# Intelligence and religion... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2000, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059 "2000-11-07T03:28:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2000, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/161 "2000-11-14T23:42:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > Water turning into wine isn’t impossible, just highly improbable. What is most likely to happen at any given time is a particle will obey macro-physical laws. But, all the time, particles don’t do so. The reason no one notices is the particles that act improbably are generally such a minority that from our perspective the objects we can see behave according to the macro-laws. For even one entire atom to act unexpectedly is highly unlikely. But that is as far as science can take this. > > I never specifically saw anyone turn water into wine. I have seen other transubstantiations. Everything else _could_ be plainly written off as luck or chicanery. I can only guess that you are referring to the [uncertainty principle](http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/physics/physics24.html) to justify your assertion that some particles don’t obey macro-physical laws? If so, I think your statement does not reflect a true understanding of that idea. You seem to be saying «some particles can act in a “miraculous” fashion», e.g. - if you look at enough rocks, you should be able to find one floating in mid-air - if you have enough bottles of water sitting around, one of them will automagically turn into wine etc… I believe that this is **not** a proper interpretation of the uncertainty principle. Which transubstantiations have you seen? I still am curious to know what miracles you have seen to convince you of the existence of god. From reading your comments, it seems to me that you have seen improbable events, which happen every day. I don’t need to give up all my riches and abandon my friends and family to witness those. My personal impression so far is that your experiment is “if you follow my instructions you will start to believe in god”, and not “if you follow my instructions you will receive proof of the existence of god”. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/162 "2000-11-15T00:11:12Z")
Gee, it seems that I’ve mischaracterized jmullaney’s experiment. I was under the impression that this “leaving your friends and family” stuff involved some sort of formal renunciation, a serious and considered severing of all worldly ties. Apparently, though, it would be sufficient for me to just take a vacation in Tahiti for a few weeks. Or maybe go camping for a weekend. Or, heck, I dunno, I could just go take a walk around the block, by myself, and not carry my wallet with me. I mean, I _never_ really leave the house without carrying my wallet, but hey, if it’s a question of finding the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything, just let me know–I’m game. > [@](#): > > For I have come to turn "`a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law–a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ – [Matthew 10:35-36](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+10:35-36&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on) > [@](#): > > If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. – [Luke 14:26](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+14:26&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on) For me to hate the ones I love, or to behave as though I hated them, would be unethical. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/163 "2000-11-15T03:17:58Z")
jmullaney said, in response to a suggestion that he talk to James Randi: > [@](#): > > I doubt he would believe me. So then why should we? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/164 "2000-11-15T17:22:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried \* > I believe that this is **not** a proper interpretation of the uncertainty principle. You are, perhaps, half right. Though QM deals mostly with electrons and radioactive decay it must be first recognized that it’s lessons apply to all matter. Because Neutrons and Protons have mass their probability states are more to the expected macro-physical norm and are more difficult to work with in the lab. However, suffice it to say that the longer any particle goes without observation, the more likely it is to be in a different state by the time it is observed though it will tend to conform to macro-physics in any case. Any unobserved object is in an unknown state until such a time as it is observed. What I postulate is that it is possible to alter the nature of the observer so he/she acts differently in the equation such that the state to which the matter should happen to be in when observed tends to conform to the wishes of the observer for matter to arrive at a certain state. That does seem to be the case for observers conforming to a certain state of rules (as dictated by a certain individual who could indeed bend the macro-physical laws in his favor). That implies there is indeed a hidden variable in the equation that is difficult to measure scientifically. I call this hidden variable “God” for lack of a better word, although you may call it what you wish. AFAIK, I’m not describing anything outside the realm of possibility according to physics. From the Britannica, my bolding: > [@](#): > > ``` > The behaviour of matter and radiation on the atomic scale often > seems peculiar, and the consequences of quantum theory are > accordingly difficult to understand and to believe. Its concepts > frequently conflict with common-sense notions derived from > observations of the everyday world. There is no reason, however, > why the behaviour of the atomic world should conform to that of the > familiar, large-scale world. **It is important to realize that quantum > mechanics is a branch of physics and that the business of physics is > to describe and account for the way the world--on both the large > and the small scale--actually is and not how one imagines it or > would like it to be.