Sklansky's Intelligence Weighting as it Relates to God

[Lestat]

Sklansky has convinced me (and probably a few other former doubters), on the importance of intelligence. I have totally conceded that an intelligent person is more apt to be correct and succeed at almost any human endeavor. However, there is one thing I am still struggling with, and that is the relevance of human intelligence with respect to God, the universe, and everything.

Clearly, even the most intelligent human beings are very far from understanding all the laws of nature and the universe. M theory is still in its infancy. Quantum mechanics is riddled with problems. Extremely intelligent people are wrestling with concepts of parallel universes which seem about as far fetched to some and God does to Sklansky (although I am now more willing to put my money on an intelligent person who says there are parallel universes, than I would be a non-intelligent person who says there is a God). However,

Since man knows very little about the universe, how it works, how it started, if there was a beginning, or if there is an end, it seems to me that there is not a significant difference between the varying degrees of intelligence in humans. At least not on a cosmic scale. Or put another way... When it comes to lifting a 99 ton weight off the ground, there is very little difference between the strongest people and the weakest.

So can someone explain why intelligence is any different? When it comes to understanding the universe, even the most intelligent people are extremely primitive and not that much better off than non-intelligent people in the grand scheme of things. That they can understand very complex physic equations is all well and good, but we are seeking answers that dwarf these capabilities on such a grand scale as to render these accomplishments all but meaningless (for now)!

So philosophically speaking (and philisophical is as close as we can get for now), why should we place so much more significance that intelligent people tend not to believe in God?

[chezlaw]

Its a good point that the intelligence required to understand some issue may be so beyond all humans that effectively we are all of equal intelligence but if so it means that we are in a state of ignorance as regards the issue.

So if the intelligent are unconvinced about something then either they are right to be unconvinced (compared to the less intelligent) or we are all not intelligent enough to understand and hence should be unconvinced.

Either way being convinced looks bad (unless the less intelligent are more likely to be right)

chez

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
we are in a state of ignorance as regards the issue.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

I appreciate you people having patience with me. Obviously, I'm not in the intelligent camp, but I like to contemplate these things in my limited capacity.

Is this like saying there is a 50/50 chance you will flop a set (either you will, or you won't)? Or is the existence of God (or Gods if you must) really 50/50? Either God exists or God does not exist.

Some thing.. Some force.. Governs the rules of the universe. Even the very intelligent agree that whatever this force is, it is most likely a unifying force. This does not rule out the existence of a supreme being for me. All this says to me is that the majority of physicists are more interested in figuring out the physical properties of the universe, instead of delving into the existence of a supreme being.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this like saying there is a 50/50 chance you will flop a set (either you will, or you won't)? Or is the existence of God (or Gods if you must) really 50/50? Either the chance exists or it does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably there a god or not so the chances of god existing is 1 or 0. The question is whether there is a rational reason to believe god exists or not. If the most intelligent are unconvinced either way then by the previous post being unconvinced is right.

Doesn't mean there isn't a god. Many intelligent people (including the religous ones) recognise there is no convincing reason to believe there is or isn't a god - hence it requires faith.


[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate you people having patience with me. Obviously, I'm not in the intelligent camp, but I like to contemplate these things in my limited capacity.

[/ QUOTE ]
No need for that, I am unconvinced I am more intelligent than you.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> Either way being convinced looks bad (unless the less intelligent are more likely to be right) </font>

What I'm saying is that physicists do like a unifying theory. So while the existence of God may not be convincing, it is neither unconvincing. What better unifying theory than the existence of God?

Btw- Does anyone know if Einstein's comment, "God does not throw dice" was made tongue-in-cheek? Or did he in fact acknowledge the possible existence of God?

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> Many intelligent people (including the religous ones) recognise there is no convincing reason to believe there is or isn't a god - hence it requires faith. </font>

But I thought Sklansky considers an intelligent religious person an oxy-moron?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Either way being convinced looks bad (unless the less intelligent are more likely to be right) </font>

What I'm saying is that physicists do like a unifying theory. So while the existence of God may not be convincing, it is neither unconvincing. What better unifying theory than the existence of God?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean but I think the question of god's existence is independent of a whether or not there is a unified theory.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Many intelligent people (including the religous ones) recognise there is no convincing reason to believe there is or isn't a god - hence it requires faith. </font>

But I thought Sklansky considers an intelligent religious person an oxy-moron?

[/ QUOTE ]

DS can speak for himself. The problem with religon is the strong belief/conviction that god exists. If they recognise this is a matter of faith then fair enough in my view - the problem is if/when they claim it is rational.

chez

[baggins]

" why should we place so much more significance that intelligent people tend not to believe in God? "

you know, i would like to see some cold hard numbers here, and a rigid, acceptable definition of 'intelligence' here before we start off on a tangent with this as a premise...

all you people who think you're so smart smugly assume that all the other smart people think the same as you do. i would love to see the numbers. also, i would love to hear more about how IQ relates to intelligence. people with high IQ's often tend to be paralyzed by their brilliance in some capacity.

anyway, i don't buy it until i can see some evidence of this assumption.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
anyway, i don't buy it until i can see some evidence of this assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was careful to say 'if' so that it wouldn't matter if the assumption was true or not.

