Are athiests more intelligent than theists?

[Neoteny]

Ok, so, Neo, could you take the Dawkins reference a bit farther. please? I have not read much of his stuff because I find his attitude so off-putting that reading even a little bit of his stuff pisses me off unimaginably. I'm very, very curious to hear how you think statistics can be applied to the quantification of the leap of faith required to believe in God vs. that required to not believe in God. I'm not being remotely sarcastic here (since the internet sucks at communicating such things). I'm very curious to hear this.

Dawkins basically asserts that the probability for the existence of an entity that is capable of creating a universe goes far beyond the probability of the existence of the universe coming into existence by some other natural means. The complexity required of such an entity is too much to account for without some prior cause, ie some form of evolutionary pattern. That's the gist of it anyway. I'm not sure I've done it justice, but I suppose other people who have read Dawkins, whether they agree or disagree with him, can correct me on the specifics. In other words, not too different than what I've been arguing. In other words, it's mainly a comparison between the current understanding of the complexity of the early universe as we know it, and the complexity needed for a separate entity to willfully cause the creation of our universe.

[Neutrino]

I don't know anything about biblical arguments regarding the number of souls. What I do know is that entropy is a major mechanism driving life at the molecular level, so it seems to me to fit perfectly into the design of a universe in which man could evolve.

It does? I've never been very interested in Biology...

Anyways, it doesn't really matter. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to kickstart life that won't eventually kill it. True, they probably rely on tweaked physical law, but that's not really a problem...

[Colossus]

So, Dawkins' argument isn't remotely scientific because it's not quantifiable. If people want to put faith in such an argument, fine, but unless there some kind of quantifiable way to discuss these probabilities, such assertions aren't remotely scientific. They are philosophical, which is fine, but in my opinion, Dawkins presenting such arguments as though they are scientific is irresponsible. If he makes it clear that such an argument is philosophical because it cannot be quantified, then I have no problem with such a discussion.

How could you possibly quantify the probability of God's existence? There have been analyses arguing that the probability of our universe happening (i.e. the incredible luck of us existing in a universe seemingly designed just right so that life could develop in it) by chance are incredibly remote. The only psuedo-quantitative analysis I have ever seen has basically made the argument that, 'well if there are an infinite number of universes, whether at this time or at other times, then our universe was bound to happen sooner or later.' Such arguments postulate the existence of an infinite number of universes! That seems just as big a logical leap as the existence of God, to me, perhaps moreso. I guess what I'm getting at is the fact that any time I've seen arguments that supposedly try to quantify the probability of God vs. a non-God explanation, both require very big assumptions for which there is no real data.

And, yes, neutrino, it does. I'm not making that up...in fact I'm writing my doctoral dissertation right now about that very subject, so it's probably the one thing that I'm actually qualified to talk about with any degree of authority.

[AlgyTaylor]

Einstein believed in god.

No he didn't. He's commonly misinterpreted as believing in god - if you read all of his work rather than just selective bits, by "god" he meant the laws of the universe (gravity and so on).

[AlgyTaylor]

Anyway, IMO atheists are no more or less intelligent than theists.


I do think they have a clearer, more concise way of viewing the world. But are not necessarily more intelligent.

[AlgyTaylor]

Dawkins is an egotistical prick, who masquerades as being a lot smarter than he is. He makes plenty of pseudoscientific claims about religion that have no basis in actual scientific fact. He is an irresponsible scientist who fuels the societal rift between science and religion. And he should be slapped. Hard. In my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Career

I think he probably is pretty fucking intelligent given his qualifications.

A bit arrogant, maybe. But that doesn't mean that he's not intelligent. Or right.

[Symmetry]

Colossus: with regards to Dawkins, his "God Delusion" book is not really something he presents as science. He's writing as a respected scientist, true, but his arguments are much more about his personal beliefs and interactions with believers who have attacked his scientific works.

Dawkins has always had two sides to his published materials. He's a respected scientist within his field, and has a fair few academic papers, but he also published a number of intelligent popular science books. "The Selfish Gene", and "Climbing Mount Improbable" are two of my favourites. With "The God Delusion" he made a further step towards writing his personal feelings, and consequently a step away from the pure science.

So, what's the point? Well, his popular science books were grounded n his expertise in the field, and his new writing is grounded in the ideas he developed from those. If you'd like to see where Dawkins is coming from, check out his other books. His ideas about religion stem from his theories about the evolution of human culture (what ideas provide a natural advantage to a given society). He uses the term "memes" as a pun on "genes".

Until you check out his other work, then it's pretty unfair to claim that he is unscientific, or irresponsible. You'd be forced to say that a religious scientist who believes that the beauty of science implies a god, is also being unscientific and irresponsible. Both are presenting arguments from a background of science, as scientists, but neither can claim to be pure science. I don't believe that Dawkins claims to quantify any god. In fact, he criticises the argument made by Pascal that belief is a wager that should be made.

