3 of 7
3
Intelligence & Religiosity
Posted: 12 October 2006 07:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  64
Joined  2006-10-11

If your experience was the rule, religious cultures would have emerged from rational cultures, not the opposite as history clearly records.

Since we’re talking about history, what specific cultures are you talking about and when did they emerge?

Again, you can see this ongoing perceptual development all around you, though perhaps you have to be rational thinker to perceive it, regardless of mental acuity. If valid perspectives cease for you at mythic, its unlikely you’ll recognize rational perception in its more subtle forms.

In other words, this is a reality which may be invisible to those who aren’t rational enough to perceive it?  Seems very Emperor’s New Clothes, doesn’t it?

We are two very good tailors and after many years of research we have invented an extraordinary method to weave a cloth so light and fine that it looks invisible. As a matter of fact it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality.

Though your posting here is proof you partake of the poison fruits of intellectually vigorous rational thinking.

LOL.  I’ll believe that when I see it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2006 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  331
Joined  2006-10-10

[quote author=“unsmoked”]Cud = Quid

Aside from the meaning of the English word “cud”, there is also the issue of the original word (whatever it was) which was translated into “cud”, which (in the original) might mean “cud, plus some other things which aren’t quite cud, but are close enough for some purposes”.

Similarly, the Japanese word “ao” can mean both “blue” and “green”. (There are other ways to distinguish between blue and green, but “ao” covers both.) If you had a Japanese text talking about the “ao”-ness of the summer sky, blueberries, sapphires, grass, and bluebirds, you’d probably want to translate “ao” as blue—the resulting translation would end up calling grass “blue”, but it doesn’t follow from this that the original text said something false. (And the translator might want to make a footnote about this linguistic issue, which some bibles probably do.)

There are some accusations of errors in the bible that you might be able to get some mileage out of, but this isn’t one of them. (The bit where bats are classified as “birds” is a similarly silly place to accuse the bible of being in error.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2006 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  766
Joined  2006-02-20

Jeremy wrote:

I find your speculation agreeable, and likely to be the case.

Is this forum a place for consideration of intelligence and its role in religious thinking? Or does the immediate polarization of even the title of this thread make it harder to get, um, rational discourse underway?

Hello, Jeremy. Thank you for the response. I think this forum is an appropriate place for considering intelligence and its role in religious thinking. It wouldn’t hurt to consider education’s role too, on the theory that stupid is forever but ignorant is curable. I think it was Richard Dawkin’s who said that Darwin’s work made it possible for the first time to be “an intellectually satisfied atheist.” I admit in that context that <gasp> I think people who grasp evolutionary theory and are atheists have better information than the devout, relying chiefly on church teachings. It’s a matter of preferring to learn the history of life on Earth from the rocks and genes rather than the scriptures and clerics. My hunch is that the more intelligent three-quarters of the population is fully capable intellectually of grasping enough biology and geology to see this. I don’t know of any way of improving someone’s native intelligence. That sounds like a contradiction in terms. We know how to improve people’s education maybe, in spite of obstacles set up by educational bureaucracies and an anti-intellectual society.

(I’m happy personally to oppose those intellectuals who see themselves as Plato’s Philosopher Kings, qualified to command the rest of society, but that’s another subject.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2006 08:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  331
Joined  2006-10-10

[quote author=“Jeremy Roush”]If your experience was the rule, religious cultures would have emerged from rational cultures, not the opposite as history clearly records.

Scientology?

Really, though, what are these “rational cultures”, and where does one find them? One might say that there are cultures that are becoming rational—Kant said he did not live in an enlightened age, but perhaps an age of enlightenment, and that still seems to be roughly true (plus or minus a few steps backwards here and there). The enlightenment hasn’t produced much in the way of new religions (unless you count science fiction stories like Scientology and Mormonism), but one might think it has produced more enlightened forms of old religions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 05:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“Climacus”]one might think it has produced more enlightened forms of old religions.

... enlightened by what, exactly? not by religion, surely?

[quote author=“Ted Shepherd”]I don’t know of any way of improving someone’s native intelligence. That sounds like a contradiction in terms. We know how to improve people’s education maybe, in spite of obstacles set up by educational bureaucracies and an anti-intellectual society.

