Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Intelligent people?

missmedic
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 6:24:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

true
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 7:28:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
The kinder, more just and smarter society becomes, and the more it trades with other cultures, the more benefit there is to be had from irreligion.

Religion comes at a cost: at minimum, to maintain participation, you have to spend time telling one another faith-stories. Because they're faith-stories, they are not based on evidence, but on collective assent to believe. Thus they produce nothing: no wealth, no intellectual capital. The most they do is redistribute any capital that already exists, and bind adherents to one another while excluding outsiders, thus limiting the breadth and depth of relationships you can have.

Meanwhile, irreligion comes with no such strictures. The irreligious can read what they like; work how they like; befriend whom they like; they'll typically have friends and acquaintances of many faiths and rites; they pay no tithes or religious imposts; they have full access to the intellectual and social capital of their society and no faith-based restrictions on how they can use it.

Of course smarter people, with a better understanding of opportunity, will see religion as a cost and not a benefit. But meanwhile, people who barely understand their society's resources and already feel disempowered will want to club together and hope that the redistribution of social and intellectual capital in their faith-group will favour them.

It's a forlorn hope: the redistribution of capital will favour less than half of them, and there's plenty of both anecdotal and quantitative evidence to show that it mostly favours the religious classes who run the show anyway. The quintessential spiritual landlords, clerics produce almost nothing, tax their parishioners for money and labour, preside over charitable works that don't require their presence, interfere with every aspect of their parishioners' lives, yet remain better educated than the people they claim to serve -- and it's in their interests to keep things that way.

With churches, as with gambling joints, the House always wins.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:54:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

Yeah when the muslims were ruling spain for 800 years of Islamic Golden Age they were stupid and the nonblievers were smart.
Never fart near dog
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 7:43:48 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:54:27 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

Yeah when the muslims were ruling spain for 800 years of Islamic Golden Age they were stupid and the nonblievers were smart.

Correct.
missmedic
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:25:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
When we think critically beliefs tend not to be cherished but held on the understanding that if they're shown to be unfounded a change of position is the most appropriate response. But leaping to flawed conclusions because you can't tolerate the ambiguity of not knowing is not about truth or curiosity, but comfort. The critical thinker can handle uncertainty preferring to be aware of their own areas of ignorance and they can wait for valid evidence and evidence-based answers. Critical thinking provides each of us with keys for unlocking our own intellectual independence. When we teach and encourage critical thinking we empower individual lives and invest in our collective future.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:44:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
There may be something to what your are saying but:

Na, there is man"s thinking and what is understood as knowledge understanding and wisdom of God. They are not the same nor of the same realm of thought. Trust in God"s Judgement and trust in one"s own judgement, or man"s judgement, is two completely different worlds.

Also it is a worldly view that the trusting are stupid, therefore it is stupid to trust. And trust is what is required the have faith in God, also as long as men can be able to trust in their own judgement, they will never learn to trust something other than themselves. And most who have intellectual prowess like those who have physical prowess or world power prowess trust those things because they can control them to get a desired result, hence their belief is in their own judgement.

Hence why intellectuals favor things like evolution which tells them they are the superior of the human race. Which supports their trust in their own judgement by virtue of seeing themselves a superior to those who trust in something other than themselves.
missmedic
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:53:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 4:44:55 PM, DPMartin wrote:
There may be something to what your are saying but:

Na, there is man"s thinking and what is understood as knowledge understanding and wisdom of God. They are not the same nor of the same realm of thought. Trust in God"s Judgement and trust in one"s own judgement, or man"s judgement, is two completely different worlds.

When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid.

Also it is a worldly view that the trusting are stupid, therefore it is stupid to trust. And trust is what is required the have faith in God, also as long as men can be able to trust in their own judgement, they will never learn to trust something other than themselves. And most who have intellectual prowess like those who have physical prowess or world power prowess trust those things because they can control them to get a desired result, hence their belief is in their own judgement.

Hence why intellectuals favor things like evolution which tells them they are the superior of the human race. Which supports their trust in their own judgement by virtue of seeing themselves a superior to those who trust in something other than themselves.

