The Instigator
Sagey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJK
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Extreme Religious Fundamentalists Are The Least Intelligent Humans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MrJK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,409 times Debate No: 39051
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

Sagey

Pro

Once upon a time: We had these marvelous tests that for some confirmed that they were indeed above everybody else and were exalted as the elite, they even created clubs for these elite so they could gather and snub their noses at all the lowly common people.
These were the IQ tests. Remember them, I bet you all do?!?!

Their entire basis and conceptualization was entirely wrong and fictitious.
Psychology and normal everyday Sociology studies has revealed that IQ testing is not really the measure of Intelligence that they conceived it to be.
Such clubs as: High IQ Society, Mensa International, Prometheus Society and the Triple Nine Society, indeed have it all Wrong.

IQ may assist in Intelligence or cleverness, but it is not really a good measure of Intelligence. Because high IQ people can still believe in stupid concepts and do extremely stupid acts.

It has indeed been found that a better measure of a person's Intelligence is their Rationality, or ability to consider a set of circumstances rationally and devise a rational outcome.
A rational outcome should be: The best possible outcome when considering all the aspects of the case, concerning, safety, consideration of those involved, primary goals and future ramifications.

A person who can produce such an outcome, needs to have completely rational judgement, without corrupting influences from cognitive factors that may reduce the effectiveness of their thinking in any of those aspects, or as is now being called sources of dysrationalia.

There are many sources of dysrationalia, that cloud rational judgements, from drugs, home and urban myths, superstition/religion, phobias, poor concentration or lack of commitment, etc...
Though one of the biggest dysrationalia influences in society to date has been Religion, which is the most prominent Superstition in our society.
Some studies show that children in religious schools gain high passes on final tests. This is often pointed at by them as proof that they are not affecting the Intelligence of a student by subjecting them to Theology.

Yet, they are not really measuring Intelligence there, they are mostly measuring the ability of a student to pass exams, mostly parrot fashion.
It doesn't mean that the student once in the outside world will be making Rational decisions.
Industries in many cases have realized this and some are now introducing Rationality testing to filter their selection recruits and new employees.
http://io9.com...
http://bigthink.com...

Japan, in particular has embraced Rationality Testing as a means of testing the Intelligence.
http://educationinjapan.wordpress.com...

From the outset, it does appear that the deeper a person is entrenched in dysrationalia, the less Rational, and thus less Intelligent that person will become.
From examining those public figures who expose themselves regularly on the media and measuring the Rationality of their messages and speeches.
The most Irrational messages and public statements all appear to originate from the same sources, again and again.
These are the Extreme Religious Fundamentalists, such as those on religious Television, Radio and public soapboxes, rallies.

Their continual and blatantly Irrational messages and statements confirm my hypothesis that Extreme Religious Fundamentalists are indeed the least intelligent humans on planet Earth.
MrJK

Con



"Extreme Religious Fundamentalists Are The Least Intelligent Humans"




Well, Jesus didn't mention that...








So anyway...defending the intellect of the Noah's ark brigade. No problem. Easy. Pffft.






Well, when looking at the opening statement, two things occur to me initially:




A) Those 'fundies' sure are dumb.


B) Pro's argument is screamingly fallacious.




1) Pro has no clearly distinguished group on which he can base his claim:


I start by illustrating that Pro's challenge assumes that there is an exclusive group that we can consider as extreme religious fundamentalists. How do we define this group?



Let's acknowledge the basic premise of theism:
There is a god, god has revealed itself and exists in the present.

The circularity of the theists basic premise is fairly obvious to most. This circular reasoning applies to all theists as theism is in itself a circular argument, that is, its premise assumes its conclusion. With this in mind, how do we distinguish the ‘fundamental’ from the ‘moderate’?

One theist looks to the word of the bible for their justification/explanation, and another attempts to incorporate seemingly conflicting information into his/her theocentric worldview, this does not mean that the circularity is in any way compromised. More accurately, I would suggest that the ‘circle’ may appear smaller or larger but we can not ignore that it remains a circle, the very same circle.