This only requires a sufficiently restricted definition of intelligence (one, I might add, that I am probably only too happy to adopt.) In longitudinal studies of individual intelligence metrics, do individuals always score consistently, within error? It’s not a rhetorical question.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 05:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2006-10-11

[quote author=“cpl”]Since we’re talking about history, what specific cultures are you talking about and when did they emerge?

Hmm, ok.
From:  

The Age of Enlightenment refers to either the eighteenth century in European philosophy, or the longer period including the seventeenth century and the Age of Reason. It can more narrowly refer to the historical intellectual movement The Enlightenment, which advocated Reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and logic, which, they supposed, would allow human beings to obtain objective truth about the universe. Emboldened by the revolution in physics commenced by Newtonian kinematics, Enlightenment thinkers argued that the same kind of systematic thinking could apply to all forms of human activity.

Try harder to prove we still live in a mythic perspective culture. Their are still plenty of mythic thinkers, but they aren’t in control anymore. They slow down progress, but they aren’t in control the way they used to be.

In other words, this is a reality which may be invisible to those who aren’t rational enough to perceive it?  Seems very Emperor’s New Clothes, doesn’t it?

No, you directly experience the phenomena of not being able to perceive more evolved perspectives: human children do not from birth see the world as their parents do, and it is the job of the parent to develop their children’s perspective. Parents are not able to assist in this development beyond their own level of awareness, and many parents attempt to restrict development that would appear to be “outside” their own ideas of truth. However, many children are able to continue their growth due to cultural influences, resulting in many young people with very different ideas on what is real than their parents.

Link:  

Though your posting here is proof you partake of the poison fruits of intellectually vigorous rational thinking.

LOL. I’ll believe that when I see it.

Got a link for that mythic-perspective computer you’re using to type your words? My computer is the result of many long years of rational effort to understand the physical universe down to the atoms and electrons.

Modern mythic thinkers like yourself would have been burned alive at the stake in some not-so distant times. You gobble the fruits of the rational mind, gorging yourself fat on knowledge generated by some of the rational minds humanity has yet to produce.

[ Edited: 13 October 2006 06:04 AM by ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 05:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“Jeremy Roush”]My computer is the result of many long years of rational effort to understand the physical universe down to the atoms and elections.

I know this is a typo Jeremy, but I just can’t help seeing it as a freudian slip about touch screen voting. smile

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 06:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2006-10-11

[quote author=“Climacus”] what are these “rational cultures”, and where does one find them?

A culture is not simply a single group within single political boundary. You can see that you are directly enmeshed within rational culture if you have the skills and resources needed to use a computer. No other kind of culture can create and maintain the incredibly complex infrastructure needed to create and support a single computer, let alone a world-wide network of computers, and to offer the education needed to understand how to use computers.

The rational culture is a world-wide culture overlaying all previously existing cultures. As we see in this forum, plenty of mythic perspective thinkers take advantage of the fruits of the rational culture they are enmeshed within. They amusingly resist the larger perspective of rational thinking while greedily sucking down the fruits of that perspective. Its this systematic duplicitousness that guarantees their eventual diminishment in to irrelevance. If they don’t destroy us all in one last effort squeeze their eyes tight against the light. smile

[ Edited: 13 October 2006 06:05 AM by ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 06:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2006-10-11

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“Jeremy Roush”]My computer is the result of many long years of rational effort to understand the physical universe down to the atoms and elections.

I know this is a typo Jeremy, but I just can’t help seeing it as a freudian slip about touch screen voting. smile

HAH, yes indeed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 06:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“Jeremy Roush”]systematic duplicitousness

A nice synonym for “religion”. More yummy syllables, but packing a real punch. I like “duplicity”. But it does have one less syllable.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 06:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  766
Joined  2006-02-20

Salty wrote:

In longitudinal studies of individual intelligence metrics, do individuals always score consistently, within error? It’s not a rhetorical question.

As I recall, retesting someone’s IQ typically produces a new score within just a few points of the original score. (This site verifies my recollection: http://www.clsphila.org/abc_for_advocates_files/abc_POMS_Psych_Tests.htm
under the heading Validity of Repeated IQ Testing Results. The result there says that my vague expression “a few points ” is actually three points.)

http://college.hmco.com/psychology/bernstein/psychology/6e/students/chapter_outlines/ch10.html

# How Reliable Are IQ Tests? IQ tests usually provide consistent results. However, test-retest reliability can be low if the initial testing is done prior to seven years of age. The testing conditions and the person’s motivation when taking the test can also affect results.