It is my experience the religious are lazy thinkers and would prefer to have the thinking done by someone else. Why? Because faith requires acceptance not knowledge.
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it. Faith pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think. Without any criteria for accepting a statement as true, every random idea, whether true or false, would be just as likely to be accepted. Contradictions would exist. No higher level abstractions could be made. Faith nullifies the mind. To the degree ideas are taken on faith, the process of thinking is subverted.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 7:10:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 4:44:55 PM, DPMartin wrote:
There may be something to what your are saying but:

Na, there is man"s thinking and what is understood as knowledge understanding and wisdom of God. They are not the same nor of the same realm of thought. Trust in God"s Judgement and trust in one"s own judgement, or man"s judgement, is two completely different worlds.

Also it is a worldly view that the trusting are stupid, therefore it is stupid to trust. And trust is what is required the have faith in God, also as long as men can be able to trust in their own judgement, they will never learn to trust something other than themselves. And most who have intellectual prowess like those who have physical prowess or world power prowess trust those things because they can control them to get a desired result, hence their belief is in their own judgement.

Hence why intellectuals favor things like evolution which tells them they are the superior of the human race. Which supports their trust in their own judgement by virtue of seeing themselves a superior to those who trust in something other than themselves.

Do you feel that it is wise for the Mormons to trust in Mormonism, Muslims to trust in Islam, Scientologists to trust in scientology, etc?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 9:08:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

Agree.
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 10:35:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Correlation is not causation.

There is a positive correlation between weath and IQ

Jesus says that wealth makes it harder to get into heaven

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.""

That's just one of the many possible explanations.
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:18:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:54:27 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Yeah when the muslims were ruling spain for 800 years of Islamic Golden Age they were stupid and the nonblievers were smart.
In that period, Popoo, nearly all the smart people of Europe and the Near East believed in God, because virtually everybody who learned to read and write was also indoctrinated to believe, and there were few legitimate bases to disbelieve.

That world has changed though. We have greater literacy, more diverse thought and much more evidence about how the world works. Meanwhile, grounded as it is in ancient, static scriptures, religious thought has not developed very much -- and especially, it has not developed a greater ability to predict, or to improve its ignorance and error in accountable ways.

I believe that most modern adherents are living with paraconsistent knowledge from two sources: scientific knowledge, which is specific, coherent, predictive, accountable and constantly improving; and theological knowledge which is vague, static, poorly predictive, sometimes incoherent, and near-impossible to correct.
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:24:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Those studies are bunk. How many times do I need to tell you this?
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
Checkers
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:33:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Locke, Washington, Tolstoy, Lincoln...

It's a wonder how we have got this far with such stupid people in the lead.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:08:58 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:18:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:54:27 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Yeah when the muslims were ruling spain for 800 years of Islamic Golden Age they were stupid and the nonblievers were smart.
In that period, Popoo, nearly all the smart people of Europe and the Near East believed in God, because virtually everybody who learned to read and write was also indoctrinated to believe, and there were few legitimate bases to disbelieve.

That world has changed though. We have greater literacy, more diverse thought and much more evidence about how the world works. Meanwhile, grounded as it is in ancient, static scriptures, religious thought has not developed very much -- and especially, it has not developed a greater ability to predict, or to improve its ignorance and error in accountable ways.

I believe that most modern adherents are living with paraconsistent knowledge from two sources: scientific knowledge, which is specific, coherent, predictive, accountable and constantly improving; and theological knowledge which is vague, static, poorly predictive, sometimes incoherent, and near-impossible to correct.

Do you think this is why the "nones" category in religion is rising? I would attribute it to openness. Since there are atheist and agnostics in that group, there are also the unaffiliated like myself. But, i feel the unaffiliated are trying to do what religion never has, to work within the mindset of fact and evidence. Although i agree difficult, the experiences that make me "spiritual" have proven to be somewhat beyond understanding. However, even though beyond understanding, unlike religion, i think there is a scientific answer... Something tells me this future push among the 'none category' is not only going to rise (due to technology), but help humans to the next level; whatever that may be. I really believe giving science a scenario they can work with is the key. It may be un-falsifiable, but at least it can provide a push. Idk, i just feel that is the most honest route to take in regards to making both spirituality and science intelligent.
missmedic
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:11:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:24:10 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Those studies are bunk. How many times do I need to tell you this?

63 studies, and you say they are all bunk. How do you get this knowledge?
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:24:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:54:27 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

Yeah when the muslims were ruling spain for 800 years of Islamic Golden Age they were stupid and the nonblievers were smart.

What non-believers?
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:46:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:33:54 AM, Checkers wrote:
Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Locke, Washington, Tolstoy, Lincoln...