2) Pro’s meagre definition of intelligence:

Pro:




“IQ may assist in Intelligence or cleverness, but it is not really a good measure of Intelligence. Because high IQ people can still believe in stupid concepts and do extremely stupid acts.

It has indeed been found that a better measure of a person's Intelligence is their Rationality, or ability to consider a set of circumstances rationally and devise a rational outcome”



So, IQ (intelligence quota) assists intelligence?

No, IQ is a measure (however narrow) of a cerebral aptitude.

RQ (rationality quota) is a proposed method of measuring another type of cerebral aptitude.

They are separate things and certainly do not hang on the necessity of coming to any particular ‘correct’ conclusion or “rational outcome”, this would again be an example of a fallacy of circular reasoning.


From Pro’s source:

“rationality and “good thinking” tends to be diminished by the importance we place on intelligence. But as we learned from Stanovich, the two often have very little to do with each other.”




http://io9.com...




Pro:




“A rational outcome should be: The best possible outcome when considering all the aspects of the case, concerning, safety, consideration of those involved, primary goals and future ramifications.”




Possibly. But, does this read like an exhaustive account of the heights of human intellect? I say no. I say that this does not account for the leaps in human knowledge or the reach of human intellect.
I would add also, that these reaches and leaps, our vast library of examples of human intellectual transcendance of the ‘known’ care not for Pro’s definition. Consider Einstein in regards to “...
safety, consideration of those involved, primary goals and future ramifications.”




Essentially, Pro argues that great intelligence can be understood as a kind of aptitude for utilitarianism, of cost/benefit analysis, and this alone. This is a painful neglect and disregard for the type of intellectual capabilities that have advanced the human race beyond simply a functioning species.




This being said, let’s not ignore how well we do function as an intelligent species a priori...

Pro:




Some studies show that children in religious schools gain high passes on final tests. This is often pointed at by them as proof that they are not affecting the Intelligence of a student by subjecting them to Theology.


Yet, they are not really measuring Intelligence there, they are mostly measuring the ability of a student to pass exams, mostly parrot fashion.”




The ability and drive to mimic is fundamental to human intellect and progression. Although this in itself may not stimulate necessary critical thinking (required for intellectual ‘leaps’ , rationalism and lateral thinking such as cost/benefit analysis and propositional logic) it certainly supplies much of the required tools and materials for this to occur.
Without it, we have no language, we cannot talk, we cannot walk and we certainly cannot bequeath nor inherit the vast and complex behaviours, methods and data required to make those transcendent leaps in human knowledge.
Consider Einstein’s required a priori superior intelligence in order to ‘mimic’ or absorb complex information in order to make the intellectual leaps for which he is now famous.





Pro:




“From the outset, it does appear that the deeper a person is entrenched in dysrationalia, the less Rational, and thus less Intelligent that person will become.”





‘Dysrationalia’ does not hold that a preoccupation with irrational conclusions or pursuits is a reduction of intelligence, or that it decreases intelligence. Rather, the theory holds that irrationality is evident and becomes increasingly evident in contrast to the positive intellect of the subject.

http://www.keithstanovich.com...


3) Pro’s arrogant neglect of the intellect, creativity and rationalism of theism:




Actually I think I will leave this point for now, it’s been a long week.


Instead, on this point I will leave you to consider the following; If the premise is true, pro has to convince us that he can define in qualitative and quantitative terms the group to whom he makes the allegation, that he can successfully re-address the shortcomings of his description of intelligence and ultimately he must convince us that the likes of William Lane Craig can be categorized as an uninteligent, irrational man whom does not require to be met intellectually by the likes of Christopher Hitchens.










Debate Round No. 1
Sagey

Pro

I thank you for your very well researched and resourced reply:
My reply will not be so well researched this time due to constraints of time.

