Tag: atheism

Annotating Bacon

In which an essay by Francis Bacon is contemplated.

OF ATHEISM

I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore, God never wrought miracle, to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.

For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Nay, even that school which is most accused of atheism doth most demonstrate religion; that is, the school of Leucippus and Democritus and Epicurus. For it is a thousand times more credible, that four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence, duly and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small portions, or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty, without a divine marshal.

The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it. For none deny, there is a God, but those, for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it, within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened, by the consent of others.

Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples,(1) as it fareth with other sects. And, which is most of all, you shall have of them, that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas if they did truly think, that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves?

Epicurus is charged, that he did but dissemble for his credit’s sake, when he affirmed there were blessed natures, but such as enjoyed themselves, without having respect to the government of the world. Wherein they say he did temporize; though in secret, he thought there was no God. But certainly he is traduced; for his words are noble and divine: Non deos vulgi negare profanum; sed vulgi opiniones diis applicare profanum.(2) Plato could have said no more.

And although he had the confidence, to deny the administration, he had not the power, to deny the nature. The Indians of the West, have names for their particular gods, though they have no name for God: as if the heathens should have had the names Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, etc., but not the word Deus; which shows that even those barbarous people have the notion, though they have not the latitude and extent of it. So that against atheists, the very savages take part, with the very subtlest philosophers.

The contemplative atheist is rare: a Diagoras, a Bion, a Lucian perhaps, and some others; and yet they seem to be more than they are; for that all that impugn a received religion, or superstition, are by the adverse part branded with the name of atheists. But the great atheists, indeed are hypocrites; which are ever handling holy things, but without feeling; so as they must needs be cauterized in the end.

The causes of atheism are: divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division, addeth zeal to both sides; but many divisions introduce atheism. Another is, scandal of priests; when it is come to that which St. Bernard saith, non est jam dicere, ut populus sic sacerdos; quia nec sic populus ut sacerdos. A third is, custom of profane scoffing in holy matters; which doth, by little and little, deface the reverence of religion. And lastly, learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion.(3)

They that deny a God, destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts, by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature. It destroys likewise magnanimity, and the raising of human nature; for take an example of a dog, and mark what a generosity and courage he will put on, when he finds himself maintained by a man; who to him is instead of a God, or melior natura; which courage is manifestly such, as that creature, without that confidence of a better nature than his own, could never attain.

So man, when he resteth and assureth himself, upon divine protection and favor, gathered a force and faith, which human nature in itself could not obtain. Therefore, as atheism is in all respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth human nature of the means to exalt itself, above human frailty.(4)

As it is in particular persons, so it is in nations. Never was there such a state for magnanimity as Rome. Of this state hear what Cicero saith: Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Poenos, nec artibus Graecos, nec denique hoc ipso hujus gentis et terrae domestico nativoque sensu Italos ipsos et Latinos; sed pietate, ac religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus.(5)

(1) Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. There was nothing new about “the New Atheists”.

(2) “Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who
affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly
impious.”
– Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 

Epicurus has a legitimate point, but I suspect this is usually read in the crude and superficial sense, which, contra Bacon, is neither noble nor divine.

(3) The fourth cause is the big one. It should be no surprise that atheism came into vogue at the end of the biggest economic bubble and longest period of international peace in history. But the pendulum is already swinging back.

(4) This is what renders atheism, rather than atheists per se, hateful. It intrinsically degrades Man. It is a literally soul-killing philosophy.

(5) “Let us, O conscript fathers, think as highly of ourselves as we
please; and yet it is not in numbers that we are superior to the Spaniards,
nor in personal strength to the Gauls, nor in cunning to the Carthaginians,
nor in arts to the Greeks, nor in the natural acuteness which seems to be
implanted in the people of this land and country, to the Italian and Latin
tribes; but it is in and by means of piety and religion, and this especial
wisdom of perceiving that all things are governed and managed by the divine
power of the immortal gods, that we have been and are superior to all other
countries and nations.”
– Cicero, On the Responses to the Haruspices

Anti-Americanism in Europe

It’s completely understandable why average Europeans are beginning to turn anti-American:

US intelligence has been operating a global network of 80 eavesdropping centres, including 19 European listening posts in cities such as Paris, Berlin, Rome and Madrid, the German magazine Spiegel has reported.

