|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 12:26:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Sincere? I sincerely perceived an attempt on your part to provoke a reaction, so I complied with your request. And you did provide clues, right on cue! |
The reaction I was hoping for was more along the lines of, "okay, religion isn't a matter of stupidity." I wasn't expecting anything like an outraged defense of your position, hence my expression of surprise.No fluke, just a sample that is totally invalid in both size and randomness to be of any value. Mensans are a tiny and very specific part of the the universe of high-intelligence humans.
I was using the word 'Mensa' as a handy alliterative companion to the word 'mentality' and intended it as simile. |
Your objection is only appropriate if you think that Mensans are not people "of high intelligence." If the generalization is that smart people aren't religious, then all it takes to falsify it is one smart person who is religious (just like it takes only a single black swan to debunk "all swans are white"). Small, non-random samplings are just fine for that.| So? I'm sure you or I could find no end of imbecile-savants who claim membership in various smart clubs. Again, individuals do not prove a population! |
No kidding, but they do disprove illegitimate generalizations.Well, Dave, I would like a lot more evidence on that lack of correlation. For example in the ineffable (and controversial) Wiki we find:| In 1986, the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine summarized studies on religiosity and intelligence.[9] In it Burnham Beckwith summarized 43 studies on religiosity and its relation with attributes that he considered were positively linked with intelligence: IQ, SAT scores, academic ability and other measures of overall "success". Although conceding that it was easy to find fault with the studies he reviewed, "for all were imperfect," he contended that the studies he examined, taken together, provided strong evidence for an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious faith in the United States. |
Again, the sample size is absurd, and the study can only be taken as indicative, if that. |
Beautiful. Criticize me for providing citations that are "totally invalid in... size," then go ahead and do so yourself.| I am not aware of any statistically sound investigations extant (at least any from the very important last 30 years) demonstrating a correlation, or lack thereof, between intelligence and religious conviction. |
If there is no evidence of a correlation, why would you assume that one exists? Until there is evidence of a correlation, I'm more than justified in concluding that there isn't one. Thank you for making my point for me.| Ever since Alfred Benet began investigation into the measurement of intelligence in the late 1800's, intelligence testing and definition have been highly controversial among mathematicians as well as social scientists. |
I'm well aware of that.| And the fact that a respondent might reply that he "was a Christian" does not begin to examine the conviction of his beliefs. |
What does it matter? Really, how is it relevant to what you said?| My view that intelligent people should not be religious is intuitive, and I'm afraid it's going to have to remain intuitive until some major research facility sees fit to properly study the subject. |
You keep going with your gut in determining who's smart and who's not based upon a criteria that you acknowledge to be flawed. In my opinion, intelligent people shouldn't do that. Shall I now question your intellectual depth, bngbuck?| At this point, I would like to challenge your Mensa level IQ to provide a definitive description of "wisdom", followed by a methodology to qualify and then quantify it. Once done, commission a competent study group to generate appropiate statistics. Then we could begin to intelligently examine correlations, rather than simply speculating. |
All we need is a single example of someone who is intelligent being unwise to dismiss the generalization that intelligence implies wisdom. Examples, however, abound.| Get your respect for what? |
You tell me, as you're the one who brought up the subject.| Being dumb enough to try and argue fundamentalist views with a group of Mensa-level, well educated, well-spoken anti-theists? Yes, those would get my respect for cojones diameter! |
79 years old, but still hasn't left the schoolyard.| Despite omniscient declarations to the contrary, until the elusive entity labeled wisdom is successfully quantified, correlation with anything will be largely subjective. This wiki is about as good as the other one, which I read in its entirety, coming to the conclusion that these wise books leave understanding of this subject to lie in the mind's eye of the seeker. I would imagine that a thorough reading of all the wiki references on "wisdom" would begin to provide a frame of reference as to how to properly use the word. |
Wow, massive over-analysis.| And if you don't want to answer my questions, just say so! |
I thought I did.| Invoking irrelevance" is simply a dodge. |
No, I was providing you with the reason I wasn't going to spend time answering your questions.| The goalposts are quite secure, although your view of them is a little bleary. Are you trying to say that The "rational person" I first alluded to is not of the same cat herd as the self-claiming "critical thinker" of my second reference? |
No, you failed to provide such details in your first post, and then got outraged that I didn't read your mind.| And which of these poor felines would you direct your approbation toward? |
Nice false dichotomy. Either I agree with you, or else I must approve of religion in some way.| The second, but not the first? |
Neither.It wouldn't.| The second one is, in fact, a perfect copycat of the first! |
That certainly wasn't clear from your first post.| The fact I used different descriptive terms does not affect the location of the end zones, the fifty yard line, or the goalposts! |
Nobody can read your mind, bngbuck. Surely you understand that under such a restriction, your choice of punctuation makes you appear rather hamishly distressed.| Am I to understand that as long as person does not convey unto himself the title "critical thinker", he is to be excused for his acceptance of religious nonsense? Really! |
All I said was that they're not stupid, but you go ahead and continue to fabricate positions for me.| It is good that you noted it. It means that you are listening! |
Well, this temper-tantrum you're throwing is certainly amusing. I can sorta see the rewards you got when you were baiting marfknox, for example.| Huh. The way I remember the story, Merlin is talking about a fish that got away, trying to teach Arthur that it's impossible to be the best in all things. God seems utterly irrelevant to that point. |
| As Merlin once said, "there's always someone better than yourself." |
Perhaps this is where you became confused about the movement of the goalposts. Do the two boldings above have the same meaning? It seems to me that Tiger Woods is probably a poor neurosurgeon, but he may well be the best golfer alive!