Though I agree on several points, especially to the fact that I have not covered all the aspects of Intelligence.
As I have put this into the category of Science and not philosophy.
There needs to be a consideration of how the brain functions during the process of rationalization.

Philosophically, all thoughts and considerations can be considered rational, even empirically rational ones.
This is one of the great aspects of scientific philosophy, in thinking outside the box, sometimes irrationally can produce rational considerations and aspects that produce results, where prior to this, they were not considered at all.
Advancements in science don't always come from rational thought.

The problem with considering age old or ancient superstitions like the established religions, they have been so thoroughly studied and investigated, from all aspects and now even neurologically that any chance of making new discoveries about human nature and especially science from their Irrationality have been long surpassed.
The Irrationality has become nothing more than a distraction from reality and a hindrance to clarity of thought.

It is not so much that spiritual or even religious considerations will affect critical thinking in the normal person.
It's solely in the approach used by Religious bodies to deliberately quash or deter critical thinking.
This is the crux of the matter, not just thinking of religious considerations.

Fundamentalists are people so deeply indoctrinated in these practices of quashing critical thinking and so adapt at not thinking critically, that they lose the connections within the brain to perform such thinking.
The brain will strengthen often used neural paths and weaken the connections in rarely used paths.
If a person has been deterred from critical thinking and has not used the critical thinking pathways in the brain for many years, because of the deterrence and sense of "Lack Of Need" that most religions engender.

The long time Fundy will develop an inability to perform such critical thinking adequately.
Thus they would exhibit an extremely low Rational Intelligence, because Rationality relies on Critical thinking skills.

There are other aspects of developing a highly Faith orientated mindset that I will leave for now.

Though as highlighted, long time Fundamentalists will have damaged neurological capacity for Critical thinking and thus a lower level of Intelligence because of this.
Mostly due to Organizational constraints on critical thinking to deter (indoctrinate) member from discovering fallacies in the concepts that form the basis of the organization's teachings and doctrines.
All Christian churches use such practices as Elder guidance of newcomers, in order to shield them from alternative and conflicting concepts or thought.
Critical thinking is so often the enemy of established Religion, thus the deterrence.
Thus initiating the deterioration of the critical thinking paths within the brains of the unsuspecting victims.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...
It's the processes utilized, not the philosophies that is the Issue here!

http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I want you to take careful note of the definition of Indoctrination in the following Critical Thinking Glossary:
http://www.criticalthinking.org...

You will see why it limits critical inquiry and the practice starts the process of weakening the structures (neuron links) in the brain that are mostly incorporated in the function of Critical Inquiry, culminating in the fully fledged Fundamentalist being incapable of such Critical Inquiry.
Which is evident in many comments made by such Fundamentalists.
A great example was Ayatollah Khomeini, who apparently had a very high IQ, though made idiotic, extremely Unintelligent decisions that turned much of the world against his Islam and made Iran appear as a Nation of Brainless People, which it certainly is not.
Such are the dangers of having very Unintelligent (overly indoctrinated) fundamentalists in Government.
They are incapable of healthy Critical Thinking.
MrJK

Con




Pro:








“As I have put this into the category of Science and not philosophy.




There needs to be a consideration of how the brain functions during the process of rationalization”








How the brain functions during the process of rationalization is of questionable relevance when considering rational thinking itself, which must be intrinsically and eternally understood in philosophical terms as its foundation is based in reason and logic, which exist in structure almost entirely externally from the physical world, that is, they are conceptual.








Pro:








“Philosophically, all thoughts and considerations can be considered rational”



This is entirely false, philosophy is essentially the practise of distinguishing and fortifying the rational from the irrational.











Pro:






“Advancements in science don't always come from rational thought”







Again, an entirely false statement. Any advancement that has not been a direct result of rational thought comes instead accidentally. It is illogical to credit a rational conclusion to an irrational pursuit in any way other than of it occurring accidentally or anecdotaly.












