Are atheists smarter and better educated than Christians?

[Zaphod B]

Fear of Hell is something else. Having fallen from the faith myself, for a number of years the threat of Hell continued to bug me until it finally sunk in that it was a fantasy, simply designed to scare people into submission. Fear is a powerful thing and it's no wonder people stubbornly hold on to false beliefs.

[Robert Z]

It's something I hear all the time: atheists are smart and scientific while Christians are stupid and superstitious.

 

While I understand formal education is not everything, can we start taking a survey on this forum about our religious orientation and education level? I'm just curious.

 

I will start.

 

Religion: Christian (Bible-believing)

Education: Master of Science

 

There have been studies showing a negative correlation between IQ and belief in God.

File:LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I won't be specific but have advanced training in engineering and don't accept the Bible or any particular religion as "the truth". But I think your question is too broad. I am open to spirituality on various levels.

 

This is a more targeted question, imo: Do you reject scientific knowledge for faith-based beliefs? For all of our believers, I would like to know the answer to that question because that is really the core of the matter.

[Robert Z]

As a master of science which parts of current scientific methodology do you not subscribe to? Modern science is based on a theory being postulated then repeatedly (and repeatably) proved or disproved by experimentation and observation.

 

In most branches of physics a 'model' is hypothosised, then experiments designed and executed repeatedly to either support parts of the model or identify where the model is wrong and amend it.

 

Same applies in biology. The theory of evolution was hypothosised and many observations and experiments have been carried out repeatedly to build our current best model of how the universe began and how all life evolved.

 

Nowhere in any branch of science has any evidence been found to support the notion of God as expressed in the bible.

 

Do you have a specialism in any particular area of science ?

 

Your beliefs are limited only to scientific theories? I seriously doubt that. Science is the most limiting construct ever devised. Not meeting the highest standard for proof or evidence does not exclude existence.

 

There is a difference between knowledge and beliefs. Beliefs can be based on personal experience and a choice for faith. Also, science doesn't even address the question of God because by definition the concept lies outside of the boudaries of science. If we had evidence for a God we would never recognize it because by definition we would assume there is another explanation.

[M30USA]

There have been studies showing a negative correlation between IQ and belief in God.

File:LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I won't be specific but have advanced training in engineering and don't accept the Bible or any particular religion as "the truth". But I think your question is too broad. I am open to spirituality on various levels.

 

This is a more targeted question, imo: Do you reject scientific knowledge for faith-based beliefs? For all of our believers, I would like to know the answer to that question because that is really the core of the matter.

 

There are also "scientific" studies showing that butter is healthier than margarine...then a year later margarine is healthier than butter...ad infinitum.

[M30USA]

Your beliefs are limited only to scientific theories? I seriously doubt that. Science is the most limiting construct ever devised. Not meeting the highest standard for proof or evidence does not exclude existence.

 

There is a difference between knowledge and beliefs. Beliefs can be based on personal experience and a choice for faith. Also, science doesn't even address the question of God because by definition the concept lies outside of the boudaries of science. If we had evidence for a God we would never recognize it because by definition we would assume there is another explanation.

 

Excellent post. The last time I checked, there are numerous methods of proof.

 

Here are just a few:

1) Scientific method (this is considered the ONLY method by many ill-informed chaps)

2) Court system (ie, evidence, "beyond reasonable doubt", etc)

3) Historical manuscript "witnesses" (ie, comparing ancient documents to each other to look for evidence of inconsisency)

4) Historical documentation

5) Personal testimony (especially among large groups of unrelated individuals who are not aware of each other's testimony)

[quankanne]

don't ever think you don't make the grade just because your educational level isn't what you want it to be: Smart is smart, no matter what. Frankly, I admire the heck out of someone like you who is bilingual ~ despite the fact that my parents were fluent in English and Spanish, Spanish totally escapes me (I blame the South Texas upbringing and the Spanglish I heard!), so to know someone is capable of speaking TWO languages tells me that they're pretty dang smart! Your students will be blessed having you in their classroom :love:

 

back to the original question, are atheists smarter and better educated than Christians. Again, I say smart is smart, and no one group has the corner on smart. What makes the difference to me is how someone presents that intelligence ... do they use it in a positive way to help edify/educate someone in a way that the person is happy to learn these things, or do they use it as a tool to bash someone over the head in an attempt to belittle them? Interestingly enough, atheists and believers are guilty of the latter, which renders the point they're trying to make totally useless, IMO

 

me: unapologetic cradle Catholic

[TheFinalWord]

Excellent post. The last time I checked, there are numerous methods of proof.