You've got philosophers, writers, poets and politicians. Where are the scientists? And where are the 19th and 20th century figures from which period (post enlightenment) most of the world's knowledge has been amassed?

This is the usual sleight of hand from theists. Choose famous people from an era where there were virtually no non-believers and if there were, it was impossible to obtain a non-religious indoctrinated education.

It's a wonder how we have got this far with such stupid people in the lead.

See above. What are you comparing against, the almost non-existent non-believers of the time? No-one is saying that you can't be a theist and smart. The studies show that, on average, in an environment where non-believers can obtain a good education on a par with believers, then non-believers are generally more intelligent.
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 5:12:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:11:38 AM, missmedic wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:24:10 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Those studies are bunk. How many times do I need to tell you this?

63 studies, and you say they are all bunk. How do you get this knowledge?
That one study by that Zuckerman guy had many flaws, yet you still cite him after I thoroughly debunked the "study". Again, how many times do I need to tell you that those studies are complete rubbish?
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 7:46:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:08:58 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:18:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:54:27 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
Yeah when the muslims were ruling spain for 800 years of Islamic Golden Age they were stupid and the nonblievers were smart.
In that period, Popoo, nearly all the smart people of Europe and the Near East believed in God, because virtually everybody who learned to read and write was also indoctrinated to believe, and there were few legitimate bases to disbelieve.
That world has changed though. We have greater literacy, more diverse thought and much more evidence about how the world works. Meanwhile, grounded as it is in ancient, static scriptures, religious thought has not developed very much -- and especially, it has not developed a greater ability to predict, or to improve its ignorance and error in accountable ways.
Do you think this is why the "nones" category in religion is rising?
I think we need to take into account the changed intellectual and social circumstances together, Outie.

During the Middle Ages, there was no effective empirical model for the operation of the universe. Pretty much every natural phenomenon was held to have happened by magic or divine fiat (virtually indistinguishable anyway), and virtually every institution that could teach literacy was operated by clerics. That's the intellectual environment: a place of stunted thought, alleviated by some rather clever basic arithmetic, and the occasional insight in natural philosophy.

Socially, the world was owned and taxed by glorified warlords calling themselves kings and emperors, and Abrahamic clerics had been in bed with them since the mid fourth century CE -- providing regional clerking services (note the relationship of the words 'cleric' and 'clerk'), and running their public communications (i.e. domestic and international propaganda) much like a global media company does today. Essentially clerics were communications parasites feeding on military parasites feeding on farmers and cottage industries. That was the social order.

So the clerical classes had a militantly-enforced monopoly on telling people how the world worked and how they should live in it. It was funded and backed by the Commander-in-Chief of the military classes, who benefited from control of communications by clerical specialists. If you were a philosopher with different ideas about how the world worked, then:
1) You'd almost certainly have been indoctrinated by clerics since childhood anyway
2) Your target readers were all clerics and clerically-educated people, regardless; and
3) They had the ear of the warlords, who were always interested in social stability.

So if you were lucky enough to even have an original thought, then you still had to be very careful what you said, to whom and when if such a thought might upset the status quo.

Popoo rightly points out that the Golden Age of Islam was something of a Renaissance in the Near East, North Africa and Southern Spain, however like the later Italian Renaissance, the Golden Age was only progressive and intelligent by earlier standards -- by today's standards it's still filthily oppressive and benighted, because our standards of open discourse are not built on appeasing a clerical class toadying to ruthless, ambitious, paternalistic warlords.

One conclusion we can draw from this is that democracies do a great deal to demolish the impediments to the development and free exchange of ideas. In the transition from feudalism to democracy we see time and again an explosion in human thought and initiatives, and a gradual weakening of the communications stranglehold held by the clerical classes in consequence. We can also see the same effect in reverse in modern times, when we observe the effects on dictatorships in choking the flow of information and ideas, purging dissenting intellectuals, and dumbing down the population -- and today we can see the clerical classes seeking to crawl into bed with media companies and regain control of educational institutions, since that's where their interests are most aligned.

Clerics have managed to co-exist with democracy, but are never its best friend. Clerical classes do so much better when they can fawn on a dictator who needs them, and having the general populace think, learn, share ideas and talk is itself no great asset to religious adherence. (Consider the people of highest religiosity in our democracies, how little they reason, and how little they actually know.)