The new revelations, which Spiegel said were based on leaked American intelligence documents, are certain to fuel international outrage at the sweeping scale of US international surveillance operations.

Spiegel also reported that the telephone number of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has been a target of US surveillance since 2002, when she was leader of the opposition.

Mrs Merkel, who telephoned President Barack Obama on Wednesday to express her anger at reports that her phone had been hacked, was still under surveillance until a few weeks before the US leader Berlin in June, Spiegel said.

Even before the latest reports, Germany said that it would send a high-level delegation to the US this week to demand answer s at the White House and National Security Agency (NSA) about the reports that Mrs Merkel’s phone was tapped. The team will include spy chiefs, German media reported.

I had an interesting experience this weekend that exposed how many Europeans feel about the NSA revelations. My team was playing an away game and I got a little lost trying to find a soccer field. Most villages have signs clearly marking where their main field is, but this one didn’t, so I stopped at a small restaurant where several people were hanging out on the deck, smoking and drinking.

They were obviously locals, so I parked the car, got out, and asked them where the field was. I was wearing my team’s jacket, and as we are known to have a few Portuguese players, one of the men asked me if I was Portuguese, most likely because of my accent. The two women both laughed at that and said: “but come on, look at him, he’s clearly not Portuguese.”

When I explained I was originally from America, the man made a face, held his hand up to his ear like a telephone, and said, “USA? Why are you listening to my mobile phone? Why are you listening to my phone calls?” He was joking, of course, as he promptly laughed, slapped me on the shoulder, and provided directions to the field, but it really startled me to discover that in a tiny village in the middle of nowhere, the immediate reaction to an American would be to bring up the NSA.

And the more elite Europeans aren’t blind to the opportunities presented by the scandal either. I spoke to several high-level investment executives over the last few weeks, and to a man, they see the scandal as being a reason for Europe to make a serious effort to break away from the technology chains of Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Twitter, Facebook, and other American companies that have dominated the world. The larger the corporation, the more determined they are to keep the US out of their emails and servers.

As more and more revelations of tech-enabled spying come out, it wouldn’t surprise me to see nations deciding to subsidize national alternatives and perhaps even eventually banning the use of American software. And why shouldn’t they? How can they possibly accept the status quo? It’s not inconceivable that the long-term result of using the NSA to spy on everyone through international business and the consequential shattering of trust may be a factor in the material reduction of transnational trade.

This isn’t merely a diplomatic or political scandal, it is probably an economic one as well.

An agnostic’s perspective

Brett Markham reviews The Irrational Atheist on Amazon:

I am not on either side of the atheist/religionist camp. I have enjoyed some of Dawkins’ work (such as The Blind Watchmaker) but personally I do not consider creationism and evolution to be mutually exclusive. Could not a deity, for example, create through evolution?

Likewise, I am keenly aware that on the sentience quotient scale (SQ), which is logarithmic, it is entirely possible for entities to exist that are as much more sentient than humans as humans are more sentient than rocks, meaning we could understand such entities about as well as rocks understand humans. And to such entities, our “science” would be as meaningful as the “science” that rocks formulate is meaningful to us. So the concept of deity falls, in my opinion, within the realm of theoretical possibility without contradicting science.

At the same time, the idea that some person’s interpretation of the meaning of an unverifiable deity’s words should regulate my choices seems disconnected from reality. I do not appreciate proselyte atheism (which seems more like an intolerant religion than science to me) any more than I appreciate someone informing me that his deity’s will is for me to burn in Hell. At the same time, I appreciate that it is difficult if not impossible to create self-referential moral codes and can see both the benefits and harms attributed to both deistic religions (such as Catholicism) and non-deistic religions (such as atheism and feminism).

That having been said, I truly and thoroughly enjoyed this book. A lot. For truly intellectually curious people who don’t want to live in an echo chamber, this book is truly thought-provoking in a number of important realms.