** > > ``` > [@](#): > > Which transubstantiations have you seen? Does manna from heaven count? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > Apparently, though, it would be sufficient for me to just take a vacation in Tahiti for a few weeks. Or maybe go camping for a weekend. Or, heck, I dunno, I could just go take a walk around the block, by myself, and not carry my wallet with me. I mean, I _never_ really leave the house without carrying my wallet, but hey, if it’s a question of finding the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything, just let me know–I’m game. No, Buckner. The pararmeters of the experiment are rather clear. > [@](#): > > For me to hate the ones I love, or to behave as though I hated them, would be unethical. As opposed to loving who you love and hating who you hate? It is more ethical to love everyone equally, is it not? If you love your friends and hate your enemies, that is easy. A few quotes out of context from some ancient book don’t go very far with me. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David B \* > So then why should we? If you are merely unwilling to perform the experiment yourself, I don’t see what your objection would be to believing me. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/165 "2000-11-15T20:34:37Z")
Belief vs. faith. Excuse me for using the two interchangably. I read your posts. I think others have read your posts as well. I think I’m gonna keep this simple, as my previous posts were. I don’t think you are willing to concede this point, and it’s relevant to the OP and whether any discussion on this topic should continue: Thiests, especially critical thinking theists and skeptical theists, believe in God despite lacking scientific proof of God’s existence. By default, believing in something which cannot be proven is faith (see how faith and believed occupy the same sentence?). An atheist has to use faith and belief interchangably when discussing ‘God’. If there was proof, then we would believe, without faith. Using proof to confirm beliefs is not faith. Believing without proof is faith. I believe that “x” drug cures “x” disease because the appropriate methods were used to prove “x” works. I believe, though it’s not based on faith. If I chose to believe without the appropriate methods being applied to the testing of “x”, then I’d be believing based on faith. Faith contains belief. I also have faith that the pharmacutical companies and the FDA are applying the right methods. Theists believe in God because they have faith. I think theists and atheists should concede this point, and thereby recognize that by conceding it we reserve the right to respect each others’ view points… because the two factions are applying different standards for belief. One belief is based on faith, the other is based on critical thinking. If you’re on a kick to discuss the proof of the existence of God, miracles, or whatever, knock yourself out. I am of the school that says you can’t do it, and shouldn’t bother anyway. There’s a million bucks in it for you, and I’m sure the complexity of trying to prove the existence of God or miracles is far too complicated for the board. Have faith. ~Atheism is based on sound reasoning, and theists envy that sound reasoning, especially the educated ones. This leads to frustrated theists not comfortable with faith, and scamperring to prove God exists. It’s very amusing AND it ties in nicely with the thread: It’s a bitch being smart, yet still trying to believe, huh? Hmmm? This requires faith, but you’re too smart to just use faith…this God thing must make sense…but it’s so darn awkward to try and prove your beliefs. The two most content groups of people are atheists and the drones who have blind faith. It’t the smart guy caught in the middle that drives himself crazy. Faith - the arguement killer. But go right on and prove away. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/166 "2000-11-15T21:13:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Philster \* > Excuse me for using the two interchangably. For the purposes of this post, I will also use them interchangibly, just to satisfy you. Where clarity is required, I will distinguish between belief/faith (your meaning) and trust-faith (my meaning). > [@](#): > > Thiests, especially critical thinking theists and skeptical theists, believe in God despite lacking scientific proof of God’s existence. That statement does not apply to all theists. Some theists do believe God exists because they do have proof of God’s existence. > [@](#): > > By default, believing in something which cannot be proven is faith … An atheist has to use faith and belief interchangably when discussing ‘God’. If there was proof, then we would believe, without faith. Using proof to confirm beliefs is not faith. Believing without proof is faith. I agree. > [@](#): > > I believe that “x” drug cures “x” disease because the appropriate methods were used to prove “x” works. I believe, though it’s not based on faith. Even though you do not have proof yourself by your own eyes? I fail to see the difference here. I believe God exists because I have used the appropriate methods to prove God exists. So, I also believe, though it is not based on your “belief/faith” concept as I am trying to understand it. > [@](#): > > If I chose to believe without the appropriate methods being applied to the testing of “x”, then I’d be believing based on faith. Agreed. > [@](#): > > the two factions are applying different standards for belief. One belief is based on faith, the other is based on critical thinking. I’ll concede