Are atheists smarter than theists?

[Operaghost]

title.

 

[libRT]

Whichever one is most culturally significant in a geographical area, is dumber than the one that isn't.

Group size is typically inversely proportional to intelligence.

I.e Dummies tend to follow what is cool, not what is right.

 

[copsbeatingdownhippiescum]

depends on what they have to back up their worldview. if somebody is an atheist and has genuinely thought about the problem of god and logically reached this conclusion then thats pretty smart. on the other hand you have reddit retards who blindly believe in what scientists say because they think thats the intellectual thing to do and they do it just to brag and feel superior, and they disrespect religion, then they're the stupider ones. same does for theists: they're either sheep or it's their educated life choice. i know im kinda rambling but i really fucking hate these atheist pseudo intellectual bastards

 

[Underperforming]

If you hold the philosophical descriptor of atheist above the school of thought that ends in atheism, your level of understanding and intelligence should be questioned. Same for a person who believes in god without an understanding of god.

 

[Nuke the Whales]

Whichever one is most culturally significant in a geographical area, is dumber than the one that isn't.

Group size is typically inversely proportional to intelligence.

I.e Dummies tend to follow what is cool, not what is right.

Pretty much. Here's a decent study that has data collated from around the world on the relationship between thinking skills an religious belief. On average, an atheist in a mostly religious country will have higher cognitive skills than a theist from the same country. On the other hand, an atheist from a majority atheist or agnostic country like the UK or Czechia will tend to be worse at critical thinking than a theist from the same country.

The study linked actually puts forward what seems like a pretty reasonable explanation to me. Less analytic people will generally accept whatever the prevailing view is in their culture. However, someone with more critical thinking skills is more likely to go against the standard view in their country. Essentially, people with lower cognitive ability generally don't challenge the common beliefs in their society regardless of whether they are theists or atheists.

 

[Billy Beer]

Nobody can prove the existance of God, just as much as nobody can disprove the existence of God.

Anyone arguing that they can do either, is a fucking mongoloid r3tard.

Bonus lulz when an athiest believes in the infinite universe, but not God.

 

[KittyGremlin]

a lot of them simply worship science and are theists in denial.

 

[DerKryptid]

Whichever one is most culturally significant in a geographical area, is dumber than the one that isn't.

Group size is typically inversely proportional to intelligence.

I.e Dummies tend to follow what is cool, not what is right.

Ah yes Chris chan proclaiming he's allah is the most enlightened of us all

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

How are we quantifying this?

Scientists are overwhelmingly atheist or agnostic around the world. People may say they are highly qualified thus very intelligent.

Clerics on the other hand are also very highly qualified, and generally are intelligent.

They may not be intelligent in the same way, I've found clerics generally to be far more sophisticated when it comes to debate (not necessarily the content), rhetoric and communication skill compared to scientists but at the same time they fall on their face when it comes to analysis, drawing conclusions and reasoning compared to scientists.

Both are smart, but neither are smart in the same way.

 

[Penis Drager]

Nobody can prove the existance of God, just as much as nobody can disprove the existence of God.

A lack of falsifiability is a bug, not a feature. If there's no conceivable way to disprove a positive claim, there's no reason to take it seriously.

 

[polyester]

Yes, in fact they're the only ones smart enough to 'get' Rick and Morty.

 

[Billy Beer]

A lack of falsifiability is a bug, not a feature. If there's no conceivable way to disprove a positive claim, there's no reason to take it seriously.

I don't follow. The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence.

I don't believe or disbelieve in a God/a higher being. I have no idea if it does exist and good arguments are put forward by each camp. Ignoring one based on lack of evidence is just as dumb as believing the other because of lack of evidence to the contrary.

It took a billion years for life to pop us out. In another billion life may have evolved to Gods. Who knows?

 

[Penis Drager]

I don't follow. The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence.

