Erik said: > But in this case, doesn't it? If his assertion, that not believing in > god puts you "above average", then the group believing in god must be > below average (or else the "undecided" group is large and well below > average thus allowing the other two groups to be above average).
The Fool asserted that if you don't believe in God then you are automatically above average. To disprove this, you'd have to find an atheist who was below average in intelligence and education. This shouldn't be too hard, because even if on average atheists are smarter, there will be tail of ones who are less smart than the average atheist and also less smart than the average. The Fool's position could only be true if that tail of the atheist distribution didn't extend beyond the average for the whole population. Debbi saying that she was smart and educated and not an atheist certainly didn't disprove the Fool's position. Even if, on average, non-atheists are less smart than the average member of the population, there will still be tail of the distribution who are smarter than average, and Debbi could well be in that part of the non-atheist distribution. All of which I hope is clear, but would be clearer if I could sketch a diagram. > Or are you playing at something Garrison Keillor'ish? I've never even heard of Garrison Keillor. Should I have? Rich _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