I hope that may be useful.
Checkers
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 7:57:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:46:32 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:33:54 AM, Checkers wrote:
Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Locke, Washington, Tolstoy, Lincoln...

You've got philosophers, writers, poets and politicians. Where are the scientists? And where are the 19th and 20th century figures from which period (post enlightenment) most of the world's knowledge has been amassed?

This is the usual sleight of hand from theists. Choose famous people from an era where there were virtually no non-believers and if there were, it was impossible to obtain a non-religious indoctrinated education.


Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Rousseau, Dickens, Tolkien, Swift...
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 12:23:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 7:57:18 PM, Checkers wrote:
At 3/15/2016 1:46:32 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:33:54 AM, Checkers wrote:
Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Locke, Washington, Tolstoy, Lincoln...

You've got philosophers, writers, poets and politicians. Where are the scientists? And where are the 19th and 20th century figures from which period (post enlightenment) most of the world's knowledge has been amassed?

This is the usual sleight of hand from theists. Choose famous people from an era where there were virtually no non-believers and if there were, it was impossible to obtain a non-religious indoctrinated education.

Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Rousseau, Dickens, Tolkien, Swift...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 12:28:09 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 7:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/15/2016 1:08:58 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:18:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:54:27 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
Yeah when the muslims were ruling spain for 800 years of Islamic Golden Age they were stupid and the nonblievers were smart.
In that period, Popoo, nearly all the smart people of Europe and the Near East believed in God, because virtually everybody who learned to read and write was also indoctrinated to believe, and there were few legitimate bases to disbelieve.
That world has changed though. We have greater literacy, more diverse thought and much more evidence about how the world works. Meanwhile, grounded as it is in ancient, static scriptures, religious thought has not developed very much -- and especially, it has not developed a greater ability to predict, or to improve its ignorance and error in accountable ways.
Do you think this is why the "nones" category in religion is rising?
I think we need to take into account the changed intellectual and social circumstances together, Outie.

During the Middle Ages, there was no effective empirical model for the operation of the universe. Pretty much every natural phenomenon was held to have happened by magic or divine fiat (virtually indistinguishable anyway), and virtually every institution that could teach literacy was operated by clerics. That's the intellectual environment: a place of stunted thought, alleviated by some rather clever basic arithmetic, and the occasional insight in natural philosophy.

Socially, the world was owned and taxed by glorified warlords calling themselves kings and emperors, and Abrahamic clerics had been in bed with them since the mid fourth century CE -- providing regional clerking services (note the relationship of the words 'cleric' and 'clerk'), and running their public communications (i.e. domestic and international propaganda) much like a global media company does today. Essentially clerics were communications parasites feeding on military parasites feeding on farmers and cottage industries. That was the social order.

So the clerical classes had a militantly-enforced monopoly on telling people how the world worked and how they should live in it. It was funded and backed by the Commander-in-Chief of the military classes, who benefited from control of communications by clerical specialists. If you were a philosopher with different ideas about how the world worked, then:
1) You'd almost certainly have been indoctrinated by clerics since childhood anyway
2) Your target readers were all clerics and clerically-educated people, regardless; and
3) They had the ear of the warlords, who were always interested in social stability.

So if you were lucky enough to even have an original thought, then you still had to be very careful what you said, to whom and when if such a thought might upset the status quo.

Popoo rightly points out that the Golden Age of Islam was something of a Renaissance in the Near East, North Africa and Southern Spain, however like the later Italian Renaissance, the Golden Age was only progressive and intelligent by earlier standards -- by today's standards it's still filthily oppressive and benighted, because our standards of open discourse are not built on appeasing a clerical class toadying to ruthless, ambitious, paternalistic warlords.

One conclusion we can draw from this is that democracies do a great deal to demolish the impediments to the development and free exchange of ideas. In the transition from feudalism to democracy we see time and again an explosion in human thought and initiatives, and a gradual weakening of the communications stranglehold held by the clerical classes in consequence. We can also see the same effect in reverse in modern times, when we observe the effects on dictatorships in choking the flow of information and ideas, purging dissenting intellectuals, and dumbing down the population -- and today we can see the clerical classes seeking to crawl into bed with media companies and regain control of educational institutions, since that's where their interests are most aligned.