As a scientist and engineer, I am keenly aware of the fact scientists and technologists of various sorts are paid every day to apply their skills and knowledge to ethically dubious ends. It is extremely common for such people to adopt an attitude of moral agnosticism and effectively do whatever they are paid to do. Witness, for example, the fact that fields of science gave us nerve gas, biological weapons, Xyklon B and nuclear bombs. It is science that, in the future, may well produce breeds of post-humans that hold mere humans in thrall or create custom humans as slaves. Though followers of deistic religions may well have wreaked havoc, it is only science that holds the promise of efficient and achievable genocide, and the vaporization of untold hundreds of thousands or millions of people in the blink of an eye.

Though this book spends a lot of very entertaining time pointing out the contradictions, inconsistencies and even hypocrisy of self-proclaimed Atheists who make a big deal of their atheism, the major contribution of this book, in my opinion, is at the intersection of science and morality. It takes a deep breath, takes a step back, takes a hard look, and asks meaningful and important questions.

Science and technology are powerful, and their application has profound implications for the nature of human life in the future.

Though the atheist/religionist debate is often framed in terms of a war between reason and mysticism, Vox Day shows the irrationality that likewise underlies atheism — and then exposes science to the blinding glare of observation and asks the important moral questions.

I consider this book to be important. Very important. It is not particularly important from the perspective of debate, but rather for the questions it raises concerning the junction of science and morality as well as the future of human societies.

The reviewer rather presciently focuses on an area that has been of increasing interest to me in the time since I wrote TIA. The blithe assumption on the part of many scientists and science fetishists that science is somehow beyond good and evil on the basis of its effectiveness is potentially disastrous.

Already, we are seeing limits imposed on scientific publishing, as in the case of the recent court decision in the Netherlands concerning a ban on the scientific publication of research related to viruses. “For the first time, it is now clear that with this regulation, the distribution of scientific knowledge can also be restricted.”

This genuine limitation on scientific research hasn’t stirred much anywhere nearly as much outrage among the scientific community as stickers on various biology schoolbooks, which indicates that many, if not most, scientists are far more concerned with defending their present scientific paradigms than they are with defending science itself. Which, in itself, poses a fairly serious philosophical problem.

Mailvox: the falsifiability of moral parasitism

R meets with a preemptive objection to TIA:

A young friend of ours has, after my recommending he read “The Irrational Atheist”, said this:

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Day insist atheists are moral parasites? He says that atheists inherit their morality from a foundation already established by Christianity. The problem with this stance is that it is unfalsifyable. It suggests that a society lacking Christian influence would be incapable of developing a similar morality. Well we live in a world which has had religious influence (mostly Abrahamic faiths) permeated throughout it, so where can we test the notion? We cannot. The argument cannot be tested. It therefore holds little weight.

I will read this book, i promise you that as a friend, and we may or may not have a discussion about it. My concern with approaching the work is that it will be littered with similar logic. But like I said I will read it. We’ll see if my concerns are founded.”

It’s always so cute when young atheists attempt to construct logical arguments on the basis of foundations they don’t understand with reason they utilize improperly. There are numerous problems with this attempt to preemptively rebut my arguments without even reading them; I continue to find it astonishing how many atheists observably believe that it is possible to provide substantive criticism in complete and self-admitted ignorance.

First, my argument concerning moral parasitism is that atheists tend to inherit or absorb their moralities from the dominant society in which they dwell rather than reasoning them out from first principles or developing them from science as many of them claim to have done.  That is why it is meaningful to identify someone as a Catholic atheist, a Jewish atheist, or a Muslim atheist; their moral standards tend to be Catholic morality less whatever the atheist doesn’t like, Jewish morality less whatever the atheist doesn’t like, etc.

It is true that in the West, which was once known as Christendom, most atheists are Christian moral parasites. But this is considerably less true in other parts of the world, despite Christianity’s current global reach.

Second, the young atheist’s objection underlines my point about the remarkable atheist ignorance of history.  Where can we test the notion? My suggestion would be to look at pre-Christian societies and compare the differences between the moralities advocated by the atheists in those societies and those to which modern Christian atheists subscribe.  Is he truly unaware that we are privy to a considerable amount of ideas from philosophers untouched by the Abrahamic faiths? Alternatively, we could look at the moralities espoused by atheists raised in current religious traditions such as Islam, Judaism, the Chinese pagan folk religion, Buddhism, and the myriad of less popular religions.