Out of interest, if it were the case that the most intelligent people weren't convinced of the existence of god then would you become unconvinced (assuming you currently are convinced).

chez

[baggins]

no, i would hold to my faith.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
no, i would hold to my faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like we are going to agree that its a matter of faith.

chez

You need to make a distinction between "religious people" and "specific religious" people. Most smart people do not state that there is no God, but rather, no specific religion is correct.

[Lestat]

Uh, I'm pretty sure Sklansky has stated outright that the majority of intelligent people (physicists, etc.), are not convinced there is a God, so neither should we be.

[David Sklansky]

The key word is "convinced".

[Lestat]

Going back to something you said earlier.. You seem to want those who believe in God to admit it's pure faith and nothing more. I think you also said this faith was fine by you as long as they are willing to admit that since they cannot be convinced that they now have an irrational belief (I'm paraphrasing). Now who is ever going to admit to THAT?

The way I see it, it comes down to philosphy. You can make a case that string theory is nothing more than a philosophy at this point. So my question to you is:

What's wrong with arriving at the conclusion of God's existence through philosophical means?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Going back to something you said earlier.. You seem to want those who believe in God to admit it's pure faith and nothing more. I think you also said this faith was fine by you as long as they are willing to admit that since they cannot be convinced that they now have an irrational belief (I'm paraphrasing). Now who is ever going to admit to THAT?

[/ QUOTE ]
Language is tough but when I say 'not rational' I don't mean 'irrational'. Faith cannot be a product of reason (i.e. rational) or its not faith. Everyone has beliefs that are not rational, even me and I believe almost nothing /images/graemlins/wink.gif.


[ QUOTE ]
So my question to you is: What's wrong with arriving at the conclusion of God's existence through philosophical means?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing at all but it doesn't take much philosophical study to realise that if such a conclusion is possible its not via the simplistic arguments usually presented (first cause, pascals wager etc) and the sophisticated arguments are way beyond anyone who hasn't studied philosophy very seriously and can't possibly be the basis for most peoples belief.



chez

[ QUOTE ]

Btw- Does anyone know if Einstein's comment, "God does not throw dice" was made tongue-in-cheek? Or did he in fact acknowledge the possible existence of God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Einstein's dice comment was meant to show his discomfort with emerging quantum theory, it had no religious meaning at all. Many people use this quote to show that Einstein was religious. Here is his response to them:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Einstein was realy a smart guy on many levels. Heres a couple more quotes.

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress .... If it is one of the goals of religions to liberate maknind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover (the) rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusion. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain, is moved by the profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason, incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious imulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contibutes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life."

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

[RJT]

The problem is that it (philosophy) won’t get you there. At least none has so far.

Chezlaw is basically correct when he says:

“Nothing at all but it doesn't take much philosophical study to realize that if such a conclusion is possible its not via the simplistic arguments usually presented (first cause, Pascal’s wager etc) and the sophisticated arguments are way beyond anyone who hasn't studied philosophy very seriously and can't possibly be the basis for most peoples belief.”

It is not that he is incorrect, rather that I think he misspoke or left something out. That is that you won’t find it in any philosophy written to date. (Nor do I think, and my guess he would probably agree, should one hope to with philosophy alone.)

To address one other of your points, Lestat, It is pure faith. Although, I wouldn’t characterize it as “nothing more”. This is one of my primary realizations at this point in my life, so far - that is, Faith is enough, for now - ’cuz that’s all we got, now. (I want to interject a brief note as I understand it, since you mentioned David S. One of his main points, as I understand it is: That, so long as we believers realize it might be illogical and perhaps even silly to believe what we do, that is ok, just so that we don’t actually think it makes “sense”. Believe it true, fine, just don’t fool ourselves into thinking it does. And it (whatever one believes) might indeed be true. But, not provable, therefore not relevant to him.)

I have a few favorite quotes:

Hegel said “[Philosophy is only] its own time reflected in thought.

Thomas Merton (a now deceased, Catholic monk in the 20th century) said something to the effect that “Faith takes over when reason can say no more.”

I do think, though, that with a good foundation in philosophy (if for no other reason than to follow good logic but also, to and see how “man” has thought throughout history) one’s faith is enhanced.

I am only really familiar with Christianity (and some Judaism, from which it sprang) but my religion is steeply based in what man has thought from the beginning of recorded thought. One can’t help, after reading even ancient mythology to the Pre-Socratics to Socrates and then on, smile when one reads our Gospels as we can see such similar (almost a linear) progression (?) in thinking.

The difference between agnostics and me is that I “believe” I will find (not quite completely there yet) Truth in my religion. I am not being literal here. What I mean is that it will be enough for me. It is enough for me.


I think (especially after having become aware of some basics of what scientist are thinking and working from this forum) that science and religion can come together for some interesting new “philosophies”.