most theists do believe based on your belief/faith. Atheism is however based on a refusal to use the appropriate methods to prove there is a God, or a refusal to accept the testimony of others who have. I don’t consider that “critical thinking.” > [@](#): > > If you’re on a kick to discuss the proof of the existence of God, miracles, or whatever, knock yourself out. All I can do is testify to what I have seen and tell others how they might see the same things. I think that fullfills my scientific duties. I can’t very well prove the sky is blue to someone who refuses to look up, can I? > [@](#): > > Atheism is based on sound reasoning, and theists envy that sound reasoning, especially the educated ones. Atheism is based upon willfull ignorance. A lot of theism is based on belief/faith. Some, though, is based on proof which is available to anyone who wants to get such proof for themselves. > [@](#): > > It’t the smart guy caught in the middle that drives himself crazy. I think most people are roughly co-equal in intelligence. Some people are just too weak to do some scientific research, but instead of admitting they are weak simply deny the scientific method. When I was not one of them, I pitied them, but I still can’t understand why they can’t see themselves for what they are. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/278dde/32.png) [@JustAnotherGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/167 "2000-11-15T22:27:33Z")
I believe it a bit of a fallacy to assume that atheists make their conclusions by logic alone. Atheism is a religious belief, since the sole basis of atheism is that there is no deity. For an atheist to prove to me that there is no deity is as certain to fail as for me to prove to an atheist that there is one. Your faith is that there is no deity, that your actions in this life will not bring retribution upon you in another life. Your belief is learned, as are all religious beliefs, by others around you or by individual study and experience. You can corroborate evidence to back your belief, as I can corroborate evidence to back my belief. However, the belief is not one of scientific evidence as no scientific evidence can prove either religion in and of itself. You may believe that you have come to the religion of atheism by factual disproof, just as jmullaney may believe that his experience led him to his religious beliefs. Still, you can offer the same evidence to another person and it will fail to prove to them the same conclusion that you arrived upon. Thus, your religious belief, whether Atheism, Christianity, Muslim, whatever, is subjective and individual. It is a personal voyage that cannot be duplicated with repeated performances with a reasonable, scientific, rate of success. I have been corrected before for stating that scientists and atheists are the same thing, and was correctly admonished. Scientists can come from any religion, science is simply a matter of theorizing and proving or disproving theories about the laws of nature. Atheism and other forms of religion attest to a belief or disbelief in a deity, provable by faith. Does anyone remember what the OP was about? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/168 "2000-11-15T22:39:09Z")
JustAnotherGuy, your last post was founded on a misinterpretation of the atheist position, which we’ve been through on several go-arounds on this board. VileOrb holds to a “strong atheist” position: A firm belief that there is no god. I do not wish to presume to explain his stance, but suffice it to say that he founds it on reason rather than “belief” in a sense akin to faith. The other atheist posters hold what I coined the phrase “pragmatic atheism” to describe. Their stance is similar to but distinct from agnosticism. In sum, one should only accept what there is evidence for. Neutrinos, while the evidence is scanty, do fit theory and what evidence there is fits with theory and is not contradicted by any other evidence. So they accept neutrinos. On the other hand, leprechauns are well documented, but always in a folklore situation, and a thorough investigative project in Ireland conducted by skeptics would not turn up a flesh-and-blood leprechaun. So they refuse to accept leprechauns. In their view, there is insufficient evidence to accept the idea of an active god of a theism. But rather than relegating the idea of god to the maybe/maybe-not realm of the agnostic, they class it as tentatively nonexistent, pending some really good solid evidence. Certainly both theists and atheists can hold their belief for non-rational, emotionally-based reasons. And both can, as do most of the posters here, both theist and atheist, hold their belief on the basis of a rational evaluation of the available evidence and its proper weighting. In sum, I and other theists feel that there is adequate evidence to accept the existence of god, and for most of us, to commit ourselves to him. The atheists do not. But the disagreement is on the weighting of the evidence, not on who has “blind faith” and who has “blindness of the spirit.” Fair enough? ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/169 "2000-11-15T22:43:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy \* > \*\*I believe it a bit of a fallacy to assume that atheists make their conclusions by logic alone. Atheism is a religious belief, since the sole basis of atheism is that there is no deity. \*\* I suggest you do a search on “Atheism” in thread titles. While _some_ atheists positively affirm that no god exists, or indeed that no gods can exist, that is not the totality of atheism. That is a description of the strong atheist philosophy, which is indeed faith based. The weak atheist position is different, and widely ascribed to around here. I have **no** faith that god does not or cannot exist. I merely **lack** faith in his existence. He may very well exist, and unlike agnostics, I do not think it impossible to know the answer to this question if God or Allah or whoever decides to make himself known. Regardless, I haven’t yet been convinced of that position. (And no, before you say “They are the same thing,” the two positions are absolutely distinct, and many theists here will back me up on this.) ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/170 "2000-11-15T22:45:44Z")