We know, from history, that societies lacking Christian influence do not develop Christian morality.  In fact, we can go much farther, as we know that societies lacking Christian influence did not develop modern science.  It would be going too far to definitely claim that Christianity is a prerequisite for the development of scientody, but it cannot be denied that none of the hundreds of non-Christian societiesever independently developed the scientific method.

It is theoretically possible to claim my observation is incorrect, but it is not even remotely credible to claim that it is unfalsifiable. The fact that it has not been tested does not mean that it cannot be tested. As it happens, the hypothesis can be tested on an experimental basis with proper control groups; one wonders if the young atheist is consistent and rejects both evolution by natural selection and string theory on the same basis he has ventured here.  Based on the level of logic-mastery he has demonstrated here, I would tend to doubt it.

Dissent and the godless Left

Dissent and disagreement with dogma are two things the godless simply will not tolerate:

At this time (September of 2011), Dave Silverman was heading up the Reason Rally Committee. There was still quite a bit of planning and promotion that needed to be done, so Dave asked Richard, Elizabeth, and Sean to make videos to promote the Reason Rally. (The video Richard ended up making is still viewable.) Richard was standing behind the podium, and he asked Dave something along the lines of, “What exactly is the Reason Rally?” Dave started explaining it, and as he did, someone who was waiting in the line outside opened the door to peek inside and we could all hear a lot of noise. I rushed up the aisle and made frantic “shut the door” gestures at the people peeking inside, and they did. As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video.

I was crushed. I couldn’t believe it. Richard Dawkins was my hero. I looked up to him as a beacon of truth and reason in a world of irrationality. I couldn’t believe he would act this way toward Rebecca. Before I left for the tour, I truly, honestly thought that the whole “Elevatorgate” thing was a miscommunication, and if someone (and I was willing to be that someone) would sit down with Dawkins, they could explain to him why it’s uncomfortable to be propositioned in an elevator by a stranger, and then Dawkins could apologize for the whole thing and everyone could move on. I really just thought it was just ignorance, not malice, that caused Dawkins to act that way.

I think it says a lot about the atheist movement, that a famous speaker can use his position in order to keep someone else off the lineup, and the movement willingly obliges…. I spent two years working for the atheist movement (or to borrow Ashley Paramore‘s term, Big Atheism). I saw a lot of things that made me disappointed in a movement that claims it is dedicated to truth and critical inquiry. I made a lot of excuses for supporting things that I ordinarily wouldn’t have, claiming it all was for the greater good– for the movement, but also for the world.

PZ’s response is downright funny; to understand why, you have to keep in mind that he publicly declared this back in 2012: “For instance, I will not participate in any conference in which Abbie Smith is a speaker. If I’m invited, and later discover that she is also invited, I will politely turn down the offer.”

But now that the atheist feminists are lined up against Dawkins, PZ has changed his tune and claims he will only attempt to impose a speaker’s veto on conferences that are a) insufficiently vibrant, b) lack a sexual harassment policy, or c) “treats attendees poorly”, in his opinion.  Now, PZ has a perfect right to attend, or not attend, any conference he likes for any reason, but this public posturing is simply ludicrous.

To his credit, PZ admits that there is no qualitative difference
between his position towards Ms Smith and Dawkins position towards Ms
Watson and he has abandoned the former. However, he still doesn’t grasp that if it is wrong for Richard Dawkins to use his influence to impose his personal preferences, whatever they might be, then it is wrong for PZ and the SFWA’s pinkshirts to do the same.  This applies to policies and speaker lists as well as people. Of course, few atheists have ever been terribly sound on logic or the concept of universally applied standards.

Fun with atheists

This is amusing for several reasons, particularly the way in which the atheist clearly has no sense of the extent to which he is overreacting.  Barry posted the following review of TIA on GoodReads:


Very good, provided logical and philosophical arguments
against atheism rather than the general apologetics which rely on
historical records and such.”

That’s it. Positive, descriptive, and succinct.  And it inspired the following response from an atheist named abc.

“well i tend to disagree i didnt find it logical,it was more lying by
omission and selective use of imformation with no acknowledgement of the
contrast.”

