Opinion based. You, me, and not Dupree.
- Thread starter KJbushway
- Start date
Is there any evidence that intelligence is increasing at all?
rational thinking and intelligence may not be destined to increase.
Things are sustained for only as long as there is the will and the means. Authority can be applied with stronger will than Reason. Intellectuals are in a minority, so are certainly outnumbered as far as having means goes.
How we measure intelligence (eg, via IQ) can easily be a faulty measure where we may think intelligence is increasing when it only increasing in a very limited way. Within a bigger picture it may actually be decreasing. I'm not saying it is decreasing, only highlighting how redefining what intelligence is can lead to a distorted picture.
There is such a thing as anti-intellectualism, which takes many shapes and forms, from a general distrust of intelligence, to something political, like fascism. Throughout history, the world has swung back and forth between periods of intellectualism and anti-intellectualism. We are currently in a period of intellectualism, but there's no reason to believe that pendulum has stopped swinging.
Intellectualism loosely correlates with liberalism and is spurred on by economic growth. On the other hand, anti-intellectualism loosely correlates with conservatism and tends to breed in economic depressions.
In England there is much uproar about university tuition fees, and universities having their research funds slashed. While this is done in the name of "economic austerity", one might wonder if that is only smoke and mirrors to disguise anti-intellectual politics.
As science becomes richer and deeper, it will take longer for an researcher to reach the cutting edge of their field of study. There may come a time where researchers have to take what they learn on trust because they don't have time/skill to verify it.
Switch
Captain
Exactly. And experts in one field will know (relatively) less and less about other fields and be less able and willing to critique the work of others. Stapledon's Last and First Men posited a reasonably plausible and interesting course by which 'Science' and 'Religion' eventually become unified, the development contributing to the fall of the first civilisation of man (i.e. ours).
I think that as long as science is unable to rationally explain how, at some point, one moment there was no life..and the next there was life, we will always have religion.
When we can, ourselves, breathe life into the universe out of nothing and impart a soul to that life form, then the foundations of religion might begin to fall apart.
Until then you are only chipping away at small and insignificant bricks in a VERY large wall.
When we can, ourselves, breathe life into the universe out of nothing and impart a soul to that life form, then the foundations of religion might begin to fall apart.
Until then you are only chipping away at small and insignificant bricks in a VERY large wall.
As far as not knowing different fields of science and understanding.
When we start using the full potential of our brain(more than just 10-19%), hopefully scientist will be into more than just one field.
Science more rationally explains life than religion, in order to see that humans evolved from a sub-species of early ape takes alot less faith than a being(which has no explanation of how it came into being from absolute nothing) creating the world and all of it inhabitants in just 6 days.
When we start using the full potential of our brain(more than just 10-19%), hopefully scientist will be into more than just one field.
Science more rationally explains life than religion, in order to see that humans evolved from a sub-species of early ape takes alot less faith than a being(which has no explanation of how it came into being from absolute nothing) creating the world and all of it inhabitants in just 6 days.
First of all, you missed the point. I am not talking about how HUMAN life evolved from apes - plenty of religious people believe in evolution in some form or another, so that's an EASY sell compared to the core issue here.
I'm talking about that one specific moment when life itself came into being. One moment, there was no life in the universe...and the next there was. Not HUMAN life. ANY life. Until science can explain (and more importantly, PROVE) how life came out of no life, there will be faith in the idea of some being creating that life. Theories about this do not count - theories are no better than religion. You will have to have PROOF.
Second of all, not all religions maintain the Judeao-Christian version of the creation story. You have a lot more research to do if you want to eliminate ALL religion.
Or is your objective merely to go after Christianity and Judaism?
Switch
Captain
Religion is preserved via inculcation of the child into that environment from an early age and is a cultural artefact no different than language or grooming practices. Our present inability to create Commander Data has nothing to do with it, and is unlikely to have any greater import in future.
Last edited:
You're making a common mistake. Humans don't use only a small percentage of our brains -- we use the whole thing. Humans generally use only about 10-15% at any one time, however, which is where the misunderstanding comes from.
Let me know how this works out for you when you go up against St. Thomas Aquinas.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that everyone who has ever believed in a higher power has done so because they are too lazy or stupid to think for themselves.
And in doing so, you are VASTLY underestimating, at a bare minimum, centuries of scholarly Christian thought carried on by people who could run circles around you, intellectually. And I won't even touch on the other world religions, which I am much less familiar with....but which I would assume have their own scholarly intelligentsia.
Science is NOT the only discipline where incredibly intelligent, thinking people have resided. And if you think that it is, then you clearly do not know anything at all about the history of Christian theology, but instead have discarded it at face value based on your own predetermined preferences/prejudices.
Which is a HUGE mistake if your objective is the elimination of religion.
Labeling Christianity 'stupid' and calling it good is NOT an argument for it's elimination.
The innate intelligence of the average human being hasn’t changed in the last 100,000 years. We’re no “smarter” than our Cro-Magnon ancestors. Our knowledge, however, is increasing, and at an ever-accelerating rate.