I don't believe or disbelieve in a God/a higher being. I have no idea if it does exist and good arguments are put forward by each camp. Ignoring one based on lack of evidence is just as dumb as believing the other because of lack of evidence to the contrary.

It took a billion years for life to pop us out. In another billion life may have evolved to Gods. Who knows?

The problem is not necessarily a lack of evidence. It's the lack of falsifiability.
There exists no conceivable experiment (as far as we know) where a given result would outright disprove God. That is a problem.
If I claimed "all ravens are black," you could disprove the claim with just a single non black raven. Until one is found, we can be relatively confident about the conclusion.

That's how science is supposed to work. If your experiment can't disprove your hypothesis no matter what the results are, your experiment is useless. If we could conduct a useful experiment on matters of God, theology would be a field of science.

 

[Billy Beer]

The problem is not necessarily a lack of evidence. It's the lack of falsifiability.
There exists no conceivable experiment (as far as we know) where a given result would outright disprove God. That is a problem.
If I claimed "all ravens are black," you could disprove the claim with just a single non black raven. Until one is found, we can be relatively confident about the conclusion.

That's how science is supposed to work. If your experiment can't disprove your hypothesis no matter what the results are, your experiment is useless. If we could conduct a useful experiment on matters of God, theology would be a field of science.

I get ya. Cheers for rewording for a mong.

I think it's cool that a theory cannot be proven or disproven. It's like how every rule in nature has a contradiction.

 

[Quiet Guy]

The problem is not necessarily a lack of evidence. It's the lack of falsifiability.
There exists no conceivable experiment (as far as we know) where a given result would outright disprove God. That is a problem.
If I claimed "all ravens are black," you could disprove the claim with just a single non black raven. Until one is found, we can be relatively confident about the conclusion.

That's how science is supposed to work. If your experiment can't disprove your hypothesis no matter what the results are, your experiment is useless. If we could conduct a useful experiment on matters of God, theology would be a field of science.

The reasoning here seems a little flawed in my opinion. Not everything is true is necessarily falsifiable. The different interpretations of quantum mechanics don't seem to be falsifiable as of right now, but one of them may be true. I would argue that if sufficient evidence is present, then it may not need to be falsifiable. With that said, I understand if people aren't swayed when someone simply argues that you can't disprove God's existence.

 

[WinnieTheJew]

a lot of them simply worship science and are theists in denial.

They worship the state and financially powerful institutions, but I think I know what you mean.

 

[Penis Drager]

The reasoning here seems a little flawed in my opinion. Not everything is true is necessarily falsifiable. The different interpretations of quantum mechanics don't seem to be falsifiable as of right now, but one of them may be true.

This is part of the whole "taking the idea seriously" thing. If there is currently no way to prove an idea wrong, then there's no reason to take it seriously until such a way presents itself. All of the currently available quantum theories come up with the same expected results, so who gives a fuck which one you decide to follow? This is exactly why the Copenhagen interpretation is typically the most favored because it's the one that is least prone to speculation and most geared towards "shut the fuck up and do the math, mathboy!"
For the record, there is at least one theory in QM that actually made a pretty solid, falsifiable claim: Loop Quantum Gravity. I'm not gonna go too far into the details but if it were true, light would travel at slightly different speeds in a vacuum depending on frequency. We tested this by measuring a spectrum of a distant pulsar's pulse and the spectrum looked exactly as we expected it to look had light's frequency been inconsequential to its speed.
We learned a lot more from falsifying this claim than we ever would have seeking constant affirmation. We can be pretty certain that some underlying premises of Loop Quantum Gravity are false and not to incorporate them in future models.

I would argue that if sufficient evidence is present, then it may not need to be falsifiable.

See Loop Quantum Gravity for why this is a very flawed way to think about things:
There's a ton of evidence supporting it. I mean, it fits very nicely with nearly every quantum observation that exists and unifies General Relativity with QM. Unfortunately, it appears to be wrong. And we only know this because those analyzing the theory had discovered a way to falsify it. And in doing so, our knowledge of the universe has expanded and we have a few fewer dead ends to waste our time tugging on.