To which Barry, quite reasonably, responded:

“Really, what parts do you think were actually ‘lying by omission? Or
did you actually read the book. I have heard this over and over from
evangelical atheists. What was misrepresented? What was lying? I
think this is just a drive by posting.”

Thereby inspiring the following response, which is so over-the-top it almost sounds more like an agnostic with a sense of humor trolling Goodreads than the usual socially autistic atheist.  Especially the bit about the burger.  But whether it is real or not, it is funny.

“Do not label.You have no right what so ever to label people,no
bullying.None what so ever.Do you know what ‘evangelist’ means?’A person
who seeks to convert other people to christian faith,especially by preaching’ (source:wikipedia) And what is an atheist:someone who doesn’t
believe in existence of god.Now an evangelist in his nature can’t be an
atheist and an atheist not a christian.it’s like saying ‘a guilty
innocent’.Now that having been said i’ll come to the other part,the fact
that writer chose to dismiss the argument of Dawkins etc,by picking up
parts he wanted to and not trying to provide a complete analysis of
their work.He should also have acknowledged where they pointed out
religion sanctioned violence.For he knew it to be true he failed to
acknowledge it.That is not what i believe unbiased and
comprehensive.Being critical of it or not he should have mentioned it.he
omitted stuff that he thought he couldn’t argue with.Now that’s
injustice to the writers as that’s not all they said and Vox Day has not
refuted their argument.What about those he hasn’t taken up?That’s
‘omission to me and lying he was by implying that he had completely
refuted the argument of these writers or that his work was complete or
comprehensive.Leaving out stuff he has failed to acknowledge he did no
allow the writers work a fair analysis.For omitting stuff and implying
to have refuted all the work of theses writers is lying buy omission to
me.The writer using modes and interpretations he wanted to constituted
to me as ‘omission’.When he makes comparisons with today’s world and
statistics he fails to acknowledge sectranian issues that have
perpetuated and bred violence.Abuse of women sanctioned by religion,the
writers may not have highlighted that but if Vox Day was setting about
to do what was logical he should have included that.And called black
,black and white ,white(no racism)What he fails to say is that
islam,christanity,jewism etc all allow violence in many forms.he chose
to focus on statistic of his choice and i which i believe not to be
independent related to crime,now pray forgive me,were we talking about
that?No.So he choses what to say and what to say it about.another thing
if the writers(Dawkins etc.) were talking about the criminality of a
religious person,that is entirely different from whether religion
sanctions criminal behaviour or not.Well i couldn’t understand what you
have heard over and over from whom ever you have heard it from.Hearing
something over and over does not make it wrong.i dont know what you have
heard so i cant begin to decide on what it is but if a black person
were to campaign over and over racism was wrong,that dosen’t discredit
the truth of his actions.and if this book has all the flaws that it is
accused of ‘over and over’ they wont descredit that that is what it
is.(P.S the term writer/writers is used for Dawkins etc. unless implied
otherwise)That is my opinion and i wont want to take this any further.I
am going to go have a burger,i am feeling light headed.“

Sometimes, when dealing with this sort of atheist, it is best to simply back slowly away and be sure to make no sudden movements.

An atheist incoherency

Clark from Popehat observes an intrinsic contradiction:

The reason for arguing that modern western atheism is incoherent is
not that it is irrational to disbelieve in God; I think that one can be
entirely sane and rational and disbelieve in God (although I actually
think that agnostics have beliefs that are much more consistent with
pure rationality than either theists or atheists, but that’s a side
note).
No, the reason that modern atheists have incoherent views is that they simultaneously

  1. assert that there is nothing beyond that which is visible (i.e. they are materialists)
  2. they believe in rights, and not merely in a legal or social descriptive way, but in an absolute and prescriptive way.

This is not dissimilar from the evolutionist who firmly believes in human equality and asserts race is a myth, failing to grasp that he simply cannot rationally subscribe to both articles of faith.

Cease and desist

Michael Shermer’s lawyers ordered PZ Myers to immediately retract his public allegations of rape at a science conference, but based on the fact that no retraction has yet been made, it appears PZ intends to ride or die with the unidentified accuser.