I believe that’s at least partly true. It seems to me that any child of average-to-above-average intellect, given a comprehensive education in science and taught to think critically, and spared any religious indoctrination, is likely to be an atheist or an agnostic as an adult. Religion persists in modern times largely through cultural inertia.
Yes, the meme that we only use X percent of our brains is just another one of those tired old myths.
Switch
Captain
Not at all. I have no less respect for those of faith than for those without. Religion can be a wonderful thing for individuals and communities. For those able to derive comfort from it, I'd never begrudge them that.
For the record, I walked back 'indoctrinated' to 'inculcated' which I think better reflects the tone I was looking for. And I'm talking about on a sociological level. A child born to a Muslim family in a nation which is predominantly Muslim is probably going to grow up to be a Muslim. That's just how it works.
Some people grow up to reject their surrounding familial or cultural background, others go on to study it deeply as an intellectual subject and further embrace it, but those are the exceptions. In determining the religion of any given individual, the single most significant correlating factor is the belief of one's parents, and next the dominant belief structure of the culture in which one grew up. That's why we can talk about 'the Christian world', 'the Muslim world', 'the Hindu world', etc. at all. As individuals we can wave our hands and say we're free, but the all-seeing statistical eye doesn't lie. We believe what we're taught to believe. Of course that goes for more than just religion.
Sure. Religious faith and science are in no way opposed to each other in any case. Most folks don't realise that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" was but the first premise in an argument seeking to establish a basis for the reliability of empirical observation and the conduct of science. His third premise was "God exists, and is a pretty cool guy".
Science and religious orthodoxy (i.e. the church) on the other hand...
Who said that was my objective? Indeed, I would argue that the elimination of religion would be a net loss for humanity.
Last edited:
OK well the brain thing being a myth makes me feel better about myself.
I agree with him above without media and parental influence(plus the fear of darkness a.k.a death) religion wouldn't be popularized.
The reason why creation of the universe is only theories is that our scientific knowledge isn't that far along as our egos lead us to believe. We still haven't grasped the majority of the knowledge that as we become a older species we will know.
I am just more likely the believe that the universe is on a life-cycle just a nature has one. First comes birth, aging, death, then life from death. The universe basically when older is made of scattered particles and mostly filled with black holes, then as all of those matter holding black holes collide to make one huge one, that eventually dies due to lack of fuel, when it dies all of that trapped matter in then shot back out and the process starts all over again.
Technically there is more proof of that than there is of a magical being creating all of this. Theories is all we can do right now.
But this just my opinion, believe what you want.
I am not trying to abolish religion, far from it, I just believe that one day it will die down or die completely. Future generations will look at religious documents as great big fictional stories. (sorry if that offended you)
I agree with him above without media and parental influence(plus the fear of darkness a.k.a death) religion wouldn't be popularized.
The reason why creation of the universe is only theories is that our scientific knowledge isn't that far along as our egos lead us to believe. We still haven't grasped the majority of the knowledge that as we become a older species we will know.
I am just more likely the believe that the universe is on a life-cycle just a nature has one. First comes birth, aging, death, then life from death. The universe basically when older is made of scattered particles and mostly filled with black holes, then as all of those matter holding black holes collide to make one huge one, that eventually dies due to lack of fuel, when it dies all of that trapped matter in then shot back out and the process starts all over again.
Technically there is more proof of that than there is of a magical being creating all of this. Theories is all we can do right now.
But this just my opinion, believe what you want.
I am not trying to abolish religion, far from it, I just believe that one day it will die down or die completely. Future generations will look at religious documents as great big fictional stories. (sorry if that offended you)
A phrase comes to mind - "Kicking against the pricks".
Setbacks happen. I think that society today is in many ways better-informed than in previous centuries and that it has the potential to be significantly self-improving in the long run, despite what Shakespeare might have called "the slings and aroows of outrageous fortune". Progress is not always a straight line, but more a general tendency towards the better (imo).
Also, since when were the true movers and shakers in human history not in the minority?
Well thats true and again not true. It depends on who they were, and in what time period they lived. When people of science showed up and began to first question religious standards with observation and theory, they were definitely the minority. Religion in the very beginning was very much against poeple of science and individual thinkers, becuase they were worried about the smallest questions.(minority)
But I thinks he means in todays terms and the minority he is talking about are Atheist, non-believers. Poeple who are thinkers but don't believe in magic of sorts.
But I thinks he means in todays terms and the minority he is talking about are Atheist, non-believers. Poeple who are thinkers but don't believe in magic of sorts.
A
Amaris
Guest
As long as there is death, there will be religion. As science advances, new ways will be found to aggregate the findings and process the experiments and results of those findings. We will always find a new way to deal with the increase in information. That said, religion will always be a dominant majority force, at least for the foreseeable future.
No atheist thinks he’ll live forever. If I can accept the fact that my existence here on earth is the only one I’ll ever have, why can’t Mary McGillicuddy or Joe Shlabotnik?
A
Amaris
Guest
Culture. Conditioning. Fear. Any number of things. A child can be raised atheist and become devoutly religious, and vice versa is true.