 

Here are just a few:

1) Scientific method (this is considered the ONLY method by many ill-informed chaps)

2) Court system (ie, evidence, "beyond reasonable doubt", etc)

3) Historical manuscript "witnesses" (ie, comparing ancient documents to each other to look for evidence of inconsisency)

4) Historical documentation

5) Personal testimony (especially among large groups of unrelated individuals who are not aware of each other's testimony)

 

Science itself is based on many unprovable assumptions. Math and logic are all presuppositions.

 

Metaphysics-There are other minds other than my own

 

Ethics-The Colorado massacre was evil; inaccessible to science

 

Many truths are not directly accessible by the scientific method.

Edited July 26, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[YellowShark]

I don't think one is more intelligent than the other. There are some brilliant theologians and scientists who are Christians.

 

Personally I simply reached a tipping point where I didn't need to dance to a rain god anymore. It was silly. I understand how many things work in nature, and it's not because of divine intervention. I could dance all day and that will never ever ever ever affect the atmosphere. The universe just wasn't made for little old us.

 

What clinched it for me is the sources in Christian theology are unreliable. Seems everything happened 2000 years ago and the POOF! God and Jesus disappeared. Haven't heard a peep. And it's been 2000 YEARS and counting. Call me crazy but I think after 2000 years you gotta start asking questions.

 

Better by far to embrace the hard truth than reassuring fables.

[M30USA]

I don't think one is more intelligent than the other. There are some brilliant theologians and scientists who are Christians.

 

Personally I simply reached a tipping point where I didn't need to dance to a rain god anymore. It was silly. I understand how many things work in nature, and it's not because of divine intervention. I could dance all day and that will never ever ever ever affect the atmosphere. The universe just wasn't made for little old us.

 

What clinched it for me is the sources in Christian theology are unreliable. Seems everything happened 2000 years ago and the POOF! God and Jesus disappeared. Haven't heard a peep. And it's been 2000 YEARS and counting. Call me crazy but I think after 2000 years you gotta start asking questions.

 

Better by far to embrace the hard truth than reassuring fables.

 

1656 years passed from Adam to the Flood.

 

~600 years passed from the prophecies concerning Christ until he came. Some of these prophecies STILL have not been fulfilled (especially ones in Book of Daniel) since they refer to his second coming.

 

1900 years passed from the time it was prophesied that Israel would be reborn as a nation until it happened in 1948.

[YellowShark]

1656 years passed from Adam to the Flood.

 

~600 years passed from the prophecies concerning Christ until he came. Some of these prophecies STILL have not been fulfilled (especially ones in Book of Daniel) since they refer to his second coming.

 

1900 years passed from the time it was prophesied that Israel would be reborn as a nation until it happened in 1948.

 

Ya.. Ok.. Whatever you say M30USA. If you need all that to make sense of the universe I will not stop you. My universe doesn't need all that to function. When I see a famine I say, “We need to get food in here.” When you see a famine you would waste valuable time praying for food.

[M30USA]

I was merely addressing your assertion that long timespans between prophecy and fulfillment suggests they're not true. I'm not trying to prove the prophecies are true, just that you cant discredit them on the basis of long timespans passing. I think I make a reasonable point.

 

Interesting fact:

 

Isaac Newton was HUGE on the prophecy of Israel being restored as a nation. He was awaiting it. Keep in mind during his life there was no nation of Israel and all we had were scattered Jews around various places. People were like, "The Jews? Who? Yea right!" Newton never lived to see this prophecy fulfilled.