As originally worded, "there's always someone better than yourself", the statement is patently false as applied to the current (or all-time) proven best in any endeavor. It is also logically false, because if it was impossible to achieve top rank in any type of achievement, there would be no top rank and the entire concept of competitive comparison would fail! As Zeno could never reach his goal!
Your statement becomes true, however, for the Theist; as God is better than any one, indeed better than anything that is appropiate for a value ranking. And God would of course have to be better than the best of any human, who was better than you as third, fourth, or xth next best.
The completely different second statement, "It's impossible to be best in all things", is, obviously, true. It in no way conveys the same meaning as the first, however. |
I apologize, bngbuck, for assuming that you, an obviously widely-read person, would be familiar with this particular story. But you could have just said so, instead of giving it some meaning which it never had. Tiger Woods not being a neurosurgeon is exactly the meaning that Merlin intended. He was bested by a fish, not by a god.| Is it now your contention that this hypothetical "otherwise rational individual capable of expressing sensible thought about any subject" who expresses some religious belief is actually nothing more than a stupid person with pretentions to intelligence? If so, you are far worse off than I'd imagined possible |
Well, that is an interesting conflation of my two expressions. Your use of selective generalization is cunning, at least - "stupid person" does indeed convey a person stupid in all things, unless read in the context of an otherwise rational person stupidly defending the indefensible. |
And now you add still more detail that was absent from your original statement: "defending the indefensible." And the meaning you've applied to "stupid person" was the one your earlier post seemed to intend - you are the one who spoke generally of re-assessing a person's "intellectual depth" based upon the single criteria."With pretensions to intelligence" or "attempting to present themselves as smart" would appear defamatory out of the context of a self-proclaimed "critical thinker" representing the dogma of Catholicism as intellectually viable.
An example might be:
"The eminently sensible and rational Bishop Fulton J. Sheen could weave a engaging and apparently irresistable persuasion to the Faith, and burnish his image as a brilliant thinker; until his imperious presentation of Catholic dogma clearly showed his pretensions to intelligence to be false, and insulting to those capable of discerning real intellect. This public icon was stupid to offend the reasoning sensibilities of people who might otherwise have accepted much of his message. Consequently, most of his life, he was preaching to the choir."
From Perception, Illustrated
(Provisional Title) |
And now more details only available to the reader from within your own mind, at first.| Thankfully, it turns out that I am just slightly worse off than you had imagined possible. As always, you need to hone your imagination! |
Yes, it seems that I was forced to imagine all sorts of things you didn't say in order to be able to correctly determine your intended meaning. If that's the sort of thing that counts as imagination for you, then I will happily admit to being unimaginitive. Although I'd be happier with James Randi's million dollars in hand, which such imagination - were anyone to have it - would easily win. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 12:39:51 [Permalink]
|
Bngbuck:
It bothers me a lot, because every time I encounter an otherwise rational individual capable of expressing sensible thought about any subject; and then discover that he/she does, in fact, have a theistic conviction of some sort, I find myself rapidly reassessing their intellectual depth!