 

[SofondaCox]

Is "less gullible" the same as "smarter"?

Indoctrination in early childhood is how religion is perpetuated, not through adult converts.

 

[Solid Snek]

A lack of falsifiability is a bug, not a feature. If there's no conceivable way to disprove a positive claim, there's no reason to take it seriously.

Is that really true, though?

The presence of falsifiability may be preferable to a lack of falsifiability, particularly in the context of hard sciences. If we accept that skepticism and empiricism as valid routes to knowledge, or even as the primary methodology for arriving at what some epistemologists call a "justified true belief", falsifiability could certainly be something we'd privilege over non-falsifiability.

But

1. can you really think of "no reason" to take non-falsifiable claims seriously...?

For example, you assert above that quantum theories are non-falsifiable. And you assert that the Copenhagen interpretation is favored, because it is "the one that is least prone to speculation".​

Surely, you do not maintain that quantum theories shouldn't be taken seriously? And you clearly have listed at least one reason, why one non-falsifiable theory, is taken seriously by scientists.​

​

2. we might go so far as to say that non-falsifiable claims cannot be scientific. But that begs the question, "so what?"

Is it the case that only scientific claims can be taken seriously? If so, why?​

​

3. if we have no reason to take a claim seriously, does it then follow that we have reason to not take the claim seriously?

Along these same lines: if we do not take a claim seriously, what does that even mean? Do we believe the claim? Not believe it? Assert that its truth can never be resolved? Pick an answer arbitrarily?​

​

4. is it ever truly possible to disprove a claim that relies on empirical observations?

 

[Penis Drager]

The presence of falsifiability may be preferable to a lack of falsifiability, particularly in the context of hard sciences. If we accept that skepticism and empiricism as valid routes to knowledge, or even as the primary methodology for arriving at what some epistemologists call a "justified true belief", falsifiability could certainly be something we'd privilege over non-falsifiability.

I will never not love your specific brand of autism. Keep doing what you're doing. It's truly an artform.

1. can you really think of "no reason" to take non-falsifiable claims seriously...?

For example, you assert above that quantum theories are non-falsifiable. And you assert that the Copenhagen interpretation is favored, because it is "the one that is least prone to speculation".​

Surely, you do not maintain that quantum theories shouldn't be taken seriously? And you clearly have listed at least one reason, why one non-falsifiable theory, is taken seriously by scientists.​

I'm saying that the act of taking the speculation seriously is a bit foolish. Copenhagen is essentially mathematical realism (in that the math is core to the universe rather than a construction of man). This is probably not true but it's the most useful interpretation until more evidence of our reality is known.
It's not "taken seriously" in the sense that we all believe it's true. It's just the default because it just takes observations at face value without providing any insight. There are many flaws, but those flaws tend to be patched, in other interpretations, by leaps of faith not too dissimilar with the age old "God of the gaps" theology.

2. we might go so far as to say that non-falsifiable claims cannot be scientific. But that begs the question, "so what?"

Is it the case that only scientific claims can be taken seriously? If so, why?​

It's not just a scientific thing. It's a logical thing. "You can't prove this guy didn't kill his wife" is not a good argument by a prosecution. You have to listen to the defense's alternate explanations and systematically disprove them if you want a conviction.

3. if we have no reason to take a claim seriously, does it then follow that we have reason to not take the claim seriously?

Along these same lines: if we do not take a claim seriously, what does that even mean? Do we believe the claim? Not believe it? Assert that its truth can never be resolved? Pick an answer arbitrarily?​

The default is to not take a claim seriously. Unless there is reason to do so, default to the default.

4. is it ever truly possible to disprove a claim that relies on empirical observations?

Yes? If the empirical observations routinely result in a null hypothesis, the hypothesis is disproved.
While it's true that we can never be 100% sure of anything, we can be 99% sure by running experiments.