Hi all,
I was very surprised to discover that only 10% of the Nobel prize winners are atheist:
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners.png
2. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7237
3. https://www.quora.com/What-proportion-of-Nobel-prize-winners-are-atheist
4. https://www.johnlennox.org/resources/145/how-many-nobel-prize-winners
This info contradicts everything I've heard before, that there is a strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity.
For example:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA&feature=youtu.be&&t=1m45s
2. https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_militant_atheism#t-955695
3. https://www.psypost.org/2019/11/meta-analysis-of-83-studies-produces-ver...
How do you explain this?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
There are six distinct categories for the Nobel prize. They are Peace Prize, Literature, Physics, Chemistry, Physiology and Medicine, and Economics.
There are a few of those categories that never conflict with theism, and a very religious person can win the Nobel. For example, Rudyard Kipling was awarded the 1907 Nobel for literature. He also became a Mason.
So Daniel, if we are going to unpack the fact that most Nobel winners were/are theists, then we must first determine which categories are in conflict with theism.
Man, that was an excellent answer.
RE: Only 10% of the Nobel prize winners are atheist ?
I'm sorry, but that makes perfect sense. What do you imagine the state of religion to be in 1901 until currently.
Pair that with the fact that the categories of Nobel Prizes are not all hard sciences. The Nobel Prize winners that are atheists is actually just a very bizarre fact and I can't imagine drawing any conclusion at all from it. Perhaps were we to break the awards down into categories?
What I meant is that these guys are very smart, so my expectation was to see a much higher percent of atheists in this community.
Your expectation is invalid. No one has to be smart to win a Nobel Peace Prize. In 1979, Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize "for work undertaken in the struggle to overcome povert. In 1993, Mandela won the Nobel Peace Prize with F. W. de Klerk for their work during the civil rights revolution in South Africa.
You seem to be confused as to why the prize is given out. It's not about science or being smart.
You are right, I had the notion/idea that people are usually getting a Nobel prize for scientific discoveries.
@Cognostic
a Nobel Prize and religiosity. Please forgive my ignorance, but I think the implication a logical fallacy, but I can't think which one. Non sequitor?
Of course atheism implies nothing. It means only that a the person does not believe in gods. Has nothing to do with intellect per se.
On the other hand you don't need to be especially stupid to be a believer, but It's an advantage. There is also a distinct correlation between religiosity, poverty and education . I also suspect there is a causal relationship. Nor I am not convinced a correlation between affluence and a decrease in religiosity is a coincidence. EG Western and Northern Europe ,Australasia, Canada , the UK and parts of the US .(away from the poverty and ignorance of the bible belt. )
cranky47: Correlation is not Causation. "The assumption that Nobel Prize winners are all smart because they win the Award?" We associate great achievements with intelligence and that just isn't always the case.
@cognostic
"Correlation is not Causation. "
I'm aware of the difference. I was trying to think of the logical fallacy of equating the two? False equivalence?
My discipline is Social Anthropology. Drives me nuts when people claim that similarities between cultures MUST be causally connected.
@Cog Re: "No one has to be smart to win a Nobel Peace Prize."
...*look of pleasant surprise*... Seriously?... *big smile*... Oh, boy! Yay! That means I may actually have a chance!... *clapping excitedly*... Now, if I can just get that damn aardvark to learn how to walk a tightrope while juggling cantaloupes, I can finally prove my theory of Ant-Eye Matter. Should be an easy win for me.... *scratching chin*... Hmmm... Wonder if it would help if I turned down the voltage on the cattle prod?... *reading over schematics*...
There is one very smart scientist I follow (and respect 100%) a lot on Twitch. https://www.twitch.tv/horizonsci
Dr. Jason Steffen https://www.unlv.edu/people/jason-steffen
He is a theist, even spent two years doing his obligatory missionary work. Despite being a man of unshakeable faith, he has managed to reconcile science and religion.