Clerics have managed to co-exist with democracy, but are never its best friend. Clerical classes do so much better when they can fawn on a dictator who needs them, and having the general populace think, learn, share ideas and talk is itself no great asset to religious adherence. (Consider the people of highest religiosity in our democracies, how little they reason, and how little they actually know.)

I hope that may be useful.

This a mechanic of political power. The same things you chide the "clerical class" for the academic community is doing.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:15:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 12:28:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/15/2016 7:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/15/2016 1:08:58 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:18:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:54:27 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
Yeah when the muslims were ruling spain for 800 years of Islamic Golden Age they were stupid and the nonblievers were smart.
In that period, Popoo, nearly all the smart people of Europe and the Near East believed in God, because virtually everybody who learned to read and write was also indoctrinated to believe, and there were few legitimate bases to disbelieve.
That world has changed though. We have greater literacy, more diverse thought and much more evidence about how the world works. Meanwhile, grounded as it is in ancient, static scriptures, religious thought has not developed very much -- and especially, it has not developed a greater ability to predict, or to improve its ignorance and error in accountable ways.
Do you think this is why the "nones" category in religion is rising?
I think we need to take into account the changed intellectual and social circumstances together, Outie.
The same things you chide the "clerical class" for the academic community is doing.
The motivating question was why religion is becoming less relevant. My answer outlined how I think the intellectual and social environments have changed.

You responded to a detailed, 600 word exposition about clericalism with an unsupported, 14-word interjection about academia, Mhykiel. Not only do I have no idea what point you were trying to make, I also don't see how it relates to Outplayz' question. :p
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 6:52:47 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 7:46:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I think we need to take into account the changed intellectual and social circumstances together, Outie.

During the Middle Ages, there was no effective empirical model for the operation of the universe. Pretty much every natural phenomenon was held to have happened by magic or divine fiat (virtually indistinguishable anyway), and virtually every institution that could teach literacy was operated by clerics. That's the intellectual environment: a place of stunted thought, alleviated by some rather clever basic arithmetic, and the occasional insight in natural philosophy.

Socially, the world was owned and taxed by glorified warlords calling themselves kings and emperors, and Abrahamic clerics had been in bed with them since the mid fourth century CE -- providing regional clerking services (note the relationship of the words 'cleric' and 'clerk'), and running their public communications (i.e. domestic and international propaganda) much like a global media company does today. Essentially clerics were communications parasites feeding on military parasites feeding on farmers and cottage industries. That was the social order.

So the clerical classes had a militantly-enforced monopoly on telling people how the world worked and how they should live in it. It was funded and backed by the Commander-in-Chief of the military classes, who benefited from control of communications by clerical specialists. If you were a philosopher with different ideas about how the world worked, then:
1) You'd almost certainly have been indoctrinated by clerics since childhood anyway
2) Your target readers were all clerics and clerically-educated people, regardless; and
3) They had the ear of the warlords, who were always interested in social stability.

So if you were lucky enough to even have an original thought, then you still had to be very careful what you said, to whom and when if such a thought might upset the status quo.

Popoo rightly points out that the Golden Age of Islam was something of a Renaissance in the Near East, North Africa and Southern Spain, however like the later Italian Renaissance, the Golden Age was only progressive and intelligent by earlier standards -- by today's standards it's still filthily oppressive and benighted, because our standards of open discourse are not built on appeasing a clerical class toadying to ruthless, ambitious, paternalistic warlords.

One conclusion we can draw from this is that democracies do a great deal to demolish the impediments to the development and free exchange of ideas. In the transition from feudalism to democracy we see time and again an explosion in human thought and initiatives, and a gradual weakening of the communications stranglehold held by the clerical classes in consequence. We can also see the same effect in reverse in modern times, when we observe the effects on dictatorships in choking the flow of information and ideas, purging dissenting intellectuals, and dumbing down the population -- and today we can see the clerical classes seeking to crawl into bed with media companies and regain control of educational institutions, since that's where their interests are most aligned.

Clerics have managed to co-exist with democracy, but are never its best friend. Clerical classes do so much better when they can fawn on a dictator who needs them, and having the general populace think, learn, share ideas and talk is itself no great asset to religious adherence. (Consider the people of highest religiosity in our democracies, how little they reason, and how little they actually know.)

I hope that may be useful.