Edited July 26, 2012 by M30USA

[M30USA]

When I see a famine I say, “We need to get food in here.” When you see a famine you would waste valuable time praying for food.

 

Really? You sure have your mind made up about me.

[Forever Silent]

LOL - I wouldn't say you are a moron, but I certainly know a couple of people who fit the description. It blows my mind that one of them just got her doctorate, but she is really STUPID when it comes to common sense, social sense, and emotional intelligence.

 

Thank you, for your kind words. Usually the people who pursue doctorates place little value on common sense, social sense, and emotional intelligence. Since I am in the field of Academia and will be entering the higher levels pretty soon, I too will be face with that realizations. However, I learned how to compartmentalize my brain and will not allow my research area to absorb the rest of my life.

[TheFinalWord]

Logic is underpinned by a tiny handful of presuppositions, but then again at some point everything has to be. Beyond the 3 classical laws/logical absolutes/whatever you want to call them (law of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle) all other logical laws are (so far as I am aware) well-defined and provable.

 

It's highly inaccurate to say that it is all (or even mostly) presuppositions. As an aside, have you ever attempted to read Principia Mathematica, and if so how far did you get?

 

I think it depends on your school of thought. Do you think math is reality or a human construct? Does 2 +2 =4 b/c it really equals 4 or is it 4 because we define it that way?

 

epistemology - Is mathematics founded on beliefs and assumptions? - Philosophy Beta - Stack Exchange

 

Not really a can of worms I want to open to be honest lol You can see a variety of opinions from mathematical philosophers. Even in statistics which I study, there are many schools of thought. So I will say that I overstated that. My main point was that not everything is accessible to the scientific method. Do you agree with that or not? And at least SOME of math and logic rests on unprovable assumptions. I think we can agree there. Not that I don't think the assumptions are valid I'm glad you pointed that out b/c I tend to post on the fly. I think I need a lawyer to proof my posts on here lol j/k

Edited July 26, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[TheFinalWord]

Logic is underpinned by a tiny handful of presuppositions, but then again at some point everything has to be. Beyond the 3 classical laws/logical absolutes/whatever you want to call them (law of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle) all other logical laws are (so far as I am aware) well-defined and provable.

 

It's highly inaccurate to say that it is all (or even mostly) presuppositions. As an aside, have you ever attempted to read Principia Mathematica, and if so how far did you get?

 

Your other question, no I haven't read that. DO you recommend it? Which volume? I spend most of my time reading the literature. I rarely have time to read text books anymore, but I will if you think there is something in there that can help me out. Thanks!

[Forever Silent]

Your other question, no I haven't read that. DO you recommend it? Which volume? I spend most of my time reading the literature. I rarely have time to read text books anymore, but I will if you think there is something in there that can help me out. Thanks!

 

Here is a funny question, if we traveved to another universe where 2+2 did not equal 4 but instead 2+2=22 what would we do. I wonder would societies collaspe lol.

[Feelin Frisky]

There are different flavors of atheism so it's not "smart" to make big conclusions about them being "smarter" or better educated. There is even new understanding about a physiological difference in the brains of conservative types who generally follow religion and liberal types who don't. Briefly studies have found that the conservative/religious type has a larger amygdala which is a primitive fear center while persons on the opposite side of the spectrum have a smaller amygdala and a larger volume of grey matter in an area called the anterior cingulate cortex where higher reasoning and decision-making is said to take place. Assuming this is true I think a low cost scanner should be developed and hooked up to a voting booth. If you have the wrong size amydala, the booth should reject you.

 

Personally I don't see how one can be a scientist and a practitioner of religion at the same time. Sure, many people with beliefs have highly developed minds and are capable of many types of intense scientific rigor. But I wonder how you can question everything in every nuanced way while assuming the nature of things to be divinely engineered. It doesn't work for me and hearing that a scientist is a person of faith pricks up my skepticism antennae. But I tend to think all people are works in progress and may change their views at some point so it's unfair and dumb to tar them as stupid or "less than".

[TheFinalWord]

Here is a funny question, if we traveved to another universe where 2+2 did not equal 4 but instead 2+2=22 what would we do. I wonder would societies collaspe lol.