Here is part of a speech about science advocacy that he gave at the 2018 Las Vegas March for Science.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O-sNPgcRhZ5kEAGwMvY5y_JxnHDXflqhzCPC...
"Science can reduce humanity to nothing more than the reconstituted ashes of dead stars and simultaneously ennoble it as the greatest, and rarest gift that the universe offers. As teachers, learners, and practitioners of science, we can use the incredible and awe inspiring truths of science to bring people together, to open their eyes and minds to the natural wonder surrounding them, to let them escape their lives for a moment to touch, feel, and see the infinite. It is crucial that we show our fellow man these truths, that we let them see the wonders of our Universe.
It is also crucial that we not impede their vision with our pettiness, that our pride or arrogance not become a stumbling block. Discovery, when done right, is a humbling experience for all. It exposes us to the immense void of space, the deep abyss, and the microscopic unknown. We must not trifle with that message. We must not use science as a tool of division. We cannot allow it to become partisan. And, to the extent that it has already trodden that path, it is imperative that we bring it back.
Make no mistake, science is a two-edged sword. It cuts both ways and is no respecter of persons or parties. Ideologically correct science was championed in both the socialist utopia of the Soviets where “Bourgois science” was suppressed by the gun and the gulag, and in the Aryan utopia of NAZI Germany where “Jewish science” met a similar fate in the ghetto and the gas chamber. Truly, when science becomes partisan, it dies a tragic death.
Any political ideology that cherry picks the science it will accept does so at the peril of this great nation and the people of the world. It matters not whether that cherry comes from the branch of medicine and epidemiology (with the threat of widespread disease) or climatology (with the threat of widespread famine), from psychology or biology, from nuclear physics or genetics. Science cuts both ways.
As we advance our transcendent cause to learn about our universe and to employ that knowledge for the good and freedom of all, I urge each of us to take great care in our choices of allies and adversaries. We must not alienate those who are actually our most valuable friends in this work. If we want to ensure that science, instead of religion, is taught in our science classes, we must not alienate those religious individuals who share that goal.
As a practicing scientist and as a practicing person of faith, I am often dismayed by short-sighted science advocates who jab and prod and belittle those with whom they disagree in order to score points with their particular choir. By doing so, they paint many people who can more effectively deliver the needed message into a corner, thereby weakening an important bridge to those who may be beyond our feeble reach. I am dismayed by lawmakers who, in grandstanding eloquence, signal with virtue and righteousness their abhorrence for their political counterparts while simultaneously alienating those on the other side who share their desire to see the beneficial advance of science and society.
I challenge each of us. All who value science, who are formal science educators, informal science educators, and science advocates, to use our great message to inspire awe and appreciation, to unite rather than to divide—to rise above our tendencies to belittle and blame. I challenge each of us to build bridges to our audience that they too may see what we have seen, hear what we have heard, and feel what we have felt. Thank you."
Sometimes science and religion are not exclusive.
@Daniel Wilson
About 2% of Nobel Prize winners are black.
Now that you know that: do you think that means non-blacks are smarter than blacks? Of course not; I think we all realize it isn't that simple. So why would you think that about atheism?
---------------------------
And as a side note (according to the CIA) less than 3% of the world's population is atheist. So if you are correct about the 10%, then atheist are extremely over represented in Nobel Prizes.
---------------------------
And finally, a personal anecdote:
There are 3 physicists in my family. All of them are privately atheists, and all of them presents themselves as religious in their professional lives. Historically, being openly atheist could be bad for your career.
Ashkenazi Jews are hugely over-represented. Is there a genetic component?
(of course there are many things to affect this including education and culture)
It could be genetic, and it could be culture, but that's what the data shows.
@Daniel
"It could be genetic, and it could be culture, but that's what the data shows."
I believe you.
However, as far as I'm aware, nobody has been able to prove conclusively that any one race or ethnicity group is more or less intelligent than others.