I mean, these adult folks have to be at least ignorant, if not downright stupid, if they can't or won't dismiss the misinformation they were taught as children. |
Henry L. Mencken:
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is
simple, neat, and wrong. |
It would be nice if religiosity were simply a matter of intelligence. But I have seen nothing to support that, outside of the stupid anti-science and theocratic screeds by fundamentalists. But then, fundamentalists (of any stripe) usually do not represent the majority view of those who have faith based beliefs of the religious kind.
I have seen a study, (and I wish I could find it) that I posted it here, that suggests that levels of non-belief correlate with the well being (happiness) of people in different countries. For example, Sweden has a larger number of atheist's per-capita than the US has. Not worrying about such things as healthcare or whether one might become homeless tomorrow has tended to lessen their populations dependence on faith to address feelings of insecurity and lack of control about their future.
There are also studies being conducted in the area of neuroscience and religiosity, and how we might be hard wired to believe. Are there, or were there any evolutionary survival benefits to holding some irrational beliefs? And if it turns out that there were, are we now stuck with the neurological artifacts of something that once helped us to survive, like vestigial organs that still have some function?
It seems to me that it's conveniently simplistic to hit all of those who have a belief in God over the head with rational thought as though it's just a matter of seeing things correctly. Also, could it be that one of the questions we should be asking is how some of us managed to escape magical thinking in spite of our natural tendencies? Are some of us predisposed to, for whatever reason, genetic or otherwise, not believe? I doubt that it all comes down to intelligence. I have known some pretty stupid atheists.
This being a legitimate area of scientific inquiry, I guess I am just not ready to throw a dunce cap on all believers and make them sit in the corner yet. And I am certainly not willing to call friends of mine who happen to have what I think is a blind spot stupid.
Here is a nice article on the subject:
Darwin's God
Lost in the hullabaloo over the neo-atheists is a quieter and potentially more illuminating debate. It is taking place not between science and religion but within science itself, specifically among the scientists studying the evolution of religion. These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history. What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved, whether it was because belief itself was adaptive or because it was just an evolutionary byproduct, a mere consequence of some other adaptation in the evolution of the human brain.
Which is the better biological explanation for a belief in God — evolutionary adaptation or neurological accident? Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity? And if scientists a |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 12/03/2007 : 13:56:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| If there is no God then why does any of this matter? My indoctrinated children will die in 70-80 years which is but a moment since time began. Also one day everything will be gone. So what does it matter if a child does not grow up to be the intelectual they were supposed to be? |
Religious debate tactic #133: When all else fails, state that the atheist shouldn't care because to him, existence is meaningless.
|
So please answer the question. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2007 : 17:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Ricky
| If there is no God then why does any of this matter? My indoctrinated children will die in 70-80 years which is but a moment since time began. Also one day everything will be gone. So what does it matter if a child does not grow up to be the intelectual they were supposed to be? |
Religious debate tactic #133: When all else fails, state that the atheist shouldn't care because to him, existence is meaningless.
|
So please answer the question.
|
I am only answering for myself.
My existence is most likely meaningless cosmically speaking. However, if this life is the only one I get, which I strongly suspect to be the case, as I have seen no good evidence to the contrary, it means that it's all I get and up to me to impart meaning to it.
I would find one of the popular alternatives to be more meaningless. If this life, as I understand it, were little more than an entrance exam for some eternal other-life which we have no clear comprehension of, it's meaning would be all but entirely diminished.
Why must something endure indefinitely to have meaning?
I deliberately typed all of the above knowing that far more eloquent answers were only a few keystrokes away. I'll add some links below shortly, at the risk (OK, certainty) of making my own comments seem incomplete and poorly written. It does however, also help to point out that the "meaning" of life is not and should not be the same for everyone.
Edited to add the following, even after Ricky's response, seeing as I'd already dug them up! I do understand your point though, Ricky.
A few semi-random links and quotes I've dug up are below. Alternatively, just google atheist response "life is meaningless" or something along those lines.
Richard Dawkins, from "Unweaving the Rainbow"
We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. |
Homer Simpson, telling what religion the family belongs to
You know, the one with all the well-meaning rules that don't work in real life -- uh, Christianity. |
Responses to "If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold" from various individuals. Some very good responses here.
Positive Atheism's Big List of Quotations
An Athiest at Virgina Tech's response.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 12/03/2007 18:38:21 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2007 : 17:58:52 [Permalink]
|
John, your answer is incorrect. This has nothing to do with your answer, but just the fact that you answered.
