignorant of both continents. I'll concede that possibility.
Your way is not the only way, Okie.
For e.g., who was more "American" than H.L. Mencken? Yet, I would say, from my readings, that Mencken and I would probably agree on the vast majority of points. I feel a great kinship of spirit. Do you want to excommunicate Mencken from "your" America, Okie?
Are you a W conservative?[/QUOTE]
You're changing the subject. Sure sign that you're argument has gotten off-track.
2003-09-21 22:55 | User Profile
A few months ago, when VNN forum was up and running, I asked Mr Braun why he was an atheist, and his reply consisted of neatly sidestepping my question by directing me to a website justifying atheism. I hope Mr Braun will indulge me this time by providing me with a thumbnail sketch of [B]his[/B] reasons for doubting the existence of God, instead of someone else's.
Two things that have been posted here that I'd like to comment on. First, I find it ironic that a group of atheists insist that everyone call them "Brights" from now on. Ironic, because the naturalistic worldview they subscribe to makes reason impossible. This is so simply because if ultimate reality is nothing but deterministic physical laws governing matter and energy, then all of our beliefs are the result of physical laws operating on antecedent electro-chemical brain states. Nothing remotely resembling "rationality" or "reason" enters the picture. If the atheist was consistent, he could not account for his beliefs -- the synapses just fired that way in his brain.
Second, it doesn't surprise me that scientists tend to be atheists or agnostics, but this revelation need not distress the theist. Science is methodologically naturalistic. That is, scientists go about their daily chores observing and experimenting with naturalistic data, i.e., things composed of matter and energy. Not surprisingly, scientists have found naturalistic explanations for naturalistic things. But nothing commits the scientist to then go the extra mile and declare that nothing exists beyond what science designed to find. If you sent a robot designed to detect iron ore into a mine, it would be rather silly to declare that nothing else existed in the mine but iron ore, since it was not designed to find anything else.
2003-09-22 01:14 | User Profile
Perun:
"That indeed there are "studies" that showed more "intelligent" people opposed Hitler."
Since I've never seen such "studies"; could you link or give a source?
2003-09-22 01:53 | User Profile
"Which makes your whole post, and the thread which it started, essentially superflous."
Well, in that case don't read it (I'm surprised that you have) and read the Bible instead. I have trouble taking someone who thinks David Icke is a "resepected" author seriously. [url]http://www.davidicke.com/[/url]
I don't find every thread fascinating either.
We don't all have to be fundamentalist Protestants (or even believers), you know?
I agree with Christopher Hitchens when he says the following:
HITCHENS KNOWS THAT UTOPIA always turns into a tyranny but does not therefore excuse his readers from thinking that no change can happen to human nature. Nature may be a given, but behavior can be altered: "For the dissenter, the skeptical mentality is at least as important as any armor of principle." And he goes to some length to dissolve the notion that those who donââ¬â¢t believe in what Gore Vidal calls "the Sky Gods" are incapable of standing on principle:
I am not even an atheist so much as an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmfulââ¬Â¦. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.
If a God were just, after all, writes Hitchens, then that should be all the consolation believers should need, with any Jeffersonian trembling thrown out of the bargain. Hitchens acknowledges Freudââ¬â¢s point that "religious superstition is ineradicable, at least for as long as we fear death and fear the darkness." He accuses secular humanists of being persecutors of religion, which is the reason he falls just short of approving their program. If and when they are it can only be said that they are far behind religions when it comes to persecution. It is rather desecration that Hitchens wants to condemn, and rightly so; he respects a personââ¬â¢s right to believe, and wants the dissenter to continually engage the believers for the good both can get out of it. [COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]He agrees that people should be entitled to their illusions, butââ¬âand in this but lies the crux of what people who fight against theocracy and the political power of religious organizations in the world must never lose sight ofââ¬â"[COLOR=DarkRed]they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are not entitled to impose them on others[/COLOR]."[/COLOR] [url]http://www.new-thinking.org/journal/whyhitchensmatters.html[/url]
2003-09-22 04:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]"Which makes your whole post, and the thread which it started, essentially superflous."
Well, in that case don't read it (I'm surprised that you have) and read the Bible instead. I have trouble taking someone who thinks David Icke is a "resepected" author seriously. [url]http://www.davidicke.com/[/url]
I don't find every thread fascinating either.
