Isaac Newton was highly religious and he was smarter than any Digg user. In fact, most smart people in Newton's time were religious. Atheism in those days was associated with poor uneducated people, the same way racism is today. Doesn't that disprove the hypothesis that intelligence causes people to be atheist?
Wait, I know what you're going to say to that. You're going to say that Newton et al. don't count because they lived before Darwin. The theory of natural selection, you say, was the first non-religious explanation of life that smart people could believe. Before that, everyone just defaulted to religion because there was no better theory available.
It's a nice idea, but I don't buy it. When I became an atheist as a teenager, I wasn't thinking about evolution; I didn't even have the foggiest understanding of Darwin's theories. I've encountered many other atheists who don't. Obviously, evolution is not usually what causes people to reject religion.
I think the real difference is that, in Newton's time, it was fashionable for smart people to be religious, whereas in our time it's fashionable for smart people to be atheist. Evolution was just the fashion's tipping point.
Specifically, Darwin caused a few very smart people to change their minds about religion, and the greater bulk of somewhat smart people (who desperately wanted to seem like very smart people) followed suit. Now anyone who wants to be considered smart will reject religion out of conformance.
Basically, people will believe anything as long as their being wrong has no noticeable impact on their lives. Intelligence has little to do with it. And the moral of this story is not that you are all conformist sheep, but that it doesn't matter. If Isaac Newton struck out on the big questions, then you probably will too. Just stop trying to answer impossible questions, and go live your life.
Here's a data point for you - I changed my mind because of evolution.
Here we're not really interested in smart people - many smart people believe in God. We're interested in the subset of smart people with a special kind of honesty, the kind great scientists almost always have, and great philosophers often do. The 'smart people' you claim changed their minds because of fashion aren't the ones we're really interested in talking about.
Also, I like to distinguish between deliberate atheists (like myself) and people who are atheists by default. Some people are apathetic about philosophical questions and will say they don't believe in God simply because they weren't brought up with any religion.
Atheism in those days was associated with poor uneducated people, the same way racism is today.
Citation?
Don't you mean paganism, rather than atheism? And by pagan I mean the jumble of indigenous beliefs that you get with a pre-literate people, freely mixing local superstitions and the official religion (in this case Christianity).
OK, as per your theory of conformism, smart people want to be accepted as smart by other smart people. That is why they are atheist in the current times. The fallacy of this argument is so transparent in that smart people are generally considered non-conformist. That is the essence of geekiness if one can put it that way.
That there is god is for the theist to prove and not the atheist to disprove. What anyone who is rational chooses to believe is the sum total of his knowledge and his experience. You have lumped smart people as characterless by calling them conformist. So either you are a charlatan theist trying to get in a word sideways or someone who is truly and hopelessly wrong.
Think about Galileo. For every stereotype you cite, I can quote exceptions and make it a circular argument. You did lump every "smart person" in your argument and I wanted to call you out on that. No ad hominems there, just a progression of my counter-argument.
I'm not sure what your point is, but I think you're attacking a straw man. I didn't say that all people conform to the expectations of their peer group in all ways at all times. That statement is trivial to disprove.
Wait, I know what you're going to say to that. You're going to say that Newton et al. don't count because they lived before Darwin. The theory of natural selection, you say, was the first non-religious explanation of life that smart people could believe. Before that, everyone just defaulted to religion because there was no better theory available.
It's a nice idea, but I don't buy it. When I became an atheist as a teenager, I wasn't thinking about evolution; I didn't even have the foggiest understanding of Darwin's theories. I've encountered many other atheists who don't. Obviously, evolution is not usually what causes people to reject religion.
I think the real difference is that, in Newton's time, it was fashionable for smart people to be religious, whereas in our time it's fashionable for smart people to be atheist. Evolution was just the fashion's tipping point.
Specifically, Darwin caused a few very smart people to change their minds about religion, and the greater bulk of somewhat smart people (who desperately wanted to seem like very smart people) followed suit. Now anyone who wants to be considered smart will reject religion out of conformance.
Basically, people will believe anything as long as their being wrong has no noticeable impact on their lives. Intelligence has little to do with it. And the moral of this story is not that you are all conformist sheep, but that it doesn't matter. If Isaac Newton struck out on the big questions, then you probably will too. Just stop trying to answer impossible questions, and go live your life.