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Ricky
| If there is no God then why does any of this matter? My indoctrinated children will die in 70-80 years which is but a moment since time began. Also one day everything will be gone. So what does it matter if a child does not grow up to be the intelectual they were supposed to be? |
Religious debate tactic #133: When all else fails, state that the atheist shouldn't care because to him, existence is meaningless.
|
So please answer the question.
|
We were talking about Sunday school, and the evil atheists programming and brainwashing their children into becoming baby eaters themselves (yes, that was hyperbole, just for laughs). Then you, Robb, posted the above. Now why you wish to side track your original topic, I can come up with a variety of theories, although there is only one which I would personally bet on. However, the fact is that you, whether intentionally or not, hijacked your own topic and are now trying to make it into a discussion about the meaning of existence. This is a red herring, and it's one that can be used in any situation. Sorry, but this dog didn't follow the scent. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 12/03/2007 17:59:16 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2007 : 20:32:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
If there is no God then why does any of this matter?
|
So, in your opinion, life is meaningless without a belief in God. And since this belief is so firmly held by you, and so many people, it is important to instill the same in your children. Perhaps all children. We must ensure that we "give them all the answers they need".
Originally posted by Robb
My indoctrinated children will die in 70-80 years which is but a moment since time began. Also one day everything will be gone. So what does it matter if a child does not grow up to be the intelectual they were supposed to be?
|
Instill the thrill of discovery with wide eyed enthusiasm perhaps evolving into a lifelong adventure of learning. The excitement of knowing and understanding just a bit more today than you did yesterday. Enabling your children to be greater than yourself, to discover the answers that support a meaningful life. What better legacy for a parent.
With or without a god belief this life is good. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2007 : 20:58:04 [Permalink]
|
My local atheist group here in Austin has a good FAQ on being godless in one's life. Here they address the 'Atheists-must-be-living-empty-lives-without-a-god' type deal...
http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/#empty_lives |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2007 : 00:44:42 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| The reaction I was hoping for was more along the lines of, "okay, religion isn't a matter of stupidity." I wasn't expecting anything like an outraged defense of your position, hence my expression of surprise. |
Outraged? No, Defense? No, Statement?, Yes!| Your objection is only appropriate if you think that Mensans are not people "of high intelligence." If the generalization is that smart people aren't religious, then all it takes to falsify it is one smart person who is religious (just like it takes only a single black swan to debunk "all swans are white"). Small, non-random samplings are just fine for that. |
Dave, I did not state that "all smart people aren't religious."
If you simply change the beginning of your partial syllogism from the universal affirmative to the particular affirmative, you can put all the Black Swans that you want into the Lake, confounding Siegfried with multiple Odiles, but in no way negating the initial predicate.
I typically don't structure my discourse into hypernym and hyponym. It is too restrictive to the form of challenge and response to allow for sufficient freedom of expression - 'discursive license', if you will - as used extensively and well by many members of these forums. Yourself, particularly. If it is your wish to dissect an entire post and reform it into term logic structure, I will be pleased to accomodate you. But that concept is in no way consonant with sampling statistics, which is what you are suggesting when you speak with authority of "correlations" between the characteristics and convictions of a specific population of humans.
I did say, and this was the question and intent of my post:
| So how explain these apparent anomalies? The scientist, the thinker, the educated, informed, accomplished intellectual who remains burdened with the albatross of religious belief, inevitably leading to contradiction with reality in many areas of endeavor? |
Anomalies here would mean exceptions to a situation of all intelligent people being irreligious!
This statement does not make sense:| Small, non-random samplings are just fine for that. |
"Just fine" for what? Disproving the generalization that smart people aren't religious? Dave, please, it is impossible to make any statistically valid generalization as to the correlation or lack of correlation between intelligence and religiosity in a large population such as "smart people", without reference to properly conducted large random sample statistical studies. All other statements are speculative! Yours, mine, anyone's! I have clearly stated elsewhere that "I had concerns" or "I felt..." or "It appears..." I have refrained from positing opinion as fact.
You stated:| Intelligence has never correlated well with irreligiousity. |
....as though this was a well proven fact of some sort. It emphatically is not! That statement is your opinion, which is fine and worthy of discussion, but should be stated in some form such as "I feel that...., Or "It is my view....."