What Dawkins is interested in is primarily how ideas are transmitted in a culture, and how evolution can work beyond a "pure" biological format. What his latest book takes on is how there are certain cultural forces that are resistant to being quantified in that way. It's not a god that's being quantified, but the cultural belief in a god. That's certainly something, I hope you will agree, that can be studied and analysed (though you may not like it).

[Colossus]

My opinion of Dawkins is a sidepoint and rather immaterial to the discussion in the thread. My argument is that Dawkins', or anyone else's, arguments about the relative probability of God vs. that of not-God are not remotely scientific. They are philosophical discussions. I'm not sure if the two previous posters have read the whole thread, but the crux of my arguments have been that much of the scientific justification offered by atheists is wrong because it is rooted in old science. I'm not interested in debating the philosophical points because I think they are largely a matter of perspective and because I'm not terribly well-informed when it comes to the philosophical or sociological aspects of the religion discussion. For that stuff, I'm much better off reading the posts of folks who are better informed and better-read than I am on the subject.

[Symmetry]

Apologies- I certainly didn't read the previous 13 pages. You're perfectly correct. I'm not sure why you mentioned Dawkins if you didn't want to discuss him though.

I really don't understand why you have no interest in debating on sociological or philosophical grounds about religion. It doesn't seem like you'd like to have an argument on scientific grounds either. You didn't really say why you dislike Dawkins, or suggest that you are familiar with his work.

If you dismiss so many aspects of the debate about religion in one fell swoop, then it might be a little tough to claim that you are well read on the subject in the future. Sorry to be harsh, but if your doctoral dissertation can't stand up to arguments on an internet thread, then you'll have difficulty defending it against faculty.

[AlgyTaylor]

My opinion of Dawkins is a sidepoint and rather immaterial to the discussion in the thread. My argument is that Dawkins', or anyone else's, arguments about the relative probability of God vs. that of not-God are not remotely scientific. They are philosophical discussions. I'm not sure if the two previous posters have read the whole thread, but the crux of my arguments have been that much of the scientific justification offered by atheists is wrong because it is rooted in old science. I'm not interested in debating the philosophical points because I think they are largely a matter of perspective and because I'm not terribly well-informed when it comes to the philosophical or sociological aspects of the religion discussion. For that stuff, I'm much better off reading the posts of folks who are better informed and better-read than I am on the subject.

Richard Dawkins makes a very convincing argument that the existence (or otherwise) of god is in fact a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

I won't go in to it in detail, He (I've taken to capitalising the He when talking about Richard Dawkins ) makes a far better argument than I could. Go and borrow 'The god Delusion' from your local library. It's "well weapon".

[Colossus]

Symmetry, my doctoral dissertation has nothing to with sociological or philosophical debate over issues of faith and religion. I has to do with science, as has most of the discussion in this thread until you two came in to comment without reading the thread. I'm very interested in the sociological and philosophical portions of the debate, but they are off-topic from most of the conversation thus far. You and Algy popped in, saw someone maligning Dawkins, and felt compelled to jump immediately to his defense without being aware of the central points of the discussion. Dawkins and Gould entered the discussion as prime examples of members of the scientific atheist community who fuel the unnecessary vitriol between believers and non-believers. Dawkins' arguments may seem very logical, but the idea that there is a scientific proof that God does not exist is demonstrably wrong, as I've argued throughout the thread. Feel free to read the discussion, because I really don't feel like saying it all over again.

[AlgyTaylor]

Point taken.


Although I do disagree with you there, my point was that the idea that there is or is not an interventionist god is a scientifically provable (or disprovable) idea. Say God in the OT, Yahweh, would've violated the commonly held beliefs of physics and/or biology every time he intervened. So, theoretically, if you could show either that those laws had been violated (and otherwise unexplainable) then you'd at least prove that God *could* exist. If you proved that those laws had not been violated, the god of the OT could not exist.

A non-interventionist god would be different, slightly. I don't agree with Dawkins in his belief that a god that created the universe would necessarily need to be more complicated than the universe. But if you think about it, we can prove theoretically that god is non-interventionist on earth (or indeed that he is interventionist). In theory we could prove whether or not he is interventionist in the solar system, galaxy, universe - even the multiverse if it exists.

At the moment most theologians would point to God being non-interventionist in most affairs, but perhaps in the big bang event. That's OK. But we could theoretically prove whether or not god is interventionist at that level.

God must be interventionist at some level - be it creating universes or creating animals to walk on the earth. If you can prove that he isn't interventionist at any level, you've proved that god doesn't exist.