Pro:






“The problem with considering age old or ancient superstitions like the established religions, they have been so thoroughly studied and investigated, from all aspects and now even neurologically that any chance of making new discoveries about human nature and especially science from their Irrationality have been long surpassed”







Religion has never made any scientific discoveries. Ever. Science makes scientific discoveries.
Religious
people can make scientific discoveries, but they do so based on scientific literature, not religious texts.

Take Georges Lemaître for example, the catholic priest and physicist who first proposed the theory of the expanding universe
and herein lies the most fundamental problem with your argument.

http://www.catholiceducation.org...
http://www.amnh.org...





You are condemning the extremely religious to the category of the extremely unintelligent, however, this has been proved unequivocally false, many times. Matt Dillahunty, anyone?

http://www.atheist-experience.com...
http://old.richarddawkins.net...




William Lane Craig?


http://popphilosophers.blogspot.co.uk...





Pro:







Fundamentalists are people so deeply indoctrinated in these practices of quashing critical thinking and so adapt at not thinking critically, that they lose the connections within the brain to perform such thinking.”







This is, again, certainly not the case. You will go on to argue that through indoctrination, a human brain develops a physical inability to function as it once did. This is a misunderstanding of how the brain works. Rather than weaken and strengthen neurological pathways as you stated, the brain actually creates new pathways and can abandon others. This isn’t simply semantics, you have in your statement assumed that the pathways are already in existence to be weakened or strengthened, as if the ability to reason of those that don’t reason just...falls out of their ears. The brain is an adaptable organ. You only need to youtube ‘the atheist experience’ and watch the host (a group of mostly ex-fundies) exercise their aptitude for reason, rationale and logic to falsify your claim. Take a fundy and put him in a lecture room for a while and watch those neural pathways light up. Fundamentalism does not lead to lobotomy, however much it may seem that way from arguing in the comments sections.







There is a critical flaw in your logic. As I discussed earlier, a rational conclusion can not occur as the intended result of irrational thought. However, flip that around and there is are less problems. A perfectly rational thought process can lead to all sorts or ridiculous conclusions. In fact, it took the perfectly rational minds of our ancestors to come to the conclusion that the earth was the centre of the universe and that a man in the sky put it their. The development of superstitions is not irrational, even holding on to those superstitions despite contrary evidence is not in itself irrational. Take the great apologetics, say what you like about them but, as Hitchens explained in the video included in my last post, they are not to be underestimated intellectually. Instead, it may be more appropriate to look toward willful ignorance.




As your previous links pointed out, some churches push very vigorously against critical thinking. I suppose this is mainly because this strategy is much simpler than trying to bestow their flocks with the extreme intellectual acrobatic skills of the the apologetics. This is a fine example of an individual or group who choose not to look at the alternative to their way of thinking. This does not help your argument, for, if one intentionally ignores the alternative to their position, it will generally be because they have to some degree already acknowledged it’s strength, thus indicating intellect. If, on the other hand, a person is quite innocently ignorant of the alternatives then you can not accuse them of irrationality - you can only think rationally based on the information you have access to.







I think Pro has again failed to adequately define the group he accuses and has again failed to adequately define the terms he accuses the group with.

He must resolve the contradiction in his equating fundamentalist religion to lack of intelligence and my examples of extremely intelligent religious fundamentalists.

I reject Pro’s claim and instead argue, as his source suggests, that those who come to conclusions of questionable rational quality, in doing so do not necessarily negate their intelligence or their intellectual capacity.



Huffington Post:







“Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist and Nobel laureate at Princeton University who has done pioneering work on the contributions of intuitive and analytical thinking to human decision making. "All they have shown, and all that can be shown, is that when you're thinking more critically you reject statements that otherwise you would endorse," Kahneman says. "It tells you that there are some religious beliefs people hold that if they were thinking more critically, they themselves would not endorse.”








http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Sagey

Pro

Sagey forfeited this round.
MrJK

Con

Hmmm....

