8 Out of the 10 Highest IQ People on Earth are Theists

From the Examiner:

Have you ever heard the claim “all smart people are atheists”, or maybe its inverse: “people who believe in God are dumb”? It’s quite a pervasive urban legend, and one which I’ve known is false for a long time, but I didn’t realize just how false until the other day. I recently decided to do a quick cataloging of the ten highest IQ’s on earth, and discovered that it’s nearly the exact opposite of the truth!

There’s lots of things one can tentatively infer from this tidbit, with varying degrees of certainty. One of the hastier conclusions might conclude that most smart people are theists, like the juvenile wording of the Examiner article suggests. It’s a tempting proposition; inverting commonly held beliefs has salacious appeal. But I would maintain some version of the opposite: that most dumb people are theists.

Here’s why, doing some armchair stats analysis. Most people throughout history have had some theistic belief. Whether the material reason stems from social forces like tradition/parentage, or for some innate psychological mechanism for coping with harsh environments, I can’t say if that’s known to researchers or not. Concurrently with this is the fact that theism seems to need to be “trained” out of people—as though it were unnatural*, not in the negative or anti-social sense, but more in the impartation of complex ideas to fill the “vacuum” left by non-theism.

Because, along with this “retraining” to impart atheism, comes with learning other things, as in the collegiate level of education. Naturally, this would attract people of higher IQ, since, holding everything else constant, smarter people tend to want to learn more, and currently higher learning is the modus operandi. So the ostensible eggheads get even more ostensible with their eggheadedness.

This tends to leave a lot of stupid people, for lack of a better phrase, in the “uneducated” category, which tends towards theism. This isn’t that terrible unless you come from a diehard Western intellectual tradition that equates intelligence with virtue. The “most stupid people are theists” could mean that theism is easy to understand or comes naturally, as I said before. That sluggards believe in it has no bearing on its truthiness.

* I hope I don’t need to point out that I don’t mean, because atheism comes via intentional re-socialization or that theism is natural, that the former is a false belief and the latter a true one. It’s a bit tiring to think one needs to make this disclaimer, but this is the Internet, the place where people come to get offended by inferring things that simply are not there.

Utterly Shocking: Recent Article on Hypatia Gets It Wrong

Internet friend Tim O’Neill commented on a HuffPo article on Hypatia. You can guess the tone of the story if you look at the title (“The First Female Astronomer“) and if you know how buzzy the leftoid beehive HuffPo is.

Sayeth O’Neill:

“Synesius of Cyrene …. asks for her advice on the design of scientific instruments, such as a hydroscope (used to determine density of fluids) and an astrolabe”

Ummm, no he just asks her if she could have these instruments made for him, presumably because it is more likely there would be craftsmen capable of making such specialised items in a learning centre like Alexandria where they would be unlikely to be found in far off Cyrenacia, where he was bishop. He has to explain to her what a hydroscope is, so he’s clearly not asking her for advice about it. Of course, that doesn’t fit the narrative people like to believe about Hypatia.

“there is little doubt that people who felt threatened by the level of knowledge and encouragement for learning that Hypatia had inspired committed the murder.”

There is actually absolutely nothing in the contemporary sources to suggest any such thing. On the contrary, Socrates Scholasticus moves from praising her learning and highlighting the wide *respect* she gained for it to saying “yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed”. The sources put her murder in the context of the notoriously violent civic politics of Alexandria and, more specifically, of a series of tit-for-tat killings in a political struggle between Orestes and Cyril.

Of course, sticking to the actual evidence kind of spoils things and mean that her story can’t be turned into a neat little fable about wicked philistines hating ancient learning.

Tim, an atheist, has great blog here about the misconceptions of church history.

Links of Possible Relevance, Part 5

It occurred to me recently that I still haven’t gotten sick since will before the past winter. See here for my “hacks,” though recently my vitamin intake has been sporadic. This isn’t really a Link of Possible Relevance proper, but more just unmitigated bragging.

Hobby Lobby blah blah. It was an okay decision but arguments from religious liberty are lacking, sometimes even more so than stupidheaded gender-based ones. I like Ron Paul’s response, since private property and contract law are just nicknames for things we do dozens of times everyday without a bureaucrat sniffing at our shoulder. Like when I high five a friend of mine. The point is: you cannot force people to high five you.