In order to correlate (or to show inverse correlation) between religious conviction, or belief in God, and intelligence; would require a study involving sampling statistics. It would have to go like this:
1. Define the universe or population of "intelligent people"
All individuals with Stanford-Binet5, or Wechsler WAIS III scores of 130 or higher (Just an example. Mensa's threshold is 135 )
2. Mathematically derive a sample size based on the population size as estimated or actually counted. Strive for an accuracy level exceeding two standard deviations, which should translate into an error margin of + or - three to five percentage points.
Probably in a range of 1 to 3 thousand sample targets (large sample, as the population likely exceeds six figures) (Estimate)
3. Identify individual sample targets by random selection (by the use of a random number generator)
Locate the individual respondents (Difficult)
4. Create questionaire of religious affiliaton and belief questions.
What is your religious affiliation, Do you believe in God?, etc. (wording is crucial)
5. Interview ALL sample targets possible to contact.
Minimum of 3 tries per respondent (Keep substitution to a minimum)
6. Collate, categorize and publish comparative data.
Results in the form of tentative correlation data between religiosity and intelligence.
At this point, one would have reasonably dependable data on what "Intelligent People" as defined above, say to interviewers about their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Tentative conclusions regarding correlation or lack thereof between intelligence and religiosity could be drawn. Then the entire procedure has to be repeated with reworded questions on the same subject and a new sample. . And again!
Note: An actual survey of this subject would be extremely difficult to perform, due to the difficulties of identifying the population (administer how many IQ tests?), actually contacting and obtaining response from thousands of totally specified individuals, and uncertainty as to accuracy of reply to highly personal questions.
Consider it a hypothetical textbook example demonstrating correct methodology.
A small, non-random sample is worthless as a tool in determining valid generalizations about large populations. A rule of thumb in the statistical sampling industry (polls) is 'if it's too small to sample, count it!' | No kidding, but they do disprove illegitimate generalizations. |
They prove or disprove absolutely nothing in any legitimate attempt to define a possible correlation!
Trust me on this, Dave! I spent several years concomitant with graduate school working in the private sector for a Denver company called Research Services Inc. We were the contracted agent of the Denver Post for political surveys. I learned the basics from the ground up! After my graduate school draft deferment expired, I went into the Army and spent three more years at the Pentagon's Office of Armed Forces Information and Education. I designed, initiated and conducted a number of studies of servicemen's attitudes concerning a wide variety of subjects. I taught sampling statistics at Georgetown University nights, for over a year during this period. I am not a menber of Mensa, but I do know something about this subject!
I'm off to bed, bad weather, bad head cold. Join you tomorrow to respond to all the sniping in the rest of your post! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2007 : 07:14:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Outraged? No, Defense? No, Statement?, Yes! |
Your response read as outraged. Your second response as well. This latest one flows with self-righteous snobbiness.| A small, non-random sample is worthless as a tool in determining valid generalizations about large populations. |
Yes, I know.
You're the one who's created a generalization strong enough that when someone you think of as an intelligent person admits to being religious, you conclude that the person is an "anomaly" and you think about re-assessing their "intellectual depth."
Yet such a correlation is weak enough that the only evidence in its favor that you can find is, you admit, flawed at best. And then you lecture me on what would be required to generate data good enough to show the correlation that you already think exists.
It's great that you "know something about" finding statistical correlations, but I really think you should put your knowledge to use instead of ignoring it at you appear to be. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 15:56:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Humbert.....
Your quote, my bolding.....| Not if you're an immoral politician pandering to an intellectually impoverished Christian demographic that likes to think of itself as "oppressed" and which is desperately seeking..... |
As we didn't hear from you in a recent Religion topic, and your comment above is part of the warp and woof of that thread, I would be pleased to hear an expansion of your view of the general intelligence level of Christians in general - the "Christian demographic" as you succinctly put it.
Briefly, I don't understand the fairly frequent contradiction found in public and private life, of a well educated, literate, erudite person who professes a deep and abiding religious faith. I stated that I found myself questioning that person's intelligence, despite evidence to the contrary. Very strong exception to this incredulity of mine was expressed, together with some nonsense statements about supposed "correlations", one way or the other, between intelligence and religiosity.
Humbert, you speak well on many issues. What is your view on this topic?
|
Replying here.