Thanks for backing me up **Polycarp** ummm… _before_ I made my reply. (Dang simulposts) ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/278dde/32.png) [@JustAnotherGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/171 "2000-11-15T23:13:20Z")
And to Polycarp… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ptahlis \* > While _some_ atheists positively affirm that no god exists, or indeed that no gods can exist, that is not the totality of atheism. That is a description of the strong atheist philosophy, which is indeed faith based. The weak atheist position is different, and widely ascribed to around here. I have **no** faith that god does not or cannot exist. I merely **lack** faith in his existence. He may very well exist, and unlike agnostics, I do not think it impossible to know the answer to this question if God or Allah or whoever decides to make himself known. Regardless, I haven’t yet been convinced of that position. (And no, before you say “They are the same thing,” the two positions are absolutely distinct, and many theists here will back me up on this.) > \*\* Many theists may back up the position that Catholicism is the correct version of Christianity. That doesn’t necessarily make it so. Atheism, by definition in any dictionary, encyclopedia has to do with not believing in a deity. Any belief having to do with a deity is a relgious belief. I’m sure there are Christians out there with their belief that have yet to see proven to the contrary, just as there are atheists who have yet to see proof to the contrary of their conclusions. You seem to describe neutrality on the issue of God. Perhaps a new category should be created. The term with 'theism after it and an ‘a’ before is pretty blatant as to intent. But if you do not believe there is a God, by definition you are an atheist. And since the whole thing is based solely upon belief or disbelief in a deity, it is a religious belief. No matter how you come to that conclusion, it is a religious belief. It isn’t an insult, just an observation. It isn’t saying that atheism is an organized religion. But it is a religious belief. Because it has to do with the existence or nonexistence of a deity, it can be nothing else. Some people are lead to Christianity through evidence, some through teachings of others; just as some are lead to atheism under similar methods. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/172 "2000-11-15T23:24:42Z")
Let me get this straight, just so I can make sure I understand. Strong atheists would not believe God exists even if they did get evidence. Weak atheists will not believe God exists until they get evidence. So what does that make Agnostics? I thought they always held roughly the position of weak atheist, i.e. they just don’t “know.” ---
**Author:** ![VileOrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9e8a1a/32.png) [@VileOrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VileOrb)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/173 "2000-11-15T23:26:30Z")
I must admit that I am still reading this thread, even jmullaney’s posts though I refuse to get baited back into debate with him. I must comment that I found his “I find most people co-equal in intelligence” comment laughable. Is jmullaney a closet atheist out to make theists look bad? We had a few theists step in with explanations of where they found their faith. Are there more? Perhaps this board is a bad place to look for intelligent theists. There seems to be a pretty high percentage of intelligant people here. There also seems to be a higher than normal percentage of atheists. I am not convinced that these facts are related. I think maybe percentage of atheists appears higher because annonymous posters are more willing to proclaim their atheism. Any other ideas? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/174 "2000-11-15T23:40:58Z")
I said “roughly” co-equal in intelligence. Compared to chimpanzees and brocolli, we’re all not doing that bad. Of course, some are more co-equal that others. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/175 "2000-11-15T23:41:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Atheism, by definition in any dictionary, encyclopedia has to do with not believing in a deity…You seem to describe neutrality on the issue of God. Perhaps a new category should be created. The term with 'theism after it and an ‘a’ before is pretty blatant as to intent. Atheism, as defined by most knowledgable atheists and theists, includes “lack of belief in God” under its aegis, along with the positive belief that there is no God. [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,117394+6+109479,00.html?query=atheism](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,117394+6+109479,00.html?query=atheism) “Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance–e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or “God” is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.” [http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) “Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the “weak atheist” position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as “strong atheism”.” Don’t take all your information from dictionaries if you want to argue complex terms; they are intended to describe the language, _not_ prescribe it. If I want to know what “evolution” is, I read how scientists define it. If I want to know what “transubstansiation” is, I read how Catholics define it. Dictonaries have very limited space and cannot be written with the exhaustive precision that experts in the field would wish. They’re good if you want a quick idea about something, but don’t try to argue against a quantum physicist’s defintion of the Uncertainty Principle based on its dictionary defintion. 