@Neverhappened
"Ashkenazi Jews are hugely over-represented. Is there a genetic component? "
That Eastern European Jews are more intelligent than the rest of the population or that some races are more intelligent than others? That was a widely held belief well into the twentieth century .,The scientific justifications were called 'racialism" and 'eugenics', each highly valued by the Third Reich
In the latter 20th century there was an American psychologist who 'proved' black children were less intelligent than white children..He proved that by giving the same IQ tests first to middle class white kids, then to black kids from the ghetto.
If one pays attention, one will notice that there seems to be a disparity of asian in kids who are prodigies of various kinds.
Just smarter? I'm sure some are. However, it's more likely that the parent is pushing the kid .Hence the stereotypical 'tiger parenting'
It is a lifetime observation here in Oz that education is revered among the asian people I've known .eg common for parents who were say Vietnamese rice farmers to have several kids, all of whom go to university and do law or one of the hard sciences, especially medicine .
Although middle class Aussies understand the importance of eduction, their attitude is relatively casual. Working class families, such as my own, are not all that fussed with tertiary education. .
My dad's family arrived here in South Australia in 1870. However, I was the first member of dad's family to attend university--even then I had to study part time whilst working full time.
My attitude today is that education IS the magic bullet. I'm aware doing say liberal arts is no guarantee of a decent job. However, it is my opinion that it is much harder without some of degree. At least her in Oz.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0)))))))))))))))))))))
TIGER PARENTING
Tiger parenting is strict or demanding parenting. Tiger parents push and pressure their children to attaining high levels of academic achievement or success in high-status extracurricular activities such as music, using authoritarian parenting methods.[1] The term "tiger mother" (虎妈 or "tiger mom") was coined by Yale Law School professor Amy Chua in her 2011 memoir Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.[2] A largely Chinese-American concept, the term draws parallels to strict parenting styles typically enforced throughout households in East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia.[3][4][5][6][7] Since the rise of Amy Chua's memoir and the tiger mom phenomenon into the American mainstream during the early 2010s, the tiger mom has been a caricatured figure in modern Chinese society as well as in Overseas Chinese communities around the world. Chua's rise to fame quickly popularized the concept and term "tiger mother" spawning numerous caricatures while also becoming the inspiration for the 2014-2015 Singaporean TV show Tiger Mum, the 2015 mainland Chinese drama Tiger Mom, and the 2017 Hong Kong series Tiger Mom Blues. The stereotyped figure often portrays a Chinese mother who relentlessly drives her child to study hard, to the detriment of the child's social and physical development, and emotional well-being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_parenting
RACE AND INTELLIGENCE
The history of the race and intelligence controversy concerns the historical development of a debate about possible explanations of group differences encountered in the study of race and intelligence. Since the beginning of IQ testing around the time of World War I, there have been observed differences between average scores of different population groups, but there has been no agreement about whether this is mainly due to environmental and cultural factors, or mainly due to some genetic factor, or even if the dichotomy between environmental and genetic factors is the most effectual approach to the debate.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be racial in nature;[1] apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. By the mid-1940s most psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors predominated. In the mid-1960s, physicist William Shockley sparked controversy by claiming there might be genetic reasons that black people in the United States tended to score lower on IQ tests than white people. In 1969 the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen published a long article with the suggestion that compensatory education had failed to that date because of genetic group differences. A similar debate among academics followed the publication in 1994 of The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Their book prompted a renewal of debate on the issue and the publication of several interdisciplinary books on the issue. One contemporary response was a report from the American Psychological Association that found no conclusive explanation for the observed differences between average IQ scores of racial groups"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_contr...
Many working scientists are atheistically inclined, many are not. To expect otherwise seems to be a little bit back patting.
I worked with a top notch network engineer who is also a devout Muslim, and prayed 5 times a day.
The source is wrong. For example it claims that there have been just three atheist/agnostic nobel prize winners in physics over this 100 years. That's so ridiculously implausible.