That site also has this:

IQ Scores as a Measure of Innate Ability
The influences of heredity and the environment interact to produce intelligence. Correlational studies with twins suggest that heredity influences the development of IQ. However, the environment also exerts a strong influence on IQ. Previously underprivileged children placed in homes that provide an enriching intellectual environment have shown moderate but consistent increases in IQ. And children placed in enrichment programs show improved health, academic achievements, and intellectual skills.

If that is so, then I have to modify my earlier assertion that stupid is forever. Maybe if we catch it early enough, some remediation is possible.

http://giqtest.com/testapp/html/about.html

Can I improve my score on IQ tests?
Absolutely. Many of the sections on modern IQ tests have low ‘retest reliability’. What this means in layman’s terms is that many of the types of problems on IQ tests are trainable. It is possible to train for, and improve your score on, a clinically proctored IQ test.

In so far as people can improve their scores on an IQ test by training of some sort, the IQ test measures learning rather than innate intelligence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 07:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“Ted Shepherd”]Maybe if we catch it early enough, some remediation is possible.

This is key, even if it is not a guarantee. It’s a shot. Take the shot.

Albert Einstein said “Imagination is more important than knowledge”, but we know where he was coming from.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 07:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  985
Joined  2005-12-16

If that is so, then I have to modify my earlier assertion that stupid is forever. Maybe if we catch it early enough, some remediation is possible.

Proper nutrition is more important than we give it credit for. Do you remeber “Supersize me”? And it is not only behavioral problems in schoolchildren that can be corrected with healthy nutrition.

T.O.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 07:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  64
Joined  2006-10-11

Boy am I having a hard time following your train of thought, JR.

The best line ever:

Their(sic) are still plenty of mythic thinkers, but they aren’t in control anymore.

That’s just flippin’ hysterical! LOL  We live in an age where the “leader of the free world” can claim that he’s in office because of “god’s will” and you believe that “they aren’t in control anymore.”  Take a look around, my friend, culture today has cooler tools but it’s no more rational than during the Middle Ages.

So long as people believe that they were “put here for a reason,” we live in a mythic culture.  By the way, if you poll the question “have human beings been put here for a reason” I’m betting that a high percentage people who identify themselves as a-religious will say “yes.”  They’ve abandoned the cosmology of formal religions, but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t filled the void with their own nonsense.

...human children do not from birth see the world as their parents do, and it is the job of the parent to develop their children’s perspective.

True, but opposite to the point you made earlier, which was that the lid was always on and nothing gets in or out.

Got a link for that mythic-perspective computer you’re using to type your words?

The fact that Al-Queda uses computers doesn’t make theirs a rational culture, does it?.  In North Korea, the latest entry to the nuclear club, Kim Jong Il’s position is akin to that of the Pharoes right down to the oversized monuments to himself.  Is North Korea’s a “rational culture” just because they have computers and the bomb?  I don’t think so…

Modern mythic thinkers like yourself would have been burned alive at the stake in some not-so distant times.

Like me?  LOL.  When did the refusal to admit facts not in evidence become “mythic?”  I’ve always thought it quite rational.

Oh, wait…you’ve posted some more:

You can see that you are directly enmeshed within rational culture if you have the skills and resources needed to use a computer.

The notion that Al Queda is a rational culture, that North Korea is a rational culture, that India is a rational culture, that the United States is a rational culture, all because they can use the latest tools defies logic.

The rational culture is a world-wide culture overlaying all previously existing cultures.

  NOW I get it!  You really do believe that Al Queda is “rational culture” because of the technology they use.  Why “rational culture” IS technology!  So the term “culture” no longer refers to “the customs, social instutions, arts and achievements of a particular people or social group,” in your useage it means “anyone who uses a specific technology.”

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.’

You’re the master, JR.  :wink:  Enjoy!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2006 08:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.’

Now we can see where you’re coming from, cpl. It may fly in Wonderland, but in the long run, it won’t fly here on earth.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed