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?