I just wrote a closing statement and lost it. Unfortunately I do not have time to rewrite the statement. Also, it is a shame that my opponent forfeited the last round, divine intervention I assume.

It is my opinion that my opponent did not to any extent, even with encouragement, meet his burden of proof. And how could he? I wondered this as I accepted the debate and have to say that I didn't find pro's arguments very compelling.

I gave examples of extremely well reasoned and intelligent fundamentalists.

I also gave (I think?!) Examples of extremely intelligent people chasing futile hypothesis (Newton's alchemy, if I didn't mention it, I intended to)

I wonder if this debate had continued, would pro have refined his proposition to this: "the indoctrinated are the stupidest" ...

It would perhaps of been easier to defend, but still I would argue no, the indoctrinated are indoctrinated, not unintelligent.

If anyone who might read this would like to debate the same title with me, send it as a challange and I'll happily accept.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually, it's about the 20th January that my other site comes back on line and I will likely cease from venturing onto D.O for a long while.
I haven't the time to post on 2 sites.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Truthfully, I don't and usually cannot convince anybody of anything, since by the time we are adults, our minds are pretty much made up about most things, if there is contamination in our mindware, that will often not be removable.
Average Joes with highly contaminated mindware, who are more likely to be of the least intelligence don't make good targets. I'm just targeting high profile people (possibly high IQ) with extremely contaminated mindware. Surely their high IQ can make some contributions from their rationalized subjects, but it often takes highly influential and possibly IQ people with contaminated mindware to make the biggest detrimental influences in human existence. The other major damage to humanity in history comes from those with high intelligence combined with severe Psychopathic disorders, such as Moses, Hitler, Stalin, etc... It takes highly intelligent people with highly contaminated mindware to make the biggest stuff-ups.
BTW I've been a fan of Derren Brown's for years now. Thanks for the link.
I'm really about creating Debates for their stir value, in other words just a bit of trolling, because I'm not really going to be on D.O for long enough to be seriously concerned with debates, a weeks time you won't see me again for a long while.
I've been arguing with Theists for decades, though there are hardly any left here, so I have to find them online if I want an argument.
Hope you are having a happy Solstice!
Take Care M8! :-D~
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
Hope you can get this: http://www.channel4.com...
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
*bad science doesn't come from superstition, it comes from a bad science.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
Sorry sagey, I still don't really see how you've answered any of my criticisms. I find many issues with your approach. (I'm writing this on my phone so I'll be brief)
Bad science does not come from bad science, it comes from a bad science. Newton didn't get very far as an alchemist but he was pretty nifty in his other pursuits. Pythagorus came to some very odd conclusions about things, he also developed some very useful mathematical principles.

Superstition does not develop in spite of rationality, it develops because of it.
However, when a superstition conflicts with a rational conclusion, what you can say is that defending the superstition takes either a) feeble mindedness b) willful ignorance or c) a high level of intelligence.
You will find all three when arguing with theists, but you will find all three elsewhere also.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Just found another interesting piece on psychology:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Though it appears that those superstitious practices that survive are those that can act as placebos.
The people perceive them to work, because of a placebo effect.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Yes, at the age of 7 I started being a fan of Superman and got a little sick of how easily some villains beat him initially, so envisioned a Superman with powers beyond imagination, well, I created God, according to Anselm, who was really a Super-Superman. I then realized that such a Superhero would not make for very interesting Comic reading, villains defeated easily, yet again by Super-Superman. So I returned Superman to his normality, weakened by kryptonite and red sun.