Well, intelligence is obviously one factor in religiosity. It's a proven fact that atheists tend to be more educated than theists, and that scientists are more apt to be atheists than the general public. But these are only generalities, and exceptions to the rule can always be found. Very intelligent people can become quite fervently religious, so I agree with most of the other skeptics here that it isn't a cut and dry issue.
Rather, I would say that all religious arguments are stupid. I've yet to hear a justification for religious belief that didn't strain credibility or draw conclusions beyond what was warranted. So the questions then becomes: How can intelligent people be sucked in by bad arguments? And that comes down to human psychology--because they want to be. Read my signature. "A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true, he generally believes to be true." And that is most true in religion. Smart religious people didn't become religious through intelligent study, they became religious first and then used their intelligence to rationalize their faith.
Michael Shermer has an article that investigates this phenomenon titled, aptly enough, "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things". His basic conclusion is "smart" isn't the same thing as "critical thinker," and that many times intelligent people fall prey to a sort of fatal arrogance that blinds them to their own faults, and leads them to trust their own judgments beyond their individual areas of expertise. Additionally, intelligent people are more creative and skilled in the ways they defend their presumptions. So as contrary as it sounds, intelligence can become an impediment to skeptical thinking.
That said, the vast majority of religious people I've met are quite shallow thinkers. They consistently demonstrate an inability to be critical of their own positions, and ignore any evidence or arguments which contradict their predetermined positions. While not all of them have been stupid individuals, I can say that stupidity was certainly prevalent. One doesn't need to be a moron to be religious, but it helps.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 18:43:13 [Permalink]
|
I find Martin Gardner's opinion of God intersting.
While critical of organized religions, Gardner believes in God, claiming that this belief cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by reason. At the same time, he is skeptical of claims that God has communicated with human beings through spoken or telepathic revelation or through miracles in the natural world.
|
Particularly this quote from How We Believe (p9) also by Michael Shermer
"As a fideist I don't think there are any arguments that prove the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Even morethan that, I agree with Unamuno that the atheists have the better arguments. So it is a case of quixotic emotional belief that is really against the evidence and against the odds." Credo consolans, I believe because it is consoling.
|
I can think of no better answer. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 19:33:34 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: | If there is no God then why does any of this matter? My indoctrinated children will die in 70-80 years which is but a moment since time began. Also one day everything will be gone. So what does it matter if a child does not grow up to be the intelectual they were supposed to be? |
Why would I use human smallness in its relationship to all of time and existence to asess the meaning and value and quality of my life or the life of any other human being? You want an answer to this specific question, the answer is: because we value intellectual potential. We think it is one of the coolest hallmarks of being human, and in general tends to be more beneficial than harmful to both the individual and those around them.
You know, Robb, my life might be a totally insignificant speck in the grand scheme of the natural world, but it is everything to me. I also happen to be a pretty important part of other peoples' lives. And my life obviously includes those I love, including children I might raise. What the hell is this silliness of pitting measurements of time against human experiences, such as curiosity, discovery, creativity, and love? How are these things diminished by the briefness of our lives when matched up against all time? Is a butterfly or rose blossom any less beautiful because they will quickly perish?
Also, why would God make my life more meaningful? The Christian God is always described as a separate entity from individual humans. We are our own beings with our own separate minds, so why would the meaining God puts on our lives be more significant than the meaning we put on our own lives? If there is such a deity, why would He give humans separate minds if He didn't want them to think for themselves and create their own meaning for their lives? I know a lot of the theological answers posed by various groups of Christians, and frankly, I find most of them characterizing a simple-minded slave religion. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/14/2007 19:34:03 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 19:45:06 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: | I agree, but are they also teaching that critical thinking will give them all the answers they need? |
Did you read the article? From it: | In most ways a traditional sleep-away camp--her son loved canoeing--Camp Quest also taught Damian critical thinking, world religions and tales of famous freethinkers (an umbrella term for atheists, agnostics and other rationalists) like the black abolitionist Frederick Douglass. |
Critical thinking is listed here with other topics - world religions and profiles of admirable historical figures, including humanitarians. I was a counselor at Camp Quest for two summers. I did teach critical thinking workshops on evolution and the Bible, but I also taught woodburning, environmental ethics, and participated in a talent show.