The source includes Stephen Weinberg as a Jewish nobel prize, and not as an atheist nobel prize. Famously atheist Richard Feynman gets the same treatment. Obviously Einstein is claimed too. Loads of those counted as Jewish Nobels are also atheist/agnostic, but were only counted as Jewish.
It lists 38 Jewish Nobel prizes for Physics. Stephen Weinberg was counted twice with two different spellings of his name (Stephen/Steven). So it's really 37, and at least 17 of them are demonstrably atheist/agnostic. a handful are demonstrably theist. And the rest I don't know about.
Obviously it will be a similar story with chemistry, medicine, economics, and the other categories too. As well as somewhat of a similar story with the supposed Christians and other religions. His method appeared to be guessing. The book is total rubbish And yet it is cited widely.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Daniel Wilson: Most people once thought the world was flat. Most people believe that if you go out in the cold wind with wet hair you can catch a cold. I hate to say it but most people I have met think you are a pedo troll. But don't take it seriously. Those of us who actually THINK, recognize an Ad populum fallacy when we see it.
How about you talk to one of these Nobel Prize believers, find out why they believe, and then post their reason for believing? That would be fun. Francis Sellers Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project, believes in god because he saw a waterfall divided into three parts and thought it was a miracle. Intelligence alone is not enough to stave off ignorance. A person does need to be a bit skeptical of fallacious claims as well.
Daniel,
How many Nobel prize winners have there ever been?
How many different categories of people are there within that group.
If you use statistics, properly, to imply something,
you would need a sample size a tad bit larger than we have here.
Also,
How many presidents of the USA were theists?
How many changed their leanings as they went through life?
How many lied about their feelings?
@RT
Also,
"How many presidents of the USA were theists?
How many changed their leanings as they went through life?
How many lied about their feelings?"
That's about as useful as asking (as a fundy once asked me) "How do you know god didn't create the universe ten minutes ago, along with with all fossils, artifacts , records and memories ? "
@cranky ...
Well, this is where he/she/it fucked up if that’s the case...
“ along with with all fossils, artifacts , records and memories ? "
@whitefire
"Well, this is where he/she/it fucked up if that’s the case...
“ along with with all fossils, artifacts , records and memories ? "
Umm,now I'm confused.. The point was that given those conditions it would be impossible to tell. Apologies if I expressed myself poorly.
@Cranky - Oh I agree it would be impossible to tell... totally impossible. But we have the same “memories” and “evidence” all made in that 10 min span...
@white
Just so.
The christian god can do literally anything, including suspend the time space thingie.
@OP
Not sure if this is the data you are talking about, but it may answer your question...as Nyar et al. have pointed out.
https://www.livescience.com/59361-why-are-atheists-generally-more-intell...
@Daniel Wilson: I was very surprised to discover that only 10% of the Nobel prize winners are atheist:
How would you know that? Unlike American presidential candidates, Nobel prize-winners aren't required to declare their faith as a condition of winning their prizes.
Also, the Nobel Prizes date back over a century. For most of that time, and in most parts of of the world, declaring oneself an atheist could be hazardous to your career, social position, and even life. Much of the world is still run by some very entitled and vicious theists.
The last time someone pointed this out, they were completely unaware of the fact that anyone and everyone can get a Nobel prize. They were under the impression that the prize when to really smart people. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. On October 17, 1979, Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for letting victims of horrible diseases suffer and die. She did this by providing them mattresses on floors, no medical care, and no contact with family members. Many of the people under her care had completely curable diseases or medical conditions. So what did she do with her money? Spend it on surgeries and medication for the poor. NO! "If I treat one, I will have to treat them all." is what she said. She took her money and started a Mother Teresa Foundation. Anyone can get a Nobel Prize. Anyone!
@Cognostic: Anyone can get a Nobel Prize. Anyone
Too true. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were all nominated for the Piss Price.
Mother T kept countless poor people in agony with no medical treatment, but she soon got on her broomstick and flew off for modern surgery when she got chest pains.
Pages