I know this is impossible in practice, but the point is that gods existence is NOT a philosophical question. It's a scientific one. Albeit one that we'll never answer.

[Colossus]

I couldn't disagree with you more, Algy. Science has proven a mechanism through which God could interact with his creation such that we could never be able to detect it. It's called quantum mechanics and this argument has been the crux of the discussion in the thread. Please feel free to read my previous arguments. But the central point is that the latest, greatest scientific theories rule out a strictly deist view (because such a view requires deterministic physics) and at the same time demonstrates the non-disprovability of God. God becomes another model that people can use if they want to, like the possible existence of an infinite number of universes, but none of these models are disprovable within the frame of the best current scientific theories. Neither are they supportable with hard data. So, the existence or non-existence of God becomes an issue of choice, an issue of personal perspective, an issue of faith.

[Neoteny]

So, Dawkins' argument isn't remotely scientific because it's not quantifiable. If people want to put faith in such an argument, fine, but unless there some kind of quantifiable way to discuss these probabilities, such assertions aren't remotely scientific. They are philosophical, which is fine, but in my opinion, Dawkins presenting such arguments as though they are scientific is irresponsible. If he makes it clear that such an argument is philosophical because it cannot be quantified, then I have no problem with such a discussion.

How could you possibly quantify the probability of God's existence? There have been analyses arguing that the probability of our universe happening (i.e. the incredible luck of us existing in a universe seemingly designed just right so that life could develop in it) by chance are incredibly remote. The only psuedo-quantitative analysis I have ever seen has basically made the argument that, 'well if there are an infinite number of universes, whether at this time or at other times, then our universe was bound to happen sooner or later.' Such arguments postulate the existence of an infinite number of universes! That seems just as big a logical leap as the existence of God, to me, perhaps moreso. I guess what I'm getting at is the fact that any time I've seen arguments that supposedly try to quantify the probability of God vs. a non-God explanation, both require very big assumptions for which there is no real data.

And, yes, neutrino, it does. I'm not making that up...in fact I'm writing my doctoral dissertation right now about that very subject, so it's probably the one thing that I'm actually qualified to talk about with any degree of authority.

I don't think I said he quantified anything, or that it was scientific. If I did, naughty me, I was being misleading. His idea is that statistical concepts should apply, and that we can logic through it. I apologize if I mislead you, or if I downright lied (I've done that too, accidently; I checked my posts to make sure, but I didn't see anything), but it is clearly philosophical. It's better than any philosophical argument I've heard for god's existence, at any rate.

And I do agree with Algy about an interventionist god, but that's not the discussion at the time.

[Neoteny]

I couldn't disagree with you more, Algy. Science has proven a mechanism through which God could interact with his creation such that we could never be able to detect it. It's called quantum mechanics and this argument has been the crux of the discussion in the thread. Please feel free to read my previous arguments. But the central point is that the latest, greatest scientific theories rule out a strictly deist view (because such a view requires deterministic physics) and at the same time demonstrates the non-disprovability of God. God becomes another model that people can use if they want to, like the possible existence of an infinite number of universes, but none of these models are disprovable within the frame of the best current scientific theories. Neither are they supportable with hard data. So, the existence or non-existence of God becomes an issue of choice, an issue of personal perspective, an issue of faith.

Wait, how does quantum mechanics rule out deism?

[Colossus]

Neo, I didn't say that you said that Dawkin's statistical arguments were scientific. I was not under the impression that you were trying to argue that. I was merely making the point that they are not scientific, so such arguments to not bear on the issue of what science can say about God. I agree that deductive reasoning (which is a major part of scientific thought) can be very useful when considering the philosophical arguments for and against God's existence.

Strict deism is dependent on a deterministic physics. Quantum mechanics clearly shows that reality is not deterministic.

The main point that I've been driving at this whole time is that it is very, very common these days for atheists to base their atheism on a mistaken idea that science has ruled out God somehow. They tend to stand on top of the 'scientific mountaintop' with an air of intellectual superiority looking down on theists who 'just don't get it'. Basically I'm saying that they are shit out of luck because their scientific mountaintop DOES NOT EXIST when it comes to the issue of whether or not God is.

All the philosophical discussion is fantastic and fun and useful, but it doesn't provide a scientific basis for a more intellectually enlightened viewpoint for either side of the debate.

[Neoteny]

Strict deism is dependent on a deterministic physics. Quantum mechanics clearly shows that reality is not deterministic.

The main point that I've been driving at this whole time is that it is very, very common these days for atheists to base their atheism on a mistaken idea that science has ruled out God somehow. They tend to stand on top of the 'scientific mountaintop' with an air of intellectual superiority looking down on theists who 'just don't get it'. Basically I'm saying that they are shit out of luck because their scientific mountaintop DOES NOT EXIST when it comes to the issue of whether or not God is.

