mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
No one would suggest that most atheists are geeks; that would be a dangerous generalization. It may be fair to suggest, however, that most geeks are atheists, as a few writers as Shuzak.com have recently done. The debate was sparked after an online poll revealed that nearly half of Digg.com users — whom we may fairly assume are more likely than not to be geeks — identify themselves as atheists. Trailing far behind, just over a quarter of users identified themselves as Christians, and about 2% were Jews and 2% Muslims. Why is that? Shuzak offered some interesting theories (which, we feel compelled to add, don’t necessarily reflect the views and opines of Mental_Floss … but we sure think they’re interesting):
1
Geeks tend to be interested in how the universe works. From the delicate and intricate dance of subatomic particles to the raging of stars thousands of times larger than our Earth, the complexity and beauty of the universe awes many of those geeks who have looked deeply into physics. They are people that collect information almost compulsively and nurture deep understandings of very obscure branches of knowledge. So perhaps problem-loving geeks have a fundamental disconnect with the idea of a Creator; it’s just too easy.
2
Geeks tend to shy away from parties. Given the social aspects of religion, a person who does not particularly care about socialization or interpersonal interactions might find some of the allure gone.
3
Someone who has grown up with the notion that he or she is more intelligent than those around wants to get the most satisfaction from that intelligence. The quickest and most reliable way to be rewarded for intelligence is to prove someone else wrong, which tends to establish a sense of superior intelligence. Being constructive, on the other hand, is much less rewarding. Hence, simply having faith in something — the crucial key to religious experience — becomes extremely difficult.
What do you think?
Certainly there are many believers with beliefs that are infantile and simplistic, but real religion is anything but easy. It’s the poison of our age to think that religion offers easy answers and comforting platitudes. The experience of God is always, always one of crisis and disquiet. 1 is true only for geeks who don’t understand this, which sadly is true not just of geeks but many people on our society. Perhaps I’m not really a theology geek but just a dork though… Perhaps geeks have suffered from emotional disconnection with other people throughout their lives, and a connection to a loving universe is just too much like a connection to another person.
posted by Zach on 4-4-2007 at 9:46 am
I do not think that being constructive is any less fullfilling or rewarding than proving something else wrong. It is just that people who spend their lives proving other things wrong have had little experience being constructive and therefor have not felt the accomplishing feats of being constructive. It is necessary to prove some things wrong, however, unhealthy to make a living out of it.
posted by Rebecka on 4-4-2007 at 10:38 am
We’re holding a very narrow view of religion in this context. The Judeo-Christian tradition holds that there is a Creator and one true God and all that, but what about Buddhism or Daoism? These religions are more focused on the universe and movement of energy and thoughts, rejecting the idea of God or supernatural deities in favor of reality. This sounds a lot like number 1 on the list to me, and while I wouldn’t suggest that the listmakers are calling Buddhists and Daoists atheists…
Any Buddhists or students of the Dao in the geek house?
posted by Rachel on 4-4-2007 at 11:32 am
I’m a bit of a geek myself, but I have to say #1 is pretty much why I’m NOT an atheist. When I look at how amazingly complex and infinite everything about life and the universe are, I can only think, this can’t possibly be an accident. I don’t subscribe to any particular religion or even the notion of an anthropomorphic diety necessarily, but I do feel there must be SOMETHING larger going on that explains the universe.
posted by Sara on 4-4-2007 at 11:34 am
Even if they deny a personal God or eternal truth, Buddhism and Daoism are still religious ways of approaching the universe, and this normally rejected out of hand by atheists.
posted by Zach on 4-4-2007 at 11:37 am
I suspect there may be some selection bias here — overgeneralization of the results here, definitely.
Just because most Digg.com visitors are geeks, doesn’t mean that most geeks visit Digg.com. That’s the overgeneralization part. The selection bias has more to do with the likelihood that the sample consists of those who chose to answer the questionnaire from Digg.com. Is it possible that atheist geeks were more likely to sound off than geeks with a religious preference, because they were aware of their minority status in the current scheme of things in the US?
posted by Lauren on 4-4-2007 at 11:52 am
“The debate was sparked after an online poll revealed that nearly half of Digg.com users — whom we may fairly assume are more likely than not to be geeks — identify themselves as atheists.”