This firm represents Michael Shermer. It recently has come to our attention that you have made, published, broadcasted, and are continuing to publish and broadcast on your blog numerous false, defamatory, libelous, inaccurate, and/or misleading statements about Mr. Shermer.

We are informed that on or about August 8, 2013, you authored and posted an entry on your blog entitled What do you do when someone pulls the pin and hands you a grenade? The Entry contains numerous false and defamatory statements about Mr. Shermer based on certain unsubstantiated allegations purportedly made by an unidentified woman against Mr. Shermer….

As you are the author of one of the most popular science blogs in the World Wide Web, we find your self-proclaimed intentions “to do the right thing” by publishing unproven and unsubstantiated allegations of forced or nonconsensual sexual intercourse against Mr. Shermer to be outrageous and inexcusable.  It is not accident that the Entry containing these extremely inflammatory and defamatory statements about Mr. Shermer has garnered your blog the highest number of comments of any entry in the history of your entire Blog and you clearly stand to benefit substantially from the posting of these unsubstantiated allegations against Mr. Shermer, all while under the appearance that you have some higher ethical purpose for doing so. Clearly, no matter how reasonably foreseeable it is that your actions would result in serious harm to Mr. Shermer’s name, reputation, and character in the science community, you have chosen to injure and humiliate Mr. Shermer by publishing and posting defamatory statements and comments about him.

Here is the entire letter in PDF form. What a pity this was a science conference instead of a science fiction one, or the SFWA’s Pink Gestapo could have waddled to the rescue.

I have absolutely no idea what did or did not happen, but based on the sort of women who attend science conferences and hang out with atheists, I would be very, very leery about putting too much confidence in a secondhand version of events.

First Hugo Danger, then PZ/Shermer. One would assume McRapey’s inevitable meltdown is lurking on the horizon. However, I don’t think he’ll be the next SFWA member accused of sexual assault at a conference. My money is on Jim Hines, aka McCreepy.  His volunteer counseling reminds me of the elementary school teacher with the mustache who is always pestering parents to let him take their little boys camping with him.

At this point, I find it hard to believe that any men risk attending conferences where there are going to be a lumpening of avowedly feminist women. It strikes me as playing Russian Roulette with three bullets in the chamber; these women are absolutely dying to be able to cry harassment and tell the story of their victimization for the rest of their lives.

Mailvox: superior atheist intelligence

A psychologist writes from Finland:

I enjoyed greatly your book Irrational Atheist and used it in my two books about atheism published here in Finland. Have you noticed the new study the summary of which is below? I have not read the full article, yet, but will do it. This must be great news for those “bright” atheists.

The Finnish PhD is referring to this metastudy, which noted: “A new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.”

Setting aside my intrinsic skepticism concerning the reliability of metastudies, this finding is nothing new and I have readily conceded that religious individuals are less intelligent than non-believers in general and atheists in particular on average for years.  However, what the midwits who get very excited about this statistical fact never seem to keep in mind is that because there are so many more religious people, there are considerably more highly intelligent religious people than there are highly intelligent non-believers.

In fact, the ratio of theists to atheists with Mensa+ level IQs is more than 10 to one.

Logic dictates that because the vast majority of people are religious, the average religious IQ is right around 100.  This is, in fact, what most of the religion and IQ studies have determined.  The average atheist IQ advantage appears on the order of about 5 points. That is less than one-third the 16 point difference in average IQs observed between blacks and whites.

So, a substantial portion of the observed difference between average religious and irreligious IQs can be attributed to the fact that atheists tend to be a) male, and, b) European or Jewish.  Now isn’t that awkward….

More importantly, the fact that people who believe X happen to be modestly more intelligent than people who believe Y does not indicate that the first group is correct. I suspect that the average IQ of the economists who believed massive quantitative easing would produce economic growth in Japan is considerably higher than that of the average atheist, and yet the recent GDP report shows it would have been hard for them to have been more wrong.

The right side

Looking at these two lists, I’d definitely prefer to be on the side I’m assigned.  I can’t help but notice the supposedly “Insane People” are considerably more successful, accomplished, and better-looking, for the most part, than the “Sane People”.