All the philosophical discussion is fantastic and fun and useful, but it doesn't provide a scientific basis for a more intellectually enlightened viewpoint for either side of the debate.

My perspective is that scientific history has demonstrated that we don't need a god anymore. Science is god, if you have to call something god. But that has those negative connotations I was talking about. I don't see how deism is dependent on determinism. He could just be a lucky deity.

[Colossus]

You seem perfectly willing to just accept the non-determinism and probability that is inherent in quantum mechanics, Neo. While I respect such acceptance (good for you), science is about finding models to explain data and testing those models with more data. If science is God, then it should be able to offer an explanation for everything, right? How do you reconcile the idea that your god (science) seems to have shown that it is incapable of ever explaining everything?

[got tonkaed]

i would wonder in some ways if we arent bound by some perhaps misguided impressions that a God has to be infinite or be able to explain everything admist other perfect qualities. Since we tend to come from a culture that views any legitamate notion of divinity that way, i think it clouds our expectations of what a deity, should one exist, have capabilities of.

[Colossus]

I suppose it all comes down to the definition of God. That's an interesting point, GT...I never really thought about it before. So, you're suggesting that maybe there is a higher being or beings than us, but maybe not necessarily omnipotent or ominscient?

[got tonkaed]

I suppose it all comes down to the definition of God. That's an interesting point, GT...I never really thought about it before. So, you're suggesting that maybe there is a higher being or beings than us, but maybe not necessarily omnipotent or ominscient?

i mean its certainly possible. I think its just one of the many cultural assumptions that we take on when discussing notions of what is divine. Its kind of hard to question them though, because if you open yourself up to anything, you quite often end up with nothing, and that doesnt work out for the majority of people, right or wrong.

[tzor]

Although I do disagree with you there, my point was that the idea that there is or is not an interventionist god is a scientifically provable (or disprovable) idea. Say God in the OT, Yahweh, would've violated the commonly held beliefs of physics and/or biology every time he intervened. So, theoretically, if you could show either that those laws had been violated (and otherwise unexplainable) then you'd at least prove that God *could* exist. If you proved that those laws had not been violated, the god of the OT could not exist.

I would like to think you are kidding here, but I suspect your not. This is a Hitchiker like fallicy on a number of levels; the notion that god must break the laws of physics in order to intervene and the notion that we know the full historical state at any one time so we can compare every point of historical time to see where such breaks occur.

The argument applies not only to God, space aliens and time travelers are also equally impossible to prove if they have a modicum of intellgence. Let's take that David and Goliath thing (although there is not a shread of historical evidence for it, I just like the example) and intervention #1, god slips Goliath a mickey. Intervention #2, god dumps a load of the good weed on the enemy temple's incense pile where the big guy is praying. (I like that, because it is implied that he was "stoned" before he was er stoned.) We can go on like this all day, minor cheats to the universe can have drastic impacts to history and no one will be ever the wiser.

Even then, if this was possible, have you discovered "god" or in fact have you discovered that your understanding of the universe is not what you thought it was?

This is why I find "strong" athiests to be intellectually weak from a perspective, not of religion but of science. There is nothing "strong" in science, either in the positive or in the negative. There are only the things we think we know and the things we don't know. That which we think we know we may be able to speculate on but on the things we don't know we cannot and should not pretend to know as facts one way or the other.

There was a time when it was assumed that a body orbiting too close to another body will become locked with that larger body and always have the same side point towards that body. We knew one example, the moon and the earth and assumed that it was true. Mercury was in the same situation with the sun as the moon was to the earth. Yet we found out it wasn't locked. It was instead an integer, but that integer wasn't one.

Proof of God? No proof someone had to go back and do the math. And that's the problem with your argument. If you can prove someone "broke the laws of physics" are you really sure that they were the correct laws to begin with? You don't know. Score one for the agnostic. I think.

[Snorri1234]

We can go on like this all day, minor cheats to the universe can have drastic impacts to history and no one will be ever the wiser.

Raining fire on cities and stuff like that aren't small things though.

[unriggable]

We can go on like this all day, minor cheats to the universe can have drastic impacts to history and no one will be ever the wiser.

Raining fire on cities and stuff like that aren't small things though.

Not to mention stopping the rotation of the earth for a day.

[Colossus]

Raining fire and global floods, etc. are very probably historical exaggeration brought about by the wonders of oral tradition. If God really rained fire before....why did he stop? Or maybe he didn't stop, and he still rains fire when a volcano erupts and destroys a city (pompeii)? This type of argument is getting into debates over literal reading of the bible...and we sure as hell don't want to open up THAT can.