I also pondered the concept of a god having gender and realized at the age of 8 that such a notion of god being male, is ludicrously stupid.
Even while I studied theology at Christian College, I could never come to believe that a thing with testicles and no rational reason for having them, could ever be a creator of the universe.
I was simply trying to understand why seemingly sane humans considered theology as a highly commendable field of knowledge.
I now know that it is nothing but a study of useless, extremely irrational drivel.
That's why I and my colleagues here call Theology (studying the mind of god) as Pondering Porkies.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Superstitions are not only Irrational, they can be extremely harmful.
Here are only a few of an almost infinite array of hidden harms in society brought about by beliefs in superstitions, which cause everything from loss of human rights for individuals, groups to mass murder.
The murder of witches throughout Europe is a frightening example of superstitious Christian insanity.
Here's some in India: http://www.thehindu.com...
Essentially superstitions create Bad Science: http://www.badscience.net...

Superstition is diametrically opposed to Rationalism. The processes by which Superstition arrives at Assumptions, are Irrational when compared to those that Rationalists use to arrive at hypotheses.
Superstitions take an Irrational path of non-inquiry that makes assumptions that they claim are completely valid and often Absolute Truth.
Whereby Rationalists take a more rational approach and arrive at Hypotheses or what is considered as likely cases/scenarios. Rationalists don't believe in absolute truth, Superstitious/Religious people do.
Superstition/Religion Fundamentalists are continually making claims that Irrational Assumptions are Absolute Truth. Such as Anselm's Ontological Argument, where he claimed that since his mind could not think of anything greater than God, God must therefore Exist.
The entire premise is purely a Priori, Subjective, and highly Irrational, the conclusion is Insanely Idiotic.
Making Anselm one of the most Unintelligent humans ever to walk the planet.
Anselm's Superstitious Fundamentalism, destroyed his ability to be Rational.
Also supporting my debate topic, which I was not able to fully participate in as my workload became too immense and had to abandon D.O for a month or so. Also the constant emails were interrupting my work, so I left for a while. As soon as Xmas break is over, I will likely excommunicate myself from D.O again.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
You haven't really replied to any of the arguments I put forward in the debate though, and you don't seem to offer much beyond assertions.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
No, not directly, it's the implications.
Religion is based on Superstition.
Superstitions are Irrational and indoctrination into superstition damages/corrupts the mindware of the indoctrinated (if they believe it) which detracts from their IQ.

This is why extremely Intelligent Humans, (IQ 140+) can also be the most stupid humans on the planet.
Indoctrination into complete Irrationality destroys their Rational Intelligence.
Religious Fundamentalists have world views that are so damaged by their extreme belief in Irrationality, that they cannot ever understand nor function properly in the real world.
They are unemployable in the real world, because they cannot possibly understand it.
They cannot see the Irrationality they are so heavily absorbed by.
They thus cannot understand, nor tolerate rational criticism of their Irrationality.
Ayatollah Khomeini had an extremely high IQ level, a great thinker in many practical areas before becoming completely absorbed with Islam, from then on, he made idiotic decision after idiotic decision.

He is a prime example of a once extremely intelligent person, becoming another among the most unintelligent people recorded in history, all because he became an extreme fundy.

Before becoming fundies they may have been considered intelligent, but their fundamentalism eventually destroys any real intellect they once possessed, because they become extremely Irrational.
Other examples are once good, intelligent scientists who become Young Earth Creationist fundamentalists.
They go almost instantly from reasonably good scientists in their field to absolute morons.
Examples are Biologist - Duane Gish, Geologist - Andrew Snelling, Geneticist - Francis Collins.
They were once considered as good scientists in their respective fields, but once they try to assert their fundamentalist world-views, they can only be considered as Loony Wing-Nuts.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
SageyMrJKTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Have to give the resounding victory to Con on this one, not merely because I agreed with him prior to the debate, but what I saw from Pro was standard scientific jargon to attempt to demonstrate the deterioration of their rationalizing capacities. This was never demonstrably shown, and therefore from my point of view remains conjecture of a clearly biased variety. These kinds of polarizing generalizations are the kinds of things that make atheists look like fundamentalists to the rest of us, ironically almost becoming that which they oppose.