First, I don’t think you can really assume they are geeks, but more importantly, you can’t assume this would be a representative sample.
posted by ditto on 4-4-2007 at 12:31 pm
Is there any proof that the results are valid? Couldn’t any good geek hack some voting program? I find these results a little strange compared to a study (see link) which says Atheists are the most distrusted minority in America.
I am seriously skeptical about this poll.
www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find
posted by allison on 4-4-2007 at 1:30 pm
I don’t think you can take the results too seriously. First, I don’t think you can assume that digg users are likely to be geeks. And second but more importantly, the respondents to the poll are not a representative sample of geeks.
posted by ditto on 4-4-2007 at 2:05 pm
Anyone who does not beleive in all religions is an atheist in regards to all religions but those they subscribe to. So if you’re Christian, then you’re an atheist in regards to all other religious gods. This is Dawkins point, not mine, but its one of the best to date.
An idea I’d run with is that geeks just do better. They get better education, they get better paying jobs, and in our tech-based society they essentially control the future.
When you look at other professions, such as retail, sports, service industry, finance, or any of countless others, its really relatively meaningless. Few things in non-geek fields really matters much if at all - they’re just jobs we need people to fill. Some might pay more then McDonalds but in the big picture most jobs have no impact on anything meaningful.
For the average person, when your big life accomplishments are marriage and children (which really are not accomplishments), and an essentially meaningless job, its much easier to see how such a person would require the polyfill that is religion for any of an assortment of reasons. Be it an imaginary psychiatrist, a substitute for common sense, or the idea that you’ll have eternal life to lessen the impact of your earthbound one falling so short of your potential.
Or maybe, its just that when someone has a better understanding of physics and the universe they simply realize that its incredibly egotistical and self-centered to believe that even if there was any kind of god that it would have anything to do with but one animal species in but one era on but one planet in but one solar system. As humans we -are- irrelevant, and I think that so few people can accept they’re existence doesn’t matter is a big reason for the success of religion.
posted by serotonin on 4-4-2007 at 2:09 pm
Since absolute knowledge is unobtainable, at some point everyone has to operate on some kind of faith.
Every belief structure–including the disbelief in deities–has an axiomatic foundation. Acquire all the evidence you can and form the most compelling arguement possible; you still have to accept certain suppositions without proof.
posted by Tom on 4-4-2007 at 3:05 pm
Of course real geeks think that there is no god. It is logic that makes you a geek, logic that makes a God not likely. A god by definition is not possible, there is no all knowing, all seeing, all powerful everywhere at once being. God ain’t real no, no, no.
posted by Luke on 4-4-2007 at 3:32 pm
Operating on faith is one thing (because yes, we do all at some point operate on faith that say, gravity will continue to function), but being comfortable accepting contradictions and hypocrisy is something else entirely. Most geeks don’t subscribe to an organized religion because 1) they are used to thinking independently and 2) don’t see the value in just accepting something they’re told because a famous book or some “holy” men said it was so.
posted by Judith on 4-4-2007 at 5:07 pm
I don’t have any one religion, just because 1) Why should this group of people be right, rahter than this group of people? and 2) Several popular religions (you know who you are) worship one god, usually male, and that doesn’t seem to work in this democracy loving, equal-rights-for-all county we live in. Besides, we can’t possibly be doing this all by ourselves. I can’t imagine that all coincedences are just that. And look at some of the things that have happened, that at least SOME people could have been sensible enough to avoid:
-Bush being elected
-World War Two(and that one was a really weird “coincedence”, that whole thing with Franz Ferdinand and such)
-Bush being re-elected
And so on and so forth.
There’s got to be some divine interference going on there somewhere.
posted by Pointy-Hatted Geek on 4-4-2007 at 5:49 pm
Just a comment on faith that my uncle heard in theological school. A man and wife have a baby. The woman knows it’s her baby–that’s knowledge. The man knows it’s his baby–that’s faith.
posted by Barbara on 4-4-2007 at 11:05 pm
As far as the poll being proof, I don’t think it’s enough of a representation to be valid on its own. Though it does prompt the theory that geeks are more LIKELY to be atheists.
And I would agree with that theory. Being a techie type myself with the typical tendencies toward sci-fi fandom and anti-social behavior, I don’t describe myself as practicing any organized religion. I was raised on Christian principles, but don’t subscribe to everything they preach, and consider the ritualistic parts unnecessary. I always say “I have too many technical questions.” And, what makes a billion Buddhists wrong and doomed to eternal damnation? etc. And blind faith is completely unacceptable to the analytical mind. Mostly because there are so many versions of the “truth”. And that number keeps increasing, not decreasing, so we aren’t narrowing it down any.
Oh, and I would say the baby’s daddy knows because of trust, not faith.
posted by QaplaGCA on 4-5-2007 at 6:31 am
The “geekiest” of all scientists are physicists. Yet, I’ve read and heard (unfortunately I can not remember from where), that more physicists believe in God than any of the other sciences.
If I can find the source to this, I’ll e-mail it to you.
posted by Michelle on 4-5-2007 at 8:08 am
Hee hee, that’s great, Barbara!
posted by Rebecka on 4-5-2007 at 9:42 am
Well, personally, I consider myself a geek and a skeptical Mormon (in other words, accepting God is easy, but accepting a bunch of wars as the end of the world is crazy; I mean, haven’t there always been wars?). I have to say that Zach’s mention of experiences of God meaning “crisis and disquiet” (i.e. “will I be held accountable for what I’ve done?”) and Sara’s mention of how an incredibly complex universe can’t be an accident are pretty much what I think.
If I had to guess as to why geeks are atheists, my best guess would be that going to church takes away from precious time that could be spent doing other things.
posted by Sillstaw on 4-5-2007 at 1:50 pm
Shuzak’s point 3 shows up part of the problem here: they simultaneously deny that a geek may be smarter than average and assume that someone who is smarter than average is destructive rather than constructive.
I think most people at the higher end of the intelligence spectrum have trouble with organized religion and spirituality in general, for reasons noted most admirably by serotonin’s comment. However, since we no longer value high intelligence in our society, admitting that you’re a geek is just as isolating as admitting that you’re an atheist. There has been a measured correlation between intelligence and depression or melancholy, which is largely due to something called “depressive realism”. People who are very intelligent are unable to wallow in self-delusion. They see things as they really are and become depressed. They also become atheists.
This is important. A lot of people will try to tell you that if you could just give youself up to Jesus you would be happier. If I could give myself up to the idea that I was a witty and charming beauty I’d be happier also, but that wouldn’t make it true.
posted by robin on 4-6-2007 at 8:41 am
I would have to disagree with point #3 above. I have heard, and I think it’s true, that intelligent people (geeks?) tend to be more insecure. Maybe because the more you knowledge you acquire, the more you realize how much there is you don’t know? I think this leads to a need to be right, not necessarily a need to prove someone else wrong.
As for Sara’s comment that the complexity of the universe proves there must be a creator, I disagree with that. I recently heard an interview with Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion. He made a couple of good points regarding the design theory. If there is a being as intelligent as God (who is presumably all knowing and immensely complicated), he would have emerged at the end of evolution, not the beginning. (or maybe you believe an alien being created life on earth?) If there is a all-knowing creator, he created life in such a way that disguises his part in the creation. The more you try to prove the existence of a God, the more preposterous your arguments become, I think. Therefore, religion requires passionate belief in the absence of evidence, which might explain why intelligent, science-oriented types don’t buy into it.
posted by Amy on 4-6-2007 at 9:58 am
Barbara’s story is a comforting piece of rhetoric to trick yourself. Notice how it says nothing that would make existence of a supreme being more likely, but despite that you feel justified in your religious beliefs after reading it.
Geeks love logic. And, once looked at logically, religious rhetoric and circular reasoning fall apart, and arguments against God (such as Richard Dawkins’s) make a lot of sense.
posted by Igor on 1-10-2008 at 4:12 pm