I know people who run that Humanist Community in CA. It is indeed a fully fleshed-out community. One of the best organized local Humanist communities in the country. They meet every week and have a whole variety of events to serve the various needs of individuals in the community, from intellectual lectures, to personal sharing time, to this "Sunday school" for kids. Obviously more than just critical thinking is promoted by this organization. Critical thinking is essential to the Humanist worldview, but so is compassion, ethics, and putting human quality of life as a top priority.
If you are going to criticize a group of people, maybe you should know what you are talking about first. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/14/2007 19:45:27 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2007 : 00:48:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
"As a fideist I don't think there are any arguments that prove the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Even morethan that, I agree with Unamuno that the atheists have the better arguments. So it is a case of quixotic emotional belief that is really against the evidence and against the odds." Credo consolans, I believe because it is consoling.
|
I can think of no better answer.
|
Seriously? Because I can. The best answer is the truth, and the second best answer is the truth as close as we can approximate it. I believe what the facts allow me to believe and reject consoling fiction.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2007 : 01:18:03 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Having survived nearly a week of hospital food, I return to find something more tasty which I had left forgotten and undigested, to wit:| Your response read as outraged. Your second response as well. This latest one flows with self-righteous snobbiness. |
Accuracy demands that you restate the above prefaced by "to me..." or its equivilant. Your implicit assumption that all readers of your highly presumptive statement reacted with the same affect that you experienced, is unfounded; and I fear, would be difficult to substantiate.A small, non-random sample is worthless as a tool in determining valid generalizations about large populations.
Yes, I know. |
If you know, why did you write this patent nonsense?:| Small, non-random samplings are just fine for that. |
| You're the one who's created a generalization strong enough that when someone you think of as an intelligent person admits to being religious, you conclude that the person is an "anomaly" and you think about re-assessing their "intellectual depth." |
My exact words were:| So how explain these apparent anomalies? |
and | It bothers me a lot, because every time I encounter an otherwise rational individual capable of expressing sensible thought about any subject; and then discover that he/she does, in fact, have a theistic conviction of some sort, I find myself rapidly reassessing their intellectual depth! I mean, these adult folks have to be at least ignorant, if not downright stupid, if they can't or won't dismiss the misinformation they were taught as children. |
These are strong generalizations? I used five qualifiers to emphasize the lack of certitude of my position! Did you miss them? And how in the name of Critical Thinking did you arrive at a "conclusion" from my starkly tentative statements?| Yet such a correlation is weak enough that the only evidence in its favor that you can find is, you admit, flawed at best. |
I stated:| But any child, of "Sunday School" age is very likely going to end up deeply indoctrinated with what they are consistently taught before the age of reason - which can be anywhere from 4-5 to the late teens. And because the human mind typically does a mediocre job of separating emotional fantasy from rational fact, some very bright and intellectually capable people end up in their adulthood with preposterous religious convictions |
which certainly declares with little ambivilance that I do not entertain a notion of an innate "correlation" between religiosity and intelligence, which would define most of that population! I not only never spoke to a possible correlation, I searched for and quoted an attempt at "correlation" as weak as your Mensa example was, to further demonstrate that I did not see that any correlation, or lack of, had ever been demonstrated! My question was: Why do some obviously bright folks carry dumb baggage into adulthood? Humbert's link to Michael Shermer speaks well to that question.| And then you lecture me on what would be required to generate data good enough to show the correlation that you already think exists. |
I lectured you on a subject that you had demonstrated abject ignorance of - sampling statistics. I would hope that you do not again confuse this reasonably reliable method of enquiry into the probabilities of empirical reality with the absolutes of Boolean algebra!| It's great that you "know something about" finding statistical correlations, but I really think you should put your knowledge to use instead of ignoring it at you appear to be. |
Dave, as I clearly stated, I spent seven years of my life putting that high level skill to very productive use.
Our Denver Post surveys never had one failure in predicting election results within 3 percentage points during the years that I constructed the sampling matrix. And my work for the Army resulted, among other things, in the cancellation of an expensive Armed Forces frill called the Newsmap - which one of my surveys proved less than 10% of servicemen read. Cancellation saved the Government over two and a quarter million dollars a year. I think that was quite useful! It was a hell of a lot more money than they paid me, I'll tell you!
When I left the service, I moved on to making some money, long before political polling reached the level it is today, a highly profitable industry that pays its practicioners well. I have no financial need nor intellectual interest to return to that work today, although I certainly have the capability. You know, a guy has to retire sometime! I did about thirty years ago.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Sunday School
