Extreme Religious Fundamentalists Are The Least Intelligent Humans
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.
Japan, in particular has embraced Rationality Testing as a means of testing the Intelligence.
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.
"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?
2) Pro’s meagre definition of intelligence:
“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.
So, IQ (intelligence quota) assists intelligence?
“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.
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...
“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.
“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.”
Actually I think I will leave this point for now, it’s been a long week.
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.
It's the processes utilized, not the philosophies that is the Issue here!
I want you to take careful note of the definition of Indoctrination in the following Critical Thinking Glossary:
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.
“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.
“Philosophically, all thoughts and considerations can be considered rational”
“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”
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.
Sagey forfeited this round.
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.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|