 

haha true!

 

The higher you go in academics, one thing you'll find is no one knows anything haha that's why i was glad when you said you won't compartmentalize. Academia can make you neurotic b/c you'll argue with people about everything that most people could care less about. You should see some of the refutations I get from peer-reviewed manuscripts I get back. Today, in a peer review I got back one person went on a 3 page diatribe about one sentence I made lol Then at the end said "this may be beyond the scope of this paper" uh you think? You have to learn to just let things go or you'll go insane If you get grants, you must be doing something right is my motto lol

 

was math invented or discovered? Interesting post...

 

"Intuitionists" believe that mathematics is just a creation of the human mind. In that sense you can argue that mathematics is invented by humans. Any mathematical object exists only in our mind and don't as such have an existence.

"Platonists", on the other hand, argue that any mathematical object exists and we can only "see" them through our mind. Hence in some sense Platonists would vote that mathematics was discovered.

 

 

In statistics, there is also Bayesian vs. classical. It can get ugly

[KathyM]

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. There are highly educated people of all religions and those with no religion. One's religious beliefs are not a measure of intelligence.

 

And to answer your question, I am a Christian with a Bachelor's Degree who will be getting my Master's Degree next year, with a 4.0 GPA as a graduate student. Many other Christians I know have achieved advanced college degrees, and are highly intelligent people. Faith and intelligence are not mutually exclusive.

[quankanne]

God and Jesus disappeared. Haven't heard a peep. And it's been 2000 YEARS and counting. Call me crazy but I think after 2000 years you gotta start asking questions. oh, we do. But I'm thinking this is all part of the lesson of "faith."

 

Does 2 +2 =4 b/c it really equals 4 or is it 4 because we define it that way? if one wanted to be facetious, we could say our belief in something as pure a science as math (or any science, for that matter) is a matter of faith, because we put our belief in it and don't question if 4 is actually the answer to the equation of 2 +2

[TheFinalWord]

Assuming this is true I think a low cost scanner should be developed and hooked up to a voting booth. If you have the wrong size amydala, the booth should reject you.

 

We're probably have opposite views, but I found that hilarious! LOL clever humor

 

What does it say about people who don't like either? Maybe I'm missing an entire piece of my brain lol

[TheFinalWord]

I tried to read it once and it was completely impenetrable. I think it's more interesting to simply know that the book exists, so you can rest assured that two people once dedicated ~400 pages to proving that 1 + 1 = 2.

 

LOL touché Nice posts BTW. You're a smart guy

 

Okay I feel better. I looked it up and it looked quite formidable. I was telling myself "wow, this fellow is giving me quite the homework assignment":lmao:

 

I tend to agree with the poster in that link I provided. If you're an intuitionist it all rests on assumptions, but the assumptions are valid. The fellow is a lot smarter than me in that area, so I admit my understanding is very laymen. But it makes sense to me; definitely open to change my opinion though.

 

Regarding assumptions, I know in stats there are some people that are absolute purists. For example with the t-test one assumption for inference is that the sampling distribution is normal. Well some people will say the test is robust against the violation of the assumption. Others will say absolutely not, you can't use that test and must use non-parametric methods. So in the realm I encounter most issues are around how rigorous to hold to the assumptions. All of the assumptions are testable (people will argue how good the tests are though) but people still interpret the assumption based on intuition. For some assumptions there are no good statistical tests and people will literally eye ball graphs and render a verdict based on intuition and experience.

Edited July 26, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[TheFinalWord]

Absolutely I agree. The scientific method is only applicable to empirical evidence.

 

I think assumptions are unprovable by definition, so yes. My point was that the set of assumptions, at least in logic, are surprisingly small. Just about any logical statement can be broken down into smaller provable statements until you reach self-evident statements such as:

• Law of identity: something is equal to itself.
  
• Law of non-contradiction: something cannot be both true and false at the same time.
  
• Law of excluded middle: something can only be either true or false.
  

Assumptions like these are at the core of everything. Without them, you can't get anything off the ground.