😉 **jmullaney** > [@](#): > > So what does that make Agnostics? Well, the alt.atheism FAQ says: "The term ‘agnosticism’ was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both (“strong”) atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists. Since that time, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those that do not believe that the question is intrinsically unknowable, but instead believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue." ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/176 "2000-11-15T23:44:10Z")
Oh, and here’s the Britannica definition of agnosticism: “Agnosticism has a parallel development to that of atheism. An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists–or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists–but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist.” ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2000, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/177 "2000-11-15T23:56:04Z")
Thanks Gaudere!! ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/178 "2000-11-16T00:13:28Z")
“These are the types of arguments that make me think that maybe there is some truth to the idea that Atheists are smarter than believers.” That you actually believe that leads me to believe your below average intelligence VileOrb. Of course I don’t know wether or not racists are below average intelligence so I cannot say. Do you think your honestly any diffrent from a bigot VileOrb? I don’t post dissagrements with jmanually because ive stated my position many many many times and people just ignore it because I don’t fit in with the common theist. So let me just say jmanuallys wrong on his interpretation of the bible, and your wrong VileOrb on your interpretation of theists. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/179 "2000-11-16T01:44:10Z")
> [@](#): > > No matter how you come to that conclusion, it is a religious belief. It isn’t an insult, just an observation. It isn’t saying that atheism is an organized religion. But it is a religious belief. Because it has to do with the existence or nonexistence of a deity, it can be nothing else. You seem to have some strong desire to say “atheists have a religious belief.” I would prefer if you would phrase it “a belief _about_ religion”, to avoid invidious comparisions. To support my argument for rephrasing: Believing in faeries is a fantasy belief, right? So then _not_ believing in faeries is a fantasy belief, since it’s a statement about the existence of faeries? **I don’t think so.** It is best phrased as “a belief _about_ faeries”, not “a fantasy belief.” Believing in ghosts is a paranormal belief, right? Therefore, _not_ believing in ghosts is a paranormal belief, to since it’s a statement about the existence of ghosts? **I don’t think so.** It is best phrased as “a belief about ghosts”, “not a paranormal belief”. Believing the earth goes around the sun is a scientific belief. Therefore, _not_ believing the earth goes around the sun is a scientific belief, too, since it is a statement about the correctness of a scientific belief? **I don’t think so.** It is best phrased as “a belief about the earth going around the sun”, not “a scientific belief”. Saying “anything to do with God is a religious belief” is just as misleading as saying “anything to do with science is a scientific belief”. You would not say that a belief that science was all bunk is a “scientific belief”; why do you wish to say a belief that God likely does not exist is a “religious belief”? It is far too ready to be misinterpreted, delibertately or no: “Well, you think all religious beliefs are untrue, but you have a religious belief too! So you’re contradicting yourself—you have faith in a religious belief too, neener neener neener.” Feh. Say “athiesm implicitly includes a belief _about_ religion–that is, that it is almost certainly untrue in the “God exists” bit,” and I think it will be clearer. “A belief about the existence/truth of Y” does not always perfectly equal “A X(if Y is a subset of X) belief,” as I think my examples have shown. ---
**Author:** ![VileOrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9e8a1a/32.png) [@VileOrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VileOrb)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2000, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059/180 "2000-11-16T15:53:08Z")
Asmodean - I don’t actually think that theists are less intelligent. I was just alluding to the OP and saying that I can understand someone having that opinion if their only contact with theists was similar to the conversation we’ve been having here. Then I went on to wonder why these boards have a high concentration of atheists. I was afraid that my comments about that would give further impression that I believed theists were less intelligent so I was careful to give possible legimate reasons why dopers tend more toward atheism than the general public. I was trying to avoid the very accusation that you are making. I have seen JustAnotherGuy complain on several other threads about people quoting him out of context, now I know how he feels. This thread has made me doubt my ability to write clear, effective prose. No one seems to understand what I’m saying. Thank God (said in jest), my writing outside of the boards has been well received and apparently well understood. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligence-and-religion/40059.md?page=10)