We don't all have to be fundamentalist Protestants (or even believers), you know?
Yes I know, you've repeated this last line about 100 times, so I presume you think it clever.
Really it is unpolitic that you start these threads, and then you have the attitude if we don't like it we don't have to read it. The sum content of your entire replies has been to ignore my, and pretty much the other, critical replies and just rely on ad hominem etc.
I think you exempify the attitude of what you godless often ascribe to Christians "my minds made up, please don't confuse me with the facts".
If you don't want discussion, it would sem to defeat the purpose of the board. But we could facilitate you perhaps. For instance the moderators could automatically lock threads you start. Or at least put a note there "FB post, please this man is senile, only positive relies please". :lol:
I agree with Christopher Hitchens when he says the following:
Hah - the great pro neocon suckup. And you get all over me for using David Icke! :lol:
2003-09-22 04:58 | User Profile
Okie,
What do the facts matter if it's about faith?
2003-09-22 05:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Okie,
What do the facts matter if it's about faith?[/QUOTE]
If you're referring to yourself, I can't think of any specific example.
Do you have any specific examples of where facts matter to you (unlike as with FB) in mind?
I mention FB because his methodology which I have found not untypical of our board infidels, really is not to try for a discussion or throw out any questions at all, just throw forth a few snide remarks and when we have a good answer run back under his rock and hide. It amply demonstrated here.
If you have any fountain of words of wisdom pour forth. (But I will not automatically call it holy water)
2003-09-22 20:58 | User Profile
Perun,
I'd be more interested in knowing how you became a theist again, or why you believe. :)
2003-09-22 21:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]If you're referring to yourself, I can't think of any specific example.
Do you have any specific examples of where facts matter to you (unlike as with FB) in mind?
I mention FB because his methodology which I have found not untypical of our board infidels, really is not to try for a discussion or throw out any questions at all, just throw forth a few snide remarks and when we have a good answer run back under his rock and hide. It amply demonstrated here.
If you have any fountain of words of wisdom pour forth. (But I will not automatically call it holy water)[/QUOTE]
Okie,
Since you're obviously an intellectual giant and a man of profound learning, may I suggest a few web sites (when you're not reading that compendium of Middle Eastern mythology and Jewish propaganda, a.k.a., the Hebrew Bible or the "respected " author David Icke)?:
Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair
The Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair website.
[url]http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html[/url]
"High School Level, 1st Place: Eileen Hyde and Lynda Morgan (grades 10 & 11) did a project showing how the power of prayer can unlock the latent genes in bacteria, allowing them to microevolve antibiotic resistance. Escherichia coli bacteria cultured in agar filled petri dishes were subjected to the antibiotics tetracycline and chlorotetracycline. The bacteria cultures were divided into two groups, one group (A) received prayer while the other (B) didn't. The prayer was as follows: "Dear Lord, please allow the bacteria in Group A to unlock the antibiotic-resistant genes that You saw fit to give them at the time of Creation. Amen." The process was repeated for five generations, with the prayer being given at the start of each generation. In the end, Group A was significantly more resistant than Group B to both antibiotics."
(See the guestbook, half of the people signing it don't even know that it's a parody! I love these people, you can't make this stuff up!)
You may also enjoy the Dawkins Watch. [url]http://objective.jesussave.us/dawkinswatch.html[/url]
In case you decide to stop being an infidel and to convert to the One True Faith, you might also want to check out these sites: online Fatwa:[url]http://www.islam.tc/main.php[/url] [url]http://www.gweilodiaries.com/[/url]
Yours in Christ, :punk:
Friedrich
2003-09-22 22:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]If you're referring to yourself, I can't think of any specific example.
Do you have any specific examples of where facts matter to you (unlike as with FB) in mind?
I mention FB because his methodology which I have found not untypical of our board infidels, really is not to try for a discussion or throw out any questions at all, just throw forth a few snide remarks and when we have a good answer run back under his rock and hide. It amply demonstrated here.
If you have any fountain of words of wisdom pour forth. (But I will not automatically call it holy water)[/QUOTE]
I am just curious how using facts and deduction is compatible with religion where the faith element is so profound.