 

Science has to assume that we can know things about the world around us, and to a lesser extent that it is "real". I say "to a lesser extent" because even if what we know as reality were some sort of simulation or illusion, then it still at least appears to operate consistently based on a set of rules that are discoverable. So from the point of view of science, it makes no difference whether things are really real or not, only that they are consistent.

 

Computer software makes a useful analogy for this (and also a lot of other things as well).

 

Nah it's all good. There's a lot to remember when discussing topics like this. It reminds me of what one of my computer science lecturers, who advocated top-down learning, used to tell all his classes in the first lecture as a pre-emptive disclaimer of sorts. To paraphrase (he said it better), "A lot of what I'm going to tell you in this subject isn't actually true. I'm telling you this now so you don't feel too bitter or betrayed when you find this out. The reason I'm telling you things that aren't true is because they're true enough for the time being."

 

Solid post. Thanks for clarifying. Can't say I disagree with anything there. I like that quote at the end. Very true!

[TheFinalWord]

This is where you have to be so careful with terminology that it almost threatens to derail any discussion before it starts.

 

Hopefully we can agree that the prime distinction is whether something pre-existed (in which case it was discovered) or it didn't (in which case it was intented).

 

For something to be pre-existing, it must be objective (an inherent property of some thing, and not mind-dependent).

 

Is math part of reality, or our perception of reality? As subjective beings, everything is filtered through our subjective perceptions. It will always be problematic to differentiate the two. Consensus (shared perception) and repeatability help.

 

I would say that for any given test of objective existence, if the foundational principles of mathematics do not pass then nothing would.

 

That's about as certain as I can be of anything beyond my own existence.

 

I agree.

 

Sorry for the sloppy terminology. That was actually not mine. I may have not put quotes around it. Here is the full post:

 

Mathematics is based on assumptions, totally. Like you say, most of standard mathematics is basically derived from ZF or ZFC.

You even have to rely on assumptions sometimes, but I guess you know that already as you mention Gödels Incompleteness theorem. A famous example is the Continuum hypothesis which can neither be proven wrong, nor right, within the bounds of ZF or ZFC. So in order to work with it you have to either assume it's true or not.

But: There is a reason for the current Axioms being the way they are. They simply feel right to a lot of people and they seem to capture reality correclty - i.e. they seem to ground a theory which can be applied to real things (like, say, calculations in physics or in computing).

Do also have a look at this question: Was mathematics invented or discovered?.

 

All mathematicians, regardless of whether they use standard mathematics (that is, accept the axioms grounding standard mathematics) or non-standard mathematics (which means: other axioms and rules, they reject the mainstream axioms and do not think that they feel right) do accept that current state of the art, with respect to the chosen axoims, is correct, i.e. is true - thus there seems to be something which allows people to falsify the correctness of a statement with respect to arbitrary axioms. And: They come to the same conclusion.

In short: there seems to be something which allows you to reason about truth. This something is not violated in mathematics (nor in philosophical debates). I'd even go that far and say that mathematics is something which originates in the human mind (that said, I think that mathematics is the way it is because of the way the human mind is).

Whether this something is reason, whether there are other minds, and in what way all of these things work is subject to another discussion. However, I believe that ultimately everything ends up in believing and assuming.

I for example believe in my existence and assume that there are other, real people out there, who, if given a set of axioums, derive the same mathematics as I do, when I do. But there's no way to ground any of this whatsoever.

[123321]

It's something I hear all the time: atheists are smart and scientific while Christians are stupid and superstitious.

 

While I understand formal education is not everything, can we start taking a survey on this forum about our religious orientation and education level? I'm just curious.

 

I will start.

 

Religion: Christian (Bible-believing)

Education: Master of Science

 

Actual scientific surveys, as opposed to whatever this is, typically conclude the education reduces the likelihood of religious belief but increases the likelihood of participation in all sorts of social activities including church attendance.

 

So that leaves us with a few questions. First, are you using educational level attained as a proxy for intelligence, and what is defined religious? Is it participation or faith in beliefs or something else?