I just finished the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. Among the topics are one on Christopher Langan who has an IQ of 195, which is supposed to be the highest in the world. After finishing the chapter I googled him, and found out that he has been studying physics on his own for pretty much his entire life but only went to college for one year.

What interested me was that he has been working on something that he calls "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". While I don´t understand much of it (few does) I was surprised to see that he actually believes in God. Not only that, he claims that it is possible to mathematically prove that God exists and that we have a soul. At first glance I was amazed of this, since I´m a complete atheist (and swedish - none of use are believers). But I can´t help thinking that, since his mind are more powerful than anyone else´s, maybe he has seen further than anyone ever have. This scares me a little bit, b/c obv if he is correct I really don´t want to die for obvious reasons

If this would have been anyone else I would never have listen to claims such as these, but I can´t stop thinking about those damn digits - 195 -and think that maybe he is correct and the math is so advanced that no one else really gets it. I know that this is stupid thinking from my part and I´ve been trying to forget about but I just can´t. That is why I need some smart physics people to smack some damn sense into me. Is this guy just "insane" or is his brain just too advanced for us to grasp? Also, does anyone out there know someone with an IQ near Langan´s who have studied physics and is an atheist?

Yup I know someone with similar "IQ" who does believe in a higher bein but most is just speculation.

Langan's definition of 'God' is not very likely to bear much resemblance to the concept that you think of when you use the word, so you shouldn't stress yourself out over that. When this subject was brought up in the past, at least a few very intelligent posters were under the impression that much of Langan's writing was tautologically true, albeit somewhat misguided. Also, consensus was reached that Langan is "kind of a jerk".

To me OP looks like it's commiting the fallacy of appeal to authority:

from http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

OP ascribes some authority to the score attained in IQ tests by Mr. Langan. However, Mr. Langan is not an authority in supernatural beings.

In my dopey opinion, he would have done better not attacking the theory of everything plus a bag of chips and instead should have endeavored to achieve a much smaller goal.

How can we know that he is not an authority on the subject? He has studied physics his whole life and his "brain-power" is larger than anyone´s on the planet....Are we really smart and mathematically gifted enough to understand his statement that it is mathematically possible to prove the existance of God and later disprove it?

This thread belongs in RGT.

He isn't smart enough (apparently) to solve any unsolved math problems... don't care that much about what he has to say about anything else.

I have my doubts that one can mathematically prove the existence of God. Mathmatics is the language which describes the universe. However there seems to me at least one glaring exception in the power of math to make models. While math can describe why electrons orbit the nucleus of atoms in specific intervals, it seems to fall short in the ability to describe intellect. Intellect on the other hand can describe math...so which is more fundamental?....mathematics or intellect?

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Einstein

Einstein talked about god a lot. He was a pretty smart guy.

True, didn´t think about that...I guess there are a lot people out there that are better at math than him, but he has the potential to become better than anyone else...isn´t that what IQ is all about? Understanding abstract reasoning faster?

Some stupid people are atheists some stupid people are muslims. Some smart people are jews some smart people are atheists. Is anyone surprised? No. No one is surprised.

As far as "195 blah blah he figured it out" ... no. Just no.

Maybe... but it's hard to believe that unless he does some math. I mean, there are people so good at math, it's hard to imagine somebody who you would say is smarter just cuz they are better at IQ tests

So, by this rationale, if the "smartest" person on the planet told you something that you didn't believe in, you would simply start believing in it?

Like, seriously?

No one, and I mean NO ONE on this earth garners that kind of respect from me. Not one. Not the pope, not the president, not Stephen Hawking or whoever the hell else you can come up with.

You make a statement, I'm going to think about/question it. How could I ever respect myself if I started blindly believing in *ANYTHING*?


Have some self-respect. I actually feel bad for you.

There's no legitimate IQ measure that goes anywhere near that high. We're talking about more than 6 standard deviations above the mean.

Langan is smart, but there are plenty of smart people around. That alone doesn't make his ideas worthwhile.

Hawking/Mlodinow paper/book came out tying QED with Quantum Mechanics as an explanation for why you don't need a "god" to light the blue touch paper to begin the universe. That made some sense to me.

The suggestion that there is a mathematical proof for a god sounds about as genuine as Fermat's boast in the edge of a book that he had a solution to the enigma he came up with, but there was just not room enough for it there in the margin to write out. Where is it or anything else from this guy?


Btw...I thought Maryln Vos Savant had scored well over 200 on some test at one point? I think she and Langan have had different results with a pretty good size range. I also put very little stock in IQ, and mine is several std dev above the mean, ffs the point of the section of the book OP cited was that the average IQ of Nobel Prize winners is 120 or so. No need for an existential crisis OP, I am sure you are plenty smart enough that any deficit you might have to him doesn't matter in any practical way.

The next guy to prove God must at least be able to turn water into orange juice with the power of his mind imo

calm down dude, you are making up stuff that I haven´t said. I did NOT say that I believe every single word he says - I actually wrote that I am an atheist and his conclusions seems like nonsense to me. However, when someone with that brainpower claims something this big it awakens my interest. I´m listening to what he has to say because I am very curious by nature, but that does not mean that I believe in what he is saying. Very big difference.
My point with this thread is to find out if his claims that it is mathematically possible to prove that we have souls and that God exists has any validity among other very smart mathematicans, that´s all.

/Still atheist

Is he religious or just believe in some concept of god?

Smart people are very good at defending bad ideas without really questioning the idea itself

It's a point of contention whether appeals to authority are a genuine class of fallacy but even if so the fallacy only exists in deductive form. It's perfectly reasonable from a handicapping point of view to expect someone with expertise to be more likely to arrive at a correct answer than someone without, which I think is all OP is suggesting.

Whether a high IQ really constitutes expertise when it comes to determining the existence/nature of god is, as you say, a whole other question. Has anyone been able to find his actual argument?

If mathematics can describe intellect then I would say there is a chance it could prove the necessity of God. However the real question IMO is what is more fundamental? Math or intellect? We don't even have to talk about God and probably shouldn't if we want to keep this thread in SMP.

He is a believer of creationism according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Langan. I wonder how much his upbringing and surroundings matters since most americans are believers...if he was brought up in Sweden where 90% are atheists - would he still come up with the same conclusion?

It was posted in another thread. I remember agreeing with it, but I don't believe in God, so some kind of equivocation had to be going on.

My general impression was "this is kind of obvious but doesn't actually say much."

That was just his starting argument, though - he's a terrible writer and took many paragraphs to get there, and I don't think anybody bothered to go further.

+1.

I didn´t read everything, and I have to admit that most of what I read is greek to me (and apperently to a lot of respected scientists): http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Q&A/Archive.html#CTMU

Disagreement by agreement.
I am in awe.

That, not what I get from the article. What part makes you think this?