I helped Seth design these interactive stickers. Any and all subgenres are welcome!

“Epic” is overused but given the context I think 17 minutes of metal versions of video game music qualifies.

Death metal band to perform in airtight, soundproof container until they run out of oxygen. Okay.

William Lane Craig on the problem with apologetics. He uses the term “theological rationalism” to describe the idea that people can be argued into belief, and he doesn’t claim it. I agree with him. Apologetics is good for removing bad facts and replacing them with correct ones, but having a correct set of facts has nothing to do with religious belief. Though people can be a type of conduit, “activating” true beliefs are very much out of our hands.

The pope said the mafia are excommunicated. Is he including governments with that term, too? I don’t see a difference between them save for scale.

Some good thoughts over at Wintery Knight about explaining Old Testament wars. Material reasoning aside, I still prefer to simply argue that God can do whatever He damn well pleases. Feel free to reason with Him on this point. I do not recommend it but I’ll definitely be watching from the sidelines.

Words Mean Things

If Seth activated comments on his blog, I might write something like this on a recent post of his. Instead:

I think it’s helpful to recognize and factor in for scale. Some software dev firms are too small to really have a “human touch” to be of value (I personally don’t think any company would be too small for that, but I don’t determine their business direction, so…). Some apps that people would use are too niche to really warrant the demand for the human side of things. We might just want to use the app and get on with our lives.

The state of the user plays a lot into it, too. To wit: I have a compass and leveler app on my Android. To me, it has usefulness but I don’t see myself investing a lot of capital into the app nor its makers. However, if I were a construction contractor and the devs specialized in, say, apps for carpentry, then their human side would definitely be of interest to me, since they are essentially helping me make a living. The demand for investment is there: I use their apps more than once daily, I have feelers out, are they touching back? Any company that wants to stay in business should be.

Links of Possible Relevance, Part 4

Archie comics now has an openly gay character. Soon to come: the first character openly not caring about who other people doink.

The economics of WALL-E.

The site of Aristotle’s Lyceum is open to the public.

I like grass-fed butter, and I like coffee, so…

Math metal, lit’rally.

Yet another “man up” post for Father’s Day. No thanks. Also, he seems really into war and governments. You’re losing me, Ravi.

There is no God in Washington. Of course not—not even Ares wants anything to do with that wretched hive.

Less GMOs vs less dead Ugandan kids. I smell a civil war among white savior Facebook activists.

I’m not great with words nor philosophy, but John C. Wright explains very well a concept that I (believe) I grasp well in the abstract: materialism (atheism) is an assumption, not a conclusion made from epistemic data a posteriori as your college professor insists.

Knowing A Lot of Stuff Doesn’t Make A Christian

Wintery Knight comments on the story about Tim Lambesis coming out as a scam artist in Christian metal.

This is why my heroes in the faith are not athletes and artists. It’s possible for athletes and artists to be as solid in their faith as a J. Warner Wallace or a Tim McGrew, but scoring points on a sports field or singing songs on a stage is no guarantee of that. Biblical faith is about knowledge – justified true belief. Nothing about sports or music helps you to know whether your beliefs are true. Period.

I’m usually with WK on a lot of things when he isn’t being a statist, but this rings false. It’s true that sports or music don’t make someone’s religious beliefs stronger, but neither does having a bunch of facts and deductive conclusions*. There’s nothing to say an athlete or musician is any less knowledgable about their faith than a apologist.

It’s the curse of evidentialist apologetics mishedmashed with logical positivism, Hellenism, or scientism: knowing more “stuff” makes you virtuous (righteous, in this case). It’s Bonhoeffer on caffeine: my mission just has to be everyone else’s.

I have no idea who Wallace and McGrew are, so I have no idea why WK is holding them as a gold standard for Christian belief. I think WK is working backwards in that he’s seeing these two as knowledgable (no doubt they are) and concluding they must have strong belief. None of the people of faith in the Bible were apologists or theologians—at least not in the semi-formal sense we know it today. They created the stuff that apologists and theologians have talked about for centuries after.

* One can be correct about their beliefs without having the proper reasoning behind it (hello, Galileo). This is Epistemology 101, and I’m of the mind that God doesn’t care if you got your math wrong.