This was a great answer, Ruv, thanks. I knew a bit on how the influence of religion played out during the middle ages and older times, but you reminded me of a different perspective. I always fail to realize how influential religion was to the people in power... or the clerics as you say (i am not good with history, but i am looking at these people like the politicians of the past). The fact monotheistic religions took over makes sense in this line of reasoning. A religion that has multiple gods could be translated differently by the people, and the people could follow a different god, meaning a different point of view. So, it only makes sense to pick a religion that props one god up. One god, one power, one king. This all equals more power for the clerics.

To me, spirituality really got stunned by this, meaning, no one with a different view could come forward. That is why now, thanks to technology and freedom, there are many views. Not only are there many views, there are actually (imho of course) some views that have viability in their own metaphysical ontology that makes one ponder all over again. If i had to predict the future earth, i would say the "nones" category will be the leading group. Atheists, agnostics, and the unaffiliated. Not only that, i think it would make for a better society. Yet, the hurdle of the present day "clerics" are still in the way, and dangerously now that i think about it. Why would they want to loss power? It is always better to have a one god, one religion, one power, type belief for the people in power. Creative thought within society, means a better informed society.

It is actually exciting to me that within the generations growing in technology, this is getting popular. Most people i meet my age or younger will say they are religious until a conversation with me (ya, i'm boasting just a little ;-). But, there is an importance in that fact, people are trying to grow... and, in my case, not indoctrinated to the point of blindness or ignorance. If i lay down a belief following logic and reason to the best of my ability, i have noticed most try to keep up instead of argue backwards. That is my hope anyways, that one day people move forward and understand we are growing together. I have always thought science and spirituality should be moving at the same pace. That it takes a really intelligent mind to say, although i don't know, i am willing to find out without bias... well, maybe a little bias towards your own side... but that's okay. Again, if i had to predict a future earth, i would say at this point we would really be pushing humanity into the future. It's actually kinda ironic to me that the idea of "gods" was taken away, but with freedom resurfacing, making a come back...for my belief follows a similar ontology as well... (multiple immortals instead of just one). Thor just might be pushing back Lol ;p

In all seriousness, i wonder what will be the next trend; i only see organized religion fading more with time - also connection of people around the globe via technology. Maybe i'm wrong and just noticing a momentary bump in the road for religion, but i hope i am right. Plus, one minor 'prediction' to my view would be us evolving, meaning we keep getting stronger and more intelligent. So good news for the OP, i predict we are going to keep getting more intelligent... but, what does intelligence mean? I have been pondering that watching the presidential elections this time around... Have our people forgotten that we founded our country by the people?... It's funny how they debate topics and say, "this is what's destroying our country" I always Lol. "destroying" really... How does it make any sense to say this without immediate change other than the country isn't for the "people" anymore!? I only bring up politics bc it is relevant. One could say the repubs (more religious) are less intelligent than the Libs (less religious). OH... i may have started a war heee. No, but... i don't see intelligence on either side really (i'm not even intelligent on the subject but i stand by my generalization)... So, i think intelligence, in essence and its full effect, is actually a minority trait overall.
one-mind
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 4:06:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

To have intelligence mixed with God's wisdom is much better than being religious or just intelligent. God's wisdom is where all intelligence comes from.
tarantula
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 4:30:57 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 4:06:27 PM, one-mind wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

To have intelligence mixed with God's wisdom is much better than being religious or just intelligent. God's wisdom is where all intelligence comes from.

The deity in the Bible doesn't come over as very intelligent, but then it is a human creation, we are the real GODS!
one-mind
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:22:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 4:30:57 PM, tarantula wrote:
At 3/16/2016 4:06:27 PM, one-mind wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:15:42 PM, missmedic wrote:
Intelligent people have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
Recent studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. This would explain why most intellectuals are nonbelievers.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

To have intelligence mixed with God's wisdom is much better than being religious or just intelligent. God's wisdom is where all intelligence comes from.

The deity in the Bible doesn't come over as very intelligent, but then it is a human creation, we are the real GODS! : :

Have fun with that thought while it lasts.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 7:12:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 10:35:18 PM, VirBinarus wrote:
Correlation is not causation.

1. True but that statement gets thrown around a lot as if correlation is never causation.

2. Nobody is saying that all people with a high IQ will become an atheist. The study simply shows that if people have a high IQ, they are MORE LIKELY to become non-religious.

Is it fair to say that a child with a very high IQ will come to the conclusion that Santa Claus doesn't exist faster than a child with a very low IQ?