The thing for me (especially, knowing that we won’t get much further in my lifetime) is the journey. Not a final answer.

Not to bore you with my life history, but basically: been there done that. I was raised and educated Catholic. Went through all the phases that I guess most do - doubt, unbelief, then thinking I’ll take a look around, then the searching (mine started with philosophy, hit the dead-end, then some theology) and now a realization that one either takes a leap of Faith or one doesn’t.

I became much more interested in my Faith when I started my volunteer work at my church. Between giving my life more purpose, I get to work with sincere folk. One can see in some of the really good people, that there sure as heck seems like God is real. Maybe it is all nonsense and imagination - but I like what I (think) see. I find a life with theology, if not better, then at least more interesting (certainly more challenging to me) than one without it.

Bottom line - for those of us non scientists - I suggest start with philosophy, then if you are still interested go on to some theology. Makes good reading anyway.

I’m off to take a look at some science now on my journey.

p.s Another of my favorite quotes is by Bob Dylan “Don’t follow leaders”. (Personally, I make one exception - hint: He has a religion named after Him. I better give another hint, it starts with a Chr and not an Skl - maybe I just should have said “already” named after him.) Learn from leaders sure.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
So philosophically speaking (and philisophical is as close as we can get for now), why should we place so much more significance that intelligent people tend not to believe in God?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because they're idiots.

[benkahuna]

For me, it's not what they believe, but why they came to believe it. I try to respect anyone's faith-based beliefs. Sometimes I fail. Self-consistency and honesty are what I respect when it comes to faith-based beliefs. Really, it's a matter of a person's character in that situation. If you grew up in a family with a particular belief, it's not very self-honest to claim that your belief is so good or strong that you would have come upon that belief had you not been exposed to it in your family. In some cases it could be true, but the stronger likelihood is that it's not. After the fact, people may find the best defenses for their belief, but I don't get the sense that a lot of people go "belief shopping" first when it comes to religion.

The idea that intelligent people don't believe in G-d or shouldn't is, to me, simplistic, unfair, and unintelligent. I'm an agnostic and by every estimation I'm aware of intelligent (and humble :P ) and I still think that.


There's a fantastic article out there that I think sheds light on this particular issue as regards human nature.

J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1997 Summer;9(3):498-510.

The neural substrates of religious experience.

Saver JL, Rabin J.

UCLA-Reed Neurologic Research Center 90095, USA.

Religious experience is brain-based, like all human experience. Clues to the neural substrates of religious-numinous experience may be gleaned from temporolimbic epilepsy, near-death experiences, and hallucinogen ingestion. These brain disorders and conditions may produce depersonalization, derealization, ecstasy, a sense of timelessness and spacelessness, and other experiences that foster religious-numinous interpretation. Religious delusions are an important subtype of delusional experience in schizophrenia, and mood-congruent religious delusions are a feature of mania and depression. The authors suggest a limbic marker hypothesis for religious-mystical experience. The temporolimbic system tags certain encounters with external or internal stimuli as depersonalized, derealized, crucially important, harmonious, and/or joyous, prompting comprehension of these experiences within a religious framework.

Publication Types:
Review

PMID: 9276850 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


The article makes it very clear that it does not seek to replace G-d with brain and that any god would have given us physical structures with which to appreciation religious experience. It remains agnostic, but respectful to religious belief.


I glean from this article that one can experience some sense of meaning in existence and that such experience is localized in particular brain regions. From my own experience, it would seem that such experience is necessary to live comfortably with oneself and is thus a part of human nature. Religion is just one way to produce such an experience, but not the only one. I'm not suggesting that people just choose the first such method that comes along either. I don't think it's fair to treat other people's most deeply held beliefs so flippantly.

I believe a need to find some faith (not necessarily a religious faith) is part of human nature. From
Broken Saints (http://bs.brokensaints.com/splash-page.htm) , "Everyone needs to believe in something."

[Cyrus]

I suspected as much from the way he relates poker games, but in this forum I was convinced that one of David's strengths is his ability to assign "attributes" (even very complex) to "persons", store the information and recall it effortlessly as needed.

For example, after a few posts, he assigns a certain set of beliefs (accurately too, i.e. without prejudice, without altering them) to say NotReady, and henceforth he refers to "NotReady's position", which signifies something very specific. Of course, as NotReady's positions change, through the poster's continued posting of ideas, so does the significance of the term "NotReady's position" in Sklansky-an use. Then, the usefulness of antithetically pitting a number of positions ("BluffTHIS, you are challenged by BossJJ and Udontknow") is easy to see.

Many people do this, of course, but not with the required objectivity in describing everybody's position or readiness to change one's opinion.

One could go out on a limb and say that, technically, and although unintentional, this meminds one of Gödelian arithmetic.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe a need to find some faith (not necessarily a religious faith) is part of human nature. From
Broken Saints (http://bs.brokensaints.com/splash-page.htm) , "Everyone needs to believe in something."

[/ QUOTE ]

Or listen to the Rolling Stones' "Let It Bleed".