It’s also true that taking standard tests can be trained, just like playing chess, and even though Topalov can claim to be the world’s top chess player (and could probably challenge any subset of his choice to an analogous bet), that neither makes him the most intelligent, let alone wisest person on earth, nor does it say anything about people who share his faith or lack thereof.

Nevertheless, I do think the compatibility of faith and scientific thought is puzzling, if it really exists. I know this question has been raised many times before, and it certainly won’t be settled in this thread. I still think this is the issue Sklansky wants to highlight, and being both a gambler and (I assume) good at taking tests, this bet is his method of choice. We can certainly criticize the method, but the main question to me remains unanswered so far: What is it that makes scientists discard reason when it comes to faith? What makes them (you?) feel it is appropriate that the myths or miracles do not have to follow the same laws that govern everything else? Where does one make the distinction, and how far would one go, i.e. would one accept to drop causality and conservation laws, perhaps even mathematical reasoning? What Sklansky really says is that you cannot be smart, honest and religious all at the same time. I don’t think he phrases it in the most polite form, but I would still like an answer.

what i was getting at, is that sometimes people imagine something, and it turns out to be true. “hey. imagine if we could get up there!” “oh, cool! we can!” so imagination is worthwhile and good. (unless one is a harmful entity, using one’s imagination to hatch an evil plan – in which case it is emphatically not).

visualizing is an act of the imagination. even if one is sitting in one’s backyard, visualizing the actual, real-live ford focus locked away in one’s garage.

use of the word ‘imagine’ does not automatically imply ‘fake’.

Christianity itself is not a figment of someone’s imagination – it’s a real historical institution. Belief in Christianity is another thing – but it is not a priori intellectual swiss cheese just because it’s a religious belief. If you want to be egalitarian in your thinking and epistemology, you had better not discount supernatural knowledge just because you don’t think God is possible or because you don’t want there to be a God.

But yeah, that’s another post.

there are many many things humans would never have done, had there not been some people in the world saying, “i wonder if we could do that? and if so, what would it take?” we also know a lot more than we once did, on account of a few humans thinking expansively enough to realize the possibility that sometimes people base conclusions on a false model; for instance, the notion that one would sail into the void, off the edge of a flat earth, if one ventured to far in a single direction.

the imagination can be a double-edged sword, and imagination and reason interact differently in different people. that’s why there are almost certainly devoutly christian math whizzes. and why there are people who imagined space travel and figured out how it could happen; and why there are people who wear foil beanies; and why the word processor could come to be.

but without any imagination at all, we would come no further. so much of what we do and know sprouted out of a big ‘what if’?

Another comment (meta-comment, really):
in the little linkbar at right of the blog text, it says there are 65 comments at this posting, but i only see 63. why? is it those 2 pingbacks?

Actual comment:
Overall, I do agree with Sklansky’s overall premise that genuine Christian beliefs and intelligence share a negative to zero correlation. A confounding factor would be socioeconomic, but there may also be a slightly causative relationship in both directions. I also agree somewhat with Sklansky’s assertion that the number of Christians that can have favorable odds on him is in the low thousands or below.

However, he also strikes me as a pompous and condescending jerk whose money I, in Christian charity, would only feel a little bad about taking. I’m not saying that I’m not equally pompous or jerk-tacular – I’m perfectly OK admitting how stupid I am, as opposed to someone who derides other religious groups as stupid.

Substantiating my #1:
If you’d like you can read my blog. I’m a fairly convi(nced)cted Christian, so the polygraph’s not a big deal.
As for the SAT/GRE, I’m a Caltech junior in physics on full scholarship, I’ve been draining 800s/perfects on the SAT/GRE math since junior year, and I do it in maybe 11 minutes per section (the section is a 30 minute section.) I’ve yet to take my GREs, but I’m fairly confident (I’ll give it 90%) that I can score a perfect on the GRE general without studying (I still am) and less confident about the physics GRE (75%) I think Caltech’s hard, but I still have a 3.8 GPA.

Substantiating my #2:
Well, that’s trivial.

Any takers?

I think most of these comments were not trying to turn the world into atheists they were mostly directed at literal religious beliefs not just religious beliefs.

A dictionary check on “intelligence” yields definitions suitable to both camps: both “ability to reason” and “mental acuteness”. I personally use the latter definition both because it seems the popular one and it means that one can’t label clearly gifted people, such as Mozart or Shakespeare, as “dumb”. The quality at large here is, I claim, the “ability to reason”, which is the primary requisite of scientific research, and something Mozart and Shakespeare didn’t necessarily have. To clarify, numerical calculation is to me, at best, the simplest form of reasoning. The standardized tests perhaps test one’s ability to reason somewhat, but I don’t see any good way of measuring the reasoning pertinent to science, not the least because we can define it only vaguely!

I’d like to mention that a statistical fact is unchanged in the face of a relatively small sample that demonstrates the opposite. Namely, Isaac Newton’s (or other examples listed above) combination of religiosity and reasoning ability is irrelevant to the claim that these two traits are strongly negatively correlated amongst humanity, as he is just a single case. The relevant surveys do mostly support this claim, i.e. the “smartest” people tend towards atheism, so one would have to list off a number of counterexamples on the order of a typical survey sample size to matter. This correlation is what, hopefully*, Sklansky is trying to publicize, the bet just being the vehicle, not the end itself (as it won’t be statistically relevant!). Of course, the Isaac Newtons of today could make the bet interesting.

The correlation between “ability to reason” and atheism comes about as the accomplishments of science to date suggest that none of the (popular**) gods exist. Some here may think this last statement bold. Those taking issue should read Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion”, which contains a sufficient treatment of the reasoning. Am I saying that all those who do believe are incapable? No, since there are separate reasons favoring belief, both mental and based on one’s experiences. A good point to make is that the ABILITY to reason does not preclude strong emotions or gullibility. It’s the DISUSE of reason, not the lack of ability, that I pose as the core answer to why “some people who should disbelieve, don’t”.

*skimming another site where he posts some responses to his bet, I do lose some hope
**loosening the definition of what a god is grants leeway

Everything that happens is a result of gravity and the standard model. Our thoughts, actions, beliefs, etc. are all a result of the laws of physics. We don’t have free choice. There’s must matter and energy and forces.

Hope that helps in resolving the issue.

Which is fine, mind you. Just I’d like to hear something else added to the discussion.

How about this: couldn’t atheistic bigotry be just as bad a demon as religious bigotry? After all, with reason on their side, atheists could come up with a number of convincing arguments for very terrible societal acts. I mean, how many mad dictators have written big fat books arguing their perspective, and how many such mad dictators have made religious expressions illegal?

Hmm, that question isn’t as rhetorical as it sounds. Oh well.

here I thought having faith… was a good thing

This belief is one of the most perplexing to me. Daniel Dennett, in Breaking the Spell, does have a discussion of “belief in belief,” but there isn’t enough research yet to say much firmly.